Arthur Miller

A great playwright's passing.

Arthur Miller died Thursday. He may have had only 4 plays that were considered great American plays, but what 4 plays those were. My favorite is "The Crucible". I saw a terrible production of it in New York with Justin Bateman back in the early 90s (don't laugh). It was produced by the Roundabout theater company, which is now one of the pillars of New York Theater. But the 1996 film version was incredible. I will never forget my response or the response of the audience when I saw that movie. There was complete silence as the credits rolled. It was the emotionally moving.

I came across comments about "The Crucible" and its historical accuracy while reading about Arthur Miller on Salon.com. Margo Burns, a historian who specializes in the history of the Salem Witch Hunts, has a web site that details the historical accuracy of the play and film. She picks apart the minute details that are wrong, but in my opinion, can't see the forest for the trees. "The Crucible" is not a history course, but a dramatic retelling of the events as a play or film. And, of course, this particular play is also an allegory for McCarthyism and Fascism and what a powerful piece. Mr. Miller states in the text of the play and in other writings, that this isn't history but a dramatic retelling. It drives me nuts that a historian is picking apart the details that are factually incorrect. I never walked out of the theater believing that I had just watched the events of Massachusetts 1692 on CNN. IT IS DRAMA, not reality. And CNN any more isn't necessarily reality either. Don't even get me started on that one.....

Taxes

The best way to judge a society is how it takes care of its neediest people.

I've already gone on about Social Security but now, I feel the issue is bigger and more about the current administration's tax policy. Rhetoric is empty unless it is followed by ACTION. Paul Krugman has once again written an excellent column in the New York Times about President Bush's tax policy (ie tax cuts) and the deficit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?hp

There is a direct correlation to cutting back social services (veteran's benefits, education supplements, etc.) and an increase in crime and drug and alcohol abuse (which then increases crime).

The President's current budget also proposes additional cuts in funding to police departments and programs. If we want homeland security, don't we want to make sure that we fund more to police departments? There is no such thing as a free lunch, if we want increased security, border protection, etc., we have to pay for it. And we pay for these things through taxes.

It's been documented by numerous economists that the severe deficit is directly related to the loss in government revenues. The only way to balance the budget, pay for the Iraq war and have strong homeland security is to increase taxes. That's the only way.

And whatever happened to all of those jobs that the tax cuts were supposed to create. President Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to have a net loss of jobs during his tenure. He can't force jobs to be created, but his tax policy was sold as a job creation plan....that didn't happen. But the very wealthy and large corporations are making out big in the tax cuts and it's not trickling down.

Another great Paul Krugman column

Trying to determine other peoples motives by their actions, not their rhetoric.

This might get annoying, but Paul Krugman has written another good column on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. He is attempting to expose the real reasons behind peoples motivations for wanting to change these programs. I personal don't believe it is to create an "ownership society" but to heavily favor the wealthy over the working poor and the most neediest in our society. Check it out.

http://nytimes.com/2005/02/08/opinion/08krugman.html

Social Security

The misinformation being sent out by President Bush is unreal.

Body: This really is a fundamental issue of what Social Security is about. Is it an insurance program that provides for retirement (but also disability if someone becomes disabled). Or is it a retirement account (like a 401(k)) that each worker is investing in. This is the real issue, not whether or not it is solvent. If we could have an open discussion about this issues, then we could decide what we need to do to meet those goals.

What President Bush is doing is immoral and unethical. He has already made the decision for us what this program is about and now is lying to the American people so that he gets what he wants. This is leadership?!?!?

According to the Congressional Budget office (a non-partisan group), Social Security as is is fully fundable until 2042-2052. And this is with conservative actuarial estimates.

If, inflation stays where it is, wages continue to increase and unemployment decreases, then there is a chance that Social Security will not go bust at all (without any changes). One change that could be made is increase the cap on wages that are taxed (going about 87,000) to keep this program fully funded. The reality is, this has been the most successful government program ever.

In order to create private accounts, we would have to borrow money to keep funding social security and then there is no guarantee that retires as a group would have enough money invested (accounting for inflation and returns) to compensate for their loss of retirement benefits.

Read this great article by Paul Krugman of the NYTIMES. (he has been writing extensively about Social Security twice a week since December.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/opinion/4krugman.html?oref=login&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fPaul%20Krugman