In today's Supreme Court argument about the required coverage provision in the healthcare act, Justice Kennedy asked, "Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” and Chief Justice Roberts Jr. asked if the government could compel the purchase of cell phones.

As typical of the court, these questions get at the heart of the matter, here whether the mandate is an allowable authority of Congress under the interstate commerce clause: "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes"

The literal answer to Kennedy's question is no, but the question infers a flawed assumption. The Constitution does not grant Congress authority to create commerce, as is apparent in a plain reading of the clause. But Kennedy's question presumes there is no existing commerce being regulated by the "mandate". But there obviously is. (It's not really a mandate, no more than a speeding sign is a mandate. People can freely not be covered, just as they can freely speed- they just may have to pay a modest penalty for choosing so.) Every human being needs and receives healthcare. And this healthcare is conducted by professionals, who are engaged in commerce via the healthcare market/industry. The healthcare market is the largest market by far in the United States. At over $2 trillion a year, it is larger than the oil industry, or tech, or food or anything else. It is hard to argue there is then no existing commerce going on.

Every human who is born, who gets sick, who cuts themselves, who gets a shot, get their teeth or eyes checked, or dies receives healthcare. Kids cannot attend public school without receiving a basic set of healthcare. Even more fundamentally, humans cannot be born without getting a set of basic health services- health services that in the United States are virtually all monetized and thus commerce. Sure, rarely someone is born for "free" in a car, but also occasionally people are friends with their auto mechanics and get "free" tire rotations. This does not mean the automotive industry is suddenly not engaging in commerce because occasionally someone gets "free" service, just as it does not mean that hospitals and health care providers are not part of commerce. (In mainstream economics, there is no such thing as "free" but it is meant in a colloquial sense here).

Only people who never interact with the world, mortality, or bacteria never engage in healthcare. And of course these people are of the fictitious kind. The fact is that every human being engages in healthcare commerce. Whether Kennedy purposefully omitted this aspect from the supposition contained in his question is unknowable now. My guess is he is just playing with the issue, and the question cannot be taken at face value.

If it is to be taken at face value, and he truly believes the mandate is creating commerce where there is none, then the law is in serious jeopardy. I would recommend Justice Kennedy visit any emergency room across America and see that everyone is in fact engaged in healthcare commerce. They may not pay for it themselves, but society is. Commerce is not payer discriminant; it depends only on the exchange of goods or services. And when someone goes to the ER to get a service and public monies reimburse the provider of those services- that is commerce. The individual is engaged in commerce, just not of a responsible or sustainable variety.

Healthcare is unique in this regard, namely that the universal mandate applies to a service that is already universally required. The same is not true of virtually anything else. Not everyone has a cell phone, and no one "needs them". People did live in the 1950s, and there were no cell phones. But there was healthcare. Just like there was in the 1850s, and 1750s, and 1650s ad infinitum. So Roberts' question is also on its face a very naive one, in that cell phones and health care are fundamentally different types of services, one is a commodity purchased at an individuals' discretion. The other non-voluntary service needed for life to exist and continuing to exist. Surely, Roberts knows his comparison is apples to oranges; the question really is what was the motivation in asking the question? Was it to show this difference, or test the government's attorney? I think it was the latter, in which case the Solicitor General totally botched the answer, and as an aside I think he botched the whole thing today. He was stilted and uptight, probably from over-preparation- something the government bureaucracy specializes in.

Justice Kennedy will almost certainly cast the swing vote. So are Kennedy and Roberts smart like a fox with their questions, or smart like a book worm?

Is there nothing that David Brooks is not an expert on?? And why does he see EVERYTHING as a fucking problem??

A month ago David Brooks had no idea who Jeremy Lin was, and now he's found the bandwagon and firmly planted his ass on it. Having apparently Googled a couple 2010 Jeremy Lin interviews, he has become an expert on yet another topic, ready to be printed for his discerning pan-intellectual Times' readers. From neuroscience to Newt Gingrich, from gerrymandering to Jeremy Lin, from best practices in parenting to Pontius Pilate, David Brooks wants to make it clear: he is an EXPERT. Where you see a pastime, he sees....let me guess? Mmm. Religion. Biology. Group-dynamics. Tension. And my God, look at that dunk- full of such complications and problems galore. If he makes a 6 game winning streak in basketball this complicated, God help us on weightier issues- like boxers or briefs, or Palestinian statehood. If one had the chore of negotiating peace with David Brooks, it would be hard to agree on a place to meet, we would get hung up on the religious-cultural morasse that is the Holiday Inn Convention Center versus the airport Sheraton.

It's not a little ironic that he writes an article contrasting the (as he apparently sees it) supposed tension between sport and the Christian teachings of humility, when David Brooks shows as much humility in journalism as Lebron James does in a contract negotiation. He is a lecturer on, well, every subject. He should point his great new insight on sports and religion out stat to the the numerous athletically dominant religious schools, like Texas Christian or Notre Dame, not to mention the many religious owners of pro sports' teams, League Commissioners, and the majority of coaches, who apparently have never thought to reconcile their beliefs with the sports they love. David must point it out to them so they know!

But yet he just can't resist the attention that is out there for him to grab. Jeremy Lin is capturing the headlines, so David Brooks had to run it down- ambulance chasing applied to the editorial page. The fact that he sees Jeremy Lin, an incredible, if not uplifting, sports story as a "problem" shows how totally removed he is from the topic he's forced himself upon- bringing that patented New York Times intellectual constipation to the topic of a streaky NBA player*. Face it David, you would sooner refer to your pants as Knickerbockers than catch their game on a Friday night. When everyone else is getting a refill of popcorn and enjoying the show, Brooks has locked himself in a stall under the bleachers shitting mental bricks. If there is such a thing as a "Jeremy Lin Problem" then there is also the "problem of the sunny day" and the "problem of sexual orgasm". Oh what a difficult world this must be to inhabit! David: it's not some intellectual riddle, and it has nothing to do with the Middle East- it's a game kids play in Kindergarten and millions of people crack open a six pack and relax to at the end of a long day. That's what the NBA is designed for dude: entertainment. Turn your fixation on pseudo-philosophical frameworks, and compulsive need to be an armchair scholar, towards a topic where it would actually matter. David Brooks, Bringing ESPN issues to the PBS crowd.

This isn't about sports or religion, or the two blended together in some weird mental smoothie, it's about David Brooks having to inject himself into everything. And this is more than just annoying, it's a growing problem in reporting and modern media. I don't want the same fucking person putting the current election in context and writing on western democracy, also covering the local ceramics beat and sports franchise. This is dangerous because the person who does this is by definition a dilettante, dabbling in a bit of whatever stokes their ego for the week. And weighty topics like democracy or war and peace or community or religion, are far too important to be given the half-time efforts of a journalist who plays mix and match, ironically as if he were some sort of journalistic God.



*Note: I am a NYT reader and fan, but let's face it, they sometimes overextend.

Dark Allies - Light Asylum from Grant Worth on Vimeo.

My brother's debut CD on sale now! Only $5

TotallyZorbatron.bandcamp.com and his new site TotallyZorbatron.com

”I have heard people suggest that because humans are natural that everything humans do or create is natural. Chainsaws are natural. Nuclear bombs are natural. Our economics is natural. Sex slavery is natural. Asphalt is natural. Cars are natural. Polluted water is natural. A devastated world is natural. A devastated psyche is natural. Unbridled exploitation is natural. Pure objectification is natural. This is, of course, nonsense. We are embedded in the natural world. We evolved as social creatures in this natural world. We require clean water to drink, or we die. We require clean air to breathe, or we die. We require food, or we die. We require love, affection, social contact in order to become our full selves. It is part of our evolutionary legacy as social creatures. Anything that helps us to understand all of this is natural: Any ritual, artifact, process, action is natural, to the degree that it reinforces our understanding of our embeddedness in the natural world, and any ritual, artifact, process, action is unnatural, to the degree that it does not” -Derrick Jensen

The Millennial Party

A political party that embodies the views of the Millennial generation that is open to all, and believes Americans are far ahead of the typical politician and deserve a viable and permanent third party.

Millennial Party Beliefs

 The United States is ill-served by only two mainstream parties and desperately needs a legitimate third party representing a more diverse set of views. Over 300 million people with unbound diversity, and we have two parties? This is archaic.

 We support thinking over ideology. And we obviously (and thankfully!) don’t share all the same views- that would be boring. But we support each other and seek collaboration and honest cooperation. To support the Millennial Party, one does not need to be doctrinaire and one does not need to agree 100% with what’s written here. We are dynamic and flexible; homogeneity and staleness are bad. We are not self-serious either.

 All campaigns for national public office should be publically financed. We believe that only people are people and only people should elect their representatives, drive public policy, or influence elections. In a $3 trillion federal budget, we can easily provide some $5 billion every two years to fund our national campaigns and ensure our democracy is in fact driven by the people. And candidates cannot opt out. We think lobbyists should be legally barred from providing benefits of any kind to public representatives, as this corrupts our political system.

 We believe the bedrock of America is its values: hard work, commitment to our dreams, a blue collar attitude of rolling up our sleeves, individualism, diversity, and a free and prosperous marketplace driven by dynamic capitalism. The free market is the best way to provide the most opportunity, freedom and wealth to the most. But we realize that we live in a mixed economy with both markets and public institutions, and that each segment has unique and vital roles. We believe in civil society and do not think it can be fostered exclusively by private actors. There are myriad problems that can only be addressed by government and we support a strong and active government in protecting us, caring for our sick and destitute, fostering civil society, and serving justice and authentic compassion to all. From growing beneficial relationships with other nations, inventing new medicines, feeding impoverished children, limiting Mercury in the air we breathe, airlifting Tsunami victims- the U.S. government is essential and we wholeheartedly reject the idea that it should be further weakened or vilified. Perennially attacking our government is akin to attacking one’s immune system. The goal should not be to eliminate it, but nurse it back to health.

 It almost goes without saying, but we demand full and equal rights and treatment for people of all races, genders, ethnicities, religions/belief systems (so long as they basically follow the Golden rule), sexualities and any other thing that is part of who a person is. We support gay marriage across the nation and world. We support a woman’s right to choose about when and if to give birth. We think these stances are self-evidently moral and the basis for law.

 We believe globalization, the Web and information technology have created a historically unique confluence of freedom and community. The Web has revolutionized global society and in no small part shaped our generation. We believe the freedom of the Web, global markets and international politics reinforce one another, and that open information is part and parcel of the first amendment, is inalienable and should not be centrally controlled. We’re just at the start of the potential for technology to improve communities, foster understanding and creativity, grow our economy, improve our health and topple regimes. We invented and were the first adopters of blogs, social networks, torrents, and mobile applications. These are not diversions, they enable us to meet and learn from people we would have never known in previous generations, and see views from the primary sources so we can think for ourselves. In older generations, this information would have been passively presented via vertical media, or ignored. The technology of our generation can foster peace and understanding in ways never before possible. Our use of technology is neither petty nor selfish; it is open, diverse, collaborative and often irreverent- like us.

As such, we support innovative future solutions like stem cell therapy (although not human cloning, ever), nanotechnology, concentrated solar energy and many other game-changing ventures. We support websites, but also investing in the Webs of the future. We think the government is woefully behind in engaging the people and conducting public policy on the Web. We believe plain text versions, with open source functionality, should be posted for all bills, Administrative policies, and Committee work so that we can all work from the same facts. Keep the Federal Register, but for most citizens this is not useful. Furthermore, we think politicians are often calcified and uncreative because they have been in office too long and we want to make government more civil and mature, including having more fun and being more creative. We support more funding for public television, radio and media to provide a bigger voice to people, not just advertisers. We support a representative democracy that looks more like a plain old democracy.

 Directly related to the rise of the Web and globalization is the rise of new business opportunities. Ours is an entrepreneurial generation. We believe profoundly in startups and entrepreneurs, and government should support them more. We’re not looking for handouts; we are builders, creators and doers. We don’t just admire Steve Jobs because he gave us beautiful devices, but because he was a pioneer. We like pioneers.

 Basic healthcare is not a used car and it should not be sold as such. America pays at least twice as large a share of its income for healthcare as every other developed nation, and gets mediocre outcomes. “Outcomes” is too much of a euphemism here, because healthcare involves our lives. Too many people die and are permanently hurt by our healthcare system, while paying too much for it. This is largely because America is the only developed nation in the world that allows insurance companies to profit from basic healthcare. The fundamental problem is that private insurance companies and private shareholders enrich themselves from the healthcare system. Insurance companies need to be put on a diet, and non-elective healthcare should be non-profit. Healthcare intermediaries should pay their bills and their payroll, not dividends. There is also promise in reducing waste through comparative effectiveness research.

 We support the armed forces, but not necessarily the civilians who lead them. Our troops and those who defend our country are heroes. Their sacrifice is truly beyond what words can say. Providing for the common defense of the country is a cornerstone of the constitution and a main reason our States are united. We need a strong defense and intelligence community. This is not a panacea, however, for fighting wars that aren’t in our national interest, overspending because of lack of responsible policy, or incestuous contracting practices- all of which have been hallmarks of both mainstream parties for decades. Most Millennials have never witnessed anything but radical foreign policy in their adult lives. We support civil occupations, not militaristic ones.

 We think more funding should be used to subsidize higher education. Education is one of the primary catalysts for improving America and giving everyone a chance at their dreams, regardless of what income bracket they are born into. Yet the inflation rate for university is higher than crack cocaine. This is wrong. We think student loans are often run like a racket, and that debt that can’t be reduced, even in bankruptcy, is a form of modern indentured servitude.

 America is behind the curve in mass transit and it lowers our quality of life every day. Ever compare our rail system to other cities, say Singapore or Berlin? Their trains move lots of people, quickly and safely. We support buses, trains, highways, bike lanes and airports that work better. We also think walking and biking fosters stronger communities and connects individuals more with their surroundings. We strongly support open spaces, natural spaces, parks and public lands to be sustainably enjoyed.

 We are not afraid to say the word taxes and we do not think raising taxes is anathema to a modern party, as both mainstream parties currently operate. We think our elected representatives have too often acted like children, fighting over pet projects, pandering to us, and seeking free rides while not leveling with Americans about the true costs of society. Americans are smarter than this and are way ahead of their politicians on many issues, including the budget. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no way to reduce our debt and provide the government America deserves without paying for it. This is reality. We are not afraid to pay taxes and think taxes are the price we pay for civilization and an effective government. Our lives are not measured or defined by tax rates and there is too much life and time wasted fighting about it. For too long, older generations have not paid taxes to cover their budgets, meaning the Millennials will have to pay for it. All generations should pay for their public services and benefits.

The U.S. needs tax reform and at a minimum must end the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. It needs less deductions and a more streamlined system. The government should not write off mortgages on mansions, subsidize millionaires’ healthcare, give free passes to multinationals to evade their obligations, or tax hedge funds at half the rate of school teachers and nurses. Yet we do all of this and more today. Not because it makes sense or serves America’s interests, but because powerful interests have manipulated elected representatives. Corporate tax collections have declined from over 3% of GDP in the 1960s to 1.5% today, largely because of tax havens; this is the second lowest among OECD countries and needs to be rebalanced. In 1960 the top one percent of income earners made 9% of total income and paid federal tax rates averaging 47%, today they collect 20% of income and pay 31% in federal taxes. This needs to be rebalanced. We do not vilify the affluent. They are our neighbors, friends and fellow citizens and America is a place where getting rich is the right and just reward for succeeding- this is a great and necessary result of fairness and vital incentive to advance society. But we do support a modest increase in the taxes they pay. We know many of our wealthy friends feel the same way and have yearned for a government that does not pander to them, but inspires them, calls for their leadership and engagement, and actually solves problems.

 Sustainability is a necessary condition for living responsibly. Our government today practically ignores the idea of intergenerational equity, whether it is saddling the Millennials with debt because of their failed fiscal politics, encouraging the burning and mining of natural resources without investing the resultant wealth, or spewing GHGs. Sustainability is not an idea to be selectively applied, or worse yet used in greenwash; it is an interdisciplinary science relevant to everything in public policy.

 We believe in a strong and permanent future for America’s social safety net- including social security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment assistance and assistance to needy families (welfare). We think that these systems should support those who truly need it and we support means-testing in all cases. As Warren Buffet has said, Warren Buffet does not need social security. We think there should be choice in how individuals’ FICA social security payroll tax is used, and that Millennials should have the option, but not the obligation, to place their retirement related taxes in their own private savings account in lieu of traditional social security. Savings accounts have the potential to accrue significant wealth over a worker’s lifetime, reduce public debt, and channel more private capital towards America’s markets. This is just an option however; traditional social security should be there for all who choose it.

 We are against the unfettered expansion of government and wasteful bureaucracy. We hate red tape and see lots of waste in government, mainly because of so many layers and useless processes. There is waste in government and we support a more efficient, empowered, better funded civil service, not a substantially bigger one.

 We believe climate change is a real, multi-generational problem. It’s physical chemistry not an opinion. Greenhouse gas emissions need a fair market price that accounts for the present and future damage they are doing to our health, ecosystems, and climate. We are sick and tired of politicians yammering on about freeing America from oil dependence- it’s old and we’re not buying it anymore. The time for rhetoric is over, and it is time to debate which specific policy America will use to price dirty energy, and thus account for the true cost of our climate emissions while putting clean energy on a level playing field. We support a carbon tax, one that is potentially revenue neutral and rebates money back to all households. We support other approaches to price GHG emissions so long as they are specific and serious. A price on carbon and national energy plan can employ millions more Americans, create wealth, protect our future, and reduce our trade imbalance.

 We support the Millennium Development Goals and providing .7% of GDP towards global development and international assistance. Most Americans do not realize how little in foreign assistance the United States provides today (.2%, about 1/20th of what we spend on traditional defense) and we should increase it in line with Americans’ generous self-views. Too many people suffer in extreme poverty across the world, and too many global problems fester because of a chronic lack of funding and this hurts our national interest.

 We have been disproportionally hurt by the housing bubble and banking crisis. Bubbles are a historic pattern in markets and we have lived through perhaps the two largest. While the periodic over-allocation of capital may be unavoidable, we believe there were completely avoidable mistakes made in the financial and housing sectors, largely because of cronyism and short-sightedness. Capital reserve standards were deliberately lowered well below prudential levels because of special interests and hubris, with little thought given to risk management. And the Fed inexplicably failed to use existing law to ensure accuracy in mortgage documentation. Markets rely on transparency, which was purposefully hindered with off-market transactions. The futures market is often purposefully manipulated by rumor and gamesmanship, which has no economic value. We support a more transparent, capitalized, over the counter market, where trades are not decoupled from economic purpose.

 We support immigration reform as a whole, to provide a path to citizenship for those who have acted responsibly in America. And we support Visa reform to attract the best talent to the U.S. and drive prosperity for America. And sure- staple them to advanced degrees. On second thought, paper clips are probably better.

 We think teachers and schools are obviously crucial to education and need more support, but that children learn the most from their parents and families. Teachers stay with kids a few hours a day for nine months, families stay with them throughout their lives. We think teachers and unions are often scape-goated for the broader failures of society. We support publically financed daycare and pre-school for families who cannot afford it , to relieve pressure on families and working mothers, and invest in children in the critical first 6 years of their lives to help them be prepared to learn. This investment will be good for families, and good for society later in that child’s life.

 We love and believe in art, design and music as among the highest forms of human existence. We support it culturally, politically, socially, spiritually and financially. Art is blamed and attacked too much by both mainstream parties today and is not a problem, but an irreplaceable platform for thinking, feeling, solving, living, having fun. We also believe in the power of space and intergalactic travel.

My plan to cut the deficit

As we prepare to hear that the Super Committee wasn't so super after all, and totally failed, I thought I'd pretend a deal was struck. Something to make it seem that Congress is capable of compromising and accomplishing anything, even if it is just a delusion housed within a personal blog. The ideal deal would include these components:

• Total tax collections, including local, state and federal taxes, average 33.1% of gross national income. I would increase this to 35%, with the provision that these funds be earmarked for deficit reduction. That is, this additional 1.9% is unavailable for expenditure, except to pay down the principal debt. What's going on in Southern Europe now is a painful reminder of the consequences of a citizenry thinking they can get something for nothing. As anathema to politics as it may be, deficits must be paid off if we expect them to go away. My separation of these new funds explicitly for debt reduction would ensure they don't get absorbed by the ever-fattening public domain.

• Social security means testing. I would institute a sliding scale for social security so that multimillionaires who do not need social security payments do not get them. Warren Buffet has suggested this and it’s a good idea. Social security would be gradually phased out for high-earning households, until individuals making more than $600K per year do not receive benefits. I would also increase the cap on FICA-eligible income, at least doubling it. A commission should also be formed to plan to offer optional personal savings accounts to replace social security for those born after 1975. Private savings accounts could grow the retirement income for millions, increase private capital availability for growing public companies, and reduce the government's debt obligations.

• Higher premiums for high-income Medicare beneficiaries. This is means-testing applied to Medicare. For individuals who can pay more for their healthcare and not be subsidized, it is fair that they pay for the service they receive. Right now, everyone pays an equal payroll tax for Medicare. Individuals would continue to pay the same percentage tax, but wealthier individuals would have larger copayments for the services they receive.

• Reduce the size of the federal work force. The single biggest component of the federal budget is employee salaries, accounting for roughly 25% of discretionary spending. The current federal work force (excluding postal and military) is about 1.9 million full-time equivalents. I would aim to reduce this to 1.5 million over the next decade. There are too many bureaucrats in the federal government, often doing work that exists solely because of how many layers of people and processes must be managed to complete any task. The government will get more efficient as it gets leaner, saving money not just in salary reductions, but in second order efficiencies. I would not fire people, but offer conditional early buyouts, coupled with attrition. It is important though that these reductions not be made simply by tenure. There are a lot of old, unproductive employees in the federal workforce, and reductions should not be made at the expense of retaining top-talent that happens to have less experience.

• Reduce the mortgage and local tax deductions starting at the 99th percentile of income. For individuals in the top 1% tax rate, the amount of their homes and local taxes that could be deducted annually would be capped at the median amount of mortgage payments and local taxes. It makes sense for the government to help incentivize home ownership for middle class workers. It does not make sense for the government to subsidize mansions and write-off multimillionaires' property taxes.

• Revenue neutral carbon tax. I would tax carbon and offset it in income taxes.