Here is a link to the Dave Ramsey rant that, in turn, spurred my own latest projectile logorrhea. Dave’s quotes are in green. Mine are in blue, as is fitting my general demeanor these days (thank God it's an election year)…

I have seen several elitist people on the talking-head channels make the statement lately that people making over $250,000 per year have a “moral imperative” to pay more in taxes to take care of the country’s problems. This is not only infuriating—it is economically, spiritually, and morally crazy!

Hmmm… I can only conclude from the statement above that Dave interprets Luke 12:48 (“From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked”) – not to mention more than 300 other verses re: what our attitudes toward the poor should be – differently than I do. So, finessing the whole spiritual argument, let’s take a look at Dave’s other two rant points:

Economics:

Dave may be a financial expert, but he’s no economist. First off, (interpreting what I read as a student and instructor of economics and certainly not trying to pass myself off as an expert) professional economists, like so many of us, are divided on the issue of taxation. The general consensus is that taxes should be used to cover public goods, like national defense. Whether or not governments should use taxes to redistribute wealth from “the rich” to support “the poor” is controversial, but practiced by most democracies. For Dave to make the blanket-statement claim that this practice is economically “stupid” is, well, stupid. In a sense, economics can only tell us how efficient any given system of wealth redistribution will be. Whether or not we should redistribute wealth lies in the realm of moral judgment, not economics.

Morality:

Speaking of moral judgment, a flat tax impacts poor people far more heavily than rich people (remember the story of the Widow’s mite). Who hurts worse – someone struggling to get by on $20K a year and having to pay $2K in taxes under a simple, say, 10% flat rate, or Dave’s example person bringing in more than ten times this amount and paying $25K in taxes? Most “moral” arguments actually are for some sort of progressive or proportional sliding tax scale – with the accompanying controversies, for the devil is always in the details, and those making $250K or more a year are far better represented in Congress than those making $20K per year.

We are in a dangerous place in our country today. A segment of our population has decided that it is the government’s job to provide all of their protection, provision, and prosperity.

Is Dave really equating some proportional or progressive tax on someone who makes over $250K a year with providing “all of their [this unnamed segment’s] protection, provision, and prosperity?” Wow, talk about hyperbole. Just where does this proverbial segment get the political clout to pull this off? I realize the gulf between liberals and conservatives is large, but if Dave is claiming that liberals (for I assume this is the unnamed “segment”) want the government to provide all of their protection, provision, and prosperity, he’s been listening to the hammer news too much, and now the whole world looks like a nail to him.

Government bashing, like liberal-bashing, is the “in thing” among conservatives, but if you are willing to read some compelling arguments in favor of government visit Government Is Good, a web project of Douglas J. Amy, Professor of Politics at Mount Holyoke College.

Don’t forget, if it was not for government, we wouldn’t have national defense, court systems, transportation systems, energy systems, pollution control systems, etc. that allow economies to function and grow in the first place.

And how much of each tax dollar actually is redistributed, and to whom? A review at, say, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities should be eye-opening. What does Dave want to cut? National “Defense?” If only. Social Security? More power to him there. I fear past politicians’ promises are going to haunt us for a long time. Medicare, “which provides health coverage to more than 40 million people who are over the age of 65 or have disabilities”? Maybe not such a good idea. Or is Dave talking about the 9 cents out of every dollar that “provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship”? If so, that sounds rather elitist of him…

Disclaimer: The following rant contains personal expressions that should not be construed as containing facts or even beliefs. It's just how I feel about Hummers, and by Hummers I mean the oversized, overweight, under-performing status-symbol SUVs that so many Americans love to drive. Oh, and the fact that as I drive around in my little Miata if one of these ridiculous monstrosities ever runs a red light or veers into my lane (probably as its owner yaps merrily on a cell phone) I probably won't be around to deliver any more rants like this one. I'm sure some good people drive Hummers. I simply wish very strongly that they would choose not to do so. Here are some incentives:

• Nothing says "Conspicuous Consumption" like a Hummer
• Nothing says "Screw gas prices, I'm willing to risk lives in wars and foreign oil dependence for a status symbol!" like a Hummer
  
• Nothing says "You cannot serve God and Mammon. Guess my choice!" like a Hummer
• Nothing says "I have no concept of ecological carrying capacity or planetary stewardship" like a Hummer
• Nothing says "I wish to appear so rich that I can afford to throw money away every time I fill up" like a Hummer
• Nothing says "I vote Republican and support the Party's big-money friends in Big Oil" like a Hummer

Got a Hummer rant? Keep 'em coming!

Here it is (ta da!), my first post to my "Projectile Logorrhea" blog. Why Projectile Logorrhea? Because, try as I may to let no non-edifying words come from my mouth, I have to vent (and not just in traffic). So let the catharsis begin...

Rant #1: Scientific illiteracy, especially as it applies (and is applied by) politicians and the voters who elect them. We are a nation of voters who can't remember basic 6th grade science, let alone comprehend Economics 101 or what a few degrees of global warming -- er, excuse me, climate change -- really mean. People, get a clue!!! We aren't turning up the thermostat of our planet a few degrees. We are tampering with the life support system of Spaceship Earth, and for those of you who are religious (as I am) this is not good stewardship of the planet for which I believe we have been entrusted.

Whether or not you believe in evolution, the projected loss of as much as 40% of land species is not a "minor deal" in the grand scheme of things. (The first rule of intelligent tinkering: Save all the parts.)

Of course, there are the anti-global-warming conspiracy theorists who love to proclaim that global warming is a grand scheme to spread socialism or snag research dollars. These ideologically-blinded folk may be dismissed outright. But for those attempting to make"economic" arguments against reducing carbon emissions, these folk have forgotten (or never bothered to learn) the basic science of carrying capacity in their arguments: The human race (and its various economies, impressive as their accomplishments may be) have overshot sustainable use of the resources of this planet, and the laws of biology and physics will bring us back into check, no matter what our ideological views of the subject matter.

Yeah, yeah, I can hear the Malthus barbs already waiting on the tongues of those college-educated economists who lack environmental science training. You see, as a natural scientist who has studied economics, I understand the efficient allocation of scarce resources that can (and has) occurred under private "ownership" of capital and "free-market" prices. However, as an interdisciplinary natural and social scientist, a student of game theories and commons tragedies, I also understand that Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is not the hand of God. Substitution and privatization are not remedies for ecological overshoot. I fear that we are about to receive a lesson in basic biology and physics that will shock the clueless economists and idealogues who taut "business as usual." But, even as vindictive as I feel right now, I pray I am wrong.