Cancelled Conjugal

Careful cool
Cagey Captain
Careless caress
Carnal cacophony

Check clear
Calculate camouflage
Caution caprice
Campaign cohere

Clever King
Clarify claim
Kismet Captain
Cornered caught


Candid cable
Captain cut
Cool cusp
Clear crash


Culpable Captain
Collapsed cohabitation
Cleaved calm
Kinder clipped




A small poetic diversion:  a cautionary class in careless carnal caresses.
We will return to our regular programming post haste.

Give and Take

Where tax money gets spent by government matters.  Some states take in  more dollars in federal spending than their citizens pay out in taxes.

Good citizens pay their taxes to the federal government. Other citizens in greater need  receive distributions from  central treasuries.  Taxes are also spent on more generic services like  highways, military, and science research benefiting us all.  

Being a curious sort of fellow, I decided to go look at raw data and see who was taking and who was giving.  Below are documented the results of my quest.


Top 10's

The top 10 states that give more than they take from our common coffers are largely Democratic states.  Nebraska and Texas are the only two Republican leaning states in the top 10 whose citizens are net givers to other states. 

The division between those states who take the most per person does not fall into party lines.  Taker states seem to be largely rural, poor, or remote.


Total Contributions

When the total contributions by Republican and Democratic states is added together and average, there are some startling results.

The data shows that, in total, Democratic states give more in taxes than they receive in benefits.  

States that are Republican controlled states take much more benefits all together than they pay in taxes.  

Neutral states are those that have less than a 25% majority Democrat or Republican.  These states are also net takers, but less so than Republican states.

Democratic states tend to be more populous than Republican states, thus the bars are not identical in size.

Nationally, Democrats gave each spent $1,114 more in taxes than they received in benefits and services.  Republicans took $1,540 each on average.  States with Neutral party affiliation took an extra $1,467 per person.

States that Lean Heavily Democratic

Democrats Divisions

Heavily Democratic states are a mixed bag of givers and takers.  

I could find no clear trend in the most Democratic states were takers rather than givers when considered along party lines.  

The data indicates there is a broader trend for states leaning Democratic to pay more even though the most Democratic states do not always give more.

States that Lean Heavily Republican

Republican Takers

Heavily Republican states were much more likely to take more from the taxes than they gave in.  

These states are often rural or poor.  Of course not all rural and poor states are Republican. 

These taker states tend to be in the south and west.  

It is telling that there is a lack of major east and west coast states from the taker lists.  

Givers and Takers

In the chart below, the states are ranked by how much they contribute or take from the general federal taxes by large green and red bars.  The thin blue (Democratic) and thin red (Republican) bars indicated the strength of the part in each state.  Clicking on the graphic will provide an expanded view.

Conclusions 

Pundits have been saying that Democrats are a nation of 'takers' while Republicans are 'givers' whom Democrats take from.  Even Presidential candidates have used this idea as campaign strategy.  

The Givers and takers argument has become a center of our economic debate.  It now seems common wisdom that some people give more and other people take more and that they can be divided upon party lines.  

The facts, however, disagree.  It turns out that on average Democrats give more taxes per person and Republicans take more benefits per person.  Perhaps it is time to change the common wisdom?


Be sure to subscribe to Philomeme for more articles like these.



Methods and Sources

First came taxes and spending divided by how many people are in each state.  This yielded an average giving or taking by person allowing apples-to-apples comparisons.  

Next was counting the political parties of state and federally elected officials, including Governors.   Averaging Democrats and Republicans Congressmen at a state and federal level gave a % Party Factor. A reasonable means to indicate if a state leaned heavily to one party or another.

Endlessly Unique

Are you unique?  Perhaps there copies of you existing out there, somewhere in the universe?  If the universe is infinite then there are infinite copies of you.  What is morality if there is an infinity of  you?

What is Infinity?

Infinity  (∞)  is a tough concept to wrap one’s head around.  Definitions like “without any limit”, “unbounded”, or “endless” allow labels, but not understanding.   

Our mind tends to think of a large number that keeps getting bigger.  We can not really imagine infinity directly, only stand close to it and pretend we grasp the immensity.

Is there really such a thing as infinity?  

Some say that infinity is only an imaginary idea, like Spock in Star Trek.  

Others say a circle is infinitely long, going round and round and round.  

No one knows for sure, despite centuries of thought and experiment.  We may never be able know if infinity is real or imagined.

We can prove infinity comes in different sizes.  Georg Cantor showed how not long after the U.S. Civil War.  

You in a bounded universe.

We can prove that infinity comes in different shapes.  One-third goes 3.33333333... While Pi (Π) starts 3.14159265358…  Both infinite, both different.

These thoughts are only logic based on guesses.  Tricks our minds can play with symbols.  Infinity is an imagined reality.  Let us see what other magic our mind can hold.

Always Repeating

One thing infinities share is local repetition.  If you divide a piece of infinity you’ll find it again and again.  In the one-third number this is obvious.  There are many, many “3” pieces in 3.33333333...  

Repetition is true inside the Pi number too. The pattern “62” is repeated several times in just this short piece of Pi:

3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939

937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482

If you go far enough, you will find infinite copies of  any piece inside an infinity.

The larger the pattern, the rarer our piece becomes.  Rare is only a relative thing.  Like with the odd numbers and whole numbers, there can be infinite copies of any piece in infinity.

A big enough universe
for several copies of you.

Repeating Universe

We have come to know our universe is very large.  Is our universe infinite? Does it have a limit, bound, or end?  Some have guessed at the answer, but there is no proof yet.  We do know it is much larger than we can directly observe.  What facts we do have suggest it's edge would be vast beyond our comprehension.

Atoms and sub-atomic particles can be compared to numbers.  There are limited types of these parts, just as there are limited numbers we count with.  Both are pieces, divisions of an infinity.

There are only so many ways you can combine particles together.  It may be a big number of possible ways particles can be mixed together, but not an infinite numbers of ways. 

Particles and numbers are organized into patterns.  Bits of matter that form little copies over and over again through out the universe. 

If you look far enough you find that patterns repeat.  Patterns of matter behave as the “62” in Pi.  The larger the pattern, the farther you may have to look, but it will eventually be there.

Copies of You

If the universe is infinite then you are but one of infinite copies of you.  Every variation of your life exists repeatedly.

If the universe is large enough, but still has an end, then there may copies of you somewhere far away.

If the universe is small enough, there may be only one you. You may be unique.

An infinite number of you in an infinite  universe.

A Moral Mess

I am not sure if I like these ideas; one of me, many of me, an infinity of me.

If there are infinite me’s, then I am irrelevant to the universe.  Every mistake I could make would be made. Every good thing I could do has been done.  My choices then are only my experience of life and have meaning only to me.

If I am the only me, unique and special, then the pressure for morality in the universe overwhelms me.  Any mistake I make has consequences on the universe, limiting or expanding its potential.  Although my impacts are small, they are permanent and of unimaginable consequence.

Perhaps it is better if there are many copies of me.  My mistakes might be overcome by another copy.  I may be able to do better than the other copy.  There is room to still find the potential of what the universe could be, without the pressure of being it's only hope.

It may be best if I have no meaning at all to the universe.  Then one, many or infinity, the universe will go on it's merry way no matter what I do.

 Be sure to subscribe!

Go Away Kitty!

Is my time so precious that I should not share it with simpler forms of mind? Or is beauty of living so enriched to make time communing with pets a better use of a finite existence?

Stop sucking face and pet me dammit!

Learning is one of my habits. From rising until bed, gathering information seems to dominate my desire. From listening to a podcast to reading a book. Searching science papers for the latest discovery. Re-reading old philosophy texts to see if I can glean just a little more wisdom. Watching nature to see what patterns are present or changing. Every moment of discovery brings new joy and better understanding.

Life seems shorter as it moves on. With less and less of my finite time to unfold, each moment becomes more precious. As a child life seemed long and death so far away. Now I see cessations shadow and know an end of me draws nearer.

Cuddling cat nap.

My cats however take joy in naps. Sleep occupies more time than wakefulness. To them their grooming seems to be as much a pleasure as my learning to me. The hours of their lives go by, each one lived in the moment that it is.

Cats need attention. They are social animals more than we often admit. Petting, cuddling, and closeness are a part of what makes them feline. My cats have come to expect and even demand a consistent sensual bonding of touch.

Reading upon the couch or working at computer, the cats often come to sit on my lap. I don't mind it much, as long as claws stay in paws. Warmth in winter from their ample fur is nice. I am calmed by their touch and enjoy the closeness of another being in a quiet house.

Come play with me!

Sometimes my mind is deep in material at hand. The cat is a distraction from my purpose. I think I do not have time for them, their needs and wants. My heart goes to the place where I see intruders, needy and demanding upon my limited time resource. I growl, make fast gestures, or loud noises to let them know this is not time or place for communion.

Being simple creatures, they are often confused by my rejection, protestations only a momentary inconvenience for their purpose. The cat will wait a minute and return gently demanding my lap, hand and attention.

When not mindful, I can chase them away until they stay away. My own ambition being pursued, theirs is thwarted. I am the higher mind, the better thinker, the wiser knower of purpose and they must relent to my superior objectives. Their emotional pain is brief and other diversions or places of comfort soon found.

How many hours have I robbed from their desire for my own? In a decade of sharing nests, what is the count of my obstructions to their need? Is my project more important than theirs? 

 In a hundred years no one will remember their name or mine, their time or mine, their joy or mine.

Have I lost the opportunity to being in moments of shared contentment? Is not even this most basic of loves while alive a blessing in itself?

Sequester the Future

The looming sequester is a cynical political game. Shrinking government is hard to do. Across the board cuts will bring pain and trauma. After them Congress will make itself to be our heroic saviors as they put band-aids on the most bloody parts of the spending cuts.

It is common wisdom that governments fund boondoggles. Examples are given that can make some of us angry. We do not always like the ways our government spends our taxes. Fury and fist shaking abound as we feel that our money is misspent. Obsolete programs, misunderstood research, and failed institutions are paid for with tax money and borrowing.

The Budget

A huge chunk of our federal spending is on social programs. Medicare, Medicaid and safety net programs like unemployment compensation, food stamps and housing assistance make up the majority of expenditures.

United States Federal Spending

Defense is our single largest category of spending. 

Our military budget is larger than China, Russia, England, France and the next ten countries combined.

The 'everything else' part of the chart includes the rest of government.  It counts education, science, NASA, energy, natural resources, Justice, agriculture, FBI, FDA, border security, National Parks, Coast Guard, highways and all the many programs the federal government has.

The interest on the debt is large, but not yet unmanageable.  Its growth is still relatively small compared to the size of the budgetary pie.

Election Fight

Last August, Congress decided to wait until after the election to deal with budget issues. They gave themselves a 'fiscal cliff' so they would not run over it like lemmings. The 8% shrinking of military spending and 5% across the board cuts to all other kinds has become known as 'sequestration'.

Sequestration Cuts

The sequestration idea was to make across the board cuts to most government spending if no other law was enacted. The theory was that if they made the alternative really bad, a compromise would be found.

The Republicans were convinced they would win the Presidency and control the government. They reasoned that after winning they would be able act as they wished. Having lost the election, they found themselves unable to work their will.

The Democrats pressed their electoral advantage. The Republicans feeling their back against the wall are standing firm to not let the Democrats have their way. So here, my friends, comes the austerity!

Immediate Consequences

Funding for many programs we depend upon will be arbitrarily cut. Spending on wildfire fighting to aircraft carrier maintenance is effected. Air travel will be disrupted by less controllers being available and less guards on duty to process passengers through security. Inspection of the food and drug supply will slow down.

There will be less prison guards on duty. Over half a million women and children will lose nutrition assistance. The disabled will be receive less support, financial and otherwise.

Furloughs will happen to FBI agents, Defense Department employees, and Border Patrol agents. U.S. Attorneys will take 2,600 few cases. Training for veterans, small business loans, National Parks, and Nuclear cleanup will all suffer.

Cynical Congress

Some pundits taking the Chicken Little view saying the sky is falling. Others are being Pollyanna about the cuts thinking all will be wonderful.

It is clear that there will be pain for some, especially the most needy. Most will at least be inconvenienced by lack of or slower services. All will be threatened by a weaker military.

After the cuts, the federal government will be in the position of having to spend money to fill in the holes left by the sequestration. Those places where the most pain is felt, or at least that have the squeakiest wheels, will have new funds made available.

I want to be your hero!

It is always easier to add new spending than to cut. This is just human nature. Our system of constant elections makes politicians aware that they must bring home the bacon for their local districts. Cutting the bacon is bad for their re-election chances.

Fixing what Congress broke will allow them to make believe they are heroes, come to save the day from the previous Congress. Spending money to strengthen ailing systems will look good in the press. The fact they are mostly the ones who broke it in the first place will be forgotten in two years when election time comes.

Austerity Is Bad Idea

I am not convinced that this is the right time for austerity. The world wide global recession has been going for almost five years now and no end is in sight. Cutting government spending means shrinking the economy in the short run. Spending less money slows the economy.

There will be no savings to taxes, so no more money will be spent by other sectors like business or consumers. Cutting government spending will shrink the economy, not grow it.

A strong middle class could
help pay down the debt.

Those countries that have cut their spending are hurting worse than those who have not. Austerity, budget cut backs, are going to hurt us.

Government spending does need to be cut in the long term. The level of spending is unsustainable.

We must find ways to get our middle class wages growing again. The engine of the U.S. economy is consumer spending by the middle class. These tax payers are hurting. Less middle class income means less middle class taxes. Cutting government spending will not help the middle class.

Many citizens confuse their personal experience of microeconomics with societies practice of macroeconomics. The rules for these two spheres of economy are different. Balanced budgets are good for microeconomics but not as wise in macroeconomics.

Deficit spending in recessions has a long track record of being beneficial in the long run.

Austerity in recessions has a long track record of being disastrous in the short run.

Given Congress's current direction to make austerity real, we are in for a bumpy ride.

Numbers for the charts were gathered from the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office.

Be sure to subscribe so you don't miss a story!

After the Big "O"

If you want to restrict or permit abortions, you need to move to a state that begins with the letter "O".  The most restrictive and least restrictive states both start with this capital letter: Oklahoma and Oregon.

The chart shows the total number of abortion regulations by state, color-coded by the category of regulation.


If Roe v. Wade were to be overturned by the Supreme Court those states with the light blue markings would have immediate abortion bans due to previously passed, but currently unconstitutional laws.

The state rankings for abortion regulations fall along social ideological lines of Conservative and Liberal political views.

According Elizabeth Nash, 92 new state restrictions on abortion were enacted in 2011 and 43 more in 2012. According to her research, one-third of women in 2000 lived in a state that was openly hostile to abortion. By 2011, that figure had jumped to half.

Nash said. "The kinds of restrictions we see being passed are meant to make it more difficult for providers to perform abortions and more emotionally difficult for women to choose them."

Click on the graphic to expand it for a closer view.


Original data source was Guttmacher Institute and Center for Reproductive Rights. 
Remapping Debate created the original graphic.

Equal Elite?

In every society, there is a group of people who lead it. There may be a king, a parliament or a even a democracy. The reality is that only a few people have the power to make things happen. Let's call these people 'the elite'.  They are not a conspiracy, rather a group of people, often men, who have the reigns.

The Kennedy brothers had special advantages.

The great political theorists of history, Plato, Hobbes, Locke, Nietzsche, and even Lenin, acknowledged that society has elites of one kind or another. The United States is no different from any other human society that has existed.

Launching Point

Before World War II, Ivy league schools (Yale, Harvard, Dartmouth, MIT, Columbia, etc.) publicly admitted that their students were largely from the New England elites. Names of graduates from these schools fill positions of power through out our society, (Kennedy, Bush, Rockefeller, Roosevelt, Murdoch, Clinton, Adams, Proctor, Gates, Merck, Dole, Heinz, du Pont, Sachs) reading like a who's who of power and wealth in the country.

Poison "Ivy League"?
Probably not.

Before the world war, chiefly the old family elite were permitted entrance to the training that would give them positions of power. After the war, this started to change and a new kind of merit admittance started. The path has remained the same, but the pool of eligibility has gradually widened.  It is still highly limited, not many gain access to the pathways to power.

We all know the story, go to a top school secure a job in one of a few companies and rise up to the crest of society. Rarely do we see the people who take positions of power not come from the Ivy League.  These schools are the 'elite manufacturing centers' of our nation. Tuition is high and access to the education provided is controlled. Opportunities abound for only a few.

Web of Power

Some of these people are truly the best and brightest. Many others are there by family or fortune. Building networks amongst people with power is more important than excelling at a field through brilliance of mind, action, or will.

Belonging to the same fraternities and societies within these schools like the Skull and Bones, the Scroll and Key, or Wolf's Head, gives one access to families and people already in power.

Kerry and Bush both belonged to the
Skull and Bones society.

The elites fill the ranks of both political parties, Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative alike. The top non-elected positions in government, from the Cabinet level on down, are populated with these elites.  The Federal Reserve, the top military brass, the Supreme Court and more come from these same institutions.

Sitting on the boards of long established corporations or even leading them is another path taken by the elites. Many hold multiple seats as directors on Fortune 500 companies. They are a web of familiar faces that make decisions across industries and borders. The median is that single person will be a director for 7 different Fortune 500 firms.  A small number of elites control the wealth of the nation.

Conspiracies are fun to imagine,
but too complex to pull off.

Not a Conspiracy

Having similar educations, these members of the elites tend to think alike. There is a homogeneity to what they are exposed to and therefore who they can become.

Human nature is to seek out people like ourselves. Those who think like us and act like us, attract us.

There need be no secret conspiracy of power for an elite to form. It is just the way humans are.

Leveraging family, contacts and existing wealth by individuals tend to build a cadre of elites.  If you could, wouldn't you give your children this opportunity by tilting the scales of opportunity in their favor?

Ethical Entitlement

Rockefeller boys with their father.
All inherited great wealth.

The Untied States envisions itself as a place where you can rise to the top though hard work. This Protestant Work Ethic tells us that frugality and effort will lead us to prosperity. Some even think it is a sign of God's blessing when we achieve success in this way.

This ethic also tells us that once you have 'made it' you deserve to be there. Your wealth and power are an indication of your personal superiority. The people who did not make it, failed due to their own personal limitations.

Any head start you may have been given is taken as inconsequential. There are very, very few who make it own their own, yet they are held up as the examples of all of those in power. There many more who came from a few families in these groups of power than those who made it on their own. Yet we take people like Abe Lincoln or Steve Jobs as the standard by which all climb to powerful positions.

Surrounding themselves with people like themselves, they live in an echo chamber that reflects back their own merit and entitlement to their power. The elite tend to not understand the issues, struggles or inequalities suffered by 'the little people'. These failed little people are thought simply not good enough to make the 'big time'.

Reality

Look around at the people you know. We each could name a dozen or more people that have worked hard, been frugal, and have done their best. We can also name several who did not work hard, were lazy and failed.

Hard worker with
little opportunity.

The non-elites are the ones who design the software, work in the factory, administer the medicine, and coach the little league team. They are good people who do the best they can with what they have.

The difference between the elite and those we know who worked hard is not one of effort. The difference is the resource of opportunity. Most of the elite do not start off poor. Most of the elite do not come from broken homes. Most of the elite do not have to work two jobs to support an ailing family member or face unemployment when the local factory shuts down.

The non-elite do not attend private schools with great educations. They pay off student loans over 20 years. The non-elite do not get inside knowledge on the next big economic opportunity, they are at the whim of the big company's plans. The non-elite can not martial the capital, resources, lawyers, or political power to realize their potential and accomplish their goals.

The difference between the 'little guy' who works hard and the 'little guy' who is lazy pales in comparison to the lazy and hard-working elite. The elite have huge advantages in money, education, and resources. These advantages are the true source of their power, generation after generation.

The people who call themselves the 'job creators' are actually often the elite in a new mask. Believing they 'know better' they demand a greater share of the common resources, pay less taxes, and make decisions that effect all our lives with out our input.

Conclusion

We will always have an elite in our society. It's just the way things are.

The elite should not forget their advantage and spread the knowledge and resources so that more have opportunity.  

More people of merit should be allowed to become elites, especially by non-traditional means.

The non-elite need to setup infrastructure and institutions that will enable more of the little people to rise to positions of power.

If both the elite and non-elite fail at these tasks, in a few generations we will all become weaker.