Proof, Truth, and the Truthfully Aloof

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/reality.html

For a while, I've wanted to do a post on truth/reality, how we know or think we know things, and how we share this knowledge. The link I found above inspired me to finally start this.

Basically, if you can't convince people of something, then of course they won't think it's true. But people can't be convinced of something being true unless they want to. So if people don't want to think something is true, then they can't be convinced, and if they can't be convinced, then you have no "objective" standard for saying it is true. I mean, of course you have certain objective-type measurements or methods, like the scientific method, logic, et cetera. But if other people don't believe in the validity of your methodology either, then it doesn't matter -- not convincing them is not convincing them, and all the, shall we say, objective objectivity in the world isn't going to change their minds, and thus, nobody thinks it's objective except you (hypothetically).

This can lead to problems -- at least, I believe it can. You may not be convinced.

Cutting Off Your Minimum-Wage Nose to Spite Your Estate-Tax Face

Politics. Jeez.

1) So the Democrats push for a higher minimum wage, which is great--kudos, as far as it goes.

2) Then the Republicans, predictably, decide they don't want to help poor people unless it means helping their pals the rich people too, and Republican Sen. Bill Frist combines the minimum-wage-raising bill with a push to cut estate taxes, which Democrats say go mainly toward millionaires and whatnot.

3) To be fair to the Republicans, Frist also pushes for the final bill to include tax breaks for college tuition, state sales taxes (yay!) as well as business research (yawn). The first two tax breaks could at least be useful to, like, normal people -- especially since sales taxes are regressive, falling worst on the poor.

4) The Democrats don't like the idea of cutting the estate tax, which I guess is understandable -- no need for Paris Hilton to get her daddy's money for free when that money could be recirculated into actually maybe sorta helping people. However, this is where the Democrats get really boneheaded --

5) The Democrats block the bill.

Okay, so to recap: The Republicans are assholes enough, in the first place, to try holding the minimum-wage hike for ransom if they don't get their precious estate-tax cut for the people they really work for. But then the Democrats are assholes enough in their own way to decide they'd rather hurt their enemies than help their supposed friends.

I can see not wanting to cut estate taxes -- whether the Democrat argument that they go mainly to millionaire heirs instead of family farmers is true is another issue. But to oppose these cuts enough to effectively torpedo your own goal of a higher minimum wage -- isn't that what's called cutting off your nose to spite your face?

Now the Republicans have not behaved like total assholes here, as much as they may have the capacity to do so at any time (just like the Democrats). I have to admit the Republicans were nice enough, in their own way, to offer cuts to state sales taxes and tax breaks for college tuition.

The Democrats have not behaved like total assholes here either. The Democrats may have their reasoning for opposing these like they do the cuts to the estate tax, and if it were simply a matter of opposing or support these particular cuts (the tuition and sales tax), I could see the honest populism in an argument either way-- i.e., the whole "we need tax money for populist programs" versus "it's populist for people to have tax-break money in their pocket." Which is actually more populist in practice is, again, a matter of debate for another place.

Oh yeah, and this whole debate sidesteps the issue of whether an increase in the minimum wage is actually good for those lower on the totem pole. Economists will rave that raising the minimum wage will decrease the number of workers being hired, thus leading to higher unemployment. Don't know if this is true (it could be that depending on the situation, a firm might have to hire around a certain number of people just to do the job, however high the price of buying the labor). Again, it's a toss-up whether it's more populist to call for higher wages or less unemployment. I'm taking a more-or-less solid stand that raising the minimum wage is a good idea, but I could be wrong.

By the way, the info for this post came from this actual news source:

Taylor, Andrew [Associated Press writer]. 6 Aug. 2006. "Minimum wage workers only clear losers in battle." The Daily Record [Wooster, Ohio]. Page A6.