The Science of Photography -- Part Eleven

In the race to invent and produce better and more dense photo sensors for use in digital cameras, large corporations and chip manufacturers are combining physics and engineering in state-of-the-art ways. At stake is a marketplace that shipped 139 million cameras in 2010, not counting the cameras in cell phones. This was a 7% increase over 2009. I couldn’t find the total revenue number, but most of these cameras cost more than $100, even more than $200, and some more than $1,000. So you do the math. It’s a big market. There are billions of dollars in revenue to be had.

So how do these little sensors work? Well, it takes degrees in physics and electronics engineering and computer science to understand in depth. But let me give a quick overview of how they work. I’ll start with the individual active element in the sensor. In modern cameras this is a photodiode. That is, a diode, a two wire device that allows current to flow in one direction easier than the other. Photodiodes conduct in a manner that depends on the amount of light shining on the diode. Combined with an electronic circuit with transistors and other components, the change in conductivity of the photodiode can be used to measure the amount of light.

That is where we’ll start. With the design of the photodiode. Then we’ll examine how these are arranged on a substrate or “chip” with optical filters and what-not to provide a light sensor that can distinguish color. Focus a sharp image onto this sensor chip with a camera lens, capture the individual photo diode’s response to the light combined with knowledge of where that diode is located on the sensor, run it through more amplifiers and electronic filters and convert it to a digital value -- a number. Then process all these individual number values with computer programs and -- voila -- you get a digital image good for saving and viewing and printing -- just like film, only without the need to develop.


To begin with, I assume you all realize that normal or “white” light is made up of a combination of all the colors. A rainbow is a good example of splitting up the light into individual colors. Although most people name seven colors of the rainbow, there is actually a continuum of colors from the deepest red to the highest blue. These different colors are different frequencies of light, with red the lowest frequency and blue or “violet” the highest.

Light consists of electromagnetic waves, just like radio waves, only the frequency of light is much higher than either the AM band or the FM band or even the RADAR band. Light is of such a high frequency that it exhibits some characteristics of particles. This dual wave/particle behavior is part of what is called quantum physics and names like Einstein are associated with the discoveries in the early twentieth century that culminated in atomic bombs and nuclear power plants.

Light isn’t radioactive, but it is a form of radiation. Light of a frequency below red is called Infrared and heat is radiated as Infrared waves. Above the frequency of light is the Ultraviolet, which is how we get sun burns. Above Ultraviolet is X-rays, which can pass right through flesh to photograph bones, but X-rays can really give you a bad sun burn.

It is time to dig into your favorite EE text book and review the facts of solid state physics.


Silicon Image Sensors

Nearly every modern image sensor is produced using silicon. The main reason is that silicon, being a semiconductor, has an energy gap in between its valence band and conduction band, referred to as the bandgap, that is perfect for capturing light in the visible and near infrared spectrum. The bandgap of silicon is 1.1 electron volt (eV). If a photon hits silicon, and that photon has an energy more than 1.1 eV, then that photon will be absorbed in the silicon and produce an electrical charge, subject to the quantum efficiency of silicon at that wavelength. The energy of a photon is defined as Plank's constant, h, times the the speed of light c, divided by the wavelength of the light, λ. Visible light has wavelengths between about 450 nm to 650 nm, which corresponds to photon energies of 2.75 eV and 1.9 eV respectively. These wavelengths are absorbed exponentially from the surface based on their energy, so blue light (450 nm) is mostly absorbed at the surface, while red light penetrates deeper into the silicon.

Figure

Most silicon photodetectors are based on a diode structure like the one shown in the figure. The crystalline structure of pure silicon is doped with different types of materials to produce silicon that uses holes (positive charges, and hence p-type) or electrons (negative charges, or n-type) as the majority carriers. When these two types of silicon are joined, called a PN junction, they create a diode. Furthermore, there is a region formed around the junction depleted of charge called the depletion region. This is shown in the figure as the area in between x1 and x2.

When a photon hits the silicon, it penetrates based on the wavelength, and, if it is absorbed, will create an electron-hole pair where it is absorbed. A simple view would be that the photon knocks an electron off the outer shell of the silicon atom creating both a free electron and also a "hole" where the electron was. Both the free electron and the hole are available to be part of an electric current. These materials are called "semiconductors" precisely because they are not full conductors such as copper wire, nor are they full insulators like the plastic surrounding a copper wire. They are in a "middle area" where their resistance or conductivity can change based on, in this example, the number of photons striking the material.

The result of this absorption is to create an electrical current (a “diffusion current” if the absorption is not in the depletion region and a “drift” current if it is), with the total amount of current based on how many photons are hitting the sensor, as well as the area of the sensor. A larger sensor can collect more photons, and can be more sensitive to lower light intensities.

There you have it. Several things to note. First is the fact that light comes in a “quanta” called a photon. It is the actual photons of light that cause the electrical change in the photodiode. So there is a low end to light sensitivity. Depending on the physical size of the photodiode, you can get light levels so low that only one photon strikes the detector during the shutter opening. You just can’t detect the light lower than that. To increase light sensitivity, you must make the individual diode bigger.

Basically the light causes a change in the resistivity or electrical resistance of the diode. That's how CMOS detectors work. With Charge Coupled Devices (CCD) it is a similar mechanism, but what is measured is the change in electrical capacitance or charge caused by the light. In addition, CCD devices pass the charge change down the line like a bucket brigade. This design is called a "shift register" architecture. In the early days of sensors, this charge-coupling made for simpler circuit design on the integrated circuit. Modern circuit manufacturing makes it possible to add circuits or "wiring" to the senors and that is how CMOS sensors are connected. For that and other reasons I discussed in the previous chapter of "The Science ...," CMOS is used in most modern digital cameras.

Photon energy is measured in electron volts (which are different than the 110 volts in your wall socket). You should also know that the higher the frequency of the light, the higher the energy. Violet light has more energy than red light. However, we typically give the frequency of light in terms of its wavelength, which is the reciprocal of frequency, and given in nanometers or nm. Nano is ten to the minus 9 or a thousandth of a millionth. That's pretty small! The higher energy with higher frequency (or shorter wavelength) is why Ultraviolet can burn the skin and X-rays can do even more damage.

Also notice that the depth of light penetration is based on color or light frequency (or photon energy) with blue only penetrating part way and red going the deepest into the photodiode. (The higher energy of blue light means it is likely to interact with the semiconductor material sooner, at a higher location in the diode.) Recall that the Foveon X3 sensor is based on that fact. Threre are three photodiodes stacked on top of each other.

Most CMOS sensors, however, use colored lenses over the photodiode, only admitting blue or green or red light. This reduces the total light or energy striking an individual photdiode, and it takes several individual sensors to fully resolve the color of one pixel.

Third is the fact that the diode also detects infrared light. That light is too low a frequency to be visible to the eye, although infrared cameras can be used to detect heat. Normally the infrared is detrimental to the camera’s image process, so we typically add an IR (Infrared) filter in front of the diode to block the light that is not part of the visual image. This filter is a piece of plastic (or glass) that blocks the IR radiation.

Now that we understand how the photodiode detects light (and I’m certain you understood all about bandgaps and n-type and p-type semiconductor materials), we can describe how the individual photodiodes get packaged in the millions to make a digital camera sensor.

Pixel Layout

The most common measurement used in comparison of image sensors is the pixel count, usually expressed in megapixels, or millions-of-pixels. The number of pixels in a sensor is a function of how large of a chip area is available. Another metric that goes with pixel count is the pixel pitch, the distance in microns between the center of two adjacent photodiodes. Since pixels are created in repeated arrays, the pitch defines how much area each pixel in an array occupies. Typically, the smaller the pitch, the more pixels that can be fit on the sensor. Smaller pixels, however, will not collect as much light, and thus may not be desirable for short shutter speeds or sensors designed for low light.

The pixel fill factor is another metric that deals with how a pixel is physically laid out. The fill factor is listed as the percentage of the pixel area that is consumed by the actual photodiode. A fill factor of 100% would be ideal, as then all of the pixel area is used for light collection. Some chips can achieve this by using a backside illuminated design, where the readout circuitry is placed below the photodiode, and thus it can occupy the entire pitch of the pixel. Most sensors do not have a 100% fill factor, and a sensor designer has many considerations to make when deciding how much of the sensor to leave for the diode, and how much readout or charge transfer circuitry will occupy. Microlenses may be used to improve fill factor. Microlenses are lenses that are placed directly on top of the pixel, and they focus the incident light so that more hits the photosensitive portion of the pixel. Geometry has some to do with it. You can’t stack circles as close together as squares. Remember these sensors are in the neighborhood of 1 to 10 millionths of an inch, so it is harder to manufacture certain shapes.

Given the limited ability to add illustrations and photographs to a FB note, at this point I’m going to send you to another web site. I won’t copy the text here, but if you want to see several nice drawings of how the individual photodiodes in a typical photo sensor, then check this web site.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.htm

Recall I said that the RGB array had twice as many green sensors as red or blue. This web site gives a very good, non technical explanation of how that is done and you can see why it takes several photodiodes to actually create one color pixel.

This site has a very good description of how the Bayer Array is processed. This technique is named after the Kodak scientist who developed it. I said that Kodak had many key digital camera patents ... this is one. This processing is called variously Bayer filter or demosaicing algorithm. Read carefully and you’ll understand why Bayer filter gives basically half the total photodiode resolution instead of the one-third you would expect with three (or even four) detectors per pixel. Anyway, remember they all lie and count every photodiode as pixel while Foveon X3 triples its diode count to try to match them in the literature.

So now you should have a better understanding of what is going on inside the photo sensor. Either that or your eyeballs have rolled to the back of your head, and you’re snoring loud enough to wake the next-door neighbor.

There is still more and relatively important things to discuss such as dynamic range and the digital color measurement and bit depth. But I think this is enough for now. So thanks again to “Cambridge in Color,” and you should have a little better understanding of the sensor in your camera. More important, you can see why jamming many pixels on a small sensor makes it harder for the camera’s electronics to process a high quality, noise free image. Bigger really is better. Now go get that physics book down off the shelf and dig into the chapter on photons and quantum theory.  I’ll wait here while you read up on that.

http://mickey-cheatham.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-science-of-photography-part-twelve.html 

The Science of Photography -- Part Ten

In the last episode I said I would cover next the internal, “micro” story of photo sensors. But, on the way to writing that story, I got side tracked by some actual cameras. One is a camera I own and use all the time, the Canon G12. It is the twelfeth in a long line of evolution of a powerful, “more than” point-and-shoot camera, and a camera that I often carry in my pocket or take on trips -- like this one.

I knew Canon had updated the model with the announcement of the new Canon G1X. But a lot changed with the G1X. In many ways, it is a new camera and much closer to what many of us wanted, a small camera that was equivalent to a larger, heavier, and bulkier DSLR, an alternative that didn’t give up much in terms of image quality.

Of course, this series of cameras do not have removable lenses, and there are other small, often called “mirror-less” cameras that match the quality of a DSLR. My Olympus PEN for one example and the new Nikon 1 cameras for another. But I think a little focus  (no pun intended) on the journey Canon has taken starting with the G7 in 2006 is worth examining.

So let’s dig into the technical data sheets and consider these excellent examples of the camera manufacturing ability of Canon.


The G10 was a 14.7MP camera announced by Canon in 2008. Unlike most small digital cameras, the G series has an optical viewfinder and you can hold it up to your eye to frame a picture, and don’t have to try to see the subject on a washed out LCD screen in daylight. For that reason alone, I wanted one. The 28mm lens with x5 zoom and the Charge Coupled sensor helped this camera take photographs head and shoulders above the average compact camera output.

The announcement of the G11 the next year was shocking in the fact that the sensor density was reduced from 14.7MP to 10MP. Maybe the hype was over and camera manufacturers were no longer jumping on the “more pixels is better” bandwagon? As I’ve stated before, the difference between 10 and 15 MP is not that great, and better camera design and the larger sensors on the lower MP implementation could actually produce better photographs.

Reviews of the G11 and the follow-on G12 verified that. People were still unhappy that there was no interchangeable lens, but I thought that was an advantage. The more lenses available, the more lenses I buy. So this was a budget friendly design for me. I purchased a G12 a few years back. It's a very serious camera with image stabilization, full manual control of shutter speed, f/stop, and ISO with external knob controls, RAW format, and most other features you get with DSLR cameras -- yet packaged in a relatively small case that fits in the pocket -- assuming you have a large enough pocket.

With my G12 getting a little old, after all, I’d had it for almost two years, I eagerly awaited the G13. Canon didn’t disappoint, although it is called the G1X. Maybe 13 is an unlucky number. Still no removable lens, but a complete redesign of the image system. Gone is the CCD sensor in favor of a CMOS sensor. And, the BIGGEST news, the new sensor is a lot larger than the old 1/1.7” (5.7mm x 7.6mm) sensor in the older models. It is, in fact, six times bigger! This new camera has a sensor 14mm x 18.7mm. That’s nearly as big as the sensor in my Nikon D7000 (15.6mm x 23.6mm). (The six times larger compares area of the sensors.)

The price also jumped appreciably. The G12 was around $500. The new model is $800. The pixel count is back to 14.1MP, but that will yield a larger pixel pitch on the much larger sensor than the 10MP on the GS12. So that is good.

One thing that separates all of the G series cameras from other simple photo devices is the external control knobs with adjustment of shutter, f/stop, and ISO. This is coupled with P, T, A, and M control modes just like the big boys, but lacking the big boy’s mirror and prism, it is one heck of a lot smaller and lighter. It has a hot shoe for flash and other attachments and EV adjustment controls as well as the ability to take "bracketed" pictures for HDR processing. The perfect companion to a DSLR for when you want the pocket camera convenience of a point-and-shoot combined with a real view finder for daylight framing and an exquisite optical and sensor system that can shoot with the big boys. It isn’t so compact that it will fit in your shirt pocket. It is about the size of the old 35mm viewfinder cameras, but that does stow away in a coat pocket or -- if you are fashion competent to wear cargo pants ... me? Nope. No cargo pants. Now where were we?

Oh, yes. Will I trade in my trusty G12 for a G1X? Or, even better, buy the new kid on the block and keep old reliable too? Only time and the size of my next social security check will determine that. Besides, I’ve got another pretty in my viewfinder.

This one does have removable lenses. It is the new Nikon 1 series. It comes in two flavors: simple and fancy. The Nikon model J1 at around $600 and the slightly better V1 at around $800-900. Since these are interchangeable lens cameras, the total cost depends on how many lenses you buy. There are four lenses, some primary and some zoom, designed for this new camera body.

The controls are less traditional than the G12 or G1X. That is a complaint by some. They lack an optical viewfinder, but do have an electronic viewfinder available and that is just as good.

Both the Canon G series and the Nikon 1 series are also serious contenders in the video arena. Both leading manufacturers know how important video performance is in this marketplace and the ability to have adjustable focus lenses and play with depth of field make these cameras and DSLRs powerful video recording tools being used more and more for these features. With video issues such as continuous autofocus and fast autofocus and autofocus motors that don’t drown out the audio are all key features these two cameras posses.

The Nikon 1 has a disappointingly small sensor in a new size that Nikon calls CX to go with their DX and full size FX family. CX sensors are 8.8mm x 13.2mm and an adequate 10MP. This new sensor size is just slightly bigger than the 4/3" sensor used in other popular mirror-less cameras from Panasonic (Lumix) and Olympus, and it is bigger than the G series lenses that Canon used before the new G1X model.

If you look at the entire Nikon 1 product line you’ll find cameras colored pink and red and white and silver, in addition to the professional look of black. The wealth of colors hints that this camera is intended for casual photographers with large budgets, but a lot of the  design fits the needs of serious photographers too.

Features such as the powerful video capability including a very fast shutter video mode perfect for amazing slow motion video production, the so-called “Smart Photo Selector” which lets people control the camera without required reading of my entire thesis on shutter speed and f/stop and depth of field and yadda-yadda. There’s even a feature that lets you snap a still in the middle of a video shoot. No more video frame capture in the post processing, just click the still while doing video.

The electronic shutter and the previously mentioned quiet focus motor all fit this video lifestyle. Add a wireless memory card and the shooter on the go would find this a very useful and powerful camera for the Facebook age. A simple GPS adapter can be added so the pictures can be uploaded, categorized and labeled for Foursquare presence. This is the camera for the next decade.

So what does “yours truly” plan to do. Well, barring winning the lottery, I suppose I have to decide which of these two new beauties to purchase. Or I could even make do with what I have now ... nahhh. I lean toward the maturity of the latest Canon offering, but also like the interchangeable lens feature of the Nikon.

I always choose Canon for small cameras and Nikon for large ... more a statement of my current ecosystem of lenses and accessories such as flash than a comment on which is better. The last quality mirror-less camera I bought is a bit of a disappointment. The Olympus takes good pictures for a small camera, but the autofocus is very slow and unwieldily. I mostly use it with manual focus.

There’s always eBay or Craig’s List. Maybe if I unload some of my current iron, I could buy some nice shiny new aluminum and plastic. Anyone want to make me an offer?

I’m very pleased with my G12. But, as I said, I do like interchangeable lenses. Oh, what the heck, I’ll just have to buy them both. Maybe you could help by sending me a little donation. You’ve been reading my articles, call it a subscription fee. That’s right folks, the first twelve people to call in their donation will receive a hand written thank you note from me, my wife, and my heirs. Keep reading to find out which one (or both) that I buy. Or, if Linda has anything to say about it, which camera I decide I would like to buy if only she would let me. Wait, I’ll buy it for her ... for Valentines ... now that’s a plan. But I’m not getting the pink one! No sirreee!!


http://mickey-cheatham.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-science-of-photography-part-eleven.html

The Social Security Tax Cut Debate

This was the first of three articles I wrote about Social Security Tax and the "temporary" reduction in payroll taxes to solve the financial crisis. Will these reductions just be roots of additional financial failures? Only time will tell. I sounded the warning originally in an article on Facebook on Wednesday, December 21, 2011.

I was a debater in High School. As a member of the debate team, I traveled around Montana participating in competitions and arguing pro and con with students all around the state. I won some and lost some, but mostly I grew in appreciation of various points of view.

In debate there is a topic that is discussed for the entire year. Teams prepare both affirmative and negative evidence and arguments. You must be prepared to take either side of the discussion. This strengthens one’s appreciation for the other side. You realize that arguments are rarely one sided and this strong belief that most people seem to have that their idea is right and the other side of the discussion is not only wrong, but somehow less intelligent to think that way is patently ridiculous. As the saying goes, there is room for men (or women) of good conscience to disagree.

Much in the news these days is the current state of the economy and the joblessness and suffering of Americans. There have been a lot of suggestions of ways to fix this problem, most involving government action. Lots of talk about taxes: raising them, lowering them, simplifying them, flattening them, etc. Certainly our tax code has become an entanglement of rules so complex a noble prize winner could not explain them and the central argument in the “us” vs. “them” debate on who is responsible for this fine mess we find ourselves in. Fingers are pointed at the large tax cuts passed under the Bush administration, and many would like to see taxes raised, at least on the “other guy.”

To demonstrate the power of the debate ethic, I will now argue both the affirmative and the negative of the most current tax and economic stimulus debate: Resolved: The United States federal government should continue its current policy of reduced “payroll taxes” for another year in order to strengthen the economy and relieve the impact of the downturn on US citizens.

In formal debate you always define your terms. For honest and useful communications between opposing sides, you need to be sure you are both talking about the same thing. For the sake of this discussion, “payroll taxes” are defined as the amount of tax withheld from a paycheck for Social Security Insurance. This tax is called the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax. It does not include the amount withheld for Medicare nor does it refer to the amount withheld for federal, state, or local income tax.

The Social Security tax is made up of two parts, one paid for by the worker, and a second part paid for by the employer. Note that self-employed persons must pay both of these parts. In 2010 the social security tax was set at 6.2% for both employee and employer. In 2011 the employee tax was reduced to 4.2%, although there was no change in the employer rate. This reduction was designed to increase individual citizens’ net income, thereby increasing spending and improving the economy overall. This special tax cut expires on Dec. 31, 2011. (For now I will refer to it as a tax since it is money withheld from earnings that flows to the government, similar to all the other taxes.)

Currently there is a heated debate in congress to extend this cut into 2012. Some of the bills offered will increase the cut eliminating employee paid Social Security tax entirely and possibly even reducing the employer paid portion with the intent of further stimulating growth and hiring. In addition, many of the proposals also include extension of unemployment payments for those still out of work.

There are several special points to be made about the social security “tax.” First, it isn’t really a tax. Some have described Social Security as a ponsi scheme. That alludes to the fact that workers today are paying for current retirees. However, those retirees paid during their working years for the older retirees at that time with the expectation that younger workers would do the same for them when they retire. I don’t view FICA as a tax. You could consider it a contract between generations. I consider it “insurance.” That is, you pay into the insurance fund during your working lifetime, and then collect retirement based on the premiums you paid.

It is the job of the Social Security Trustees to keep the insurance fund solvent. That is, it must have enough funds in income and reserves to be able to pay out on its obligations. Further, since Social Security payouts include a cost of living clause, they are, to some extent, inflation proof.

But Social Security is not a retirement investment fund like an IRA or 401(k) nor a funded pension plan. In those types of funds your money is invested, and you collect the principle and any earnings when you retire. For one thing, Social Security is available to people before they retire under circumstances of disability or loss of a parent. No, FICA is most like insurance. In some cases you may collect a lot more than you paid in, and, in other cases, you may collect less. Those that die before starting Social Security payments get nothing, and no money is put into their estate for heirs. This is similar to automobile insurance. Some pay and pay, but never have an accident and collect, while others may collect several times what they pay into the insurance. Insurance is a spreading of risk and not everyone gets back all that they contributed.

Another difference between the Social Security “tax” and other taxes is that you only pay for the first portion of your income. Those that earn above a certain limit in a given year don’t pay any FICA tax on the amount about the limit. That is the opposite of most income tax rates where the percentage you pay increases with increased income.

The maximum wage amount of FICA has been gradually raised over the years and currently has plateaued at $106,800, but it will increase in 2012 to $110,100. This is an important consideration making FICA tax somewhat “regressive” while the income tax system is “progressive.” This means that income tax rate increases for people who make more money, but the FICA overall rate compared to all income goes down for high earners above the maximum Social Security wage amount.

So, now with those definitions and basic economic theory stated, I will move on to the debate. First, I will take the side of the affirmative and argue for an extension of the social security deduction reduction.

THE AFFIRMATIVE

The current situation in the US is a severe recession. Although economists calculate some amount of growth in the gross national product since 2008’s real estate bubble burst, unemployment remains at an historical high and people all across this great land are suffering. It is a key role of government to provide for the general welfare and that includes encouraging economic growth and job development. Economists have agreed that the current Social Security tax cut has had a positive impact on the economy, and it has the added benefit of providing assistance to those in most need for that help.

Congress deemed that the best way to get tax relief to the most citizens — especially those that really need help making ends meet — was to reduce the FICA deduction. Of course, a reduction in the FICA withholding won’t reach all of the citizens. Those that are not working will not benefit directly. That includes both those that are unemployed and looking for jobs in our depressed economy as well as those retired. However, the suggestion to continue the FICA reduction also includes extension of unemployment relief.

Why was a payroll tax reduction chosen by congress to stimulate the economy rather than some other form of tax change? There are several answers, but primarily it is because not everyone pays federal income tax. Many studies have shown that only about half of the earners in the US pay any federal income tax. That is due to various deductions and credits in the income tax code. Many people who earn low wages, have large families, or have other large deductions don’t have to pay any income tax at all. After subtracting deductions for children, child care, and various other exemptions including a deduction for home mortgage interest, state taxes, or large medical expenses to name just a few of the many deductions allowed in our complicate tax code, their total income tax bill is zero.

The economic motivation for this “tax cut” is to increase spending, thereby growing the economy and, hopefully, leading to more jobs. More jobs would be an improvement for the unemployed. To actually improve the economy, a tax cut must lead to increased spending. Note that a tax cut, by itself, does not improve the economy. It is the impact or effect of the cut that actually makes things better. More money in the pocket leads to more spending which is more income for business.

A second reason that this particular mechanism was chosen is something economists call the “marginal propensity to consume.” Let’s parse that little phrase in order to understand what it means. “Marginal” refers to an increase. For example, if I pay less FICA tax, then I have an increase in my net pay – more money in my pocket. Now what will I do with that increase? I might just stuff it in a mattress or put it in my savings account to have for future needs. That doesn’t improve the economy except indirectly by increasing the savings rate. I might use the money to pay off my credit card or other debts. That doesn’t improve the economy except to help lenders make more profit. Or I might spend the extra money on almost anything. Now it is this spending that will directly stimulate the economy.

So, think about this. If you knew someone who barely could put food on the table or pay their rent, and they got a little more money, what do you think they would do with it? What would be their “propensity” to consume. (Propensity is just a $20 word for probability.) I suspect it would be quite high. If they can barely put food on the table, then they are likely to buy more food – thereby stimulating the economy.

Now imagine some rich guy (or gal). They really have all they need. Do you think they would be likely to rush out and spend a small increase in their income. Probably not as likely as the poor person described earlier. That is why many economists prefer these tax cuts to the lower or middle class as a mechanism to stimulate the economy. Since the FICA tax is only paid on the first $110,000 (approximately) of income, it would have a greater proportional effect on lower income workers.

In addition, there are obvious social reasons to give more help to the poorer members of society that need the help, rather than give it to the rich who seem to be doing quite well without help.

The tax reduction in 2011 has been a success with a small reduction in unemployment just one indication of that success. Certainly no-one would deny the benefit of putting a little more money in the consumer’s pocket. Although some Republicans, including some presidential candidates, have criticized continuing the cut by claiming there is no evidence that it has improved the economy, that is an unusual argument from the political party that supports a continuation of the tax cuts for the highest earners in our society with the statement that the cut is good for the economy and creates jobs. Since there is no evidence that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 have improved the economy, and the cuts had ten years to perform that role, it is odd that this party now argues that there is no evidence that the payroll tax cut has improved things. Where is the evidence that the Bush tax cuts improved the economy?

It is obvious that people in the US are suffering. People are out of work. People have been forced to take jobs at reduced pay. Companies continue to lay-off workers and the rate of job creation doesn’t even match the number of new workers entering the job market. This recession has continued for several years and economists agree to the need for further stimulus.

Therefore I ask that you agree with the affirmative and resolve that the payroll tax cut should be extended into 2012. Thank you.

THE NEGATIVE

The negative team agrees that the US is in a serious recession and that changes in policy are called for. However, any solution must be considered for both its short-term and long-term effects. As you are all aware, one of the financial crises facing this country is the long-term viability of our Social Security system. The facts are well known. Due to the large demographic called the “baby boomers” we are just entering a time when there will be much increased demand on the Social Security system for payouts at a time when the number of workers paying in will be decreasing.

It was in anticipation of this bubble of retirees that Congress set the current Social Security tax rate at an amount that created a surplus over the last several years. Just how long that surplus will provide for the increased demand is debatable, but one thing is certain: reducing the income to the Social Security Insurance system will hasten that point where the system goes broke. Already the cash flow of Social Security has turned negative forcing the government to tap the surplus. And just where is that surplus? Why it is in government treasury bills. And how will the government redeem those notes and convert them to cash to pay off retirees? Since the government is running in deficit, it will have to issue more t-bills.

In other words, the surplus doesn’t really exist. It has already been borrowed against by the government. I don’t see how additional government spending and borrowing is going to improve the economy. Any positive impact will be more than offset by the negative impact of additional borrowing.

Let’s talk about this economy. One trend we have observed over the last 90 years is a steady increase in the percentage of the gross national product consumed by the federal government. That percentage has risen from 10% in 1910 to 50% today. One way to interpret that statement is that the US government basically employs half of the people in the US. That is either directly as government employees, or indirectly as employees of government contractors.

So how will it help our economy to further cash starve the very government that is providing, directly and indirectly, half of the jobs in the US? Further, how much is this large government worker base retarding growth in the other industries throughout America. Certainly recent events would argue for careful regulation of certain industries, but there is also evidence of over regulation and costly limitations on business the result of too much government. The tax code itself, and these frequent, last-minute changes in that code, cost American businesses with each change and each paragraph of legalese in the regulations.

Let’s also consider social justice. It is worthwhile to craft a program that benefits the lower income people in this country, but at whose expense? Current retirees will not save since they are not paying Social Security tax because they don’t work. Further, reducing FICA income may end up requiring a cut in Social Security benefits. Unemployed won’t benefit since they don’t receive a paycheck either. Most people are having a hard time, but the ones who are affected most are the unemployed. Why give tax breaks to those who already have jobs?

The question you have to ask is, will this continuation of the payroll tax cut, or even a possible increase in the size of this cut actually stimulate the economy enough to pay for the negative effects on the Social Security trust fund, older Americans, and even the unemployed? Would a better way to improve our economy and create jobs be to reduce government debt and encourage investment rather than spending? What are the real trends causing the current loss of jobs in America and how can those trends be reversed, not a short-term boost in spending that will likely only result in more purchases of imported goods, but a real change in the way America does business. Consider needed investment in infrastructure, education, and all the other long-terms needs of our society.

Tax cuts in the FICA contribution rates, such as was done for 2011, without corresponding benefit reductions simply worsens the current under funding of Social Security. This either will require larger benefit reductions in the future, higher taxes, or a break in the linkage that underpins the program. Extension of the SSN tax reduction is pandering to the electorate in its worst form by both parties. Whatever side one comes down on as to taxation, deficits, stimulus, etc., we must not cut contributions to the already troubled Social Security system.

For these reasons we request you reject this temporary band-aid in favor of more permanent solutions.

Hot Pockets or Pick Pockets

This item was originally written on Monday, December 26, 2011 ... the day after Christmas, on Facebook.

Christmas is over and I hope everyone had a very merry time with family and friends, with gifts and cards, with food and drink, and just a chance to escape to focus on what is really important in life.

Just before Christmas, and accompanied with “high drama,” Congress finally passed an extension to the payroll tax cut. I think that was good news and a relief to those who are suffering most in our struggling economy. The bill that was finally, quickly passed and signed by the President included a two month extension for the 2% Social Security tax cut, an extension of funding for unemployment benefits, and a continuation of the abeyance of a very large cut in Medicare doctor payments.

All three will a positive effect on the American people. As I’ve written before, the payroll tax cut will put more money in the pockets of all working Americans. The extension of unemployment benefits will help those who have been out of work for half a year, a whole year, even longer (although details depend on the individual states).

Finally, delaying the 27% cut in Medicare reimbursement is good news for doctors, but it is also good news for Medicare patients. If the payment for Medicare treatment becomes too low, then doctors will stop seeing Medicare patients. That has already happened on a small scale, but each cut in reimbursement will mean more doctors will refuse Medicare patients. While it is a blessing that inflation has not been a large concern these last five years, put yourself in the shoes of a doctor with a practice and employees that have to be paid for, and you are told your fees are cut 27%. What would you do? At some point, you would simply state “I can’t afford to provide this care any longer.” Then the poorest in our nation, those on Medicare and Medicaid, will have fewer choices for doctors.

So all three actions will benefit most those who are struggling. Sadly the extension is only for two months, and we can now expect Act II of the debate in Congress about solving these problems and stimulating the economy. I think I’m going to go down to the butcher shop and watch them making sausage.

My informal polling indicates most people are in support of this bill. As I wrote previously, there are two sides to the payroll tax debate, and – frankly – I’m on both sides. I agree this was legislation needed to help those in most need of help and it should boost our economy by something near 1% from the increased spending. That is good.

On the other hand, I don’t want to see a loss of funding to the Social Security Trust Fund. In addition, I’m very concerned about our run-away deficit and our national debt. I agree that increased government spending is necessary during times of economic downturn. This is a lesson Woodrow Wilson missed, and his errors intensified the great depression.

But, eventually, our financial house must be brought in order. As a nation (or as individuals), we can’t continue indefinitely spending more than we earn. Borrowing for good reasons is good. For example, most people would never be able to own a home if they didn’t borrow the purchase price. Other large items such as automobiles and trucks are also typically bought on credit rather than cash.

But borrowing to make ends meet is not a long-term economic strategy that can be followed by nations or families. The bills must be paid. If for no other reason, at least the US has to stop borrowing when the payment (that’s interest) on the national debt becomes too large a percentage of the budget. That basically means that our children and grandchildren will have to pay for our spending today.

One only needs to read the newspapers and hear about the debt crisis in Europe or the “austerity measures” being adopted by some European debtor nations. Austerity measures is a fancy economic word for “we will be eating Ramen Noodles for dinner tonight, and tomorrow night, and the night after …”

There are many reasons that our government budget is so out of balance. On one hand there is continually increasing spending. One component of that spending is a defense budget that includes several wars and supporting one of the largest militaries in the world. Second is the so-called entitlement spending. That’s Medicare and Social Security and pensions for former government employees. After those two big budget items there is little left to spend on anything else. On the other hand are tax cuts enjoyed by all segments of the population. Those decreases in tax rates are now over a decade old and were extended last year after a noisy debate, mostly having to do with the “rich paying their fair share.”

The cynic in me thinks everyone wants higher taxes – on the other guy. But, for me, taxes are just too damn high! Don’t raise taxes during a recession – don’t you know any economic theory? I’m tired of paying for all of those that don’t pay. Do you want to cripple small business, the real job creator in our country? – I’ve heard and thought it all. The practical guy in me knows that the only solution is going to be a combination of reductions in spending and increases in government income. Just watch out for that devil that lives in the details.

In an attempt to control spending Congress, will often require a source of funding to offset any new spending. That is good policy and forces some level of prioritization of needs. After all, we can’t afford everything.

So, what is the source of funding of the current payroll tax reduction extension and the related legislation? Well, you’ll have to scan the newspapers and television news very carefully to find the answer to that question. The headlines are full of dramatic statements such as “Obama Wins Showdown with Congress” or something else designed to attract readers and viewers by treating these important issues like a sports competition. Sadly there is little information to actually inform readers and viewers … AND voters.

I did find a useful article in the LA Times that described the source of funding of this legislation. It is a fee on loans issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government affiliated home mortgage giants, that will offset the loss of income and extra spending.

Based on prevailing rates for a 30-year fixed-rate loan, a homeowner borrowing $200,000 would pay about $4,000 more if the loan were sold to Fannie or Freddie. That would raise the mortgage payment about $11 a month for the life of the loan.

I learned that, even though the tax cut extends for only two months, a fee on loan amounts would be levied for a DECADE. That’s right! To pay for two months, this fee will last for ten years. Plus, this means another source of funding for any further extension of relief will have to be found. This well is being pumped dry!!

(A special tax on those earning over $1 million has often been suggested to pay for the cuts and benefits, but defeated by the Republican opposition. That fact will probably play big in Act II of the debate and also in Act III – the election campaign.)

Oh, and that fee arrangement also makes it difficult for Congress to work on efforts to shut down Fannie and Freddie, which federal regulators seized three years ago with a taxpayer bailout now estimated to total about $150 billion.

Then there is the problem that the collapse of the housing market triggered the Great Recession and led to a wave of foreclosures as housing prices plummeted nationally. The market has been struggling to recover amid weak economic growth and high unemployment.

The new mortgage fee to fund the temporary extension of the payroll tax cut could dampen the still-sluggish real estate market and complicate efforts to overhaul the nation's wounded housing finance system. The new fee may even make a new loan unaffordable to the very people that this legislation is intended to help.

It is true that the Obama administration and some analysts have called for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to raise their fees to make it easier for private companies to compete with them. Because the government owns Fannie and Freddie, investors view the mortgage-backed securities they create as safer investments than those offered by private firms. Raising their rates to compensate for this natural advantage may be this is a wise decision increasing private mortgage providers.

I think a fee increase would be fine — if the money were used to offset losses at Fannie and Freddie. But diverting the money to other government uses is a bad idea.

We certainly have raised the level of robbing Peter to pay Paul to a new level, as government reaches into the left pocket to put money in the right pocket. I am used to this game of smoke and mirrors from our elected representatives. I just wish the “free press” would be more out front informing the public of just where the money is coming from.

Sadly, I think a lot of people just want to hear that the check is in the mail. They are not too worried where the money is coming from. “Kids, I’ve got bad news for you. The next envelope in the mail isn’t going to be a check, but a bill … a very big bill. Well, good luck with that!”

Taxmageddon

This is another reprint from Facebook. This original article was written on Monday, February 20, 2012.

Have you ever wished you could see into the future? Do you wish you could prevent tragedies before they occur? What if you could warn about it before it happens? What if you could tell the captain of the Titanic to watch out for the iceberg? Or warn the airlines before the 9/11 hijackers got on board? Wouldn’t that be wonderful?

 Of course, you don’t want to be chicken little yelling that the sky is falling. Plenty of would-be prophets have done that through the years. I’m not in the business of prognosticating. I’m neither a professional economist nor a member of the government with responsibility to warn about these issues. With congress seemingly unable to even develop a budget -- there’s been none from the Senate for about ten years, and president’s budgets often claimed to be “dead on arrival” on capital hill, who am I to sound the warning.

I’m personally not tied to either political party. I think the Democrats are the raise taxes and raise spending party and the Republicans are the cut taxes and raise spending party. Not a lot of difference to me. Neither party seems to have a clue about a balanced budget or prioritizing spending. I think, basically, all they do is buy votes and kiss the backsides of lobbyists.

It seems that the folks in Washington live in a dream world where we can just keep on borrowing and spending and there will never be a reckoning. I think the reckoning is coming, and it’s coming soon. I even know the date: Jan. 1, 2013.

Maybe it’s just the advantage of having the best congress money can buy. I don’t hire any lobbyist, nor do I contribute millions to re-election campaign or bundle the contributions from my millionaire buddies and corporate captains.

So who will listen to me? I’m just a little chicken shouting about the sky. What do I know?

I do know how to add, and I read the papers now and then and go to a few web sites, and things seem obvious to me. We are currently mired in what I call the “Great Recession.” Things have been out of kilter for several years. One statistic, the unemployment numbers, is enough to arrive at that conclusion. I have friends and family that have lost their jobs and are struggling to find another. Unemployment benefits have been extended again and again, and all measures of suffering from food banks to foreclosed houses show things are about as bad as they’ve been since the great Depression of the twenties and thirties.

Of course, economists, like generals, are always fighting the last war. There are lessons from the great depression and one lesson is about the impact of taxes. It is probably good economics to cut taxes during a recession, and never good to raise taxes.

Or is it? In our modern society I’m not sure. With half of the GDP in government spending, maybe raising taxes would fund more government employment and save us from ourselves. Or, maybe we need lower taxes to increase personal spending. It is a lot, lot more complicated than that, but taxes are a major lever used by government to regulate the economy and to get ourselves out of this mess -- as well as to get themselves re-elected.

We’ve had bailouts and buyouts and tax holidays all suggested and implemented over the last four years. I’ve spoken before about my concern with the current Social Security tax holiday. It was implemented in 2011 as a temporary measure with the idea that the extra money in the pockets of all people who are earning a wage will both reduce suffering by those that are being squeezed financially and would improve the economy. Who couldn’t use some extra money? And, second, it should increase spending and stop the downward spiral of job losses as these extra customers drive corporations to increase hiring. Sounds like a good plan. Or does it?

Certainly the so-called payroll taxes are a big hit on the lowest earners in our nation. Economists call it the “marginal propensity to consume (spend).” That means that poor people are much more likely to spend any extra money the government can put in their pockets than, say, the RICH. I’ve heard all the “tax the rich” rhetoric and you won’t get any complaints from me. The richest 2% of this country are doing quite well in this downturn, and they can afford to pay a little more for the privilege of being rich in America. Perhaps the argument should be about how much more, but many won’t accept any tax increase for the highest bracket earners. And don't tell me about closing the loop-holes. It seems to me that all changes in the tax code just create more loop-holes. I remember back in the 70's when congress put a big tax on luxury boats --yachts. All it did in the long run was cause a lot of ordinary people who built the yachts to lose their jobs.

Of course, we all love a tax on someone else, and even some of the rich have stated they should pay a little more. I don’t hear anyone saying how much more, but that’s another issue. Further, even if you took all the money made by the rich, you won’t solve our current financial problems. But that isn’t what I want to talk about.

Like I said, I would like to be the first to give the warning. It turns out that Senator Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, beat me to it. Last week, when the latest payroll tax cut was approved, he voted no and stated, “This Congress will be making a grave mistake -- a grave mistake -- and reinforcing a dangerous precedent," Harkin said in a dramatic Senate floor speech late Thursday. "And I’m dismayed that Democrats, including a Democratic president and a Democratic vice president, have proposed this, and are willing to sign off on a deal that could begin the unraveling of Social Security." "It's a devil's deal."

He went on to say, "Make no mistake about it. American people, make no mistake about it. This is the beginning of the end of the sanctity of Social Security."

Is Tom right? Is this the beginning of the end of Social Security? And is it a Democrat congress that will cause that end.

I too am very worried about extending the Social Security tax cut “holiday” for another full year. What started out as a one year, temporary measure has now been extended to two years. It is becoming a habit. And habits are like comfortable beds, easy to get into, but very hard to get out of. So, will we extend the tax cut again next year?

Why am I so concerned about extending a tax cut? I thought everyone loved tax cuts. Well, it is complicated, but remember this money is being paid to the Social Security fund. All I’ve heard for the last forty years is how that fund is in trouble. The baby boomers -- your truly -- were gong to “bust” the fund. Why, since the 70’s we’ve even paid extra into the fund to build up a surplus. Yet accountants and economists tell us it will run out of money soon. The only question is when.

So how can it be good to cut the income to the fund? Maybe for one year as an emergency measure to try to improve the economy or to help out people in need. But two years. Three years. When will it end?

Oh, you say, you’re panicking. We’ll restore the tax at the end of the year. Really? Do you know what is coming at the end of this year?

I wrote two short articles a while back where I actually argued both sides of the payroll tax cut idea. Now I’m starting to take the negative approach, and I believe the recently approved extension of the tax break on FICA was a mistake. Following are excerpt borrowed heavily from a Washington Post report on TAXMAGEDDON, a catchy name for what will occur on January, 2013 if no further changes or extensions or modifications of the tax laws occur. And, since this is a presidential election year, don’t expect congress to do a damn thing!

With Congress voting last week to extend the payroll tax holiday, 160 million workers will be spared an immediate tax hike. But the move leaves them facing an even bigger hit in January, when the holiday ends and the payroll tax joins a long list of levies already set to sharply and abruptly go up.

On Dec. 31, the Bush-era tax cuts are scheduled to expire, raising rates on investment income, estates and gifts, and earnings at all levels. Overnight, the marriage penalty for joint filers will spring back to life, the value of the child credit will drop from $1,000 to $500, and the rate everyone pays on the first $8,700 of wages will jump from 10 percent to 15 percent.

You did know all that, didn’t you?

The Social Security payroll tax will pop back up to 6.2 percent from 4.2 percent under the deal approved recently by Congress. And new Medicare taxes enacted as part of President Obama’s health-care initiative will for the first time strike high-income households.

The potential shock to the nation’s pocketbook is so enormous, congressional aides have dubbed it “Taxmageddon.” Some economists say it could push the fragile U.S. economy back into recession, particularly if automatic cuts to federal agencies, also set for January, are permitted to take effect.

Obama and congressional Republicans say they hope to avert the coming blow, which stands to suck roughly $500 billion out of the economy in 2013. But both sides are bracing for another epic showdown in the weeks after the November election, as Democrats prepare to use Taxmageddon to break the partisan impasse over taxes that has blocked action on an array of issues, from modernizing the nation’s infrastructure to taming the national debt.

Since they took control of the House last year, congressional Republicans have needed nothing from Obama. They were the holdouts, demanding big cuts in federal spending in exchange for helping Obama keep the government open and raise the legal limit on government borrowing, known as the debt ceiling.

But in December, deadlock will cut the other way. Republicans need Obama if they want to prevent one of the biggest tax increases in U.S. history -- nearly $5 trillion over the next decade, by official estimates -- and block deep cuts to the Pentagon that could be triggered as part of last summer’s debt-ceiling accord.

The tax shock is set to occur after the Nov. 6 election but before the new Congress -- and potentially a new president -- take office two months later. While the outcome of the contest is likely to color the tax debate, Obama will either be freshly reelected or on his way out and, therefore, free to play hardball with Congress.

White House officials say Obama will not sign another full extension of the Bush tax cuts, as he did in December 2010. Obama is demanding a partial extension that would preserve the cuts for middle-class taxpayers but permit rates to rise on household income over $250,000.

Many Republicans and outside analysts say they doubt Obama would make good on his veto threat. Allowing all of the Bush tax cuts to expire would harm middle-class taxpayers, along with the wealthy, and carry grave risks for the economy.

“My forecast is that tax rates are not going to rise for everyone on January 1, 2013,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics, who predicted that Taxmageddon, combined with the cuts from the debt-ceiling deal, would slash economic growth by nearly three percentage points next year. “That would be pretty difficult for the economy to overcome.”

Still, Democratic spines may be stiffened by polls showing broad support for their latest tax strategy, which emphasizes higher taxes for millionaires rather than the merely well-off. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 72 percent of Americans support raising taxes on people with incomes over $1 million a year, in line with Obama’s call for a “Buffett Rule” that would require those families to pay an effective tax rate of at least 30 percent.

Many Republicans maintain that they would never raise taxes on a group the GOP views as small-business owners and “job creators.” Besides, Republican strategists said, they are likely to have bargaining chips of their own in December.

For instance, without congressional action, nearly 30 million families will have to pay the alternative minimum tax, which adds thousands of dollars to the average tax bill, in April 2013. Congress typically protects those people through annual adjustments, and the latest “AMT patch” expired in December.

Another potential GOP tactical advantage: the debt ceiling. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner acknowledged in congressional testimony last week that Obama may need Congress to raise the legal limit on borrowing, now set at $16.4 trillion, before the end of the year.

Then there’s the matter of the election itself. With control of both chambers of Congress and the White House all potentially in play Nov. 6, the voters could upend Democrats’ best-laid plans. If Republicans claim the White House and the Senate after an election waged in part over tax policy, demoralized Democrats might agree to extend all the Bush cuts without a fight.

While some Republicans are ready to man the tax barricades, among others the GOP’s anti-tax orthodoxy is starting to crack. Forty Republicans in the House and 32 in the Senate have endorsed the concept of a grand bargain to tackle the national debt, which would require Republicans to raise taxes and Democrats to accept cuts in federal health and retirement benefits. With Obama continuing to call for a grand bargain, that group is working with Democrats behind the scenes to draft a plan able to win bipartisan support.

Meanwhile, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-Calif.) has said he would take higher taxes over defense cuts. And during unsuccessful debt-reduction talks last year, Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), one of the Senate’s most ardent conservatives, drafted a plan that would have included $300 billion in new revenue over a decade.

“I think one of the reasons that you saw Pat Toomey offer what he did is a realization that we’re going to have a $5 trillion tax increase at the end of the year,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). “Hopefully, this year we’ll actually do something constructive and work out something that’s sensible over the long haul.”

Yes congress, that would be a great idea! Do something constructive and work out something that’s sensible over the long haul!! I want to keep getting those Social Security checks ... and there are plenty of Americans out there that the monthly check is the only income they have. We all worked and paid for Social Security and Medicare. It was a promise made to us, and now the promise must be kept. I don’t want Social Security to go broke just when I start to use it. Plus, it would be nice if my kids and grand-kids could have it too. That is the long haul.

The Joy of Writing

Another repost. This note was originally written on March 8, 2012, while visiting my sister in Bozeman, Montana.

I do love to write. I suppose it goes along with my joy of reading and, especially, my joy of talking. When I’m in the mood for a good “talk,” I have to find an audience that is interested, or at the very least, “captive.” Then I have to get them to lean back and listen, none of this pesky discussion stuff. Just listen to what I have to say. So, naturally, writing seems just perfect to this end. I just let the words flow and my amazing, yet very quiet audience takes them in. I guess that assumes I have an audience. The book sales are not too great, and I’ve yet to read any reviews by the critics, so I’ll just have to take it on faith that anyone is listening — reading that is.

My busy home life does leave something to be desired in terms of time for my avocation of scripting. What with sleeping in until 9:00, a leisurely breakfast and then walking the dog, it will be time for lunch. Where the afternoon goes, I don’t have a clue. And then come evening, time to relax in my comfortable chair and do some serious reading. Then it’s bedtime and the cycle begins anew. It seems that it is only on these trips, which I refuse to call vacations since that would imply a vocation that I find the time to write. And even that can be difficult to do. Today we’ve got plans that include visiting old friends and seeing new sights.

This morning, while I lazily started my day with several cups of coffee, the paper, my morning chores, and just enjoying the sunshine and Montana snow from my safe and warm vantage here behind the triple pane windows, I found time to read a little more of the biography of a musician friend I’ve known for several years. He wrote an interesting biography of his life and times that I’m currently consuming at moments of leisure in the “reading room.” Certainly one of the reasons I’m writing is to create my own personal biography, the story of my life as it were. As you constant readers can acknowledge, by literary output has been “all over the map.” I’ve written about technical and scientific topics, economic essays, political discourses, how-to guides, music and art, as well as bits and pieces of my life.

One goal is that, at some point in the future, I could combine all the autobiographical material into a single volume. A best seller? Perhaps not. But it would be a legacy for my children which they could then dispose of along with the worn out comfortable chair.

I am greatly enjoying my friend’s description of his life’s odyssey. He is about the same age as me, and his journey includes many of the same events and history as mine. His take on these life events is filtered through a different lens than mine. While he is a graduate of Boston College with a liberal arts degree and a very leftish view on life and events, I’m the graduate of a second rate state college with a focus on technical and scientific ideas and a rightish political view.

Some people take their political view and put on blinders, only willing to see what fits their personal paradigms of life, rejecting any concepts that don’t fit their comfortable outlook and actually villainizing those with conflicting points of view. That has never been my goal. I certainly am strong in my beliefs, having arrived at them through careful thought and self-examination. Many of my earlier ideas and points-of-view have changed or at least softened as I gained experience and knowledge about the world, but — like most folks I suspect — I still pretty well fit the mold that first formed me.

Consistency of opinion is not really a virtue. Times change and circumstances change and opinions can change over a lifetime. That is not a philosophical weakness. It is called learning. And a little self-doubt is healthy. I think of all the times I’ve been wrong about something. I’m not so pig-headed that I can’t see how I made a mistake or mistook a situation or simply didn’t understand what was going on. My compass has always been true, but my maps have had some errors. The advantage of time and long life is that your view of the territory of "life" becomes more complete. Life is exploration of boundaries, and what was once strange land, is now familiar territory.

Besides that, I have to tell you frankly, I love to interact with people that don’t agree with me. I don’t mean I like to argue, although I suppose I do. Rather I enjoy the interaction with people that have different perspectives on life than I do. It is like a summer vacation where you visit someplace new that you hadn’t seen before. People that I don’t agree with, they are the new sights and sounds that I add to my life to increase its richness.

I find many people’s views of political issues very disturbing. How anyone can be so absolutely certain about things as complicated as how we should run our nation? This isn’t science where we can perform experiments and confirm results and develop theorems and formulas. Certainly there are things to learn from life and politics and it isn’t all just personal opinion. We can observe how well or how “not so well” a particular political solution is performing, but I think many people’s minds are already made up and they don’t want to be confused with facts.

I don’t want to upset any family or friends with my differing views presented in an abrasive and “my way or the highway” attitude. Discretion is often the better part of valor, and I don’t argue with people I love, even if I disagree with them fundamentally. I do like to present my point of view, but I prefer it be in a non-threatening manner. So, writing about my life and what I consider to be true and important seems like a low-key way to get my ideas across. That assumes anyone is reading my writing. Well, I don’t suppose that is necessary to obtain my personal goals. If no-one ever reads what I wrote, that would be OK … I’d just call it a journal or a diary, and move on. I still get the joy of expressing my thoughts.

Whether this will ever become a book, sold on Amazon or Apple’s iBook, that I doubt. If I even get it all collated into a single volume, that would be quite a feat. Do you know how many specialists and professionals it takes to turn simple thoughts on a page into a published book? It is daunting. So, for now, I’ll just keep posting these notes on Facebook and my blog and hope to get some response from you out there.

I ran into my friend at a local lunch spot the other day. I told him I was reading his book. He was most pleasantly surprised. I’m glad our little conversation brought him joy. I think that is the true value of friendship and I look forward to — someday — having a similar discussion with someone. “Say, I’m reading your book.” I don’t think there is any phrase in the human language as complementary. So I’ll keep on writing, and — who knows? Maybe, someday, I’ll have that conversation.

P.S. If this little note sparked an interest in my friend’s book, you can purchase it here:

http://www.amazon.com/Saturns-Return-A-Boomers-Memoir/dp/0615448607/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331228143&sr=8-1

A Musical Household

I originally wrote this on February 4, 2012, while visiting my dad's home in Oregon. We're back there now and I'm reminiscing and copying notes I wrote back then on Facebook here to my blog. The last time I was here, the muse was really in me and and wrote, and wrote, and wrote. This time, not so much muse, so I'll just copy, copy, copy.

Visits to my dad’s always involve chores and a to-do list. I’m his technical support for computer, home entertainment, and even home decorating questions. The last one should give some idea how desperate he is.

This time we made some major changes to his home entertainment center. He had purchased a new, 43” TV for his family room. So we took the 32” flatscreen out of the family room and put it in the bedroom. Then we took the 25” TV out of the bedroom and replaced his current computer monitor. So every workstation and entertainment system got an upgrade.

The new TV uses HDMI inputs and my dad likes to play the TV through his surround system. Long story short, we decided to upgrade the sound system too and purchased a new A/V receiver. We bought a Pioneer system that has four HDMI inputs and Dolby 5.1 sound. His old system was a surround system too, and involved a DVD recorder and two VHS tape decks. Over the years he copied all his old VHS tapes of various singing groups to DVD. So we’re simplifying his configuration and I’m actually rewiring the whole system.

When we’re done he’ll have a dual well VHS / DVD player / recorder, a CD players, and an old cassette player. He also likes to listen to both the sports programs on AM radio and music and news on FM. So it is a very nice multi-function system with more remote controls than people have hands and feet.

I’ll be writing up technical procedures for how to copy a program off the DVR and onto DVD so he can share with his friends. The daughter of one of my dad’s good friends has a home improvement show on the local Portland TV station that my dad records and makes copies of for her.

After a trip to Home Depot, BiMart, and Radio Shack I had a new collection of wire, cables, and plugs, and I just finished soldering banana plugs for the new speaker connections. It has been a while since I had a soldering iron in my hands, and it was fun. I love the smell of the rosin flux in the morning. Since I was a technician long before I graduated from college and became an engineer, I’ve always been proud of my mechanical skills with soldering iron and diagonal cutters.

When I’m done his dolby 5.1 system will be humming … no, don’t want hum … it’ll be singing.

In preparation, I needed to move his cabinet away from the wall. There were some cables not being used any more, and I wanted to start all over fresh. In order to move the cabinet, I cleaned out the bottom which was full of records. The records were a flash from the past.

Both of my parents were very musical and our home was filled with music when I was growing up. I mean it, our house was literally filled with music. From when we got up until we went to bed, there were always records playing. We had no TV and so all we did in the evening was listen to music and read. These records I found were a big part of it.

Let me describe how it was. My mother was a classically trained pianist and organist. I grew up in a home with two pianos. One was an upright player piano — I could play that one. :-) The other was a Steinway grand piano. Apparently my grandparents bought a house that contained the piano. and that’s how we got it.

My mom had played those big church pipe organs and really wanted an organ. We even got a device that fit over the Steinway keyboard and, when you pressed a piano key, a little pin went down and triggered an organ sound out of a speaker in the Organo box — I think it was called an “Organo.” But what my mom really wanted was a Hammond Organ. Unfortunately, they were very expensive in those days.

My dad eventually traded in the Steinway and bought my mom a brand new Hammond M-101. Not a B-3, but pretty nice. I know it cost over a thousand dollars, even with the trade in. Remember, in 1959, a thousand dollars would buy a new car!

My dad was also a musician. He was part of a gospel quartet in high school, and he played the accordion. Some of you readers may know of Jake Hess who sang with the Gaithers. Both my dad and Jake were from Haleyville, Alabama, and they were friends, although my dad says he never performed with Jake.

My dad was and still is a great singer, and I remember going to concerts where he sang. I especially recall him singing the Handel’s Messiah at the local church. I think he could sing every part from baritone to high tenor. Mark has inherited a lot of the wide range of voice my dad had, although even Mark can’t hit as low of notes as dad.

But here is the difference between my mom and dad: my mom read music and that was how she played; my dad played by ear. Still I remember some great duets by the two of them. Later, after I had moved away, they had both a big Baldwin Organ and a Story and Clark concert grand piano. (Dad still has the piano.) They would play together and my dad would sing. It was great.

My mom was a big, big opera fan. Her favorite was La Boheme. Once my dad purchased tickets for her to fly from Montana to New York City to attend the Metropolitan Opera. He didn’t go with her because he had to stay behind and run the grocery store, but my mom traveled all the way to NY to see the great opera she loved.

In the record collection I removed from the cabinet I found a bunch of Time-Life Records called “The Story of Great Music.” Each album contains four long play records and the titles include:

“The Baroque Era” — Bach, Corelli, Couperin, Handel, Purcell, Rameau, Scarlatti, Telemann, and Vivaldi.

“The Age of Elegance” — Beethoven, Boccherini, Gluck, Haydn, and Mozart.

“Age of Revolution” — Beethoven, Rossini, Schubert, Weber.

“The Romantic Era” — Berlioz, Chopin, Liszt, Mendelssohn, Schumann, and Verdi.

“The Opulent Era” — Brahms, Bruckner, Offenbach, Saint-Saens, Johann Strauss, Tchaikovsky, and Wagner.

“Slavic Traditions” — Balakirev, Borodin, Dvorak, Glinka, Janacek, Mussorgsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, and Smetana.

“Prelude to Modern Music” — Debussy, Mahler, Puccini, Rachmaninoff, Ravel, Richard Strauss.

“The Early Twentieth Century” — Bartok, Berg, Gershwin, Milhaud, Prokofiev, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Villa-Lobos, and Webern.

“The Music of Today” — Babbitt, Bernstein, Boulez, Britten, Copland, Hindemith, Poulenc, Shostakovich, Vaughan Williams, and Walton.

These record albums, continually played on our “hi-fi” record player in the living room, and our 1959 set of World Book Encyclopedias were my classical education. I remember so many nights laying on the living room rug, listening to the symphonies, and just reading articles in the encyclopedia. Man — what a nerd!

(And I made my own chip dip. I mixed Miracle Whip dressing, pickle relish, and cottage cheese and ate it with Frito chips. If that doesn’t certify my nerdness, then I don’t know what does.)

I started piano lessons when I was in fifth grade. I also played a couple of years in band, the clarinet — really wanted to play the saxophone, but this guy at the “Golden Montana” where we rented my instrument, told my parents it was best to start with the clarinet and switch to the saxophone later.

Like the advice given to Leo Kottke’s school band teacher when he told him he had gotten a guitar and was really enjoying it. His teacher replied, “OK, but remember, your future is in the trombone.” I spent several years in piano and organ lessons until the magic day I suddenly realized that I could play a popular song. The first rock song I played on the keyboard was “Road Runner,” a simple twelve bar blues instrumental lead by the — wait for it — saxophone!

So that was the musical home I grew up in. It all came flooding back when I unloaded those records along with tons of opera like Madam Butterfly, Carman, and La Boheme. My dad has a turntable, maybe it’s time to lay back down on the living room floor and test out the new sound system. The encyclopedias are here too. Now if I can reproduce the chip dip recipe, it will be a complete retro event.

Quite a jump from mono hi-fi to 5.1 surround sound, but then the records are just mono anyway. Just a couple more banana plugs to solder on the speaker wires and I’ll be ready.