SO WHAT DID YOU PAY FOR GAS BACK IN 1970?

Cleaning out shoebox after shoebox of canceled checks going back to 1970 brought two surprises to a suburban Virginia woman and her spouse: how cheap – inexpensive compared with now – prices were; and how many local businesses had disappeared in the meantime.

Seeing the dollar amounts inked in below the payees showed how things have changed over more than forty years. Meeting day to day expenses was not easy then, but in retrospect the value of the dollar – the international standard then and still hanging on now – seems better in that past than in the present.

Could that be?

Now and then a visit to the Internet’s inflation calculator brings the feeling that the calculations are not quite right. Take gasoline. Back in the 70s – the very early 1970s – one dollar could buy about five gallons. The Bureau of Labor Statistics website says 20 cents in 1971 would buy what $1.15 buys in 2013. A buck 15 will not buy a half gallon in Fairfax County, Virginia. Maybe in the next county south.

Those old checks showed that a family with five kids back in the early 70s would have a grocery bill of about $15 on a typical visit to Grand Union (which no longer exists, at least there.) Now it’s $75 to $100 or more several times a week to feed fewer people.

Back in Wisconsin in the 50s and 60s prices were pretty much the same. There was some inflation, but it seemed to matter less than in a later period. A family that really can’t afford a new car, not even to mention a house, now could swing both in those benighted times before iPhones and apps for horoscopes or whatever.

Without a crash course in economics, someone who ponders it a bit might think that the prices of things and un-things (services) are out of whack in relation to other things and other un-things. Back when smaller incomes could buy more of what was needed and desired than can current equal incomes adjusted for inflation. At least it feels that way.

Could that possibly be? How can it be when kids spend $100 a month or more to stand around looking down as they work their thumbs across the virtual keys on their smart phones?

Yet, there could be some truth in those inchoate thoughts bouncing around in one’s memory bank.

Flipping through umpteen channels on the flat screen TV (couldn’t do that back in the Midwest of old) found a guy answering questions before a forum at the Cato Institute. It was Lewis Lehrman, investment banker-Lincoln scholar-historian. He was espousing a return to the gold standard, something many an economist and academic laugh out loud at.

Even a somewhat attentive consumer of longer tooth knows that prices began to get out of whack about the time the U.S. of A. dropped the gold standard. Gold was $35 an ounce in 1971 when Nixon stopped the possibility of going to the bank and converting your dollars into gold. Gold got up to something like $1,700 or $1,800 an ounce before dropping down to whatever it is now ($201.70 the inflation calculator would have it).

Back to Lehrman. Without quoting him exactly, he made two points that really hit home and brought back thoughts of those shredded canceled checks. First, he said that between the 1770s until early in the 20^th century, just before WWI, the average Joes could buy and pay nearly the same amount for necessities. The fluctuation was there, but the ups and downs were shallow. Also during that period, money was pegged to gold and silver. Actually, we know, often it was gold and silver coins.

Such a period of affordable pricing for ordinary people could be worked out again, Lehrman asserts. He notes the power was given Congress by Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. It is power to “coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” Fixing the value of the U.S. dollar is not the job of the Federal Reserve Board, he says.

So, anyway, it’s something to think about. Might even preserve the middle class.

NEWSPAPERS MAKE NEWS

Selling the Washington Post confirms the foreshadowing of the demise of daily newspapers as we have known them. Only the day before the owner of the Boston Red Socks bought the Boston Globe.

Jeffrey Bezos, the billionaire who is the sole owner under the new set up, said that the Post may no longer be printed 20 years down the road. As someone who made his billions from the Internet, he should know.

Only waiting will show what he has in mind for the paper, which he will oversee from the “left coast.”

Internet growth reduced newspaper readership. When readership decreased, the advertising cash cow started showing its ribs. News holes shrank, lessening the value of the product, exacerbating the decline. Washington, one would think, might slip the noose because politicians live on news. The sale of the Post seems to put the lie to that notion.

One thing seems true: decreased profitability of newspapering has been detrimental to the fundamental job of a free press in a democratic republic. Our First Amendment recognized the right of a free press to keep tabs on government authorized by the people. Money is needed to pay reporters to have time to pursue leads about misfeasance and malfeasance by governmental officials. Fewer ads mean fewer acts of due diligence on the part of the press.

Charges that partisanship deters the press from protecting the governed are easy to make. But Pulitzers are won more readily chasing evildoers rather than saints.

A healthy press depends upon healthy profits. Only free enterprise can provide a free press; a government press cannot by definition.

A billionaire paying for truthful reporting could be a blessing. And perhaps that’s what Bezos will try. He already is spending money on a clock within a mountain that is supposed to be accurate for 10,000 years. But maybe that is easier to achieve than a vigorous press.

DO YOU HAVE AN EXTRA MILLION WHO CAN SPARE UNCLE SAM?

Watching coming attractions in Washington? The next biggie will be the congressional fight over the national debt.

Since May 17, 2013, the Daily Treasury Statement of the debt has not moved from $16,695,396,000.000, which is a mere $25 million below the legal limit, according to a link on the Drudge Report to CNSNews.

Meanwhile, go to the Web and look at U.S. Debt Clock.org and the clock is still running. The total as this is written is $16.8 trillion. Treasury Secretary Lew said on television recently that the limit had already been passed.

No secret exists that the national debt represents an amount nearly beyond comprehension by folks having even a good-sized middle class income of less than $100,000. But that same Debt Clock, where the numbers grow more with each tick of the clock and go up and up while watching the computer screen, shows even more.

When last viewed for this piece, the clock showed that the national debt approaching $17 trillion amounted to $55,367 for each citizen or $148,025 for each taxpayer. Call up the site now, and those numbers will have grown.

More disturbing are figures at the bottom of the Debt Clock computer page.

Total national assets composed of $8.25 trillion in small business assets, $18 trillion in corporation assets and $74.3 trillion in household assets add up to $100.6 trillion. Statistically, that’s $318,276 per citizen --- not actually, but a figure that helps one get a handle on the size of what the country is worth.

But, those total assets fall short of the federal government’s liabilities: $16.5 trillion for social security, $21.8 trillion for prescription drugs, and $86.7 trillion that total $125 trillion. For each taxpayer, the liability amounts to $1,096,398.

So, the government’s long term liabilities add up to $24.4 trillion more than private assets – the value of what all businesses and individuals own.

From the above figures, only a mathematician could estimate how much the average citizen would have to find to pay his or her share of the long-term debt. But obviously, since only about half of the population pays federal income taxes, even if every person within the boundaries of the United States could be taxed, there just is not enough money to pay for the spending Congress and presidents over recent years have authorized. Sure, taxes come in shapes other than those on incomes, but people and business are not worth enough to pay the enormous amount owed.

One does not have to be a political junkie to know that whatever our politicians come up with in the coming months to boost the country’s debt limit they will fail when it comes to simple arithmetic. The bill or resolution that eventually be signed by the president will be only stopgap.

U.S. debt is so tremendous that words can hardly be coined to describe it. Paying it off becomes even more complex.

Annual budgets need to pay off the debt  gradually. Two problems: The government has not had a budget for several years; when budgets or continuing resolutions are passed, they call for deficits.

Deficits increase the national debt.

Thus, deficits must be turned into actual surpluses before the debt can begin to be cut.

The odds of our politically oriented officials solving the country’s financial conundrum are longer – much longer – than winning Power Ball. But, that lottery is actually won from time to time.  

LIBERALS CONTRADICT HISTORY

Liberal or Progressive disdain for the Founding Fathers of the United States as witnessed by reduced respect for the Constitution would appear to be contradictory.

Our Constitution is a living document and must change with the times, urge the Progressives.

Our Constitution is the fundamental outline for the world’s first and longest lasting democratic-republic that should be interpreted as a guide and changed with trepidation, Conservatives counsel.

But the government of the United States of America grounded on the Constitution after the failure of the Articles of Confederation grew out of the Founding Founders reliance on European writers’ ideas associated with the Enlightenment or the Age of Reason. Historians of various persuasions apparently agree on that to a great extent.

Some of those writer-philosophers were, in no particular order, Thomas Hobbes, Rousseau, John Locke, Montesquieu. Hobbes said government should be patterned on the needs of the governed. Rousseau held the people should influence government. Locke agreed with both of those views. Montesquieu believed governmental powers should be exercised separately.

At the time of the founding of the United States, following revolution, the world was governed by kings, emperors and tyrants. To make government authorized by the governed with the consent of the governed was – and remains – bold, brave, intrepid, forward.

Today’s Conservatives, you might say, wish to retain that then fresh approach to running society by relying on the good sense of the people.

Modern Liberals, on the other hand, believe that the educated elite – the enlightened ones – alone are capable of discerning what is best for the people.

Are not those two encapsulations of philosophies of government opposite of what occurred historically?

PIP,PIP!

So it’s a boy!

Born hours before this is written, the heir to the throne of the British Empire – third in line – was identified as a male upon his birth.

How old fashioned.

How appropriate in these days when early identification of a fetus as boy or girl can be the reason for abortion.

The Brits may be as secular as society can now be, with attendance at Church of England services pretty small, smaller than the dwindling Catholic congregations. But with sonic tests that reveal the sex of a child within the womb it is common in the United States to learn of the sex of an unborn child and even name it; that, or – horribly – deciding to take its life because it does not move the parents’ happiness meter.

Of course, British laws covering succession had been changed to allow either prince or princess to ascend to the throne. So regardless of the royal baby’s sex, it would be welcomed as the successor to the queen, or the current Prince of Wales in any case.

Yet, it seems, William and Kate were willing, as were parents of old, to await the birth to learn whether the child would be the Royal Prince or the Royal Princess.

Pip, pip for them.

WOULD MR. OBAMA REALLY WANT LOWER EMPLOYMENT?

Let’s be fair: The president and Democrats in Congress before the 2010 elections did not intend for the Affordable Care Act to reduce jobs and workers’ incomes.

Appears, however, such  reductions are true.

Aggregate figures may not yet be available, but evidence mounts that small businesses are reducing hours or refraining from new hires to avoid paying for health insurance for employees or fines for not buying coverage.

A columnist online wrote about a restaurant worker who was cut to 30 hours, losing $400 a month, leaving him with $27 to live on after expenses. Others arguing the case against Obamacare offer similar evidence.

So how many people might possibly be affected by this part of the legislation being put off for a year?

A little rudimentary research shows that in 2008 some 6 million firms had payrolls. (But there were 21.7 million with no payrolls, meaning those self-employed or people operating unincorporated businesses.) Those figures come from the U.S. Census Bureau.

The bureau does not keep statistics for businesses with fewer than 50 employees.  For employers of 1-4, 5-9 and 10-19 the total was 21.6 million paid employees. For 20-99 the figure was 20.9 million. Therefore, the 1-49 total might conservatively be estimated at 21.6 plus something less than half of the 20.9. A good guess is about 30 million employees in firms paying up to 50 employees.

Say 10 million bosses decided to cut hours to 30 a week and our example for lost wages is reasonable on average, the economy would lose some $4 billion a month. Total: $48 billion a year.

That’s pretty rough as estimates go, yet reasonable.

Unreasonable would be an assumption that the administration and Congress wished the economy to take a hit from mandating that uninsured Americans be covered for health expenses through insurance. What is reasonable is some thought given to fixing the problem.

Interestingly, the Teamsters have asked Democratic leaders to do something about Obamacare, claiming the law will create an incentive to keep work weeks below 30 hours when the middle class is founded on the 40-hour work week. Also, the union wants relief for non­-profit health plans established under Teamster contracts with employers.

THAT WHICH CANNOT BE MEASURED CAN BE WORTHWHILE

THAT WHICH CANNOT BE MEASURED CAN BE WORTHWHILE

American culture is all about stuff.

Call us materialistic and you’d be right.

Most people living in the U.S. of A. spend a lot of time, not to mention money, on things, on fun, on goodies. Life is about stuff that can be measured, whether in length, weight, volume, temperature, or time. If those things are marked with a swoosh or some other fashionable trademark, so much the better. Some young guys have been known to be slaughtered for their Air Jordans. Lovely young matrons measure their success by the Vuitton bags they sling over their shoulders. Guys and dolls must wear the latest jeans, even if that means buying ones with worn knees.

Agree or disagree, many would have other examples.

Unfortunately, whether the latest cellphone, pad or appliance with ear-plugs or vintage wine or car is the object to be coveted, it may not be made in America by Americans. But that is another lament.

There is a flip-side to culture, any culture. That is about reality that cannot be measured. A question of what cannot be measured when posed to a search engine brought some interesting yet somehow materialistic answers: love, laughing with friends, walking the dog, helping others. Good, yes, but not ethereal, not spiritual, except for love. And love can be several things, thus different words in other languages normally unused in English.

These non-material things are essential. Politicians rarely deal with them. Just ordinary folks appreciate them. Naming them in bunches isn’t done very often, save perhaps by religious people. Leaving religion aside – for the time being – among those valued by most people might be these, in no particular order or worthiness.

Courage, wisdom, courtesy, humor, mathematics,philosophy, insight, generosity, patriotism, agility, health.

Such a list could go on and on. So might the listing of their opposites, also non-material: Desirable versus undesirable. Good versus bad. Virtue versus evil.

Instances of meaningful opposing ideas -- tangible-intangible, concrete-abstract, material-spiritual – are numberless. We run across them every day. Some have major consequences. A recent example.

A Supreme Court justice recently made an abstract judgment that could change the American culture in ways that now can only be guessed. He decided, along with four others concurring, that the Congress of the United States in 1996 displayed animus and bigotry in confirming by law an institution accepted in time beyond memory, namely marriage between one man and one woman.

Tolerance is another immeasurable. It works both ways. It means respect for other’s beliefs. Respect and belief, two more abstractions. So it must be difficult to tolerate something that is bad or has no long-lasting benefits for society, although the doer can be tolerated. But, something that is good ordinarily is not the subject of tolerance. Animus and bigotry are abstracts that more often than not are aimed at things that are unacceptable to society. But, obviously, in the Supreme Court’s opinion even something for eons considered good can be wiped from federal law because its supporters can considered something worse than intolerant.

Things that cannot be measured are important. Most important. Fundamentally important.

Morality is one of those fundamentals of human relations.

So many “pleasures” (another intangible) of this life can be moral and, when misused, immoral. Correct, use and misuse involve the immeasurable. Morality springs from religion, which also is in its essence spiritual and which cannot be measured. God and morality go together.

God cannot be measured, but he made all that can and cannot be measured. He is wise. He is wisdom.