MauledAgain

There’s a commentary going viral on the world wide web and social media that clearly is designed to suck Americans into supporting a terrible tax proposal. It takes five of the strongest arguments against the giveaway to corporations and wealthy individuals, labels them as “myths,” and then trots out false information to deflect attention from the truth.

The first claim is that the legislation will generate $4,000 per household. I disposed of this falsehood in Another Word for Fake Tax Math. It’s too bad some people will stick to their lies even after their mendacity is highlighted.

The second claim is that the “Senate tax bill increases the amount of taxes paid by the rich.” Increases? That is laughable. The tax brackets applicable to the rich are decreased, and even the strongest supporters of the legislation crow about the reduction of taxes on the alleged “job creating” wealthy. One would think that those defending this monstrosity of tax legislation would at least coordinate their false advertising.

The third claim is that “93 percent of taxpayers would see a tax cut or no change in 2019.” What is omitted is the unfortunate news that by 2025, at least 25 percent of taxpayers, almost all in the lower and middle brackets, will experience tax increases.

The fourth claim is that repealing the Affordable Care Act individual mandate will not “force anyone to give up their coverage.” But eliminating the mandate also eliminates subsidies, and when those disappear, millions of Americans will lose their health insurance coverage.

The fifth claim is that repealing the Affordable Care Act individual mandate will not raise insurance premiums. Where do people without health insurance go when they have a health problem? The emergency room. Are they turned away because they have no insurance and cannot afford to pay? No. Who pays? The hospital, which then raises its rates, which then cause insurance companies to raise premiums, which means that those with health insurance pay higher premiums to subsidize those without health insurance. Because this happens in the private sector, everyone in the chain takes their cut. It’s far less efficient than if it is handled through a non-profit government agency.

The sixth claim is that “when business taxes go down, worker’s wages go up.” That is nonsense. I explained the truth about this absurd claim in Tax Cut Cash To Be Used for Job Creation?. Corporate executives are admitting they are not raising wages nor creating jobs, but either adding to already huge stockpiles of cash or increasing dividends to high-end investors. Corporations do not need more cash, and they surely haven’t been adding jobs and increasing wages with the hoards of cash they already hold.

The seventh claim is that “American corporations pay a federal income tax rate of 35 percent.” No, they do not. That is the nominal rate, and most corporations, after taking into account a variety of tax breaks, end up paying at an average rate of half that percentage. Some even pay at a rate of zero, and a few even receive payments rather than making payments.

The eighth claim is that this tax legislation will not increase the federal budget deficit. The basis for this claim is the same nonsense that infects trickle-down and supply-side economic theory. The idea that the economy will blossom when money is funneled to corporations and wealthy individuals overlooks the simple fact that what drives an economy is demand. If a nation wants higher demand, cut the taxes of those who are not in the top one, two, or even five percent of the income and wealthy array. But the money-addicted who control the government and their allies won’t tolerate that sort of approach, because they lack the ability to understand that letting go of cries for tax cuts now means a much better long-term economic benefit for everyone, and they lack the courage to try.

The last time this absurd approach to tax policy was adopted, the nation got a short-term money “sugar high” and then the economy crashed in one of the worst recessions in the nation’s history. This time, because the cuts are so much larger, the high will be bigger, probably shorter, and the crash will be even worse.

If the manufacturers of this tax propaganda are so sure of themselves, surely they would be willing to agree to my A Debt Prevention Tax Cut Escrow Proposal. Let’s see if they can put THEIR money where their mouths are.

According to several reports, including this one, the President announced, “We want to give you, the American people, a giant tax cut for Christmas. And when I say giant, I mean giant.”

So how big is a “giant” tax cut? According to the President, “The typical family of four earning $75,000 will see an income tax cut of more than $2,000, slashing their tax bill in half. It's going to be a lot of money. You're going to have an extra $2,000.” Aside from the fact that a lot of American families of four earning $75,000 aren’t going to see a $2,000 tax cut, because that number is an average and a handful of such families will reap much larger tax breaks, $2,000 is not “giant.” Nor is it “a lot” of money. Spread over a year, $2,000 is $38.46 per week. Nor was any mention made of the fact that the tax cut disappears after a few years and then all of these families will be hit with tax increases.

So who gets the “giant” tax cut? One guess, folks. It’s not the poor and lower middle class, who are in most need of economic assistance. Of course, it’s the wealthy. For those earning more than $1,000,000, the average tax cut, as reported here, will be $114,000. Now, that is “giant.” For those earning more than $10,000,000, the average tax cut, according to this analysis, will be $700,000. Those in the bottom one-fifth of the income scale, incidentally, will see, on average, $60, or slightly more than a dollar a week.

The only thing giant about all of this con game nonsense is the pile of dung that will need to be shoveled up when the inevitable tax-cut-driven crash occurs two or three years from now. And we know who will get stuck with that job.

For more than a decade I have advocated the enactment of mileage-based road fees to replace the increasingly less effective and less efficient liquid fuels tax. One slice of my reasoning is not unlike the realization, a long time ago, that reliance on taxes imposed on telegraph messages wasn’t going to work once newer technology came along. I have explained how the mileage-based road fee works, and why it is the best solution on the table, in posts such as Tax Meets Technology on the Road, Mileage-Based Road Fees, Again, Mileage-Based Road Fees, Yet Again, Change, Tax, Mileage-Based Road Fees, and Secrecy, Pennsylvania State Gasoline Tax Increase: The Last Hurrah?, Making Progress with Mileage-Based Road Fees, Mileage-Based Road Fees Gain More Traction, Looking More Closely at Mileage-Based Road Fees, The Mileage-Based Road Fee Lives On, Is the Mileage-Based Road Fee So Terrible?, Defending the Mileage-Based Road Fee, Liquid Fuels Tax Increases on the Table, Searching For What Already Has Been Found, Tax Style, Highways Are Not Free, Mileage-Based Road Fees: Privatization and Privacy, Is the Mileage-Based Road Fee a Threat to Privacy?, So Who Should Pay for Roads?, Between Theory and Reality is the (Tax) Test, Mileage-Based Road Fee Inching Ahead, Rebutting Arguments Against Mileage-Based Road Fees, On the Mileage-Based Road Fee Highway: Young at (Tax) Heart?, To Test The Mileage-Based Road Fee, There Needs to Be a Test, What Sort of Tax or Fee Will Hawaii Use to Fix Its Highways?, And Now It’s California Facing the Road Funding Tax Issues, If Users Don’t Pay, Who Should?, Taking Responsibility for Funding Highways, Should Tax Increases Reflect Populist Sentiment?, When It Comes to the Mileage-Based Road Fee, Try It, You’ll Like It, and Mileage-Based Road Fees: A Positive Trend?.

Recently, reader Morris directed my attention to a letter to the editor in the Sacramento Bee. The writer was reacting to an article describing the possibility of California substituting a per-mile road fee for its gasoline tax. This is not surprising news, because California has been exploring the mileage-based road fee for several years, as I discussed in Between Theory and Reality is the (Tax) Test.

The letter writer was upset with the idea of a mileage-based road fee. He writes:

Now all those people who purchased hybrid or electric cars will get punished along with the rest of us. It won’t matter whether you get 5 miles to the gallon or 50 miles to the gallon, you’ll pay the same tax. Right now, if you drive more miles, you buy more gas and pay more tax.

His comments demonstrate why it’s important to gather facts before conducting analysis and reaching conclusions. First, paying for the use of roads is not punishment, because paying for the use of roads is no different from paying for the use of an apartment, a rental car, or a seat in a movie theater. Second, it is not true that the same tax applies regardless of fuel economy, because the mileage-based road fee can take into account, and in some experiments has taken into account, factors such as vehicle weight, number of axles, and fuel economy. Third, it is not true that driving more miles means buying more gasoline, because the amount of gasoline purchased depends in part on fuel economy, in part on traffic conditions, in part on driver acceleration, braking, and speed tendencies, and in part on vehicle occupant use of air conditioning and similar features. Fourth, the notion that hybrid and electric vehicles, unlike liquid-fueled vehicles, do not generate pollution is misleading, because pollution is generated when power plants produce the electricity used to charge those alternative fuel vehicles.

Understanding the mileage-based road fee requires study. It requires time. It requires thought. It requires analysis. It requires much more than first-impression reaction. I have tried, for more than a decade, as have others, to explain how the mileage-based road fee works. It’s not too late to become acquainted with the details.

Though it is only one instance of many, the confession from the CEO of the home builder Toll Bros. provides more proof that tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals do not create jobs. As reported by Joseph N. DiStefano in his recent column, the legislation being railroaded through Congress will put between $80 million and $150 million of additional cash in to the bank accounts of Toll Bros. Though the CEO thinks the windfall will be on the lower side and outside analysts suggest it will be on the higher side, there is no doubt that Toll Bros. will have a much improved cash flow. When asked by a stock analyst what the company plans to do with the cash, the CEO admitted, “We don’t have any particular direction for that cash.” Goodness. There must be some operatives in D.C. who are annoyed that the CEO didn’t trot out the usual propaganda, “Oh, we will hire more employees.” My guess is that the Toll Bros. CEO is too smart to make a promise that he knows would not be kept. Toll Bros. did not announce plans to hire more employees because it has no plans to do so, and has no plans to do so because it does not need more employees. Even though the Toll Bros. CEO did not earmark the expected tax cut windfall for any specific purpose, the company plans to pay more to investors and top executives. That’s not job creation. That’s simply an increase in the flow of wealth and income into the bank accounts of the wealthy.

What might encourage Toll Bros. to create more jobs? The answer is simple. More demand for its product, which is housing. For demand to increase, there needs to be an increase in the number of people willing and able to purchase that housing. With tax cut money flowing primarily to people who don’t need more housing, and insufficient tax cut funds ending up in the wallets of people who would like, but cannot afford, to purchase Toll Bros. housing, the disastrous tax legislation isn’t going to do what its advocates claim. Worse, the proposed reductions of the mortgage interest and real estate tax deduction will make housing less affordable for all but the wealthy.

It’s bad enough that the greedy and insatiable money addicts manipulate, lie, and distort in order to feed their habit. What’s worse, far worse, is the willingness of too many people to buy into the lies, accept the distortion, and embrace the manipulation. Is it a personality flaw? An educational defect? A delusional expectation? An epidemic of apathy? Why is it so difficult for enough people to comprehend the heist that is about to get underway?

In a recent commentary, George Will rushes to the defense of the badly drafted, error-riddled, unwise, and catastrophic monstrosity of a tax bill being railroaded through the Congress. Though Will usually speaks with wisdom and manifests common sense, this time he seem to be swept up in the false euphoria of getting something done for the sake of getting something done.

Will describes opposition to the legislation’s tax cuts because they benefit the wealthy as a “recyclable denunciation of any significant tax cut.” Of course it is a recyclable criticism, because the tax cut advocates keep recycling their policies and those policies keep recycling into economic messes. As I’ve pointed out multiple times, this tax-cut-for-the-wealthy approach, despite apparent short-term success, has failed in the long-term every single time. Will argues that because the “top 1 percent of earners supply 39 percent of income tax revenues,” they should get a chunk of the tax cuts. But they’re getting far more than 39 percent. Will conveniently forgets, or intentionally fails to mention, that the purpose of the income tax is to prevent income and wealth inequality and to prevent the establishment of A dynastic oligarchy. He concludes that for a tax cut to be effective it “must be primarily a cut for the affluent.” That is absolute nonsense. What would work, though politicians lack the courage to pursue what works, is an increase in taxes on inherited, that is, non-earned, income and wealth coupled with steep tax decreases for the consumer class that drives the demand that fuels the economy.

Will then dismisses concerns that the tax-cut advocates will use the deficits generated by the tax cuts to justify cutting Social Security and Medicare. He is confident that the President, who “vowed to oppose” such cuts, will adhere to his promises. It’s disappointing that Will has confidence in someone keeping promises who has a track record of not doing so and whose mendaciousness has risen to levels of which the Tempter in the Garden would be envious.

Will concedes that the legislation is a gamble. He concludes, though, that it is a “wager . . . worth trying.” Of course, if the wager turns out well, the wealthy are even wealthier and everyone else, to a greater or lesser extent, is worse off or perhaps holds an even keel. And if the wager turns out badly, it’s not the wealthy who will feel the pain. It’s always safe to gamble with someone else’s money.

Yet in his commentary Will himself hedges his bets. He concedes that the advocates of this horrific legislation do not know with certainty that it will work. Will goes so far as to claim that nobody knows. He fails to mention that some of us, at least, know with certainty that in the long run this legislation will not work. How do we know that? It didn’t work in the past, and it won’t work now. But insanity, like addiction, is doing the same thing repeatedly, despite bad outcomes, because the brain cannot let go of that to which it is attached. Examining the Congress through that lens is far more instructive than dragging out the same disproven laughable justifications so typical of addicts’ excuses.

Will concedes that the hopes of the tax-cut advocates require continuation of the current economic expansion, one which is 44 months past the average length of an expansion and which is almost certainly headed for a recession. In reaching for a higher rate of expansion, the proponents of this senseless tax legislation risk a recession bordering on depression. Why trade slow but steady growth for a speedy but risky shot of economic adrenalin? That’s how addiction works.

Will then exposes the underlying hypocrisy of the entire racket. He writes, “What the legislation’s drafters anticipate, indeed proclaim, is that Congress will not allow to happen what the legislation says, with a wink, will happen.” The tax cuts for individuals are set to expire in 2025, though corporate tax cuts are tagged as eternal, but one of the chief architects of the legislation claims that a future Congress will extend those cuts. Perhaps. Perhaps not. It’s a gamble, predicting what a future Congress might do. In the meantime, Will concedes that this smoke-and-mirrors approach “is an $800 billion fudge, a cooking of the books.” Once upon a time, people went to jail for doing those sorts of things. Now they are elected to Congress and high office, appointed to positions of fiduciary responsibility, and worshipped as heroes by a segment of the population claiming to have a monopoly on moral righteousness.

I expected much better from George Will. I wonder why he has chosen to ride with the gamblers. Whether using one’s own money or someone else’s, there are certain gambles a person ought not take, for reasons of moral righteousness. This horrendous tax legislation is a perfect example of a gamble that must be avoided, mostly because, aside from being morally unrighteous, it is a sure losing bet.

A bit more than a year ago, in Robots Doing Tax Returns?, I explained the reasons I hesitate to jump on the “let the robots prepare tax returns” bandwagon. After pointing out the shortcomings of self-driving vehicles and allegedly intelligent traffic signals, I shared these thoughts:

The folks who think that artificial intelligence, which is nothing more than complex software, can replace tax return preparers face a stark reality. For some taxes, surely artificial intelligence has advantages. But for any tax preparation that requires judgment, wisdom, experience, and intuition, artificial intelligence fails. Perhaps decades from now, when neuroscientists have figured out how judgment, wisdom, experience, and intuition are reflected in the biochemical and electromagnetic functions of the human brain work, and software engineers have figured out how to translate those functions into computer code, the idea of robots doing federal income tax returns might come to a worthwhile fruition. Until then, the likelihood of crashes that weren’t supposed to happen and time wasted at badly programmed traffic signals will make the robot tax return preparer a fine wine that no one should drink before its time.

Nothing during the past 15 months has changed my mind.

Recently, I heard a story about artificial intelligence being used to do tax planning. At a meeting of tax professionals, the presenter shared the advice generated by an artificial intelligence system designed to do tax return preparation and tax planning. The system generated some very bizarre ideas. For example, it suggested that an elderly couple whose only income was social security benefits should start their retirement planning by setting up an IRA and contributing to it. It also suggested that a middle-aged couple who had paid off the mortgage on their residence should borrow money to purchase another home in order to create mortgage interest deductions and additional real estate tax deductions. Those sorts of responses on a tax exam would earn an inescapable F grade.

As I suggested in Robots Doing Tax Returns?, “technology needs to generate results that have at least the quality they would have if an expert did the work.” I understand technology. I understand how it can fail. I understand that failure can be at least as bad, if not worse, than the outcome when an expert fails. For that reason, I cautioned, “For me, until a technological ‘advance’ is ready for prime time, it needs to remain in the world of testing and experimentation. It ought not become mandatory or widespread until it proves its superiority.”

The rush to let artificial intelligence and robots “do the work,” a temptation perhaps fueled by expectations of leisurely lives, poses grave risks. Quoting again from Robots Doing Tax Returns?, “Technology is no better than the programmers who design the hardware and software. Sometimes I wonder if the advantages of multiple sets of eyes and brains reviewing the product are being lost on account of cost-cutting goals that misperceive the difference between long-term and short-term success.”

At the moment, very few people are likely to communicate directly with an artificial intelligence system to get advice. But most people are communicating with experts, advisors, and guides to get help. It makes sense to ask questions to get assurances that the assistance isn’t simply being cranked out of an artificial intelligence system, bereft of judgment, wisdom, experience, and intuition.

Every now and then an idea pops into my head. This time, after reading a story about Senate Majority Leader McConnell’s absurd claim that cutting taxes will raise revenue, I decided it’s time to hold government officials, elected or appointed, to their claims. They should be held financially, if not criminally, liable for making promises that don’t pan out, knowing that they cannot pan out, and causing misery for Americans.

Every sensible and educated economist, analyst, and financial professional who has examined the monstrosity of a tax bill being railroaded through the nation’s capital reaches the same result. The proposed legislation would cause the federal deficit to balloon, with attendant short-term and long-term adverse consequences. Though they disagree on the exact number, almost all are somewhere north of one trillion dollars.

So in rushes McConnell, anxious to placate the oligarchs who are demanding the additional wealth that the legislation will shift from the non-wealthy to the oligarchy. He makes the same ridiculous claim that was made when previous tax legislation of this sort was foisted on America. He claims that the tax cuts will generate enough economic growth to produce additional tax revenue. That didn’t happen in the past and it won’t happen now. The recipients of tax reductions will not be generating economic growth. They will not be buying much of anything because they already have what they want and need, other than more cash in the offshore bank. The recipients of tax reductions will not be hiring workers, because they don’t have any work for them to do. The recipients of tax reductions, financed by increased taxes on a significant swath of the poor and middle class, are too few in number to trigger the sort of consumer demand that stokes the fires of healthy economies.

McConnell surely knows that his claim is false. He knows that the tax legislation is one of the worst tax bills ever to get approved by the Senate. So why does he say what he says? Is he deluded? No, he simply is so beholden to the “donor class” that he says whatever he needs to say to wiggle out of the mess he is complicit in creating. He’s not alone, of course, but as the majority leader he has a higher degree of responsibility for which to answer. At the moment, the only responsibility he is exhibiting is allegiance to those who finance his campaigns and permit him to remain in office.

The extent to which McConnell is willing to make excuses for this horrendous inequality exacerbation machine is apparent from his reaction to claims that most of the tax reductions in the tax bill favor the wealthy and large corporations. McConnell claimed, “I haven’t run into anybody during this whole tax discussion who’s very successful who thinks they’re benefiting from it.” Really? What possibly could explain such an absurd claim? Perhaps McConnell hasn’t spoken to anyone. Perhaps McConnell hasn’t spoken to anyone who benefits from the legislation. Neither seems plausible. Perhaps the people who benefit from this legislation simply are unwilling to admit, or should I say, confess, that the legislation makes them wealthier. Part of the con game is to persuade Americans that this tax bill does nothing but put significant amounts of money in the pockets of the poor and middle class. Playing that game requires silence on the part of the legislation’s beneficiaries.

Now comes the best part. McConnell explained, “Look, a year or two from now, you guys can make an assessment which one of us was right. The proof will be in whether or not the economy picks up and things get better.” Instead of a year or two, how about five or six years? If, as has happened with the other enrich-the-rich tax laws, the economy bubbles for a few years and then crashes, to the further detriment of the poor and middle class, how about an escrow account funded by the folks who have championed this legislative disgrace? How about hold harmless clauses that guarantee reimbursement to those poor and middle class Americans whose tax bills increase because some wealthy individuals decided they needed even more income and assets? How about legislation permitting Americans harmed by the impending economic crash to sue those members of Congress and the Administration who voted for this dangerous legislation? Are the proponents of this legislation willing to put their money where their mouths are? The very fact that they laugh off these proposals speaks volumes. America, are you listening, learning, and understanding? Or still enthralled by the con artists and snake oil sellers?

And in the long parade of those claiming that tax cuts for employers create jobs comes nonsense from Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey. According to Toomey, tax cuts for employers and businesses “will increase demand for workers.” He somehow thinks that by letting businesses take immediate deductions for outlays that provide benefits over a longer term, those businesses will need workers and wages will increase.

Here’s the problem, Senator Toomey. Whether it’s an existing business paying less tax or a new business writing off capital expenditures, those folks are not going to hire people unless they have something for those people to do. To have something for those people to do, those businesses, whether existing or start-up, need to sell goods and services. To sell goods and services, these businesses need customers. To have customers, these businesses need a vast consumer class that can afford to make those purchases. The proposed legislation gives some of the consumer class a few dollars and actually raises taxes on another portion of the consumer class, thus reducing their purchasing power. Aside from that deep flaw, why would companies spend $1,000,000 on a piece of equipment in order to reduce taxes by $200,000? Why deplete those huge cash reserves by $800,000 if the equipment isn’t needed because there’s no one to purchase the goods it makes or the services it provides? Talk about voodoo economics.

In the meantime, officers of existing corporations eagerly awaiting even more of a tax reduction cash windfall have made it clear that they have no intention of raising wages or hiring more workers. According to a variety of reports, including this one from Bloomberg, many companies plan to “turn over most gains from proposed corporate tax cuts to their shareholders.” Those shareholders, for the most part, are not going to rush out and increase demand for the goods and services being sold by businesses. There are too few of them, they already have what they want and need, and they will do what they did last time, stash the cash overseas and then complain that they don’t have enough and need more tax cuts. Addiction is a difficult thing.

The proposed tax legislation will not do what its supporters claim it will do. How do I know this? Similar legislation didn’t work the last time around, and the time before that, and so on. Sometimes, yes, there is a momentary glimmer of success, followed by a deep and nation-wrecking economic crash. The bigger the tax cuts, the worse the outcome, not unlike the adage, the higher one climbs, the harder the fall.

If America wants to reinvigorate its economy, it needs tax cuts for the consumer class. It needs restoration of reasonable wealth and income disparities. It needs demand-side economic policies, not another entry in the parade of supply-side, trickle-down nonsense. But America won’t get this so long as it is under the thumb of the oligarchy that benefits from the falsehoods that are sold to a gullible populace that keeps voting for people who keep doing them harm.

Reader Morris sent me a link to a four-and-one-half-year-old, but still relevant, article on sleep. Written by Michael J. Breus, the article explores the need for both the right quantity and the right quality of sleep. I must confess, though I do well most nights, sometimes the quantity is diminished because I get caught up in something that I am researching or writing, usually family history material.

Morris asked me, “What role does sleep play in law school performance?” The answer is easy. “The correct quantity and quality of sleep is essential for doing well in law school, just as it is for pretty much everything else.”

Several years ago, in A Tax Question: So What Do You Do With Your Time? I discussed time budgeting for law students, an issue I have discussed with law students for decades and that in recent years has moved into the spotlight as law schools adjust curricula. I pointed out that sleeping, eating, and hygiene require 10 hours a day. Most of that belongs to sleeping.

When exam time rolls around, sleep matters more than the cramming in which many students engage. Often, alerted by a concern that there is one issue or topic with which they are not comfortable, students will stay up late trying to perfect that issue or topic, even though they’re in excellent shape for the other 150 issues in the course. What happens is that the lack of sleep causes their ability to deal with many of those other 150 issues to diminish.

When I was a student, one of my professors told me that the best thing to do the evening before an exam was to go to the movies, and then return home to sleep. He and I talked often, and so although some of my classmates were appalled to learn what I said to my professor, in the context of our many conversations, it fit. I said to him, “What they say about you is true. You are nuts.” He laughed, and said, “Just wait until you are teaching. You’ll see what I mean.” At the time of this exchange, during my second year, it had already been decided, by myself and by more than a few of the faculty, that I was destined for a law school teaching career.

And, yes, he was quite correct. During the last class in each course, I give that advice to all my students. I tell them the story that I described in the preceding paragraph. I mention that from time to time I notice articles explaining not only the need for sleep the night before an exam but why and how sleep helps memory, reasoning, and other brain functions. The movie portion of the advice matters because it gives the brain time to assimilate, rest, and reorganize, not unlike the recovery time needed when working out in the gym.

Of course, there is a time and place for sleep. It is not wise to schedule sleep during class meeting times.

It’s been a while since I wrote about a book. I recently finished reading a book that I purchased a few months ago, thirteen years after it was published. I do that more often than one might guess. It’s not just a book thing. I tend to “discover” television series long after their first runs.

I bought this book not only because of its title, but because previews indicated that it was packed with genealogical charts. Unlike many of the genealogy books I purchase, which focus on one or another of my thousands of ancestral families, this one focused on individuals and families that I did not think were among my ancestors. I was correct. But, because they share ancestors with me, they are cousins of some deep degree.

The book was written by George L. Williams, and is titled Papal Genealogy: The Families and Descendants of the Popes. Yes, there are popes with descendants. There are popes whose nephews became popes. The percentage of cardinals whose father, grandfather, uncle, or great-uncle was a pope is astounding. Years ago, when I was in sixth grade and organizing a pastoral library, I came across a book that contained a biography, and mosaic, portrait, or photo, of each pope. I was permitted to read it. I cannot remember its title, nor have I been able to find it, but my interest in papal history dimmed from time to time but was never extinguished.

The Williams book is an eye-opener. It not only is a study in genealogy and family history, it offers interesting insights into papal politics, particularly medieval and Renaissance era events. It offers lessons useful for today’s problems, as it explores how royalty, nobility, and bankers controlled life and enriched themselves at the expense of everyone else. It describes how these families fought one another, politically and militarily, as they sought to overpower each other.

In some ways, the book is a difficult read, because the marriages between individuals in each of the several dozen families who dominated the Papacy created tangled webs that are challenging to envision. Williams, though, does a magnificent job of portraying these relationships in those charts that had caught my eye. I was not disppointed.

When I was reading the book and thinking about writing a blog post about it, I considered putting together a trivia quiz. Then I decided not to spoil anyone’s fun. What I can guarantee is that, at least every other page, there was a startling revelation. Most were not in that book I was permitted to read many years ago. That’s not surprising.

Not too long ago, one of this blog’s readers, Morris, directed my attention to this Tax Court case, and asked, “Is this one of the shortest opinions in tax court history?” My answer is, “I don’t know.” The process of examining every Tax Court case to see if there is a shorter one would be time-consuming, though perhaps a program could be written to automate the process. It has been tagged as “The Shortest Tax Court Opinion I’ve Seen” by Russ Fox.

The opinion in the case, Godsey v. Comr., T.C. Memo 2017-214, consists of an introduction, findings of fact, and the “opinion.” The introduction consists of a one-sentence paragraph containing 23 words. The findings of fact consist of one paragraph containing four sentences, and a total of 106 words. The opinion portion consists of three paragraphs, one containing two sentences and the other two each containing one sentence. The opinion portion contains 150 words, many of which are citations to other authorities and closing “boilerplate” language.

Perhaps there is a shorter Tax Court opinion. I doubt it, but it’s possible. What I don’t doubt is that there is no Tax Court opinion as short as the shortest opinion issued by the United States Supreme Court. In United States v. Barker, 15 U.S. 395 (1817), Chief Justice Marshall issued a 12-word opinion, but because the second six words consisted of “boilerplate” language, most commentators claim that it is a 6-word opinion.

There are instances in which judges do not issue written opinions but rule from the bench. It would not surprise me that, somewhere, sometime, a judge looked at one of the parties and said, “You lose.” It can’t get much shorter than that.

There’s a meme floating around on facebook, and perhaps elsewhere, that challenges people to “Name one thing that you learned in highschool [sic]… that you’ve never used in your adult life.”

Someone replied, “I’ve learned way more on my own than I ever did in school.”

Two thoughts ran through my brain. One, anyone who has children will be asked to help them as they traverse high school, and surely what was learned will be useful. The other, which is far more important, is that the most important thing one learns in high school is to learn how to learn. Yes, some of the bits of information that are learned end up not being used, or being made obsolete by scientific, technological, and social changes. But when someone claims to have learned on his or her own, that person might be forgetting that they would not have been able to learn unless they had learned to learn.

When I look back on my high school education, I realize the two most important things that I learned was how to learn and how to think. Those two go together. It’s difficult to learn without being able to think. Learning well requires thinking well. We need to learn how to learn and think. Unfortunately, some people never learn.

For as long as I’ve been writing this blog, I’ve been sharing a Thanksgiving post to express my gratitude for a variety of people, events, and things. Aside from 2008, when I did not post and I don’t have any recollection of why or how that happened, I’ve dedicated a post on or around Thanksgiving. I started in 2004, with Giving Thanks, and continued in 2005 with A Tax Thanksgiving, in 2006 with Giving Thanks, Again, in 2007 with Actio Gratiarum, in 2009 with Gratias Vectigalibus, in 2010 with Being Thankful for User Fees and Taxes, in 2011 with Two Short Words, Thank You, in 2012 with A Thanksgiving Litany, in 2013 with “Don’t Forget to Say Thank-You”, in 2014 with Giving Thanks: “No, Thank YOU!” , in 2015 with Thanks Again!, and in 2016 with Thankfully Repetitive.

As I stated the past four years, “I have presented litanies, bursts of Latin, descriptions of events and experiences for which I have been thankful, names of people and groups for whom I have appreciation, and situations for which I have offered gratitude. Together, these separate lists become a long catalog, and as I have done in previous years, I will do a lawyerly thing and incorporate them by reference. Why? Because I continue to be thankful for past blessings, and because some of those appreciated things continue even to this day.” When I re-read those lists, I realized that the people, events, and things for which I am appreciative are far from obsolete.

So once again I will look back at the past twelve months, and remember the people, events, and things for whom and for which I give thanks. If some of these seem repetitive, they are, for there are gifts in life that keep on giving:

• I am thankful for my grandson’s willingness to engage in facetime chats, though I think he is about ready to surpass me in the ability to engage all the features of an iPhone.
  
• I am thankful for my congregation’s new Director of Music Ministries, who in a just a few months has taught me, and others, all sorts of things about music and singing that have been a blessing.
  
• I am thankful that they let me ring the narthex bell.
  
• I am thankful for having had the opportunity to continue teaching law courses.
  
• I am thankful that the year of transitioning into what is misleadingly called retirement is behind me.
  
• I am thankful for the help people have provided as I continued to add information to the many genealogy databases I maintain.
  
• I am thankful for people being willing to read the things I write.
  
• I am thankful that the township installed speed limit and watch children signs on my street.

Ten years ago, in Giving Thanks, Again, I shared my Thanksgiving advice. I liked it so much that I repeated it again, in 2009 in Gratias Vectigalibus, yet again in 2013 in “Don’t Forget to Say Thank-You”, still again in 2014 in Giving Thanks: “No, Thank YOU!” , even yet again in 2015 in Thanks Again!, and even still again in Thankfully Repetitive. For me, it does not lose its impact:

Have a Happy Thanksgiving. Set aside the hustle and bustle of life. Meet up with people who matter to you. Share your stories. Enjoy a good meal. Tell jokes. Sing. Laugh. Watch a parade or a football game, or both, or many. Pitch in. Carve the turkey. Wash some dishes. Help a little kid cut a piece of pie. Go outside and take a deep breath. Stare at the sky for a minute. Listen for the birds. Count the stars. Then go back inside and have seconds or thirds. Record the day in memory, so that you can retrieve it in several months when you need some strength.

I am thankful to have the opportunity to share those words yet again.

For years I have been arguing that tax cuts for the wealthy are not as beneficial for the economy and the economic well-being of all Americans as are tax cuts for the non-wealthy. Those cuts would permit vast numbers of Americans to purchase goods and services, thus requiring the providers of goods and services to hire more workers.

But the Senate, frozen into the disproven theory that cutting taxes for the wealthy is the way to go, is taking the position that perhaps tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations, many of which are drowning in cash stored overseas, is an even better way to revive the American economy. Of course, those members of Congress who remain devoted to this theory are far more devoted to the funds pouring in from the campaign donors, who are the beneficiaries of the legislation, then they are to educating themselves with respect to economic reality. They haven’t yet learned that when theory meets reality, reality wins.

But it’s worse. Not only are the wealthy and corporations looking at years of reduced taxes, the rest of America is facing two paths. One, an immediate tax increase that remains in effect for year after year. The other, a tiny tax cut followed a few years later by tax increases that not only wipe out the tax cuts but increase taxes compared to what they are under current law. This isn’t my conclusion. It’s the conclusion of the Joint Committee on Finance, found in its report, Distribution Effects Of The Chairman's Modification To The Chairman's Mark Of The "Tax Cuts And Jobs Act," Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On Finance On November 16, 2017. Yes, it’s a bunch of numbers. But look closely at the minus signs that represent tax cuts, and where and when they disappear and tax increases show up.

To top it off, the report doesn’t even take into account the automatic cuts in Medicare and other programs required to satisfy budget constraints that the Congress doesn’t appear to be ready to dismiss. It surely fits with the plan to eliminate or privatize Medicare, Social Security, national defense, and everything else so that eventually the oligarchy owns everything.

By the time people realize what is happening, it will be too late. What a wonderful legacy the ignorant, enabling the evil, are constructing for the world.

Occasionally readers contact me to ask why I dislike wealthy people. I explain that I don’t dislike them, I simply think they don’t need any more tax cuts. Readers ask me why I describe the wealthy as a monolithic group. I admit that in the interest of making sentences readable, I don’t qualify the term wealthy with long phrases each time I use it. The context of my language should make it clear that it’s the wealthy who oppose paying taxes whose opinions are the target of my criticism and whose legislative and political machinations are the object of my derision. In other words, there are wealthy individuals who have sufficient understanding of economics to have concluded that the supply-side, trickle-down bill of goods that has been foisted on the American people is a crock of nonsense.

Recently, this perspective was reinforced when, according to this report more than 400 wealthy Americans signed a letter recommending to the Congress that it raise, rather than lower, taxes on millionaires and billionaires. They decried actions that would increase inequality, surely because they understand that, in the long run, inequality growth means everyone will lose, and that includes the wealthy. Put another way, they understand that the key to national financial well-being is demand-side economics. In other words, give the so-called job creators a reason to create jobs, that is, to meet demand.

Reading the names of those who signed the letter caused me to wonder whether the views of a wealthy person depend on whether that person created their own wealth or inherited it. Considering that more of the signers seemed to belong to the first group, it is possible, and logical, that those who started out poor or merely comfortable spent enough of their lives experiencing struggle, or at least economic limitation, and spent enough time surrounded by others in the same situation, to appreciate the intrinsic value of those who are not wealthy but whose demand for goods and services fuels the economy. They understand, therefore, the need for those folks to have sufficient economic wherewithal to make those purchases. On the other hand, those born into wealth, who spend their entire lives unaware of life without opulence, who circulate among others with wealth, and who isolate themselves from everyone else, are far more likely to lack the understanding of how valuable not-so-wealthy people are to the economic well-being of the wealthy. Of course, there are those among this latter group who, for one reason or another, realize this fact of economic life and become philanthropists, perhaps patterning after a parent or grandparent, or perhaps having had some sort of Damascus moment. But many do not, as they succumb to selfishness and greed, overcome by an addiction to money triggered by a deep insecurity that they will never have enough money to insure that they will not end up, as some did in 1929, on what they see as the wrong side of the tracks.

I applaud these individuals for having the courage to speak out. I doubt, though, that their words will have any positive effect on the wealthy individuals whose mantra is “more, more, more,” nor on the members of Congress who are so subservient to their campaign donors that they cannot realize they are in dysfunctional relationships with those persons. I fear that fixing this mess will require some sort of intervention. That is not a pleasant thought.