Mortgage Deduction vs. Capital Gains Tax

I am in favor of passing Bowles-Simpson, and I would defer to them how to revise tthe tax system, but the tax system is badly out of whack and needs revising quickly and thoroughly.  If people don't respect the tax code, if they perceive it as unfair, they won't pay.  Everybody will be a tax cheat, as they are in many southern European countries, like Greece and Italy.  That said, I wonder if it would be better to eliminate the mortgage deduction, which affects a broad portion or the population, or the capital gains tax rate, which lowers taxes mainly for the rich.

In 2006, the mortgage interest deduction cost the US $76 billion.  Although it affects a broad population, most of the benefit went to the moderately or conspicuously rich.  Half of the benefit went to 12% of the taxpayers, those making more than $100,000 per year.  If it was eliminated, house prices would fall probably 10-15%.  This article says it promoted the then-housing bubble.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/magazine/305deduction.1.htm

Bowles-Simpson proposed replacing the current deduction with a 12% tax credit (so you don't have to itemize to benefit, since usually only the wealthy itemize).  A 15% credit proposed by a GW Bush panel would have produced $388 billion from 2013 to 2019, i.e., about $65 billion/year additional revenue.  

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-17/a-taxing-debate-the-mortgage-interest-deduction.html

A CBO analysis points out that the capital gains tax includes a tax on any change in value due to inflation, which is not real income, but is similar to any tax on interest which does not account for inflation.  On the other hand, capital gains tax is not imposed until the item is sold, which may delay taxes for years.  Capital gains over time have produced between 4-7% of revenues for individuals, although they were over 10% for the latter half of the 1990s.  Changes in tax rates affect behavior, but usually for a short time, a few years.  If capital gains taxes are going up, people will sell assets sooner to be taxed at the lower rate, but once they are sold, the spike in selling is over.  In general it is hard to predict capital gains revenues.  

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/14077

The conservative Heritage Foundation position is that raising capital gains will stifle the economy.  It implies that rich entrepreneurs will not work if they have to pay the same taxes as plumbers or engineers.  They just won't get out of bed in the morning.

A Wall Street Journal article has some specific numbers for capital gains tax receipts in fairly recent years.  In 2003, receipts were $51.3 billion.  In 2007 they were $137.1 billion.  A rough estimate is that if these rich people (and they are almost all rich) paid at the regular tax level (35%) rather than the current capital gains level (15%) the receipts would roughly double, i.e., to $100 billion in 2003 and $250 billion in 2007.  This is very rough, because rich people hold some assets for a long time, and only sell them when the capital gains tax is relatively low.  If there were no special capital gains tax, sales of assets would smooth out; with they special, lower tax they tend to bunch up either just before the rate goes up, or just after it comes down.  But it seems like you could estimate that the lower capital gains rate cost the US treasury about $100 billion per year during the first decade of the 2000s, or about $1 trillion over the last 10 years.  

Means Testing Social Security

I am interested in the extent to which Social Security is reduced by means testing, since I am a retired US government employee who also qualifies for Social Security because of years spent working in the private sector.  Because of my government retirement, my Social Security is severely reduced, by something like 2/3 or 3/4.  I get less than $50 per month, which every month when I get it seems more like a joke or an insult than social "security."  I will have to live a long time just to get back the money I have paid into Social Security, much less any "government money."

So, what about older rich people like Warren Buffett or T. Boone Pickens?  Do they face limits on the Social Security they can collect?  The Arizona Republic says Buffett collects $32,000 per year, or about $2,600 more per month than I do.  I presume the government has determined that he need the "security" more than I do.  Rep. Ron Paul admitted on Morning Joe that he gets Social Security, although he did not say how much he gets; I think he probably gets more than I do.  In 2007 Sen. John McCain reported that he collected $23,160 in Social Security, or about $1,900 per month more than I do.  It is harder to find out what Boone Pickens collects from Social Security, but this article says he and fellow Texan Ross Perot do collect it.

The main means test that rich people face now seems to be that they have to pay income tax on their Social Security.  Payments are also reduced if you continue to work after you start collecting Social Security, but the limits are reduced as you get older.  So, there are probably no limits on Buffett or Pickens, who are both over 80.

One article in the Huffington Post makes the argument that instead of means testing Social Security payments, the government should remove the limit on the amount of income that is subject to the payroll tax for Social Security, currently $110,100.  Since the payroll tax rate is almost as high as the capital gains tax that most rich people pay on their income, eliminating the limit would substantially increase the income of the Social Security trust fund and do a lot to make Social Security self-sustaining.

For me personally, however, the lesson is that as a retired US government employee, I am subject to a much stricted means test than the richest people in America.  Once again the 1% gets welfare paid by the 99%.

Bin Laden and Drones

I am not entirely happy with the way the Obama administration has handled the bin Laden killing and the frequent drone killings.  I think it was okay to kill bin Laden, but it would have been better to capture him and try him, in the US or in some international court.  If he had resisted arrest, the Seals could certainly have killed him.  I think he was killed because the US did not know what to do with him legally.  The cowardly Republicans are scared to death of bringing any terrorists in the continental US, although the chance of their escaping and harming anyone is practically nil.  The only way they could get out is if they were found not guilty of terrorism, and in that case there is no justification for holding them.

I do not like the idea of executing terrorists by drone attack.  I think it should be used very sparingly, only when there is evidence of a genuine, immediate threat to the US, and the US has to act to save lives.  On the other hand, I do not want to risk the lives of American troops unnecessarily.  The drone attacks certainly save the lives of some American troops.  But we are fighting to preserve American values of justice, honor, and the rule of law.  Destroying these values also has a significant cost.  Presumably we would not kill people willy-nilly, just because they looked suspicious.  So, somewhere there is a trade-off between saving the lives of American troops and destroying American values.  I believe Obama has erred on the side of destroying American values in order to save troops lives.

Supreme Court Coup

Americans and Egyptians have been upset at what they call a coup by the Egyptian Supreme Court in ruling on presidential candidates, etc.  They forget that we had our own coup in the US by our Supreme Court in deciding Bush v. Gore, and appointing George W. Bush President of the US regardless of what the actual vote was in Florida. The US survived this coup, although poorly, since Bush was one of the worst Presidents in American history.  Egypt may survive its little coup, but it is much more unstable than the US was.  The big issue is Islamic fundamentalism, which has been given a huge boost by America's ill-advised war in Iraq, which hugely strengthened the hand of Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East.

Fed Still Alone

Today's announcement by the Fed that it will continue the "twist" to lower long term interest rates, since it can't reduce short term interest rates below zero, shows how isolated the Fed is because the Congress can't or won't do anything.  We still have no fiscal policy, only a monetary policy.  Monetary policy can't do everything.  The Republicans complain that the Fed should not have an employment mandate in its duties, but Congress is doing nothing about unemployment.

The Republicans complain that the US looks like Greece in terms of incurring too much debt, and they have a point, but the US also looks like Greece because it has a dysfunctional government, in that our Parliament, Congress, does nothing.

One of the main reasons for a do-nothing Congress has been the introduction of the requirement of a 60% majority to pass any legislation, rather than 51%.  I don't think the founders of the United States anticipated this outcome, although when talking about the Supreme Court, the Republicans always say we should adhere to what the founders were thinking in the 1700s.  Until recently, the 60 vote requirement for cloture was only used for very important legislation where there was an actual filibuster.  The Democrats are partly to blame for not forcing the Republicans to conduct an actual filibuster speaking for hours like Jimmy Steward in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," not just saying they are conducting a virtual filibuster.

I don't think the Fed should take actions to prop up the stock market unless there is a crisis.  I guess there could be debate about whether we are currently in a crisis, but I don't think we are.  Bernanke could let the Dow drop at least 1,000 points before acting as if there were a crisis.  There is a crisis in Europe, but to some extent that is a good thing for US markets.  The Fed should work with the IMF and its European counterparts to assure liquidity, minimize bank failures, etc., but that doesn't necessarily include propping up the stock market.

Iraq and Iran

Arianna Huffington is right in her blog about the Iraq-Iran partnership made in America. The US war in Iraq vastly strengthened Iran's role in the Middle East.  The strengthened Iran already has consequences in today's Middle East because of its support for Syria's President Assad in addition to other trouble-making groups such as Hezbollah.  

Polish Death Camps

Poland has objected to Obama's reference to a "Polish death camp" while honoring a Pole who helped make the world aware of the Holocaust taking place in Nazi death camps in Poland.  The Polish objection shows their sensitivity on this issue, but certainly what Obama meant was that this was a death camp in Poland, not a death camp run by the Polish government.

Nevertheless, when I lived in Poland I was struck by the fact that they almost always referred to atrocities of the the World War II era as having been carried out by the Nazis, not by the Germans.  The Germans are still here and still next door neighbors of Poland, but the Nazi government is long gone.  So, the Poles live up to the standard that they are demanding from Obama.

Memorial Day Rembrance

Just for the record on Memorial Day, I want to remember the two men in my unit, A Battery 2/94th Artillery, who were killed at Firebase Barbara and whose names are on the Vietnam Memorial wall:
Paul Kosanke, and
Willie Austin, Jr.

Congressional Letter re Finance

I sent the following to my two Colorado Senators:

Please support Sen. Sherrod Brown's SAFE Banking Act of 2012 to rein in "too big to fail" banks.  JP Morgan's $2 billion loss announced yesterday shows how seriously out of control our banking industry is, only a few years after the 2008 Lehman debacle.  Although JP Morgan claims that its "hedging" was not in violation of the Volker rule, I think that it likely was.  JP Morgan was just gambling with its depositors' money, trying to make a quick buck, which was almost riskless, because the US taxpayers are still guaranteeing the assets of the "too big to fail" banks.

Simon Johnson of MIT and the IMF has called for Jamie Dimon to resign.


You are just throwing away America's money guaranteeing the foolish bets of fat cats on Wall Street.  I can't tell you how disappointed I am that President Obama threw Elizabeth Warren under the bus after all she did to establish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  She was the only one in Washington speaking out for the middle class, and now she is gone.

I don't have much hope.  The US Congress is largely dysfunctional.  We have no fiscal policy.  Ben Bernanke has so far saved us from disaster with monetary policy, but he can't singlehandedly save the world.  You could give him a little help.

Two of the most important additional things the Congress could do are

-- Put the Bowles-Simpson proposals back on the table to address our financial crisis.  They were reasonable; they addressed the most important issue facing the US, and they have been ignored by the Congress.

-- Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act.  The repeal of Glass-Steagall, led in Congress by Republican Phil Gramm and signed by President Bill Clinton, was responsible for the financial crash of 2008 and the current rogue activities of the big banks.  Banks should be banks, not gambling casinos.  

War Didn't Help

In today's NYT, Paul Krugman talks about how World War II pulled the US out of the Depression, although people back then also said that stimulus would not work.

It reminded me of the difference between World War II and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  First Roosevelt in WW II called on all of America to pay for the war, although it still ran up enormous deficits.  Bush said, "Go shopping," to support the Iraq war; you don't need to pay taxes.  If Bush had attempted to pay for the Iraq war, we probably would have had fairer, more equitable taxes, which would have done something to mitigate the perception that the current US tax system is seriously unjust.  We grew up hearing about the merits of the American progressive tax system that taxed the rich more than the poor, and now we find that we have a regressive tax system that taxes the poor more than the rich.  The Republicans argue that the rich still pay the bulk of the taxes, which is true, but only because they earn the bulk of the income.  Also, defenders of the current system seldom bring payroll taxes into the discussion, because if they did, the disparity would be even worse.  It's true that many very poor people don't pay income tax, but many more of them pay payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

The other disparity between the rich and the poor that the war widened is between those who defend America and those who stay home and make money while the soldiers fight.  In the old days, especially when there was a draft, the stay-at-homes were shamed as "war profiteers," but today they are hailed as "entrepreneurs."  In WW II almost everybody who was healthy fought; today almost all soldiers come from the lower classes, and disproportionately from small towns and rural areas, where there is still some feeling of patriotism.  Ironically, the 9/11 attack on the twin towers was directed at America's richest 1%, but the 1% by and large didn't fight back, it hired the 99% to fight and die for them.  Now when those soldiers come home seeking jobs, the 1% that owns everything usually turns its back on them.

The US has regressed so far back toward the old feudal system that we don't need new laws or an updated Constitution, we need a new Magna Carta.  Welcome to the 13th century!

Guantanamo Trials Are Legal Failure

The "trial" of the 9/11 terrorists in Guantanamo signals a significant failure of the American legal system.  The victims of 9/11 deserve better, because no one will believe that justice will have been done.  The prisoners may be guilty, but many victims of lynchings and other mob violence over the years have also been guilty.  The sign of civilization would be a fair trial, but Congress and the Obama administration have balked at allowing a fair rial.  The military lawyers in Guantanamo will do their best, but they have been put in an impossible situation.

25th Anniversary of MTCR

The following is a press release from the US Department of State:

Formed by the (then) G-7 industrialized countries in 1987, the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) is an informal political understanding among states that seek to limit the proliferation of missiles and related technology; it is not a treaty. Since its creation, 27 additional countries have joined the MTCR, and many other countries have adhered unilaterally to the MTCR Guidelines or otherwise control exports of MTCR Annex items.

Originally focused on restricting exports of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles and related technology, the Regime expanded its scope in 1993 to cover unmanned delivery systems capable of carrying all types of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) -- chemical, biological, and nuclear. In 2002, the MTCR Partners (members) made terrorism an explicit focus of the Regime. Both of those steps were in direct support of the WMD nonproliferation objectives of the Biological Weapons Convention, Chemical Weapons Convention, and Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The MTCR seeks to limit the risks of proliferation of WMD by controlling transfers that could make a contribution to delivery systems (other than manned aircraft) for such weapons. More broadly, the MTCR Guidelines (export control policies) and Annex (list of export-controlled items) have become the international standard for responsible missile-related export behavior. The MTCR and its Annex were implicitly endorsed in UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1540 of 2004, which affirms that the proliferation of WMD delivery means constitutes a threat to international peace and security and requires all UN Member States to establish domestic controls against such proliferation. The MTCR Annex also forms the basis of the list of missile-related items prohibited from being transferred to Iran under UNSCRs 1737 and 1929, and to North Korea under UNSCR 1718.

Over the course of the Regime’s 25-year history, the efforts of MTCR member countries have reduced the number of countries possessing missiles capable of delivering WMD, the global inventory of such missiles, and the number of countries interested in acquiring such missiles. The establishment by MTCR member and adherent countries of missile-related export controls has significantly reduced the availability to proliferators of support from the countries possessing the most and best technology. The export controls, information-sharing, and patterns of cooperation fostered by the MTCR also have resulted in the interdiction of numerous shipments of equipment intended for missile programs of concern. All of these measures have made it more difficult, time-consuming, and costly for proliferators to produce or acquire WMD capable missiles.

As it has done since 1987, the United States will continue to work through the MTCR to reduce the global missile proliferation threat by restraining the missile-related exports of an expanding number of countries and by increasing the pressure on proliferators to abandon their missile programs. The United States continues to encourage all non-member countries to support the MTCR’s efforts and to unilaterally abide by MTCR standards in the interest of international peace and security.

The MTCR currently has 34 members: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Liberal Education Still Important

With all the talk today about education, no one talks about the importance of a liberal education.  Despite the Conservative hatred of the word liberal, it means "free."  It is the education that free men should have in order to be able to govern themselves.  In the old days, when voting was limited to white men who owned land, they were the only ones who needed a liberal education.  Now that everybody can vote, everybody needs a liberal education.  We were close to that goal in the 1960's with the rise of cheap state universities and community colleges, but as governments have gone bankrupt, that ideal has disappeared.

Instead of seeing education as a resource that should be widely available, it is a commercial enterprise that is expensive, even for no-name colleges and universities.  Thus it has become all about money, not about learning.   All the students and the professors care about are salable skills.  Universities have become trade schools rather than centers of learning.

The Denver Post ran a front page article on higher education Sunday, but it was all about money -- funding for education.  Doing a search of the page, I did not find a single reference to the liberal arts, which was the most important role of a university a few decades ago, and certainly a hundred years ago.  Higher education has changed, and not for the better. The "bottom line" was that it's looking more and more like the State of Colorado will soon quit funding higher education entirely.

Romney VP Hopefuls Are Fiscal Failures

Two frequently discussed vice presidential hopefuls for presidential candidate Mitt Romney are Rob Portman and Mitch Daniels.  Both were the principle budget strategists for George W. Bush as heads of his Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels was head of OMB from 2001 to 2003; Ohio Senator Portman was OMB director from 2006 to 2007.

Daniels oversaw the post-9/11 invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq without raising taxes.  He publicly estimated the cost of the Iraq war at $50 to $60 billion. A recent Brown University study has estimated the direct cost of the Iraq war at around $750 billion.  Wikipedia says that on Daniels' watch, the US went from a budget surplus of $236 billion to a deficit of $400 billion.  Wikipedia says that on Portman's watch the US public debt increased by $469 billion.

Both of these Republican budget directors follow in the footsteps of David Stockman, Reagan's OMB chief from 1981 to 1985.  Stockman successfully led the fight for Reagan's huge tax cuts, but after cutting revenues, he was unsuccessful in cutting federal expenditures, thus beginning the series of huge budget deficits that persist to this day.  Stockman doubled the national debt from $1 trillion to $2 trillion during his tenure.  The current national debt is about $15.5 trillion.

Jobs Bill and Facebook

I am worried that there is some connection between the recently passed Jobs bill and the Facebook IPO.  Facebook has been the poster child for huge IPOs that give preference to insiders.  Facebook was limited by the old restrictions of privately held companies.  It's not clear whether the new Jobs bill will change its situation. It may be too big, maybe not.  It's already in the situation where the number of shareholders of record is limited, but the actual number of shareholders is much higher.  Goldman Sachs counts as one shareholder, but it can hold shares for its preferred clients, raising the total well beyond 500 or whatever the limit was.  Even if this law does not directly affect Facebook, it will affect new IPOs, and while it may marginally aid new businesses, it will enormously aid rich Wall Street insiders.  At the same time, as the NYT article points out, it may increase the risks of bad investments in questionable companies by small, unsophisticated investors.  I would like to know what Elizabeth Warren thinks about the bill.  Is it good for America?  Is it good for the middle class (or what's left of it)?  Or is it just good for the super rich, especially those who live in Silicon Valley?  Unfortunately I do not trust Obama to do what is best for the middle class (and the country).  He has sold out to the super rich.

Sen. Bill Frist and Denver Hospitals

I have been upset for some time about HCA's takeover of a number of Colorado hospitals.  HCA is owned by the Frist family, whom Sen. Bill Frist represented in the Senate.  Health care is a mess; hospitals are making fortunes, and Bill Frist's is one of them.  Rather than using his expertise on health care to improve it while he was in the Senate, he used it mainly to enrich himself and his family.  Although he was Senate leader, he is remembered mainly for his provide-medical-care-at-any-cost argument to keep Terri Schiavo alive.  Frist is an example of what is wrong with the American health care system, and he was a leader in the Senate.  What is good for his wallet is not necessarily good for the country.

Now, Frist's for-profit HCA plans to take over many of Colorado's not-for-profit hospitals, creating concerns that the hospitals will no longer be run for the public benefit.

On the other hand, a Catholic-conected hospital systsem, SCL, plans to expand in Colorado, raising questions about whether the hospitals taken over will provide for the full range of women's health services that they provide now, since the Catholic church opposes contraception, abortion, etc.

Bernanke Lectures Aimed at Ron Paul

Fed Chairman Bernanke's lectures at George Washington University are aimed at Republican candidate Ron Paul, who represents a significant strain of thought about the Federal Reserve.  Paul believes that the Fed is evil because it interferes with the free functioning the American economy and most often encourages inflation.  Paul would like to see the US return to the gold standard.  Bernanke's first lecture dealt extensively with the issue, in particular recalling William Jennings Bryan's speech about "the cross of gold" on which the rich were crucifying average workers and farmers.

Bernanke correctly asked why the world economies should be restricted by the amount of gold that is mined around the world.  It's clearly better to have a money supply that can be managed to correspond the amount of goods and services being produced that the amount of gold being mined.  On the other hand, Paul is right that an irresponsible Fed can allow or encourage detrimental policies which might well increase inflation (or create deflation).  In an ideal world, however, the US would have a competent Fed which would maintain a proper money supply to facilitate growth and full employment.

One problem these days is that the US has no fiscal policy.  Congress is dysfunctional.  Republicans refuse to raise taxes; Democrats, to cut expenditures.  So, the full burden of trying to manage the American economy falls on the Fed, with some help from the Executive Branch, depending on what it can do by executive order, by the Treasury selling bonds, etc.

But Paul's gold bugs don't trust bureaucrats.  They would rather have the economy controlled by external forces, rather than the government.

I prefer to have Bernanke try to manage the economy rather than leave it hostage to South African gold miners.

Republicans Not Saving Money

In a legitimate debate about health care, Democrats would want single payer system assuring coverage for everybody.  Republicans would want a system that reduced costs.  What actually happened with Obama Care, however, was that the Republican insistence on using private heath insurance companies actually increased costs by increasing the power and profits of  insurance companies without reducing doctors' or hospitals' costs.  A single payer system would have given the government leverage to bring down costs; whether it would have actually done so will never be known.  Congress was quick to restore doctors' Medicare fees to the old, higher level when they were in danger of being reduced by some of the automatic budget reductions.  

Some doctors refuse to accept Medicare patients because Medicare pays less than private insurance.  If Congress had passed "Medicare for everybody," however, doctors would have had less opportunity to earn the high rates they currently do, although for the doctors who treat the richest "one-percent" price is irrelevant.  

In a New York Times report on the richest one percent,they found that after a general category called "managers," physicians made up the next largest portion of the one percent, with those working out of their own offices earning the most. Almost none of these rich doctors work in a world where fees are set by a free market; they are either paid by insurance companies or the government, in both cases with fees set in advance.  A patient who walks in the door of a doctor's office has no bargaining rights.  The doctors make sure up front that they are will paid.

The Republicans did nothing to insert free market principles in the health care law.  If anything, they strengthened the hands of the doctors in negotiating with the insurance companies and the government, assuring that the most expensive health care in the world will become even more expensive.  

Bankers Pay Obama for Dumping Warren

Bloomberg reports that JP Morgan and other banks are among the top donors to Obama's campaign.  Obama has sold out to the bankers.  For me Obama's  most egregious act was throwing Elizabeth Warren under the bus.  Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan led the campaign against her, and now he is paying Obama for dumping her.  It's good for Morgan, good for Obama, bad for America, and bad for the middle class.  Jamie Dimon has said that his bank does not want to do business with anyone who has less than $100,000 in his account.  Obama has sold out the majority of his supporters for Wall Street money, figuring that the middle class has nowhere else to go.  Right now the only thing that would get me to vote for Obama is for the Republicans to nominate Rick Santorum.  America is becoming the Roman Empire.  Nero start fiddling!  Caligula start partying!  Let's run a budget deficit of $5 trillion; who cares?  America ranks 34th in infant mortality according to Wikipedia.  The Republicans are against birth control and abortion because they love to kill babies after they are born.  This is NOT a great country.

Bloomberg has recently posted a story about how many payday lenders are supporting Romney, because he has pledged to overturn Dodd-Frank, which under the leadership of Elizabeth Warren, cracked down on payday lenders and other unscrupulous loan businesses through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which Warren created. 

It's interesting that the big banks, like JP Morgan, have responded to the new regulations by supporting Obama for getting rid of Warren, while the little guys, like the payday lenders, have responded by supporting Romney, hoping to get rid of the regulation entirely. 

Sad That Sen. Snowe Is Leaving

It's sad that Sen. Olympia Snowe is leaving the Senate.  She has been a moderate, responsible voice there.  It's worse that she cited the worsening political stalemate as a reason for her leaving.  It's a sign of America's decline as a great nation.  She's leaving uneducated, hateful, unwashed rabble  behind in the Senate, which once used to call itself the world's greatest deliberative body.  Now it's a cesspool.  Poor America!