Swift Boat Vets Don't Love the Troops

I am not happy with all the talk by Republicans (and Democrats) about how much they love the troops. As a Vietnam veteran I did not get a particularly heartwarming welcome home. The main welcome I remember is that Continental Airlines offered me a free drink flying from Fort Lewis, Washington, where I separated from the Army, to New Orleans, on my way to Mobile.

The most anti-veteran thing I remember was Swift Boat veterans ads that the Republicans ran against John Kerry when he ran for President. Although it was directed at a fellow Swift Boat veteran, Kerry, it was really an attack on all veterans, particularly against Vietnam vets. It ironic that except for pilots and Seal teams, Swift Boat vets have been the only Navy vets who have actually fought the enemy since World War II. I think most Navy personnel killed or injured in Iraq or Afghanistan are medics assigned to Marine units.

In retrospect, I think the attitude of the general public toward Vietnam veterans coming home was that the Vietnamese should have killed the returning vets. They thought that would have been more just, because Vietnam vets were perverted baby killers. Those who didn't go -- Clinton, Bush, Cheney -- felt they had to condemn Vietnam vets, because otherwise the draft dodgers would have looked bad. They weren't necessarily cowards, but they were selfish, not willing to serve their country.

As a result, Vietnam vets have something in common with low ranking German Nazi vets, who fought in WW II because they had to, and they fought for the guy in the foxhole next to them, like the troops in Afghanistan, not for any Nazi ideals. But they will forever be branded as low grade war criminals. That's more or less how those who didn't fight see Vietnam vets. It was particularly hard on minorities and less educated vets, who were drafted or volunteered in disproportionately large numbers because the more advantaged youths refused to go.

Do Republicans Understand Debt Crissis?

Republicans don't seem to understand the difference between incurring debt and paying it off. The debt ceiling is about paying off existing debt. If we don't pay it, it is like not paying a credit card balance. The credit card company is going to charge you lots of fees and higher interest and will probably refuse to lend you any more money. What Republicans are worried about is continual charging on the card, running up a bigger and bigger balance. The answer is to stop charging, not to stop paying. Once you have a huge bill, it is hard to figure out how to pay it off. It is a much longer and tougher job than just making a payment each month. They need to keep paying the bill, and then work on a budget.

Republicans vs. Elizabeth Warren

The Huffington Post reports that the Republicans will keep both the House and the Senate in session. Basically, Obama asked for this yesterday. The question is whether they will do anything. Huff Post thinks somebody will just appear on the floor every few days and make some meaningless statement to keep the session active. If so, it will be meaningless for the debt crisis.

Another result, however, will be to prevent Obama from making recess appointments, in particular of Elizabeth Warren. I find it significant that the Republicans and big business are so afraid of her. I think she is just someone who supports the average American. It means to me that the Republicans and big business must really hate the average American. They succeed by following P.T. Barnum's saying that "There's a sucker born every minute."

Letter to Senators and Congressman

As you discuss tax reform, at the top of your list should be eliminating the capital gains tax. In general, capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income. It is the main reason that many wealthy people pay a lower tax rate than ordinary people. Warren Buffet often cites the example that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does. Basically the capital gains tax is welfare for billionaires.

Yesterday, former Reagan budget chief David Stockman called for reform of the capital gains tax on Fareed Zakaria's GPS program on CNN. He said that it made some sense when inflation was high, so that capital gains merely reflected inflation and not an increase in the real value of an asset. But today, there is virtually no inflation. The other justification is that it encourages new business. There is some basis for that. Perhaps, people who start their own businesses and true venture capitalists should get some kind of tax break to encourage them, although most venture capitalists are multi-millionaires. But someone who buys Apple stock at $200 and sells it a year later for $300 hasn't really encouraged entrepreneurship. A favorable view is that he made a good investment; a less favorable view is that he was just gambling and made a winning bet. Why should this country encourage gambling over doing a hard day's work as an engineer or waitress?

Earlier, I wrote you suggesting the gradual elimination of the home mortgage tax deduction, because it unreasonably favors homeowners over renters, especially if the homeowners paid no money down and have no equity in their homes. They are essentially renters, but get a homeowner's tax break. It might be fair to continue the deduction for people with substantial equity in their houses. Building up equity is the saving which the deduction was originally intended to encourage. But the subprime housing crisis illustrated the economic dislocation that the tax deduction helped create.