I Am A Bostonian

I am a Bostonian. I don't mean that just in a general "today we're all Bostonians" way - not "Ich bin ein Bostonian" - but in a born there, in my blood, key to who I am way.

No matter how long I live elsewhere, no matter how Californian I may also be, no matter if I never step foot on Massachusetts soil again, I will always be a Bostonian.

Growing up, going to watch the Boston marathon was an annual tradition. We had our usual spot, along "heartbreak hill," where the marathon wound its way up Commonwealth Ave through Newton.

Those memories come flooding back today with news of a probable terrorist attack killing at least two and injuring dozens more at the marathon's finish line.

There is now only speculation as to who and why this happened. I have my own theories, based on my own ideas of what the greatest threats are to America today. But I'll keep them to myself until actual facts are available.

Right now, all I have to say is, "I am a Bostonian." Hopefully we all are.

Ear Worms & Guilty Pleasures

It started a couple of weeks ago - March 21st to be exact - with the Guilty Pleasures episode of Glee. Yes, I sometimes watch Glee, and I suppose that is a bit of a guilty pleasure, but this post is not about Glee. I watch it, I admit it, get over it.

Anyway, the theme of the episode was that each kid would perform a song from an artist they were embarrassed to enjoy; their guilty pleasure. Blaine (Darren Criss)'s choice was to perform Phil Collins' Against All Odds. It was a decent cover, and the rare live performance rather than lip-synched production number. And, I had to agree with young Blaine, it's about time to get over being sick of how overplayed Phil Collins became, he still wrote some damn good songs and deserves our respect.

Yes, he created a lot of meaningless pop songs that all blended together into one horn-infused mess after a while. But he also maintained Genesis following the departure of Peter Gabriel, and while it wasn't the same, they made records worthy of the Genesis name (Mama and Home by the Sea from 1983's self-titled Genesis LP immediately spring to mind). Beyond the silly pop songs, his solo hits also included the undeniably classic In the Air Tonight.

Listening to Blaine sing Against All Odds, I tried to remember if I appreciated how great a song it was at the time. It may have been just after the saturation point had been reached and Phil was no longer cool. And, as a movie theme, I may not have taken the song as seriously as I should have. But, really, I don't fully remember.

What I do recall is a time about a year or two before, on December 19, 1982, when Phil embarked on his first solo tour of the USA, and I attended the show at Perkins Palace in Pasadena. His first solo LP, Face Value, had done well (featuring In The Air Tonight), and his second LP, Hello, I Must Be Going!, had just been released a few weeks earlier. I was working at the Music Plus record store on Vine Street, in Hollywood, and got the tickets only hours before the show from the Atlantic Records rep.

Two specific things I remember about that show. First, was standing in line before the show directly behind Tony Dow. Second was the excitement at the opening drum beat of I Don't Care Anymore. It was a great show that was captured on video and for radio broadcast on the King Biscuit Flower Hour.

So, anyway, yes, watching Glee a couple of weeks ago, I had to admit that, yes, Phil rocks, and that Against All Odds was, and still is, a brilliant song. But then, the next morning, I had it stuck in my head. Checking my email in the morning, "How can I just let you walk away, just let you leave without a trace?" Standing in the shower, "Oh, so take a look at me now-ow..."

And it continued the next day, and the next, and the next. It was 1985 all over - I'd been Phil Collinized again! Yesterday I thought it was finally gone, but it's back this morning.

This has to be one of the longest-lasting ear worms I've ever experienced. And that's the thing about Phil Collins' songs; they are infectious. The good ones along with the bad ones. Whether you like them or not, you cannot get them out of your head. "And there's nothing left here to remind me, just the memory of your face," and the endless loop of this song in my brain.

I'm just thankful now that Blaine did not choose Sussudio.

Murder and Mayhem in Portland

One of my oldest and best friends, JD Chandler, has just published his latest book, Murder & Mayhem in Portland, Oregon (History Press 2013), a true crime history book chronicling 100 years of local murders. His theory is that one can learn about a region's social, political, and cultural history by making a study of its murders, and after reading the book, I believe he's right.

You can read my full review over on GoodReads, but on this blog I just wanted to put in a more personal plug. I've known JD since about 1974 or '75, and we were creative partners back in our Super-8 movie-making days.

Someday I'll get around to converting some of those to digital, but for now you'll have to settle for our most recent collaboration, a video I shot with JD in the summer of 2011 when he took Leslie and I around some of the sites of Portland's more grizzly murders (though not the same ones detailed in the new book):



Anyway, if you're interested in old west history, murder, political corruption, perversion, or Portland, you may want to check out Murder & Mayhem in Portland, Oregon.

• My review on GoodReads
• Murder & Mayhem in Portland, OR (History Press)
• Murder & Mayhem in Portland, OR (Amazon)
• JD's blogs: Slabtown Chronicle --- Weird Portland

Irwin B. Goldstein, 1929-2012, R.I.P.

Last Friday night, at about 1:15 AM, my father, Irwin, suffered a major heart attack. My brother, Miles, had arrived for a visit with his wife and young daughter just a few hours earlier and was able to perform CPR till the paramedics came.

They were able to revive him and transport him to the hospital, but he was in a coma from that point on. 

Leslie and I were called at around 2:40 AM, washed up, threw a bag of clothes together, and drove all night, arriving at the hospital before 9 AM Saturday morning.

Once all the family was gathered at his bedside and had said our final goodbyes, ventilation and all support, other than a morphine drip for comfort, were removed at approximately 11:30 AM.

 

We were told that death would not come immediately. Maybe it would be a few minutes, maybe a few hours. As he hung on, that became "twelve hours, tops." Then, "by early Sunday morning." Despite all odds and expectations he held on another twenty-eight hours with family by his side. 

 

At 3:12 PM on Sunday, December 9, 2012, our father opened his eyes one last time and died looking into the eyes of our mother, his beloved Judi.

 

(What follows is a rough transcript of what I said Tuesday, in eulogy, at my father's funeral:)

 

In trying to decide what story to share with you all today, I wanted to share something that wasn't just personal, but a story that really explains who my father was; something to demonstrate his character. And what came to mind wasn't an early childhood memory, but something from just a couple of months ago.

 

As I'm sure you all know, Dad had been suffering from Alzheimer's for several years. Alzheimer's is heartless and relentless and was slowly taking him away from us.

 

It took away memories and details. It took away being able to have in-depth conversations and ask for advice. But it never took away the essence of who he was.

 

He was still overwhelmingly positive, happy, and loving life and his family. He was always pleased to see people he recognized and give a warm hello.

 

So the story:

 

The last time we went out to dinner was to a local place where my parents know the chef/owner and the chef's mother, Barbara, who is the hostess.

 

About a hundred times during the meal, Barbara would walk by our table to seat another group, and each time she'd pass, Dad would smile at her and say, "Hi! How are you doing?" to her like greeting a long lost friend. It was repetitive; but it was sincere. And she responded kindly each time because she knew he was sincere.

 

Some who only saw him at work might just say he was a good shmoozer, but he genuinely loved people, and everybody he met loved him.

 

At home he was still concerned for everybody else's comfort and happiness above his own, and making sure he was taking care of his family and any guests. "Can I get you something?" "Are you okay?" "Do you need anything?" ... Over and over again.

 

It's true, he wasn't the same as he was before Alzheimer's. But he was still Irwin. We may have already spent a couple of years mourning the decline, mourning the inevitable, and missing the details, but HE was still very much there, himself, with us, and taking care of us, till the very last.

 

... Okay... One personal childhood memory... One I don't even think my brothers know. A secret story...

 

Most of you know that Dad loved to play golf, and if you knew him long enough, that he played hockey as a kid. But we were not huge sports fans in our family. Still, when I was growing up, one of my favorite tv shows was ABCs Wide World of Sports.

 

I enjoyed Jim McCay, but more important was the ritual of how we watched it. Dad would lie down on the couch and I would lie down beside him, with his arm around me, enjoying the comforting aromas of Old Spice and Budweiser.

 

I have no idea where the rest of the family was on Saturday afternoons, but for me, "The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat" meant I would have ninety minutes alone with my Daddy.

 

Goodbye, Daddy. I love you.

Marginal Tax Rates 101

With all the current hysterical coverage of the impending "Fiscal Cliff" - or "Obama Tax Storm," depending on who you're listening to - and seeing what certain of my friends and associates are saying or posting online about it, it is unbearably clear that most Americans haven't the faintest idea of how marginal tax rates work.

It's not their fault. Politicians and the media have been talking down to us and "simplifying" the discussion for so long, that they'd have you believe things that simply are not true. For example, you may accept as "fact" that President Obama and Congressional Democrats want to raise the tax rate on those who earn more than $250,000 from 35% to 39.6%.

Using that statement and some basic arithmetic, you would assume that a family with $251,000 in income would see their taxes rise from $87,850 (35% of $251,000) to $99,396 (39.6% of $251,000) - a total tax increase of $11,546. You would also be wrong.

The statement "President Obama and Congressional Democrats want to raise the tax rate on those who earn more than $250,000 from 35% to 39.6%" contains three major "simplifications" that lead to these sloppy (and expensive) calcluations:

1. Uses "earnings" (implying total gross salary) instead of "taxable income" (after all deductions, adjustments, and exemptions).
2. Implies that you pay a single rate on all your earnings, instead of explaining how marginal rates apply.
3. Uses a $250,000 figure that is two decades out of date. That figure for the 2012 tax year is actually $388,350.

Let's take these one at a time...

Earnings versus Taxable Income: Nobody, but Nobody, pays income tax on 100% of their income. Each version of the IRS form 1040, from the one-page EZ to the more complicated versions with dozens of attached schedules and sub-forms allows you to reduce the amount of income on which you owe taxes. Frankly, the more complicated a form you use, the more you are reducing your tax liability.

But even a single guy, just starting out, with no dependents, educational expenses, mortgage, or anything else to deduct, just using little old form 1040EZ, will take a standard deduction of $5,950 for 2012. That means, if he earns $30,000, he'll only pay taxes on $24,050. That tax will come out to $3,173, or about 10.5% of his gross income, or 13.2% of his taxable income, even though he's in the 15% tax bracket.

What's that? You don't get how somebody in the 15% tax bracket only pays 10.5% in taxes? Let's move on to that second "simplification" ...

Marginal Rates apply to earnings above the margin: When politicians talk about raising the rate on "incomes above $250,000" (really: taxable income above $388,350), they only mean the increment, or margin, above that figure. It doesn't change the taxes paid on the first "$250,000" you earn ($388,350 taxable).

To explain, we'll build a more complicated example than our single guy above. Let's assume a couple with a nice home, two kids, and combined total salary income of $450,000. They're going to file jointly, so they'll look at Tax Rate Schedule Y-1. Their taxes will be:

• 10% on taxable income from $0 to $17,400, +
• 15% on income over $17,400 to $70,700, +
• 25% on income over $70,700 to $142,700, +
• 28% on income over $142,700 to $217,450, +
• 33% on income over $217,450 to $388,350, +
• 35% on taxable income over $388,350.

But, before they figure out their taxes, they'll itemize their deductions to reduce their gross actual income and find their net taxable income:

• Mortgage Interest: $16,500
• Two Kids ($3,800 each): $7,600
• Charitable Giving (1.5% of their income): $6,750
• Business Expenses: $7,500
• Miscellaneous: $3,500
• Total Deductions: $41,850

(This is a real simple example with modest deductions - I didn't include any medical expenses, educational expenses, deposits to retirement accounts, etc. - These are just a few of the ways to reduce your tax liability.)

So, using Schedule Y-1 above, here's what their federal income taxes will break down to:
-->

	Earnings	Tax
Deductions	$41,850	$0
10%	$17,400	$1,740
15%	$53,300	$7,995
25%	$72,000	$18,000
28%	$74,750	$20,930
33%	$170,900	$56,397
35%	$19,800	$6,930
Totals:	$450,000	$111,992

Their bottom line is $111,992, or 24.9% of their total income of $450,000 ... even though they're in the top 35% bracket.

Using the media/political simplification of all things numerical, we would have thought they were paying $157,500 in taxes (35% of $450,000). We would also assume that the Democrats' proposal to let the top rate return to 39.6% would increase their taxes by $20,700 to $178,200 (39.6% of $450,000).

But, now that you know how real math works, you know that raising the top marginal rate on this well-to-do family will bring their total federal income tax burden to $112,903. An increase of only $911 (0.2% of their total income) - quite a bit less than the $20,700 certain politicians and journalists would suggest. Because, now you understand, the rate change from 35 to 39.6% only applies above the margin, to that last $19,800 of their taxable income.

So, where's  $250,000 in all this? When President Clinton's tax increases created the 39.6% rate twenty years ago, it was for taxable income over that figure. And, because politicians and journalists are lazy, they've just continued referring to that number ever since (if you don't like "lazy" please come up with a better explanation that doesn't include "lie"). But the cut-off point for each of the tax brackets actually adjusts each year for inflation.

By 2003, when the Bush tax cuts were going into effect, "$250,000" was $311,950, but we kept saying "$250,000" out of habit. During the 2010 "Fiscal Cliff" discussions, "$250,000" was $373,650. Today, it's $388,350. Is that really so hard for reporters and politicians to understand? Never mind...

But aren't we Taxed Enough Already? The Tea Partiers are both wrong and right on this. Regarding federal income tax rates they are completely wrong. Current federal income tax rates are at their lowest point in over 60 years. And, yes, because the base line for each marginal rate has gone up at least as fast as inflation (why $250,000 is now $388,350), that means this year's tax burden is less than last year's.

But, in part because federal income taxes have been held at historically low levels for a decade, other taxes and fees have gone up. States, not getting as much as they used to from the feds, may have increased their income, property, or sales taxes, as well as made cuts. Counties and cities, not getting what they used to from the states, may have raised local sales taxes or passed "special assessments" added on to property tax bills, and/or made cuts in services. Across the board, fees for everything from parking to getting married etc., may have increased to make up for shortfalls from another area.

Because sales taxes, use fees, etc., are not progressive, like the federal income tax (multi-tiered, the rich pay a higher rate), the burden of these taxes falls more on lower and middle income earners. So, depending on where you live, what you earn, and a few other factors, you may indeed feel as if you're paying more in taxes over-all, even with a smaller annual bill from the IRS.

Bottom Line: You probably know where I stand on this. I don't believe it's asking too much of a family that earns nearly half-a-million dollars annually to kick in another grand in taxes when the country faces a fiscal crisis. To insist on holding even this top rate down will only result in more cuts in services and/or increased taxes and fees elsewhere down the line.

But regardless of whether or not you agree with me on the politics, can we all at least agree to use real numbers and real math?

For more fun with tax brackets, this page on moneychimp.com has an easy, interactive tax calculator that allows you to see how all of this works and check your tax rates across time and space.

A Few Election Stats

One more post-election wrap-up here, now that Florida is officially in the blue column. This gives the President re-election with 332 electoral votes to Romney's 206. The popular vote also went to the President with 62.1 million votes (51%) to Romney's 58.8 million (48%), a 3.4 million vote advantage.

I'd say this is a clear mandate, but is this a landslide? Let's look at how the Republican pundits described what they would consider a "landslide" before the election:

• George Will predicts "321-217 Romney landslide"
• Glenn Beck, "landslide for Romney, electoral college 300+ R"
• Michael Barone predicts "Romney trounces Obama in electoral college 315-223"
• Larry Kudlow "predicting a 330 vote electoral landslide" (for Romney)
• And let's not even get started on Karl Rove...

So, clearly the Republican pundits agree that 332 electoral college votes is a "landslide" - but I'll stick with clear mandate. Or was it?

When all the dust is settled, there will still be 40% of eligible voters (about 78 million) who chose not to participate last Tuesday. And, that figure includes about 13 million voters who participated in 2008, but couldn't be bothered with it again only four years later. More analysis will need to be done to determine how much of that drop-off in voting was due to voters displaced by Hurricane Sandy, and how much due to apathy, but I'm betting on apathy to beat Sandy in a landslide.

You know from my last post that I have some ideas for fighting voter apathy. I'll have some more to say about that later. But for now, here's an interesting info-graphic about who did (and didn't) vote this year (also shows how much more effective the Obama campaign was at using social media).

The Democracy Pledge

Tuesday evening's election result was a great success for the future of our country. No, I'm not talking about the re-election of President Barack Obama (although I am quite happy about that). No, I'm today I'm talking about the election of Angus S. King, Jr. as the new U.S. Senator from the great state of Maine. King will join Bernie Sanders of neighboring Vermont as one half of the Independent population of the U.S. Senate. As King, the former two-term independent Governor of Maine, said on his website:

... Angus promised Maine people that the only consideration he would take when casting his vote would be the interests of Maine and the country, not a political party's agenda. In electing [him] ... voters rejected the bitter partisanship that has brought our political process to a standstill, and embraced a new Independent direction. 

Yes, despite my campaigning for Barack Obama's re-election, I am still an independent at heart and by registration. One of my core beliefs is that our country is at its best when the largest number of citizens possible participate in our democracy. As a left-of-center independent, I thoroughly reject the false dichotomy that all Americans can be put into two neat divisions of Republicans or Democrats. I also view the negative influence of big money on elections as one of the main reasons for voter apathy.

Put together, those beliefs make a simple formula:

More Choices - Corrupt Money = Higher Voter Turnout and a Working Democracy

So, in order to achieve this, I propose a "Democracy Pledge." Candidates of all parties ("major" and "third") are encouraged to take the Pledge by promising to champion at least three of the following reforms. Voters are encouraged to support those candidates who have taken the Pledge, and to promote the Democracy Pledge concept.

The Democracy Pledge Platform consists of the following:

1. Repeal Citizens United; Pass a Constitutional amendment stating that only people are people, not corporations! - (See Move to Amend)
2. Reign in Super PACs; Make candidates responsible for message and spending of independent groups acting on their behalf. Limit contributions to both candidates and PACs at all levels.
3. End the Electoral College; The Electoral College was a compromise to balance the power of slave states and free states. We need to either end or vastly reform the electoral system to put more emphasis on the popular vote.
4. IRV (Instant Run-Off Voting) or Preference Voting; Makes every vote count and allows for more points-of-view in the electoral process.
5. Early Voting in All States; A minimum of two weeks, including at least one full weekend.
6. Change Election Day; Tuesday made sense in the 1840s, but now it is an inconvenience for the majority of working Americans. Either move election day to a weekend, or make Election Day a holiday.
7. No Straight Ballot Voting; Require voters to choose a candidate in each race, rather than pull a "straight ballot" lever.
8. Fair Debates; Change the Bi-Partisan Commission on Presidential Debates to a Non-Partisan Commission. Any party or candidate that has achieved ballot status in enough states to reach 270 electoral votes must be included. Encourage those states where debates take place between statewide office holders (i.e.: Governor or Senator) to enact similar open debate provisions. - (See Open Debates)
9. Voter ID; Identification requirements that are onerous or require any expenditure on the part of the voter are an impediment to participation and potentially un-Constitutional. Any ID requirements that are enacted must be minimal, sensitive to the concerns of all, and with any financial burden falling upon the state making such a requirement.

It is not my point here to promote any one candidate or any one third party or ideology; it is to promote democracy. It is also not my point to automatically oppose major party candidates. To get any reforms passed will require allies across the spectrum who believe in democracy and participation. If we can get any number of these reforms enacted, we can broaden political discussion, minimize the influence of money, and increase voter participation.

"In reality, there is no such thing as not voting: you either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and tacitly doubling the value of some diehard's vote." - David Foster Wallace

"Some men change their party for the sake of their principles; others their principles for the sake of their party." - Winston Churchill

"Democracy is not something you believe in or a place to hang your hat, but it's something you do. You participate. If you stop doing it, democracy crumbles." - Abbie Hoffman

"Just say 'No' to the two party system." - Me