His daughter was standing, looking at the decorated Christmas tree, a puzzled look on her face. With a few years yet to go before becoming a teenager, she was a child who was proud of wisdom accumulated from having survived her toddler and early school eras.
He feared what might be on her mind. The time was about right. It could only be the dreaded question that parents of young children realize is inevitable. It's too bad that this has to happen now, he thought.
"What's going on, Sweetheart?"
"Oh, nothin' much. I'm just wondering about something," she answered, obviously preoccupied with her thoughts.
Should I prompt her? he wondered to himself. Yeah, maybe just a little. Where's her mother, anyway?
"You want to tell me what you're wondering about? Maybe I can help."
"Well, okay. We saw that show this afternoon, and it got me thinking about something. I can't figure it out. Daddy, how old is Santa Claus?"
Not what I expected, he thought to himself. This should be easier than talking about whether or not Santa Claus is real. Maybe I can do this without her mother after all.
"That's a really good question! I think we can figure it out, but you've got me wondering about something, too -- what makes you ask?"
"Well," as she considered her reply carefully, "it's just that he seems pretty old right now. All the pictures show him looking old, with the long white beard and everything. And besides, you told me that he looked like that when you were a kid, too, so he must be really, really old!"
That's the sort of statement that makes an adult smile, and this time was no different. A thought crossed his mind: Did I say things like this to my parents when I was her age? Maybe so. I'll have to check with Mom and Dad. . .wonder how I can make it up to them? Anyway, I'd better get back to business here.
"Yes, that's a good point. Santa does look really old. That's because his is very, very old! But what's this got to do with the Christmas show?"
She looked up and exclaimed "That second Christmas Ghost -- he was Santa, wasn't he? Sort of, anyway, I mean. But he looked different from the way Santa Claus usually looks, and he talked about having hundreds of older brothers. That just doesn't make any sense!"
Gee whiz, her father thought to himself. This is getting complicated. I gotta get this sorted out before I make a mess of it.
"You're right. It seems like it doesn't make any sense, doesn't it? But the fellow in the show wasn't Santa Claus. He was the Spirit of Christmas Present. They're two different people. . .er, I mean, two different ghosts. . .no, wait, that's not right. You see, here's the thing: Santa Claus is a sort of magical elf, and the Spirit of Christmas you saw in the show was a type of ghost who was there to make Scrooge think about important things that he wasn't thinking about. So, you see, they're two different. . .uh, two different. . .well, let's see, how should we say this? Ah, yes, they're two different special ideas about Christmas!"
Makes sense to me, he thought to himself.
"I still don't get it," his daughter said with the look in her eyes that meant "that sure doesn't make any sense at all!"
Geez, where's her mother? I thought she'd be back by now.
"Looks like I didn't explain it very well," he said. Rubbing the back of his neck, he went on with "See now, here's what it's all about. That fellow in the show who we call the Ghost or the Spirit of Christmas Present -- well, he was there to tell us about the meaning of Christmas. He didn't bring wrapped-up gifts for anybody, he was helping Scrooge to understand all of the important inner meanings of Christmas, things like being with family and friends, and its religious meanings, and how we should use it to remember to treat all other people--especially those who are less fortunate than we are--with kindness, and charity, and respect. Do you remember those things in the story that we saw in the show?"
Slowly, "Yes, I remember. So, he wasn't Santa Claus, was he?"
"Good! You're right! He wasn't Santa Claus. Santa is different."
"I see! Santa just brings us our toys and presents. He doesn't care about all the 'inner meaning' stuff!"
"Um, that's not quite right, either," her father said. "Santa Claus cares about the meaning of Christmas, too. He wants people to be with family and friends at Christmastime, and he hopes that we always treat others with kindness, respect and charity. Remember the thing about 'good little boys and girls?'"
"Oh, that's right," she said. "So, how's he different from the Ghost?"
He thought about this for a moment. "I guess a big difference is that Santa Claus doesn't bring the religious story of Christmas, but the Ghost that we saw brought that message."
For a few moments her apparent puzzlement was bookended by tugging at her lower lip and then running her fingers through her hair a few times. Eventually, the frenzy passed, her eyes brightened and she said, "So Christmas is religious for some people, and not religious for others?"
"That's right!" he exclaimed. "It has religious beginnings, and has a lot of religious meaning for many, many people, but it's become bigger over all the years that we've had Christmas. That way even more people can enjoy it, and can use the time to be with family and friends, and to make plans for helping other people who need something. These are all things that are done by people of different faiths, and also by people who don't follow any particular organized religion at all."
"I like that," the girl said. "But you still didn't tell me how old Santa Claus is!"
"Okay," he said with a look at his daughter that he hoped would show her that he thought this was just as important to him as it apparently was to her. "I guess I don't really know how old he is. Let's go do some looking-up on the computer or in our books and find out. It'll be fun."
And that's what they did. And that's how it was.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Monday, December 10, 2012
A scenic view from the Fiscal Cliff
Cliffs can be dangerous. If you are out hiking at the top of one of them you do not want to look too far out over the edge lest you fall off.
Sometimes they are scenic. Here, for example, is a view--from the top of a cliff--of Waimea Canyon on Kauai in Hawaii.
Those cliffs are pretty, but I sure wouldn't want to fall off any of them.
America's "Fiscal Cliff," of course, is much different, and not nearly so pretty. Is it dangerous, too? Perhaps.
Several people have asked about this thing called the Fiscal Cliff. So, I've combined all those discussions into a single conversation for presentation in this article. Read this, and then you really don't need to read any more about it until the thing is solved. Unless, of course, you want to read about it just because you enjoy the drama. Like many serial dramas, this one ends with a cliff-hanger.
Here's the conversation --
What is the "Fiscal Cliff?" It's a combination of Federal tax increases and spending cuts that will take effect on January 1 unless some other legislative action is taken to change them.
Why is this happening? These things will happen because President Obama and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives agreed to them last year as a precondition to increasing the Federal debt limit. The legislation is already baked and done.
Did they think this was a good idea when they agreed to it in 2011? Probably not, because right from the beginning they were all saying that what they really wanted would be the result of more substantive and thoughtful negotiations on Federal spending and taxation.
But that never happened? No, because this year's presidential election got in the way, and so we never got around to the "substantive and thoughtful" part.
"Tax increases" sounds bad and pretty clear-cut, but "spending cuts" sounds vague; couldn't they have come up with another name for it? They did; it's called "sequestration."
I'm sorry I asked. So am I.
What's the problem with spending cuts? Many people think that the combination of Federal spending cuts and tax increases would take so much money out of the economy that it will push us into another recession. Federal spending means jobs for some people, and direct income for others, especially those who are elderly and/or needy.
Should I head for the hills? No, not unless that's where you want to do the rest of your Christmas shopping.
How much money are we talking about here? The numbers vary, but it's a lot of money. In total, it looks like it would amount to about 3% or 4% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the year.
So, Federal spending cuts would be bad, Federal tax increases would be bad. . .why is anybody even thinking about letting this happen?!? You're forgetting that we have all become "fiscal conservatives" now. Remember that big national debt? As of last year just about all of us--Democrats, Republicans, Independents, drummers drumming, milkmaids a-milking, pipers piping, and lots of others--decided that as a nation we need to devise a way of limiting the use of the Federal credit card so that America stops adding so much debt to the big pile that is already there.
Oh, right. . .I hadn't forgotten about it, but just misplaced the idea for a moment there. So, if we go off the cliff, then the national debt goes down? Well, not necessarily, but at least it won't go up as much as it would otherwise.
Why is it called "fiscal cliff?" Because Chairman of the Fed Ben Bernanke gave it that label in a speech a few months ago. It's hard to tell now if he thinks that was one of his better moments.
Is it really a cliff? No, it's more of a slope than a cliff. Without an agreement, taxes go up effective January 1 (maybe) and spending for government programs declines during the year (maybe).
Why did you say "maybe?" Well, most of what we hear about this situation is referring to legislative enactments, but we are hearing very little about the behind-the-scenes bureaucratic levers that must be pulled by someone before many things actually happen. As an example, consider the Federal income tax: the Treasury Department and its Internal Revenue Service might not be prepared to adjust the income tax withholding tables as soon as the current tax-reduction legislation expires. That would mean that the increased taxes would not be deducted from near-term paychecks. My guess is the same set of bureaucratic circumstances occurs elsewhere, too, especially when it comes to spending.
What are the details of the possible tax increases? Good question. If no further action is taken, then starting January 1 Federal income tax rates for all earners will increase by returning to the same levels that they were during the 1990s and in 2000. Also, a few tax reductions--such as the payroll tax (Social Security tax) reduction and stimulus tax credits for low-income households--that have been effective during the last three or four years will expire. Certain other tax credits and deductions, some of which apply to businesses and some that apply to households, will also expire.
What about the spending cuts. . .oh, I mean the sequestration. . .(can't they speak plain English?) Anyway, what happens on the other side of the ledger? In general, Federal spending for defense and domestic programs will be cut by a total of about $120 billion or maybe somewhat more or maybe a little less--$50 - 60 billion or so from each of those two categories. Depending on whom you ask and how the math is done, these cuts represent approximately equal percentages of each category's total spending, or a little bigger percentage for the domestic programs than for the defense programs, or vice versa.
What is included in "defense programs" and what is in "domestic programs?" "Defense" is all the armed forces and homeland security programs, including military hardware that is in development. "Domestic" is just about everything else on which the Federal government spends money, with the exception of Social Security and interest on the national debt.
Why exclude Social Security and the national debt interest payments? Another good question. Social Security--the nation's pension program for its senior citizens--is separate in all ways that matter. The taxation is separate, the fiscal management is separate, and its governing legislation is separate. Contrary to popular belief, Social Security payments do not contribute to the national debt. For many years, Social Security took in more money that it paid out, and the surplus has been saved. At this point in time, the program is now required to pay out more than it is taking in, but the deficit is made up out of the savings from the prior years. That surplus might eventually be exhausted, so the program deserves some attention. But, unless something is deliberately changed in the ground rules of this game, the need to address Social Security is not as critical as is the need to address the fiscal issues surrounding other programs, Medicare and military spending being the most prominent because they are the biggest. In other words, time spent on modifying Social Security contributes nothing to achieving a balanced Federal budget. As for the interest payments -- either we keep those going in a normal fashion, or we lose our ability to borrow, as needed, in the future.
Do you think this will all get amicably-settled before the end of the year? It doesn't seem likely, but it's possible. My guess is that it's not likely to be amicably-settled, but there's about a 50% chance that it will be settled before the end of the year with somebody--probably the Republicans--being really miffed about the settlement. I think they'll have their feathers ruffled because the settlement will most likely include some higher taxes, and current Republican ideology is opposed to higher taxes. None of us really wants to pay higher taxes--that's just human nature, so it's understandable--but so far nobody has been able to put together a credible plan that depends on spending cuts alone.
You're being unusually non-partisan here; are you ill? No, I'm good. The election has made me more mellow.
Have most elected Republicans signed up on some kind of tax limitation pledge? Yes, you are probably thinking about the Grover Norquist thing.
Who the hell is Grover Norquist? That's what President Bush asked, too.
Which President Bush? I don't remember. Want me to look it up?
No, it doesn't matter. Does the pledge they signed have any real significance? To me it seems to be significant only to those who signed it because they think it will help them to get re-elected. At the very least, they probably believe that it gives them some protection from a Republican primary challenger who might sign the thing first and then say during the primary campaign "Look at me, I'm tougher on taxes than is your wishy-washy incumbent Republican because I signed first!"
What happens if the Fiscal Cliff isn't settled before the end of the year? Some pundits think that such an event would doom the country to another economic recession. Actually, it's probably fair to say that "most" pundits and prognosticators say that recession will happen. Naturally, that's possible, but it seems to me that the more likely outcome would be a continuation of the very mild and unexciting economic growth that we have been experiencing for the last couple of years. "Mild" would probably become even milder, and "unexciting" would probably turn into "hard to notice." Remember, this is really a "slope" and not a "cliff," so unless something changes, even if the worst happens it doesn't all happen January 1. The media chatter typically assumes that everything will happen at once, and it will happen right at the beginning of the year. That's simply inaccurate. The total cumulative downward effect on the nation's economy for the entire year will amount to about 3% - 4% of GDP.
This is complicated. Isn't there an easy way out? No, there's no easy way out. It's sort of like what the Eagles said about Hotel California -- you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.
Nobody wants to fall off a cliff. Let's think about it and talk more later. Besides, maybe the damn thing will be over and done with by then. Okay? Okay. Good idea. Besides, since we're all done with the electing for the time being, the only thing that you and I can do to help out is to do some more Christmas shopping. Whatever legislation is needed to solve the problem of the Fiscal Cliff is in the hands of the people we elected. Go ahead, do some more shopping. We both know you really want to do that.
Sometimes they are scenic. Here, for example, is a view--from the top of a cliff--of Waimea Canyon on Kauai in Hawaii.
Those cliffs are pretty, but I sure wouldn't want to fall off any of them.
America's "Fiscal Cliff," of course, is much different, and not nearly so pretty. Is it dangerous, too? Perhaps.
Several people have asked about this thing called the Fiscal Cliff. So, I've combined all those discussions into a single conversation for presentation in this article. Read this, and then you really don't need to read any more about it until the thing is solved. Unless, of course, you want to read about it just because you enjoy the drama. Like many serial dramas, this one ends with a cliff-hanger.
Here's the conversation --
What is the "Fiscal Cliff?" It's a combination of Federal tax increases and spending cuts that will take effect on January 1 unless some other legislative action is taken to change them.
Why is this happening? These things will happen because President Obama and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives agreed to them last year as a precondition to increasing the Federal debt limit. The legislation is already baked and done.
Did they think this was a good idea when they agreed to it in 2011? Probably not, because right from the beginning they were all saying that what they really wanted would be the result of more substantive and thoughtful negotiations on Federal spending and taxation.
But that never happened? No, because this year's presidential election got in the way, and so we never got around to the "substantive and thoughtful" part.
"Tax increases" sounds bad and pretty clear-cut, but "spending cuts" sounds vague; couldn't they have come up with another name for it? They did; it's called "sequestration."
I'm sorry I asked. So am I.
What's the problem with spending cuts? Many people think that the combination of Federal spending cuts and tax increases would take so much money out of the economy that it will push us into another recession. Federal spending means jobs for some people, and direct income for others, especially those who are elderly and/or needy.
Should I head for the hills? No, not unless that's where you want to do the rest of your Christmas shopping.
How much money are we talking about here? The numbers vary, but it's a lot of money. In total, it looks like it would amount to about 3% or 4% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the year.
So, Federal spending cuts would be bad, Federal tax increases would be bad. . .why is anybody even thinking about letting this happen?!? You're forgetting that we have all become "fiscal conservatives" now. Remember that big national debt? As of last year just about all of us--Democrats, Republicans, Independents, drummers drumming, milkmaids a-milking, pipers piping, and lots of others--decided that as a nation we need to devise a way of limiting the use of the Federal credit card so that America stops adding so much debt to the big pile that is already there.
Oh, right. . .I hadn't forgotten about it, but just misplaced the idea for a moment there. So, if we go off the cliff, then the national debt goes down? Well, not necessarily, but at least it won't go up as much as it would otherwise.
Why is it called "fiscal cliff?" Because Chairman of the Fed Ben Bernanke gave it that label in a speech a few months ago. It's hard to tell now if he thinks that was one of his better moments.
Is it really a cliff? No, it's more of a slope than a cliff. Without an agreement, taxes go up effective January 1 (maybe) and spending for government programs declines during the year (maybe).
Why did you say "maybe?" Well, most of what we hear about this situation is referring to legislative enactments, but we are hearing very little about the behind-the-scenes bureaucratic levers that must be pulled by someone before many things actually happen. As an example, consider the Federal income tax: the Treasury Department and its Internal Revenue Service might not be prepared to adjust the income tax withholding tables as soon as the current tax-reduction legislation expires. That would mean that the increased taxes would not be deducted from near-term paychecks. My guess is the same set of bureaucratic circumstances occurs elsewhere, too, especially when it comes to spending.
What are the details of the possible tax increases? Good question. If no further action is taken, then starting January 1 Federal income tax rates for all earners will increase by returning to the same levels that they were during the 1990s and in 2000. Also, a few tax reductions--such as the payroll tax (Social Security tax) reduction and stimulus tax credits for low-income households--that have been effective during the last three or four years will expire. Certain other tax credits and deductions, some of which apply to businesses and some that apply to households, will also expire.
What about the spending cuts. . .oh, I mean the sequestration. . .(can't they speak plain English?) Anyway, what happens on the other side of the ledger? In general, Federal spending for defense and domestic programs will be cut by a total of about $120 billion or maybe somewhat more or maybe a little less--$50 - 60 billion or so from each of those two categories. Depending on whom you ask and how the math is done, these cuts represent approximately equal percentages of each category's total spending, or a little bigger percentage for the domestic programs than for the defense programs, or vice versa.
What is included in "defense programs" and what is in "domestic programs?" "Defense" is all the armed forces and homeland security programs, including military hardware that is in development. "Domestic" is just about everything else on which the Federal government spends money, with the exception of Social Security and interest on the national debt.
Why exclude Social Security and the national debt interest payments? Another good question. Social Security--the nation's pension program for its senior citizens--is separate in all ways that matter. The taxation is separate, the fiscal management is separate, and its governing legislation is separate. Contrary to popular belief, Social Security payments do not contribute to the national debt. For many years, Social Security took in more money that it paid out, and the surplus has been saved. At this point in time, the program is now required to pay out more than it is taking in, but the deficit is made up out of the savings from the prior years. That surplus might eventually be exhausted, so the program deserves some attention. But, unless something is deliberately changed in the ground rules of this game, the need to address Social Security is not as critical as is the need to address the fiscal issues surrounding other programs, Medicare and military spending being the most prominent because they are the biggest. In other words, time spent on modifying Social Security contributes nothing to achieving a balanced Federal budget. As for the interest payments -- either we keep those going in a normal fashion, or we lose our ability to borrow, as needed, in the future.
Do you think this will all get amicably-settled before the end of the year? It doesn't seem likely, but it's possible. My guess is that it's not likely to be amicably-settled, but there's about a 50% chance that it will be settled before the end of the year with somebody--probably the Republicans--being really miffed about the settlement. I think they'll have their feathers ruffled because the settlement will most likely include some higher taxes, and current Republican ideology is opposed to higher taxes. None of us really wants to pay higher taxes--that's just human nature, so it's understandable--but so far nobody has been able to put together a credible plan that depends on spending cuts alone.
You're being unusually non-partisan here; are you ill? No, I'm good. The election has made me more mellow.
Have most elected Republicans signed up on some kind of tax limitation pledge? Yes, you are probably thinking about the Grover Norquist thing.
Who the hell is Grover Norquist? That's what President Bush asked, too.
Which President Bush? I don't remember. Want me to look it up?
No, it doesn't matter. Does the pledge they signed have any real significance? To me it seems to be significant only to those who signed it because they think it will help them to get re-elected. At the very least, they probably believe that it gives them some protection from a Republican primary challenger who might sign the thing first and then say during the primary campaign "Look at me, I'm tougher on taxes than is your wishy-washy incumbent Republican because I signed first!"
What happens if the Fiscal Cliff isn't settled before the end of the year? Some pundits think that such an event would doom the country to another economic recession. Actually, it's probably fair to say that "most" pundits and prognosticators say that recession will happen. Naturally, that's possible, but it seems to me that the more likely outcome would be a continuation of the very mild and unexciting economic growth that we have been experiencing for the last couple of years. "Mild" would probably become even milder, and "unexciting" would probably turn into "hard to notice." Remember, this is really a "slope" and not a "cliff," so unless something changes, even if the worst happens it doesn't all happen January 1. The media chatter typically assumes that everything will happen at once, and it will happen right at the beginning of the year. That's simply inaccurate. The total cumulative downward effect on the nation's economy for the entire year will amount to about 3% - 4% of GDP.
This is complicated. Isn't there an easy way out? No, there's no easy way out. It's sort of like what the Eagles said about Hotel California -- you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.
Nobody wants to fall off a cliff. Let's think about it and talk more later. Besides, maybe the damn thing will be over and done with by then. Okay? Okay. Good idea. Besides, since we're all done with the electing for the time being, the only thing that you and I can do to help out is to do some more Christmas shopping. Whatever legislation is needed to solve the problem of the Fiscal Cliff is in the hands of the people we elected. Go ahead, do some more shopping. We both know you really want to do that.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
History note for today -- 1941
On this day in 1941 the United States was brought fully into World War II when the Imperial Japanese Navy conducted a successful air and sea attack on the US Navy base at Pearl Harbor on the island of Oahu, Hawai'i. This event is marked by the memorial at Pearl Harbor that is named for the sunk and destroyed American battleship USS Arizona.
Numerous other American battleships were sunk on that day, but not destroyed. Instead, they were raised from the bottom of the harbor, repaired, returned to service and made great contributions during the following years.
Over three and a half years later, the conflict ended with a ceremony aboard the USS Missouri at anchor in Tokyo Bay. The now-inactive Missouri lives on as a museum located also at Pearl Harbor, and adjacent to the Arizona Memorial.
History gets a bum rap from a lot of people--not including you, of course--because it's thought of as boring and irrelevant. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sometimes it helps to see history in pictures. Share these pictures with any you know--especially among the younger portion of America's population--who might gain an improved historical appreciation through visual aids.
By the way, Pearl Harbor draws the crowds. During a recent middle-of-the-week, non-holiday, non-prime vacation time visit there, the wait for the tour of the Arizona Memorial was about two and one-half hours.
It was worth the wait.
Over three and a half years later, the conflict ended with a ceremony aboard the USS Missouri at anchor in Tokyo Bay. The now-inactive Missouri lives on as a museum located also at Pearl Harbor, and adjacent to the Arizona Memorial.
By the way, Pearl Harbor draws the crowds. During a recent middle-of-the-week, non-holiday, non-prime vacation time visit there, the wait for the tour of the Arizona Memorial was about two and one-half hours.
It was worth the wait.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)