Book Award and First Book Review

Posted by Mack W. Borgen June 11th, 2018

I Am Pleased to Announce

That My Latest Book,
Dead Serious and Lighthearted – Volume I
Has Just Received

Best Book of the Year
(General Nonfiction) (2nd Place)
San Francisco 2018 Book Festival

In Addition
A Great Review From

— The US Review of Books —

“Opening this book feels like unlocking a time capsule.”
– – –
“To those who lived through the 60s and 70s,
these glimpses are magnetic, ….”

Full Review Is Set Forth Below

If You Haven’t Already Ordered Your Copies
PLEASE – Place Your Order Now
For Yourself, For Your Friends, or
For Birthday, Christmas, or Client Gifts

“This book is a ‘must read.'”
Michael Levin,
New York Times Bestselling Author, Boston, Massachusetts

Presented For Every Year
The Memorable “Data Words”

Seminal Books
Pulitzer Prize-Winning Books
Analysis of The New York Times Best Sellers Over the Years
Academy Awards and PrettyFamous’ Best Picture
Best Movie Lines and Most Widely-Viewed Television Shows
Grammy Awards for Best Spoken Word Album
Best and Worst Book Titles and Books Most Frequently Banned
Presidential Campaign Themes and Corporate Slogans and Advertising Tag-Lines
The Memorable Words from Speeches, Books, Writings, and Other Sources

The fascinating and frivolous; the tragic and momentous,
The eloquent and bumbling; and the touching and endearing.


Free Shipping

(Orders of 10 Copies or More!!)
— Direct from Publisher —
Just Go to

Also Available on Amazon

* Reminder – Book Costs May Be Tax Deductible. Book costs may be tax deductible in certain circumstances such as if delivered as client/customer appreciation gifts or for client development. Please consult your tax advisor.

US Review of Books
Full Text of Review

May, 2018
— Dead Serious and Lighthearted —
— The Memorable Words of Modern America – Volume I (1957-1976) —

“History is a quiet medicine, but it can allow us individually and as a nation to better remember our accomplishments. It can reinforce our patience…”

Opening this book feels like unlocking a time capsule. What were people watching on TV or seeing in movie theaters in 1967? If you can’t remember, two popular offerings were The Andy Griffith Show and In the Heat of the Night. If you could step back into a bookstore in 1965, what books would be on the best seller’s shelf? The author tells us they were The Autobiography of Malcolm X and Unsafe at Any Speed. Meanwhile, the memorable phrase of 1973 was “What did the President know and when…”

To those who lived through the 60s and 70s, these glimpses are magnetic, attracting memories from our distant past. For Generation X and Millenniums, this may be your first time hearing this information. That is all right since the author plans two more volumes that will cover the years 1977-2015. Then reader roles may be reversed, and baby boomers will have to be brought up to speed by the current generations. As explained in his introduction, Borgen’s intent in writing a modern American history is to draw together generations living today. In previous centuries sometimes only two generations lived at the same time, so traditions and stories were handed down orally. With increased life expectancies, America now has four generations who must get better acquainted in order to live and work together.

The layout of this 500-plus-page book is atypical. Roughly divided into three parts, six introductory chapters precede the memorable words of the 1957-1976 section. The last third of the book contains appendices, endnotes, resources, and an in-depth index. Future volumes are to follow the same format.

Whether readers prefer cultural theory and arguments or simply reliving memorable words of our collective lifetime, the book does not disappoint. It is a reference for researchers and librarians but sure to be beloved by boomers.

Book is recommended by US Review of Books

You Are Invited – Tecolote Book Signing and KZSB Radio Interview with Mack W. Borgen

Posted by Mack W. Borgen May 22nd, 2018

You Are Invited
– – –
Tecolote Bookstore
Mack W. Borgen Book Signing

1470 East Valley Road, Montecito
Saturday, May 26, 2018
Hors d’oeuvres and refreshments


Join Us and Listen to Radio Interview
With Mack W. Borgen
about His Latest Book, Dead Serious and Lighthearted
The Dr. Elizabeth Stewart Radio Show

Friday, June 1*
10:00 AM
KZSB AM 1290

*Show also tentatively planned on being re-broadcast
at 8:00PM, Friday, June 1 and 11:00AM, Sunday, June 3.
– – –
If You Haven’t Already Ordered Your Copies

Place Your Order Now

“This book is a ‘must read.’”
Michael Levin,
New York Times Bestselling Author, Boston, Massachusetts

“The ‘memorable words’– reminders of where we were, where we are now,
and where we might be heading.”

Wayne S. Bell, California Real Estate Commissioner, Sacramento, California

“Deserves a place in our education curriculum …”
Reid A. Olsen, Education and Business Consultant, Chicago, Illinois

Presented For Every Year
The Memorable “Data Words”

Seminal Books
Pulitzer Prize-Winning Books and The New York Times Best Sellers
Academy Awards and PrettyFamous’ Best Picture
Best Movie Lines and Most Widely-Viewed Television Shows
Grammy Awards for Best Spoken Word Album
Best and Worst Book Titles and Books Most Frequently Banned
Presidential Campaign Themes and Corporate Slogans and Advertising Tag-Lines
The Memorable Words from Speeches, Books, Writings, and Other Sources

The fascinating and frivolous; the tragic and momentous,
The eloquent and bumbling; and the touching and endearing.


Free Shipping

(Orders of 10 Copies or More!!)

– Direct from Publisher –
Just Go to

Dead Serious and Lighthearted
The Memorable Words of Modern America – Volume I (1957-1976)


Also Available on Amazon

* Reminder – Book Costs May Be Tax Deductible. Book costs may be tax deductible in certain circumstances such as if delivered as client/customer appreciation gifts or for client development. Please consult your tax advisor.

Blog 78

May 22, 2018

You’re Invited 
– – –
 – Tecolote Book Signing and KZSB Radio Interview with Mack W. Borgen –

LAST 4 DAYS – Book Publishing Names/Contact Information

Posted by Mack W. Borgen May 2nd, 2018


(Free Shipping for Orders of 10 Books or More)


Just Go To:

– – –

My Third Run at the Wall – Book Publishing in America
– Time and Cost Estimates –
– Names and Contact Information of Publishing Experts –

Over the last few months, several of my readers have asked me about the U.S. publishing business – my impressions and experiences; the costs and characteristics.

In this short article, I am pleased to try to address these subjects – but with the understandings that every genre of writing and each book is slightly unique unto itself and that my writings have solely been nonfiction. In addition, my experiences are still, even after nearly six years, somewhat limited. My first books (The Relevance of Reason – Volumes I and II) were released in June and October, 2013, and I am only now starting to release my third, fourth, and fifth books — the Dead Serious and Lighthearted series – Volumes I, II, and III.

I have also listed below for your use, if you wish, the name and contact information of certain highly talented and experienced people with whom I’ve worked and whom you may want to contact if you elect to pursue publishing.

With the continuing caveats (a) that there is still a great amount I don’t know and a great amount I am still learning every day – especially in the context of book marketing, and (b) that my comments are limited to adult nonfiction, my overall impressions of the publishing market is dominated by three words:  crowded, disarray, and costly.

Crowded speaks for itself – everyone has a story, and there are a million topics. The disarray in the context of publishing results especially from, as with so many industries in America, the constant introduction of new technologies and new avenues of media and marketing. The most conspicuous example of this is the slow shift away from “traditional printing” (which I used with my first books) to various forms of “print-on-demand” publishing. The changes in printing format have paralleled (a) the explosion of various formats of hybrid, independently or self-published books and (b) the growing quality and market respect for such “Indie” books. Today, the quality of Indie books is, in almost every way, the same as that of traditional presses, and books can be relatively easily and efficiently printed through the print-on-demand systems of Amazon’s CreateSpace and IngramSpark.

The dominant words which summarize book marketing are almost the same – crowded, disarray, and costly. However, I would also add the word “technological” since such a considerable degree of modern marketing relies upon our ever-changing social media tools.

Any thoughtful discussion about writing and publishing should also probably include a reminder about the need for patience, energy, and even luck. It is not easy.

Having a good, even a great, book is not enough. Without patience, energy, and luck, another good — even great — book can be just another whistle in the wind. Especially in that sense the book writing and publishing industry is a frustrating environment. And I confess that it hurts that on any given day, my books will never sell as well as that of the forthcoming 14-page, fold-out special of Stormy Daniels – really? Or the confessions of any serial killer. Or the memoirs of any disgraced public figure. Or the tell-all of any broken Hollywood celebrity or any former White House parking attendant.

But, life isn’t fair, and sometimes one just has to write. That is the proverbial bottom line. For me, writing is my expression of hope that things will get better in this country; that we can again have both knowledge and fun; that we will find ourselves again. And even in the very process of writing, much can be learned.

There are many stages (and sub-stages) of writing and publishing. If it might help, some of the major stages and my rough, rough estimates of needed time frames are as follows:

 1.          Topic Selection, Research, and Writing (1-4 Years)

Outline and re-outline.
Notes and research.
Write and re-write.
Kick the cat and walk the dog
Then re-write again.
Hit “Delete” and start over.
Modify the subject and approach.
Take a walk, look for a verb, and start over (again).
Draft Nos 1-37.
Kick the cat again for good measure.
… You get the picture.

 2.         Copy Editing and Proofing (and Re-Proofing; and Consistency Proofing) (2-4 Months)
 3.         Page Layout and Review (1-3 Months)
 4.         Cover Design (1-2 Months)
 5.         Indexing (4-6 weeks)
 6.         Preliminary Comments, Reviews, and Testimonials (1-2 Months)
 7.         ISBN, LCCN and Publisher’s Cataloging-in-Publication Data (1-2 Months)
 8.         Website Design, Launch and Maintenance (2 Months and then on-going)
 9.         Wholesale and retail distribution channels and order fulfillment systems. (1 Month)
10.         Marketing Plan – endless, definitionally disorganized, and largely tech-based. (1-4 Years) (Including book reviews, contests, signings, and shows; advertising; press releases.

Total Time (Exclusive of Marketing) – My best estimate: 1.8 years – 5 years per book or book series.

Rough Out-of-Pocket Cost Estimate. Apart from the many thousands of hours of research and writing with or without staff or administrative assistance, there are certain almost unavoidable out-of-pocket costs incurred in the publication and release of one’s book. These amounts can vary greatly from book to book, and the following estimates assume the following: Per 500+ page book; No Illustrations; Professional Editing, Page Design, and Indexing; and Professional High-Quality Design and Cover):

Using Print-on-Demand Publication Services: $12,000 – $20,000
Using Traditional Printing (With 1,000 Initial Print Run): $17,500 – $25,500

The above estimates do not include marketing, advertising, and publicist costs — which can be, .literally, endless. It is neither my place nor my desire to complain, but like all products, book sales are – to a degree – a direct function of marketing. However, even recouping the out-of-pocket costs of publishing and marketing is, at best, challenging especially when Amazon, for example, takes about 60% off the top. That is THE deal. The only real deal. There are very few other avenues for offering one’s book to America. And that is one of the reasons  I ask my friends — if they think my books are worthy – to buy and tell others about my books.

Those of you who know me well, know how difficult it is for me to self-promote my own books. I am willing to lower my head and wear my “Will Write For Food” T-shirt, but please know that your or your friends buying of my books is greatly, greatly appreciated.  THANK YOU.

But one of the true silver linings of the last six years has been my meeting and working closely with many fine and talented people.


As noted above, a few of you have made some specific inquires about publishing. Thus, it is my honor to recommend the following professionals if you are considering writing and publishing a book. Their help has been invaluable to me and in many instances is still on-going. I, again, thank them.

Listed alphabetically, …

Burton, Jen. (Reno, NV). Indexing. Eighteen years of experience in indexing books. Though Jen works for many international publishing houses, she also enjoys working directly with self-publishing authors. Jen is a generalist and is comfortable working on topics a diverse as art, finance, psychology, and history.

Kearns, Gail. (Santa Barbara, CA). General publishing and marketing consulting. President of To Press & Beyond, a full-service book shepherding agency. For over 20 years, she and her team have offered all levels of book editing, production oversight of indie published books and marketing and PR of their clients’ titles. Mention “”Mack” and get a half-hour gratis consult on your next book.  A wonderful guide and friend.

Moran, Kathy.; (Ojai. CA.) Web design and development, social media, PPC advertising, SEO and email marketing. Talented, committed, and brilliantly patient in resolving and explaining many web- and SEO-related issues.  I have worked with many SEO  and web-design professionals over the years – and she is one of the best …!

Pizzirani, Jolinda / Pizzirani Consulting. (Summerland, CA). General publishing and marketing consultant and book cover design. Enthusiastic, talented, and experienced general publishing and marketing consultant and book cover designer. 12 years owned and operating Summerland Publishing. General guidance for creation of your unique book. Overall logistics, text payout, cover design, graphic design services (e.g. flyers, advertisements, newsletters, and note cards), and basic editing.

Siems, Bennett A. (Ben). (Minneapolis, MN). Book editing. Brilliant and thorough book editing. Phi Beta Kappa Graduate of Brown University. Tight and conscientious editing. Editing experience includes nonfiction, novels, poetry, essays, articles white papers (including several commissioned as part of President Obama Open Government Initiative and a recent report submitted to the chairs of a congressional committee investigating an overseas money laundering operation), and grant applications. Personally-published writings include essays, articles and literary, film, and music reviews.

Additional fine book editor. Calzone, Cynthia. (Waterbury, CT). 25 years in the field of proofreading and editing. I work hard to make your writing the best it can be. “Interesting and error free. Reasonable fee and decent turn-around.”

theBook Designers (Alan Hebel and Ian Koviak). (Fairfax, CA). Experienced and talented book cover designers of many successful and nationally well-known books.

Viau, Ghislain / Creative Publishing Book Design. (La Crescenta, CA). Extraordinarily talented, focused, easy-to-work with book formatting and publishing advisor. Absolutely one of the best. Offers assistance to authors self-publish their book. Services include book cover design, book formatting (typesetting), ebook conversion, and liaison with printers (offset printing or print-on-demand). More than 25 years of experience and many contacts with others in the field such as editors, proofreaders, website designers, indexers, etc. Many authors have been happy with results (See reviews at[ .

Please know that there are many, many others who have provided great guidance, assistance and encouragement to me over these last years (including, for example, Laren Bright (Terrific writer)(Venice, CA); George Foster (one of country’s finest book designers)(Fairfield, IA); and many of the personnel at Sheridan Books (Book publishing) (Ann Arbor, MI). But hopefully, the names of the people set forth above may assist you if and as you wish to go forward.

Blog 77

May 2, 2018

By Mack W. Borgen

Santa Barbara, California

A Case for the Elimination of Income Taxation

Posted by Mack W. Borgen April 18th, 2018

My Great Thanks
To Those Who Have Already Ordered My Latest Book

Special, Special Thanks to Those
Who Have Ordered Sets of 10 or More Books
(Free Shipping!!)

Only 14 Days Left
Special 40% Off Book Order Discount
Order Your Signed Copies Now
– Direct from Publisher
Just Go to
– Details Below –

A Case for the Elimination of Income Taxation
 – There Is a Far Better Way –

Mack W. Borgen
Santa Barbara, California

Author’s Note
I started writing this article over six months ago. Possibly it is merely a subliminal coincidence that it was finished this week – the same week that I, like you, completed my tax returns and paid my income taxes. On the other hand, this year’s taxes again reminded me of our need to replace the taxation of income in the United States.

 – Maybe I Was Right the First Time –

Many years ago —- back when I had more energy and exercised less caution; back when I could party all night and still get up in the morning; back when I thought that prudence was for pussies and planning was for nerds, I wrote my law school thesis on the U.S. tax code.

Seriously, the U.S. Tax Code.

Following the mantra of my youth, it seemed like a good idea at the time. I was in law school, but Massachusetts is cold in the winter. It was dark and snowy. The wind was always howling. It was lonely, and I had no money. And, to be blunt, there wasn’t that much to do other than to write my thesis. Page by page.

But I realized, even then, that taxation was an important subject. Although I wasn’t particularly interested in income and estate taxation, my theory was it if I wrote my thesis on it, I would be forced to learn the subject.

So I sat in my library carrel all winter. And I wrote. Isolated deep inside the bowels of Langdell Hall, the Harvard Law School Library, I wrote about a radical alternative to income taxation, which was then and still remains the primary source of governmental revenues.

It seemed to me then, and even more now, that income taxation is an inappropriate basis for the imposition of taxes. It was then and still is. at best, a clumsy, inaccurate, means by which to measure one’s capacity or public duty to pay taxes.

My disdain for income taxation was further fueled by the hours of classes in which we, as students and future lawyers, were taught the wretchedly clever, but lawful, means by which income can be restructured or re-characterized from the high-rate “ordinary income” to lower-rate “capital gains” — you know, by changing standard W-2 income, which is still reported by a vast majority of Americans, to substantially lesser-taxed “capital gain” income. We were taught twisted machinations by which income could be averaged, deferred, or tax-straddled between years. We were taught the use of generation-skipping trusts so that substantial wealth could be passed, tax-free, from one generation to another generation – so properly named, the beneficiaries. And on it went.

One tax maneuver after another was presented as we learned how to guide clients to walk that sometimes perilously thin line between unlawful tax avoidance and lawful tax minimization.

It struck me that the course of correction would not be found by merely tinkering with the tax code or the hundreds of tax regulations. The wasted efforts of 22 Congresses since then have proven, in the opinion of this author, that this early conclusion was correct.

Instead, I thought that there must be a better; simpler; more efficient and equitable manner upon which to base our federal taxes. For the numerous reasons discussed below, I concluded that taxation upon one’s annually declared net wealth would be far superior to taxation of one’s annual declared net income.

It has been decades since I wrote my thesis on the advisability of such wealth taxation. Now, I suggest here again, that taxation should be based upon one’s wealth – not one’s income.

Be assured that this article is not written from the perspective of politics or in order to advance the agenda of any political party. In fact, I am becoming convinced that I am not smart enough to know to which party I belong: with whom I wish to be associated; and, for that matter, who would have me. So, please accept that this article is not about politics. This article is not about class or class warfare. It is merely about seeking the best, most efficient, and most equitable method by which to fund our national government.

One Assumption, One Clarification, and One Observation
– Economists, “Net Wealth” Tax, and Existing U.S. Wealth Taxes –

One Assumption – Economists. Before diving into the subject of wealth taxation, it would be useful to agree that economists and tax analysts rarely agree on anything – except for their delight in using thick talk and their strange love of macro models. While I have the highest regard for economists as an honorable and needed profession and even though economics was the focus of my undergraduate studies, let us agree upfront that no matter what I write here — and however you respond and react —, we can each find herds and gaggles of economists to back up whichever theory we choose to espouse.

One Clarification – “Net Wealth” Taxation Only. This article addresses the subject of a wealth tax, however in reality it is a “net wealth tax” which is proposed since the tax rate, whether progressive or fixed, would be imposed solely upon one’s “net wealth.” Very similar to the calculation of one’s net worth, a wealth tax would be imposed only in the event one’s net wealth (the aggregate value of all assets less the aggregate amount of all mortgages and other debts and liabilities) exceeds an agreed-upon baseline, minimum, and tax-triggering net wealth.1 The minimum net wealth would serve a function similar to that of one’s standard deduction in the context of income taxation.

One Observation – Existing U.S. Wealth Taxes. To a degree, the concept of a wealth tax is not new. As correctly noted and as well said by one writer, wealth is already taxed – “just not very intelligently.”2

The most conspicuous example of an existing wealth tax is property taxation which is the very foundation of the funding of local governments. The property tax rates vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction based upon property tax rates, property valuations, and other factors such as the lock-in provisions of Prop 13 in California. Nevertheless, nearly every jurisdiction in the U.S. imposes taxes upon the raw ownership of real estate.

But I would respectfully suggest that the real question, so steadfastly ignored, is why these taxes are so routinely imposed on real estate — the bedrock asset of Middle America. Stated conversely, why are taxes not imposed on cash, stock and intangible asset portfolios – the bedrock asset of Wealth America?

Other examples of existing “wealth taxes” are estate and inheritance taxes. These taxes, derisively referred to by some as “death taxes,” are theoretical charges upon transferred wealth. However, the loopholes are bigger than the loops.  In the first place, federal estate taxes apply only to estates in excess of $11,200,000 for individuals and $22,400,0003 – an absolutely miniscule percent of the American people. These exemption amounts reflect the 2018 doubling by Congress and President Trump of the prior exemption amounts since the prior $5,490,000 and $10,980,000 ensnared, it was argued, far too many hapless, wealthy Americans.

However, the truth is that any wealthy person worth their weight in accountants knows that the imposition of nearly all estate taxes can be avoided. Estate taxes can be easily avoided by a myriad of estate tax planning techniques. As noted by Gary Cohn, the former White House National Economic Council Director and the former president of Goldman Sachs, “only morons pay the estate tax.” 4

Thus, for all practical purposes and due to the size of the exemptions and the plethora of tax-avoidance mechanisms, the “death tax” is now largely dead. It now only applies to the over-wealthy and under-lawyered.

The Place to Begin
In Considering the Advisability of Wealth Taxation

I noted above that this article is not intended in any manner to be political, and in reiteration of that point, the place to begin in considering the advisability of using wealth taxation is to understand that wealth taxation is not a Left-Wing, Bernie-rant.

First, when I initially wrote my thesis on wealth taxation as a substitute for income taxation, Bernie was still learning his “right” from his “left.” He had not yet ascended to any national stage. My proposal was written nearly 36 years before he even became a U.S. Senator. He was just another young man working as a carpenter after having moved to Vermont and after having graduated from the University of Chicago. So let’s not blame Bernie or any other liberals on this one.

Second, it has been my experience and, for all purposes of this article, this author happily and without reservation assumes that a vast majority of the wealthy are good and fine people. This article is not written from a place of envy, covet, or disgruntlement. For purposes of this article, this author is willing to readily assume that the assets, the life advantages, and the personal and financial security of the wealthy have been earned and that in a vast majority of instances, the wealthy currently protect and preserve their income and assets in wholly legal manners (albeit with a cadre of skilled lawyers and accountants). But none of these experiences or assumptions about the wealthy in America change the fact that many things must change in America – and one of them, one of the easier changes, is the basis upon which this nation collects its taxes, seeks to reduce its debt, and provides necessary governmental services.

Third, this author is no longer alone in this recommendation. Over the last couple of decades, a few people with widely disparate political and economic views have proposed implementing a wealth tax. In the late 1990s, even Trump proposed a one-time 14.25% wealth tax on individuals and trusts in excess of $10,000,000 in order to eliminate the national debt. Less surprisingly but more articulately, Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton and now a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, likewise advocated what he referred to as a “surtax” on the super-wealthy as a means to “rebuild our schools and infrastructure (and for) saving Medicare and reducing the long-term budget deficit.”5 The problem with both Trump’s and Reich’s advocacies are, however, that they sought to use a wealth tax as a curative measure (Trump to eliminate the national debt and Reich for a number of reasons – schools infrastructure, Medicare, and deficit). The proposal in this article is for the use of a national wealth tax as a permanent substitute for the archaic and burden-distorting income tax.

Fourth, in many parts of the world community, wealth taxes are not unusual. They exist in various formats in a number of countries – Argentina, France, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and Switzerland. A number of other Western European and Scandinavian countries had wealth taxes but over the last couple of decades have discontinued their use for various reasons.6 Thus, while the U.S. has the dubious distinction of being the lone(ly) chair in the room as the only major industrialized country without any form of national health insurance, the U.S. would not be alone, or even particularly unique, if the U.S. adopted a form of wealth taxation.

Lastly, despite an anticipated initial reluctance of many wealthy families to embrace the idea of a national net wealth tax, many American families — and especially the middle income and moderately wealthy families — may pay considerably less under a net wealth tax system than they currently pay under America’s income tax system. This is definitely the case when one takes into account (i) the year-in and year-out costs of lawyers, accountants, and trustees, (ii) the complexities and time-consuming burdens of annual income tax preparations, and (iii) the hard- and soft-costs incurred and the contract and market distortions caused by tax-structuring transactions.

But there are many definitions of “wealthy” and there are many possible variants of a wealth tax which could be adopted.

The Relative Definitions of “Wealthy”
and the Many Possible Variations of a Wealth Tax

Defining when a person or family is “wealthy” is, at best, challenging. It can lead to heated debates at both the corner store and the local country club. However, despite the debates about where to draw the exact lines, clearly some people are “wealthy.” Clearly, some people are not. In this sense, the difficulties of definition are not of themselves justifiable reasons for not implementing a wealth tax.

For purposes of even preliminary agreement, let us agree that there is some net wealth number which approximates a valid distinction between the poor and middle persons and between the middle and the wealthy persons. Arguably, the appropriate exemption would be based at that point where a person has enough wealth to cover his or her immediate needs (food, transportation, housing, health, and other basic needs) plus a reasonable cash or other asset reserve.

Defining the threshold net wealth amount is generally beyond the scope of this article; however this author would suggest that it might be in the $3,000,000 or $5,000,000 net wealth range rather than the current absurdity of the $11,200,000 to $22,400,000 estate tax exemptions. Part of the reason for this proposed lower $3,000,000 to $5,000,000 range is because the wealth tax would be used as the primary source of revenues for the payment of national defense and public services. A wealth tax is not proposed as a grabbing super-tax by the 99%  of the wealth of the supposed 1%. To the contrary, it would be advisable for the tax burden to be more widely shared by using broader concept and definition of the wealthy. Thus, the $3,000,000 to $5,000,000 range is proposed as an initial working number. Although there are many gradations of wealthy and although American society now routinely talks about and magazines list “billionaires,” most Americans might readily agree that a person with a net wealth of “even” $3,000,000 to $5,000,000 is, at a minimum, colloquially, wealthy.

This author realizes that it is terribly dangerous to speak about other people’s wealth and, certainly likewise, to spend other people’s money (although this is addressed below). Nevertheless, it would preliminarily be useful if some numbers were used; some examples were displayed; and some orders of magnitude were presented.

Therefore, consider, as examples, the relative impact upon certain middle-income and wealthy families upon their following respective amounts of net wealth. Even assuming a fixed annual wealth tax rate of, say, 2%, and a flat net wealth exemption of $3,000,000, the amounts of such annual taxes and the post-tax net wealth of such families would be as follows:

Pre-Tax Net Wealth 500,000 3MM 10MM 100MM 500MM
Net Wealth Tax Liability (2%) 0 – Note 1 0 – Note 1 200,000 2MM 10MM
Post-Tax Net Wealth 500,000 3MM 9.8MM 98MM 490MM

Note 1: Assumes a $3,000,000 exemption amount.

As is evident and as noted above, some wealthy families may pay substantially less in wealth taxes than they currently pay in income taxes. Also as noted above, this is especially the case if one adds back to these families the “public monies”7 which they spend every year on tax advisors, financial planners, and accountants.

In the next section, other reasons for the adopting a net wealth system of taxation are presented.

Reasons for Wealth Tax

Reason One:
Net Wealth a Better Measure of One’s Capacity to Pay

Let us start with the obvious. People compare balance sheets. They don’t compare tax returns. There is a reason for this. Wealth, not income, is a far better measure of one’s financial condition and security; of one’s capacity, and arguably one’s civic obligation, to pay taxes.

When someone wishes to review or present their financial well-being, they look to their net worth – not their tax return from last year. Everyone knows that taxable income fluctuates. Everyone knows that income can be buried under artificial depreciations, by tax-year straddling, and by the careful timing and characterization (or, re-characterization) of tax-flows.

For these reasons alone, wealth, not income, is the best measure of one’s capacity to pay.

It is acknowledged that in the course of making lending decisions, banks routinely ask for one’s most recent tax returns in addition to basic asset and liability information. However, to a considerable degree, the lender’s insistent review of tax returns is because lenders know that tax returns approximate an “official document” since they are filed by the taxpayer/applicant under penalty of perjury. If people had to file net worth statements under penalty of perjury (rather than the crude bank form assets and liabilities listings provisions), this author suggests that — in quick order — balance sheets would become the primary loan application submission document. Thus, there is a both a simplicity and propriety in the use of balance sheets rather than tax returns to most accurately measure one’s ability.

It is also acknowledged that net worth does not necessarily reflect one’s cash liquidity, i.e. the amount of assets which are or can quickly be converted to cash. However, most persons (an admittedly dangerous vague phrase) have broad enough asset compositions so that tax payment liquidity should rarely be a problem. This is underscored by the amount of highly liquid, financial assets held by the wealthy.

There is much press, banter and discussion about the many forms of retirement plans — 401(k)s, IRAs etc., but the truth, so often ignored or forgotten by the wealthy, is that most Americans do not closely track the Dow or the S&P. This is because 90 percent of the financial assets in the U.S. – including both stocks and pension-fund holdings – “are owned by the richest 10 percent of Americans. The top 1 percent owns 38 percent” of all financial.”8 Wholly apart from pension funds (which are ever-declining in the U.S.) and maybe some mutual funds here and there, over-whelmingly stocks and bonds are (always have been) held by the wealthy. The rise and falls of the market ultimately affect all members of society, but such rises and falls only indirectly affect the lower and middle classes. In this sense, it is almost unsurprising that the financial markets are rarely a focused matter of interest for the middle or lower classes.

It could be argued by the wealthy that even with the access to cash liquidity for the payment of taxes, the imposition of this type of tax may force these wealthy citizens to liquidate assets in an untimely manner for tax payment purposes. However, think about this comment. Think about this concern. Is a wealthy family’s tax-driven liquidation of some financial holdings really different from a middle income family deferring a vacation because they have to pay taxes; from not funding their child’s college savings plan; from putting off some medical procedure or some desired home improvement? Even with the best planning, every family, rich and poor, incurs inconveniences, disappointments and even losses as they assemble cash for scheduled tax payments — and certainly liquidating stocks in a down market is not qualitatively different than deferring a deserved vacation or postponing a needed surgery.

But there is another asset-composition factor to be considered. That factor results from the fact that the dominant asset and most of the net worth of middle–income families and the only moderately-wealthy families is the highly illiquid and, if you will, necessitous family residence.

Because of the high wealth tax exemption amount (e.g. $3,000,000- $5,000,000), the taxpayer’s residence will rarely be at risk due to his or her tax liability. Future year tax liabilities may affect the size of one’s home. They may affect the advisability of purchasing second and third homes, etc., but this is no different than any other form of financial planning. We all buy homes and make investments with a prudent eye upon our foreseeable futures obligations and liabilities. And projecting one’s net worth (and resultant net tax liabilities) may be far easier than projecting one’s future income (and resultant income tax liabilities).

However, apart from one’s capacity and liquidity to pay taxes, the concept of using a wealth tax should also be based upon the relative receipt of public benefits. For some readers, this component of the wealth tax argument may generate more debate, but please consider the following reasoning.

Reason Two
Wealth Taxation As a Means of Eliminating the Absurdity of the Stepped-Up Basis

This reason requires my advance apology because it requires getting a little tech here, but a basic understanding of what is known as the “stepped-up” basis is necessary. Although financial/estate planning tools utilizing a stepped-up basis are not a secret and are commonly and routinely utilized in estate planning, it also not widely known or understood by the general public. But it should be.

Very summarily, the use of a stepped-up basis is a lawful means by which capital assets (think stocks, bonds, real estate, mansions, works of art) can be passed on tax-free from one generation to another. If any of these assets had been sold during one’s lifetime, then the appreciation component of the sales price would ordinarily be subject to at least the capital tax rate upon their sale. In other words, in very general terms, the tax would be imposed upon the difference between the sales price and the seller’s original purchase price since this is a taxable gain’ a form of “income.” However, even though part of the reasoning for the adoption of the estate and the capital gains taxes was to prevent (or at least limit) the growth of familial dynasties in the U.S. and to reduce inequality, it is obvious from especially the last several decades that these taxes have not achieved these goals. Part of reason is because if the wealthy during their lifetimes do not sell a capital asset (and don’t have to sell a capital asset to raise money to pay taxes for example), then the capital asset can be passed on to their heirs without ever having to pay capital gains on such assets. The gain — the appreciation – is safe. It is never taxed. It stays home free and clear. The deemed “purchase price,” i.e. the basis, of the asset in the hands of the heirs is the value as of the date of death of the benefactor. In this manner the heirs get a stepped-up basis. And on and on. Especially in an age where there is substantial wealth inequality, this results in capital gains taxes being avoided. Game. Set. Match. And the appreciated assets of huge estates are passed on tax-wisely and tax-free from one generation to another. From a economic-social perspective this reinforces the possibility, even likelihood, of impregnable wealth consolidations to be created within families. As despicable as it is to quote Leona Helmsley, maybe she was partly right – “only the little people pay taxes.”

With the adoption of a national wealth tax, a small percentage of the asset’s appreciation would be paid annually. Assets could still be conveyed from one generation to another, but the stepped-up basis mechanism of tax-free conveyance and assured inter-generational tax avoidance could be eliminated.

Reason Three:
Wealth Is a Better Measure of the Receipt of Public Benefits

Since the inception of our country, there has been debate about the value of government and the efficiency and utility of public services. That debate is set aside for another day; for another wave of our respective energies. This article accepts, for purposes of its analysis, the value and necessity of some level of governmental services.

And it is suggested that from a number of alternative perspectives discussed below, the wealthy – not the poor and definitely not the middle class – oftentimes disproportionately both structure and reap the benefits of those governmental services.

Admittedly, this is not inherently obvious. However, whether it be from the perspective of the recipients of defense policies and initiatives; from the perspective of business’ benefits from the (de-) regulation of the financial markets and the public investments in infrastructure improvements; from the educational training of our work force; and even from the slow, but determined, processes of our judicial system, it is the wealthy that receive the most public benefits — as much if not more, much more, than the lower and middle income classes. Reagan’s “welfare queens” get most of the press but that is not where the real money is.

The poor are the primary recipients of many forms of public benefits – from welfare to Head Start to government housing to, in some cases free, emergency medical care. But it is also the wealthy who rarely participate in military service. It is also the wealthy who, through a million machinations, receive many other, less visible, clusters of governmental contracts and services. In the context of the judicial system and access to judicial remedies, from the perspective of this author, it should be obvious that for hard cost reasons alone, the judicial process and the routine use of lawyers now lie solely within the province of the wealthy. Except in few and extraordinary circumstances, no poor person and very few middle income families can respond to the “so sue me” challenges which have come to dominate our economy and our society. The wealthy have growing influence, if not control, over our political processes and many of our governmental policies. Thus, it seems evident that the wealthy are well-aware of the impact and importance of government.

In 2010, a 5-4 majority held in the U.S. Supreme Court held in the Citizens United case9 that political spending is a form of protected speech under the Fist Amendment. As a result, the government may not keep corporations or unions10 from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates or parties in public elections. For reasons beyond the scope of this article and in part as the result of the Citizens United decision, it is increasingly difficult to track political contributions, but with respect to even reported contributions, the dominating influence and power of the wealthy is evident. In the 2016 election, for example, federal candidates received contributions from more than 3,200,000 Americans. But it is far more significant (and here relevant) that 50 percent of those total funds came from just 0.5 percent (i.e. just 16,000) Americans—wealthy Americans.11

For all of these reasons one’s net wealth, rather than one’s income, may be a far superior, mechanism for measuring the receipt and allocation of the government’s good and services being paid by taxes.

Reason Four:
The Need for Wealth Taxation May Be a Matter of Timing
And May Be Necessary Now (More Than Ever Before)

Whether America has been missing the mark by using income rather than wealth as the basis for it tax system can be left to historians and economists to argue about. The debates will be endless, and they’ll love it.

But there are new and clear reasons for shifting to a wealth tax which are relevant to all of us. These new reasons for shifting to a wealth tax are now compelling because the American economy is evolving to, in effect, a new form of capitalism.

Evidence of this evolution can be presented in many different ways — both in tone and use of terms. However, all of the evidence revolves around the undeniable fact that both income and wealth inequality have been growing. This has been especially true over the last three decades – from the Go-Go Years of the 1980s to the present.

We are far past Robin Leach’s Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous (1984-1995). Now, we are at point where conspicuous consumption has been displaced by dangerous, and dangerously entrenched, income and wealth inequality.

There is every reason to have a continued, deserved reverence for individualism and to have every respect for one’s desire to keep their “hard-earned money.” Such concepts are easy to grasp. They are tempting in their seeming fairness, indeed their almost morality. But such concepts are too simplistic. The real challenges come not from matters of individuals and ownership, but from the more subtle questions relating to such income and wealth inequalities.

For example, what are the ramifications to a society where there is a heightened concentration of wealth? What are the long-term effects of allowing such concentrations of wealth to be lawfully protected and passed one generation to the next without the “burden” of taxation or even partial disbursement – you know, as was done for hundreds of years in feudal Europe. There are ready examples of honorable largesse such as those extraordinary men and women who have joined Bill Gates and Warren Buffett’s Giving Pledge. But society cannot afford to wait and rely upon the beneficence of the wealthy… because the steady reality is that wealth is rarely disbursed.

Once wealth is assembled, it’s kept. Once it’s concentrated, it remains so. Except in those rare instances such as the Giving Pledge participants noted above and except in small doses resulting from periodic and percentage-of-wealth charitable giving, wealth is rarely disbursed except over the dead bodies of lawyers and the exhaustion of all appeals. There is nothing surprising about that.

For those readers who need harder evidence, they can read about the increased concentration of wealth in Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century. There is a reason this 2013 book, an economics book of all things, became a New York Times Bestseller.Americans can try to stubbornly try to dismiss Piketty as another intruding Frenchman, but it is in our country’s best interests to recognize that there are solid reasons to conclude that Piketty (and, if I may, me 40 years ago) may be right – that some form of a net wealth tax is necessary. Furthermore, to the extent that Piketty was right – that over time inequality is not an accident but a feature of capitalism which can be reversed only through state intervention – then obviously America’s lame and avoidable estate tax is not going to achieve this necessary re-distribution of wealth.

A brief digression is necessary because an insistent dismissal of the alternative and cynical concept of a “flat tax” is necessary. Some politicians  –speaking on behalf of themselves, their benefactors, and their benefactors’ lobbyists, suggest that flat tax upon income (rather than a progressive tax) is preferable. Unfortunately, this simplification is made at the expense of both equity and logic largely because, by almost any measure, the flat tax greatly benefits only the wealthy.

I have no objection to simplicity – and the flat tax does offer that — but not if that simplicity is delivered as a means of palpable misdirection; not if that simplicity comes at the price of stupidity; and, most importantly, not if that simplicity is far removed from the needs of this nation and its people.

The harshness of this digression is results from two facts. First, the absurdities of a flat tax are not just hidden. They are also obvious and counter-intuitive. Despite the equitable marketing ring of “everybody pays the same flat tax rate,” the tax burden and the true capacity to pay vary radically. Ten percent of one’s income to a low income family is a matter of rent. Ten percent of one’s income to a wealthy family is a matter of one less vacation. This is a coldly delivered example, but it is impossible to believe that the cynical proponents of the flat tax are unaware of the adverse impacts of such a tax. Ask any economist – or at least any economist not running for political office. By way of another flat-tax example, this is why our schools and our military are not funded by sales taxes.

On a more optimistic note, there may be positive socio-economic effects of adopting federal and/or state net wealth taxes in place of their income taxes.

Reason Five:
Positive Socio-Economic Effects of a Wealth Tax

Our respective teams of economists will fight till sundown, but it is here suggested that there would be numerous, positive socio-economic effects which would result from adopting a thoughtful form of net wealth taxation in substitution of income taxation.

Unburdening lower and middle classes would increase consumption and stir the economy. The economic elevation of the lower and middle classes would, over time, reduce their reliance upon the complicated and inefficient delivery of goods and services by governmental and quasi-governmental agencies and private charities. Lastly — in the long run and possibly the most important, the adoption of a wealth tax may lessen the growing cynicism of both the lower and middle classes about the financial equity of American life. Stated more positively, the adoption of a wealth tax may help regenerate this country’s faith in the American Dream.

We are all well aware of Keynes’ reminder that in the long-run we are all dead, but all Americans should care about the “long-run.” Almost definitionally we will not be able to be there. We will not participate in the later-years wealth, prosperity, and the democratic economy. Nevertheless, many Americans – both the poor, the middle-class, and the wealthy care about this country on par with themselves. Many Americans care about the America which we bestow to our children and grandchildren. And even if they don’t care, the intelligent wealthy know that in both the mid- and the long-term it may be in their own self-interest to more appropriately and equitably re-distribute wealth in this country. The Caymans and Belize may be fine off-shore habitats for one’s money, but not many account owners choose to have to reside there permanently in a self-imposed, or at least self-initiated, exile.

Author’s Note
This author well-realizes the harshness, even shrill, alarmist tone of the foregoing paragraph. However, in my humble defense, I have recently re-read Sinclair Lewis’ 1935 political novel It Can’t Happen Here which is premised upon the unwritten subtitle that “Yes It Can.”

In the next section this author has tried to recognize that there are valid concerns about the substitution of a wealth tax for the existing income tax. While this author does not believe that they support a rejection of the needed change to a wealth tax, these objections and concerns should, nevertheless, be noted.

Arguments against the Use of a Wealth Tax

The arguments against the wealth tax fall into two distinct categories. The first set of arguments relates to economic effect objections (e.g. capital flight and disproportionate burden) and administrative, valuation and enforcement issues. The second set of arguments relate to possible equitable and economic effects (impacts upon agricultural and family businesses and liquidity issues).

Capital Flight Issues

Some argue that a wealth tax would trigger capital flight from the United States to various tax havens around the world. However, capital flight already exists. It exists in the form of the almost understandable incorporation of their businesses in foreign jurisdictions (think, for example, Ireland) or the extensive use of foreign subsidiaries (think, for example, nearly every major international business) as a means of legal and illegal parking of off-shore income.

The imposition of wealth tax would have to address these issues, which is why Piketty, for example, recommended the imposition of a global wealth tax. However, the point to note is that in especially the electronically wired, global economy, this is already occurring. In the opinion of this author the associated problems are not unique to wealth vs. income taxation.

Administratively Burdensome
Complicated by Challenging Asset Valuation Issues

One of the most curious objections to the wealth tax is that it would be administratively burdensome and would be inherently complicated due especially to asset valuation issues. As noted by one Wall Street Journal writer, “the wealth tax has a fatal flaw—valuation.” 12 With a seemingly uniquely tin ear, that writer sought to underscore his point by noting that “62% of the wealth of the top 1% is ‘non-financial – i.e. vehicles, boats, real estate, and (most importantly) private business….” 13 Even ignoring the slightly “listen-to-yourself” echo of this statement and even admitting that some assets would be challenging to value for purposes of calculating one’s net wealth, these types of challenges are not different from the myriad of challenges inherent in our existing income taxation system

There would be issues of imprecise or even fraudulent valuations and appraisals, but are these issues materially different from the issues attendant to the almost routine billions of dollars of misclassified business expenses that are currently claimed under our income tax system? Are these types of valuation issues more complex than the definitional issues of income, deductions, and exemptions which are now built and buried in the 75,000 pages of our nation’s income tax laws?

Taxpayers may certainly require the assistance of more appraisers in order to substantiate their net worth valuations, but commensurately there may be less need for every taxpayer (and in fairness, especially every wealthy taxpayer) to have all of their transactions winnowed through the channels and loopholes of the existing income tax system.

Disproportionately Burdensome on Agricultural Business
and Marginally-Profitable Family Businesses.

It has also been suggested that the adoption of a wealth tax would be disproportionately burdensome on certain types of businesses – such as agricultural business and marginally-profitable family businesses. The suggestion and concern of these related issues is that it would be unfair to force families to sell, leverage, or close their agricultural businesses (the “family farm” argument) or their marginally-profitable family businesses. While this author is respectful of these arguments and while the shift to a wealth tax in all events should be imposed only after the provision of an honorable, multi-year advance notice, these disproportionate burden arguments are, upon closer examination, specious.

First, there is the obvious, almost dismissive retort. Yes, taxes are rarely fun to pay, but they are a “cost” of wealth. Just like now, tax payment dates would need to be honored, and some manner of achieving the necessary liquidity assured. But how is this different from the annual imposition of an income taxes or the multitude of other capital, wage or operating expense dimensions of the “family farms?” The same is true of small businesses except that such businesses are rarely asset-based (or, more particularly, real estate-based) enterprises. Thus, by definition, if they are only “marginally-profitable,” then this would be reflected in their low valuation and their possible full exemption from the triggering of any wealth taxes.

A second, more cynical interpretation of the “family farm” and the “small business” arguments is that they are economic variants of the politicians’ shameful invocations of “Middle  America” and “Main Street” and the “Common Man.” No article should ever engage in arguments of “trust me,” but be assured that few politicians can define winter wheat. Few politicians set aside winter money. Few politicians run a convenience store and even fewer have kicked dirt in Kansas. One of the true challenges to the wealth tax is that it is far more likely that its acceptance or rejection will be decided in the Hamptons and not on some  homestead in the Far 40 of Montana.

Burdensome if Taxpayer’s Assets Are Illiquid

Liquidity has been discussed above, but it needs to be again briefly addressed here in this section about the “Arguable Reasons Against the Net Wealth Tax.”

This author respects these liquidity concerns, but the liquidity concerns are common to both income tax and wealth taxation. Yes, the scheduled imposition of wealth taxes may require advance planning, but this is the same planning as is necessary in the case of income taxation.

Neither wealth nor income assure liquidity, and there nothing more illiquid than a low or moderate income striving to meet its income tax liabilities by deferring vacations, by depleting saving accounts, or by driving old cars. Unquestionably, families who have net wealth tax payment obligations may have to take some steps to assure payment of its annual net wealth tax liability, but – again – this is really, neither in a moral or economic sense, different from the current liquidity burdens faced each April by low- and middle-income families.

Disproportionately Burdensome upon Seniors

The last ditch argument of nearly every counter-campaign usually includes strutting out the widows and orphans, the old, aged, and infirm. And here we go again. This interposed argument against the wealth tax suggests that somehow it would be disproportionately burdensome upon seniors.

Firstly, allow us to be careful of the argument itself — the argument is not that it would be disproportionately burdensome upon seniors – but, more precisely, wealthy seniors.

Secondly, though a bit lame and for what it is worth, allow me to remind the reader that this author may well fit into this category — I am, by nearly all measures, a senior.

But, mostly, this argument fails precisely because it is irrelevant. The net wealth tax would be imposed upon wealth – not age. The fact that a disproportionate number of wealthy persons are older does not means that they have diminished capacity to pay; that they are incapable of tax-obligation liquidity planning; or, for that matter, that they too have not enjoyed the net wealth exemption during their younger years during which they assembled their wealth.

To the contrary, this is the exact generation which is oftentimes the most thoughtful, the most capable of managing its assets and making payments, and the most experienced, if and as necessary, in the use of financial planners and other advisors.


Thus, despite the fact that there are arguments against the use of a wealth tax, in the opinion of this author, the arguments favor its adoption. When I initially wrote my thesis about the necessity of adopting a wealth tax, I was far too young and dumb to be able to assuredly foresee the future. But, even at that time,  a wealth tax seemed like a (darn) good idea.

Now, I am old. Much older. Some things have changed only in the context of adjectives. For example, I am now too old and too dumb to assuredly foresee the future. But a wealth tax (still) seems like a (darn) good idea. Income taxation in our country is not working efficiently, effectively or equitably. For reasons of fairness and simplicity and because of the dangerous and growing inequalities of wealth in our country, the adoption of a wealth tax would trigger a thoughtful and equitable economic readjustment.

The most I can do is to humbly ask you to consider it. Seriously. Closely. And now.

Notes and Citations

1 Theoretically, such net wealth taxes could be imposable upon all parties, what are sometimes referred to as “legal persons” including corporations, however this article assumes that the reach of the net worth tax would be limited to natural persons (or families, in the case of, for example, jointly filed tax returns).

2 Yglesias, M., moneybox, March 6, 2013

3 For purposes of simplicity, this article focuses the estate tax, but there are multiple and parallel exemption amounts applicable to federal estate and generation-skipping transfers.

4 As quoted in Frank, R., August 29, 2017. (Quoted remark of Gary Cohen to “group of  Senate Democrats”).

5 Reich, Robert B., “The Widening Wealth Divide, and Why We Need s Surtax on the Super Wealthy,” See also, Reich, R., “To Restore Democracy We Must Tax Wealth,, September 18, 2017.

6 See, e.g. Denmark (1995), Finland (2006), Germany (1997), Iceland (2006), Luxembourg (2006), and Sweden (2007). Year of the country’s discontinuation of such taxes are indicated in parentheses.

7 The phrase “public monies” is used because, in a sense, without any impact upon the taxpayer, the monies spent by the taxpayer on legal, accountancy, and tax planning fees could be re-allocated to the government which, in turn, would lower – even further – the effective, necessary tax rate.

8 Reich, R., The Widening Wealth Divide, and Why We Need a Surtax on the Super Wealthy,”,, March 12, 2012. Author’s Note: First, allow me to again remind the reader that my recommendation for a wealth tax is not politically driven. While I have a high regard for former Secretary of the Labor Reich, the recommendations in this article were initiated by this author nearly forty years ago. They are not derived from any agenda, liberal or otherwise, and they are not a feed-off from Mr. Reich. In fact, I respectfully disagree with Professor Reich’s concept of a “surtax” on the super wealthy. This author believes instead that a annual, low rate, progressive tax upon all persons or families of wealth – not just the super-wealthy, would be far more advisable. It may be far more equitable and enhance public revenues, and it may lessen incentives for capital migration.

9 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310.

10 Some commentators have suggested a certain political-impact “balance” in the Citizens United decision because it arguably empowered both corporations and unions to make unlimited political contributions. However, this balance is not supported by the reality of the demise of unions as a major component player in U.S. political elections. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of 2018, there were approximately 161,000,000 American in our country’s work force. Of those, only about 14,800,000, i.e. only 9.1%, were members of  unions. In other words, the equivalence is not there. More than nine out of ten workers are non-unionized.

11 The Week, February 2, 2018, p. 16 (Citing The Washington Post).

12 Frank, R., The Problem with a Wealth Tax, The Wall Street Journal, January 11, 2012.

13 Ibid.



Special 40% Off New-Release Offer


Dead Serious and Lighthearted

The Memorable Words of Modern America
Volume I (1957-1976)

Now Available on Amazon

(Special Direct from Publisher Offer Also Available at

(Special Offer Expires April 30, 2018)

Place Your Order Now

“This book is a ‘must read.’”
Michael Levin,
New York Times Bestselling Author, Boston, Massachusetts

Dead Serious and Lighthearted book cover

“The ‘memorable words’– reminders of where we were, where we are now,
and where we might be heading.”

Wayne S. Bell, California Real Estate Commissioner, Sacramento, California

“Deserves a place in our education curriculum …”
Reid A. Olsen, Education and Business Consultant, Chicago, Illinois

Presented For Every Year
The Memorable “Data Words”

Seminal Books
Pulitzer Prize-Winning Books and The New York Times Best Sellers
Academy Awards and PrettyFamous’ Best Picture
Best Movie Lines and Most Widely-Viewed Television Shows
Grammy Awards for Best Spoken Word Album
Best and Worst Book Titles and Books Most Frequently Banned
Presidential Campaign Themes and Corporate Slogans and Advertising Tag-Lines
The Memorable Words from Speeches, Books, Writings, and Other Sources

The fascinating and frivolous; the tragic and momentous,
The eloquent and bumbling; and the touching and endearing.



Reminder – Book Costs May Be Tax Deductible. Book costs may be tax deductible in certain circumstances such as if delivered as client or customer appreciation gifts or if used for client or prospective client development. Please consult your tax advisor.

A portion of all book proceeds are distributed to those charities listed at

Blog 76

April 18, 2018

By Mack W. Borgen

Santa Barbara, California

Special 40% Off New-Release Offer

Posted by Mack W. Borgen April 4th, 2018

National Award-Winning Author
Mack W. Borgen’s

Dead Serious and Lighthearted

The Memorable Words of Modern America
Volume I (1957-1976)

Now Available on Amazon

(Special Direct from Publisher Offer Also Available at
(Special Offer Expires April 30, 2018)

Place Your Order Now

“This book is a ‘must read.’”
Michael Levin,
New York Times Bestselling Author, Boston, Massachusetts

Dead Serious and Lighthearted book cover

“The ‘memorable words’– reminders of where we were, where we are now,
and where we might be heading.”

Wayne S. Bell, California Real Estate Commissioner, Sacramento, California

“Deserves a place in our education curriculum …”
Reid A. Olsen, Education and Business Consultant, Chicago, Illinois

Presented For Every Year
The Memorable “Data Words”

Seminal Books
Pulitzer Prize-Winning Books and The New York Times Best Sellers
Academy Awards and PrettyFamous’ Best Picture
Best Movie Lines and Most Widely-Viewed Television Shows
Grammy Awards for Best Spoken Word Album
Best and Worst Book Titles and Books Most Frequently Banned
Presidential Campaign Themes and Corporate Slogans and Advertising Tag-Lines
The Memorable Words from Speeches, Books, Writings, and Other Sources

The fascinating and frivolous; the tragic and momentous,
The eloquent and bumbling; and the touching and endearing.



Reminder – Book Costs May Be Tax Deductible. Book costs may be tax deductible in certain circumstances such as if delivered as client or customer appreciation gifts or if used for client or prospecitve client development. Please consult your tax advisor.

A portion of all book proceeds are distributed to those charities listed at

Blog 75

April 4, 2018

By Mack W. Borgen

Santa Barbara, California

17 Days and Counting … and Some First Book Reviews!!!

Posted by Mack W. Borgen March 9th, 2018

17 Days and Counting
Until March 27, 2018 Release Date — Pre-Order Now

Mack W. Borgen’s Dead Serious and Lighthearted
– The Memorable Words of Modern America – Volume I – (1957-1976)

Read Below the First Reviews and Testimonials

Michael Levin,
New York Times Bestselling Author, Boston, Massachusetts

Wayne S. Bell,
California Real Estate Commissioner, Sacramento, California

Brigadier General Dulaney O’Roark (Ret)
Louisville, Kentucky

Simplified Book Ordering – Direct from Borgen/Schmitt &Brody Publisher
Very Appreciated

Special 40% Off Pre-Release Discount Offer

(And Free Shipping for Orders of 10 or More of Any of Mack’s Books)
Then just click on Book Ordering.

American history presented in an entirely new way — without the tired stories, heavy words; without the litany of “isms” and “ologies.” A presentation of the Memorable Words of our country including both the fascinating and frivolous, the tragic and momentous, the eloquent and bumbling; the touching and endearing – from Ike to Obama, from Lucy to Lady Gaga.

Who said what and when and where – exactly together with anarrative following each entry in order to place the words into their historical context and to explain the words’ initial impact and their lasting meaning.

This First Volume (1957-1976) (508 pp)

  • From American Bandstand to The Godfather, from Lucy to Rocky’s call of “Yo Adrian!”
  • From the end of the Fifties through the wildness of the Sixties;
  • From the ascendancy of the Civil Rights, feminist, and environmental movements
  • Through the tragedy of Vietnam and the disgrace of Watergate.

First Reviews and Testimonials

Michael Levin,
New York Times bestselling author, Boston, Massachusetts

This book is a “must read.” The brilliance of Mack W. Borgen’s book lies in its breadth, the clever and painstaking assemblage of our country’s Memorable Words, and from the author’s powerful, page-by-page commentary about the context, meaning, and consequences of those words of passion, eloquence, prescience, and even humor …In an age obsessed with power and money, Borgen reminds us that … it is words which are the “real currency of this country.”

Unburdened by the thick style of academia, the book is properly titled as both “dead serious” and our “lighthearted” …

Wayne S. Bell,
California Real Estate Commissioner, Sacramento, California

….A creative, new, and smart look at American history – starting in 1957 and progressing year by year – through the use of myriad notable, striking, important, and useful words. 

… Extremely wide-ranging in its scope and coverage of subjects, … Borgen’s fresh way of presenting our country’s contemporary history is absorbing …. , and the “memorable words” that fill his book are reminders of where we – as Americans – were, where we are now, and where we might be heading.

Brigadier General Dulaney O’Roark (Ret)
Louisville, Kentucky

Tired of the “same ole” attitude that teaching history just covers one damn thing after another – no rhyme or reason? If so, …Borgen has a treat in store for you!

Borgen brings a keen intellect and delightful sense of humor to his trilogy of history … A unique approach to understanding history in a way that we can see both the forest and the trees and an extraordinary collection of sources ….”

Read this book! It is that rare experience of learning something and enjoying yourself at the same time.

Save Money Now – Order Your Copies Direct from Publishers
Available in Hardcover and Paperback – Book Ordering
Reminder – Book Costs May Be Tax Deductible

Book costs may be tax deductible in certain circumstances such as if delivered as client/customer appreciation gifts or used for client or prospective client development. Please consult your tax advisor.


Blog 74

March 9, 2018

By Mack W. Borgen

Santa Barbara, California

Books Release Announcement

Posted by Mack W. Borgen February 28th, 2018




Dead Serious and Lighthearted

– The Memorable Words of Modern America –

Volume I (1957-1976) (524 pages)

Volume II (1977-1993) (484 pages)

Volume III (1994-2015) (618 pages)

series book covers

These books introduce the history of Modern America in an entirely new way — without the tired stories, heavy words; without the litany of “isms” and “ologies.”

The Memorable Words, both the dead serious and the lighthearted, are carefully presented – the fascinating and frivolous, the tragic and momentous, the eloquent and bumbling; the touching and endearing – from Ike to Obama, from Lucy to Lady Gaga.

The Dead Serious and Lighthearted series is written without agenda, but it carefully identifies who said what and when and where – exactly. Its words can help us know our country and better remember who we are and from whence we came. Each entry is carefully placed into the context and explained as to its meaning — whether the basis for that placement is rooted in the words’ humor, passion, eloquence, prescience, wisdom, shock, evil, or even foolery.

The first volume, being released on March 27, 2018, presents the words from 1957 until 1976 – from American Bandstand to The Godfather, from Lucy to Charley’s Angels and Rocky’s call of “Yo Adrian!”; from the end of the Fifties through the wildness of the Sixties; from the ascendancy of the Civil Rights, feminist, and environmental movements through the tragedy of Vietnam and the disgrace of Watergate.

Volume II, being released in July, 2018, presents the Memorable Words of Modern America from 1977 until 1993. As with Volume I, each entry identifies the speaker or writer and is carefully placed into context and explained as to meaning. Once again, the memorable words from these years include the fascinating and frivolous, the tragic and momentous, the eloquent and bumbling.

From Star Wars’ “may the force be with you” to Nicholson’s “you can’t handle the truth;” from the lightness of Happy Days to the edginess of Roseanne; from the efforts of Carter to the rise of Reagan; from the Go-Go financial markets of the 1980s to the fall of Communism; from the emergence of modern conservatism to the impacts of globalism and technology.

Volume III, being released in October, 2018, the last of the three-volume Dead Serious and Lighthearted series presents the memorable words of Modern America from 1994 until 2015.

From Forrest Gump to 12 Years a Slave; from 9/11 to the Great Recession; from “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” to “Hands up! Don’t shoot;” from “Mission Accomplished” to “Hope is not a strategy;” from the “Contract with America” to “Drill, baby, drill”; from the impact of “Shock and Awe” to the reminder that “Politics ain’t beanbag” and, ultimately, to the rise of Trump(ism).

Pre-Order Your Copies Now


Blog 73

February 28, 2018

By Mack W. Borgen

Santa Barbara, California

Something Lighter for the Summer

Posted by Mack W. Borgen June 20th, 2017

Something a little lighter for the summer …
A Humorous Listing of the 35 Most Over-Used and Tedious
Words and Phrases in the Parlance of Modern America


It is summer. Finally. A time for a little well-deserved vacation and relaxation.

Politics and acrimony still clutter our televisions screens, but at least the 2016 Presidential election is finally behind us. Now, our tax returns have been filed. Our kids have survived another year of school. The sun is out. The flowers are blooming. The birds are chirping. Our days are longer, and even Netflix has at last released another season of shows. Things just don’t get much better.

Nearly everything seems a bit better; a bit lighter; a bit more relaxed.

And in keeping with this spirit of summer, the subject of this month’s blog/article is lighter; hopefully, a bit humorous in its own way. The heavier subjects won’t go away, and they will be waiting for us this fall. But, for now: Summer.

Background for This Collection of America’s Most Over-Used and Tedious Words

The background of this article is that, for the last several years, this author has been trying to develop a new, more engaging manner in which we, as a people and a country, can better learn and, depending upon one’s age, more accurately remember the history of Modern America. The underlying assumption of this effort is that for a variety of reasons, American history is poorly taught and rarely learned.

The methodology of this new manner of presentation of our recent history involves the assemblage, presentation, and brief narrative explanation of what are referred to as “memorable words.” These words included both the heavy and ponderous words of our country’s leaders and the light and, at times, even humorous words which, for their own many reasons, have become “memorable.” All of these assembled “Memorable Words” will soon be presented upon the publication in my three-volume book entitled Dead Serious and Lighthearted – The Memorable Words of Modern America (Volume I – 1957-1976), Volume II (1977-1993), and Volume III (1994-2015).

NOTE: If you want to pre-order direct-from-publisher sets of these books, merely email me at with (i) your name and address; and (ii) the number of sets of hardback or paperbacks you wish. No payment is due until the publication and release of the books, and you will receive a pre-order discount of 25% off the price!

In the course of this author’s research, it became obvious that certain words and phrases are “memorable” for another reason – their constant over-use and tedious repetition.

These words are not included in my books because, as will be seen below, they are of little consequence. By themselves, they have little meaning. They have no lasting import. They don’t even decorate our language. To the contrary, they clutter our conversation. But they do so insistently. Their sole distinction is that they are everywhere spoken, repeated, and echoed until they become ingrained into our parlance. And for that reason alone, they deserve to be here recognized — briefly, but recognized nevertheless.

The Allure and Danger of Lists

“The dangers of definition, omission, and subjectivity

As we know, all lists have a certain allure. Like a guilty pleasure, most of us can’t resist knowing who or what is on this list or that list — the 100 Richest Americans, the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted, the Highest Paid Athletes, the Best Retirement Towns, the 25 Best Destination Resorts, the 37 Most Dog-Friendly States, the 5 Warning Signs of a Heart Attack, the 25 Best Airline Deals, and the 12 Best Coffee Houses in Arkansas. And on it goes.[1]

 But nearly all lists are subject to the same dangers – the dangers of definition, omission, and subjectivity.

The dangers of definition relate to determining the most objective and meaningful criteria for inclusion on any list. In the context of tedious words, such determination is unavoidably subjective.

The dangers of omission are everywhere. Some words and phrases will be inadvertently omitted due to sheer oversight or the need for brevity. Conversely, some words are easily included, and the author has attempted to identify those words and phrases which we all, or at least many of us, may agree are unnecessarily over-used.

The dangers of subjectivity are closely related to the dangers of definition and omission. While it is the committed intent of this author to present these words and phrases in an accurate and balanced manner, realizing such intent is almost impossible. In the mere selection of these words and phrases, personal bias – the true demon of all writers — creeps in.

But even though lists, while fun, are a tricky business, let us proceed even though this list, like all lists, is always changing and can never really be completed.

Lastly, please know that the list is offered in good spirit and that this author welcomes your nomination of additional words and phrases. Just email me at On a personal note and for what it is worth, there is no sanctimony here. There are few words or phrases below on this list that this author has not himself used at one time or another. I’m as guilty as the next.

Over-Used and Tedious Words or Phrases Only

 – The Use of Gestures and Linguistic Errors Distinguished –

This article focuses only on words and phrases, but there are plenty of gestures which have long ago become similarly over-used and which deserve at least passing notice –

The “V “for Victory;

The forehead “L” for loser;

The fist pump;

The pistol point and thumb pull;

The ubiquitous middle finger,

The thumbs up

The nose hold.

The A-O.K.

The foot stomp;

The up-yours elbow pull

A million and one gang signs …

And ten million and one Italian gestures – which can collectively almost replace Italian as their language of communication [2]

But this article focuses only upon words and phrases— and more specifically, those words or phrases which, God-willing, will soon fade from our American conversation.[3] Certainly replacement words and phrases will surface and, in their own time, will become similarly hackneyed and over-used, but sometimes even a brief change, like all respites, is good

Just as this article does not include gestures, it also does not focus upon those over-used words or phrases whose infamy is rooted in their mere verbosity (e.g. “due to the fact that” or “on account of” as opposed to the simpler “because” or “so as to” instead of the simpler “to”) or linguistic incorrectness (e.g. “irregardless” for “regardless; or “thusly” for “thus,” or “firstly, secondly, thirdly” rather than the correct Queen’s English “first, second, third).

Lastly, this article does not include the growing number of code terms now commonplace in our evermore twitter-texting society. It is presumed that the dictionary will someday be produced but those code terms, but for now, my BFFs, this author has GTG, back to this, hopefully, LOL article. Enough said, OMG (Oh, my God).

So, bypassing gestures, verbosities, linguistic errors, and Twitter-code, this article focuses upon those words and phrases which may be grammatically correct but which have become – by their constant over-use – almost interesting in their level of generated annoyance to the listener as he or she absorbs the pounding of their tedious repetition. Like, at the end of the day, you’ll literally see what I mean. Really.

The Use of Topical Categories and Alphabetical Presentation

There are no Robert’s Rules of Order on how to and present these words and phrases. Thus, this author has taken the liberty of dividing them by into the following three general topical categories:

Business Parlance and Office Speak;

Conversational Parlance; and

Politics and Culture

Initially, the words and phrases listed below were ranked according to their degree of abuse and over-use; the degree to which they have become tedious components of our American conversation. However, even after multiple attempts, each of the words and phrases kept coming in first. Thus, it was decided that each, when considered, were deserving of equal, tired, and sighing contempt.

Therefore, the words and phrases are listed alphabetically by category. This author gladly defers to you, my readers. Each of you are encouraged to rank the words and phrases from the most to the least offensive and tiresome, but this author has determined that – enjoy this – “at the end of the day,” it is “literally” “beyond my pay grade” to “actually” even try. With each word or phrase, this author couldn’t resist some editorial comments.


Business Parlance and Office Speak[4]

“At the end of the day” — How about “at Noon or “At the end of tomorrow” or “at the end of the week” — what is really ever finished, completed, done, or fully comprehended “at the end of the day?”

“Beyond my pay grade” — At a minimum, this phrase should be used only by military personnel or civil servants who have amongst them forty separate pay grades (i.e. Civil Service (15 pay grades with 10 steps each); Uniformed Services – Enlisted Personnel (9 pay grades); Warrant Officers (5 pay grades), and Officers (15 pay grades). The rest of America, you know, us, has never been in a pay grade since we dropped out of Scouts.

“Branding” — This general term encompasses the way one presents one’s self or one’s organization, company, or product to the world. The rough concept rests upon the dangerous assumption that success is achieved when the world views you or your company as you desire them to do so. Similarly, “rebranding” is when you or your company desires to change your self-image and does so by, in effect, re-presenting (or re-misrepresenting) yourself to the world.

“Learning Curve” (and its curve cousins – “experience curve” and “growth curve“). It’s nice to know there is such a thing as a “learning curve,” but it is a long curve. This author, possibly like you, has been on it since Kindergarten.

“Lean In” — A late addition to the list, but it seems as though everyone is “leaning in” into something or everything since the release of Sheryl Sandberg’s 2013 book by the same name.

“Low-hanging fruit” — This may be one of the most flexible of all business parlance phrases. Whether the phrase is thrown carefully or dumped unceremoniously into any conversation, it can be used in the context of every argument and every list of issues, negotiating points, or merger pick-offs.

“My people will talk with your people” — Ah, the phrase of arrival. There are exceptions, but usually once one gets to the point whereby it is necessary for “your people” to talk to “their people,” it is usually time for you to step aside, retire, withdraw, go home, and get a new life.

“New Normal” — This phrase is at best challenging and at worst meaningless since few of us, at least outside our sheltered cocoons, ever really know what “normal” is. And anyone who has ever travelled from the Hamptons to the Bayous; from the city to the farm, from the shores of Waikiki to the streets of Chicago, knows that there is no real “normal.” For that matter, there never was an “old normal” either.

“Paradigm shift” – It’s o.k. Admit it. Every time this phrase is used, half of the listening audience sits in self-imposed terror as they secretly try to remember what “paradigm” means – and, for that matter, why there is a damn “g” in the spelling of the word.

“Reach out, drill down, and circle back” – The endless phrases of deferral used by those of us who know that we’re not yet ready to do something. In the old days, we just expressed a need to “sleep on it.” Today, however, things are more complicated. “Sleeping on it” is not nearly enough. Now we have to “reach out” and gather other people’s input. We have to “drill down” to gather more facts and data. We have to “circle back” to assure that our assumptions and even our goals are correct.

“Run it up the flagpole” — The saving phrase for anyone who doesn’t have the authority or the guts to make a decision. In the risk-averse environment of Modern America, it is deemed safer to “run it up the flagpole” so that we can get more “sign-ons” and “everyone’s approval” in our quest for that coveted “cover” that everyone is talking about.

“Sign on the dotted line” — The last words usually heard before everything changes. Sometimes it’s for the good; sometimes it’s for the bad, but (for reasons we don’t know) the line is almost never “dotted.”

“Streamline” and “Restructure” – Everyone who has been in business for more than a couple of lunch breaks knows that many businesses can rarely be “streamlined” into profitability. Likewise, many organizations need elimination far more than “restructure.” It is this author’s belief that there may be some truth to the hallway rumors that both terms, “streamline” and “restructure,” were invented by the makers of PowerPoint.

“Win-win” — This phrase can sometimes accurately summarize the probable results of a particular decision or agreement. More often, however, it is used as a negotiating tool in which one party tries to convince another party that all is good and that everyone will “win-win” as soon as they “sign on the dotted line.”

“Work smarter, not harder” — This is the motto of the Disney character Scrooge McDuck, but it is also the phrase used as a means of offering of wisdom and supposedly, energizing encouragement from upper management to middle management; and from middle management to the rest of us who actually do the work.


Conversational Parlance.

“Actually” and “Literally”– According to urban legend, these terms were injected into the American conversation sometime in the mid-1970s in The Valley just north of Los Angeles. Like Africanized bees, slime, and spinners, the use of “actually” and “literally” has spread across the country. Both words are intended to supply emphasis as in “we actually had to wait” and “we had to wait literally two hours for a table.”  The problem is, however, that actually, the words, add, literally, nothing to a sentence — other than a brain-fart pause in one’s conversation. Nevertheless, it is now four decades since the introduction of the words into America’s valley-style jargon, and their use is not lessening.

“Awesome.” – The multi-purpose, generic term for everything wonderful —- from ice cream to ideas, from new plans to new products, from yesterday’s game to tomorrow’s wardrobe. Based upon a speech-tracking poll conducted at some major U.S. malls in the summer of 2016, it has been suggested that the removal of the word would collapse 47.3% of U.S. conversations. Alternatively, a rigorously enforced $0.25 fine for each use of the word would eliminate the federal debt in approximately 2.3 days (give or take 10-11 “awesomes.”

“Back in the day” – A common reference to anything which occurred, depending upon one’s age, prior to Obama, 9/11, the Boom-Boom 80’s, Watergate, or, for the senior set, Woodstock or Ike.

“Dude” —  A term of reference more than endearment (unless modified by “Good” as in “Good dude” or

“Bad” as in Bad Dude” or even “Righteous” as in “Righteous Dude“). For some, the term seems to be applicable to nearly any male walking on Earth.

“Epic” — This word was once used reverentially in the context of world-changing evens such as heroic invasions, major battles, or world-altering discoveries. Pedantic linguists remind us that the word is also frequently used in conjunction with “proportions” as in “an event of epic proportions.”  Now, however, it has been watered down to apply to each weekend’s new movie release, Jane’s birthday party, and Bobby’s home run last week. Basically, “epic” is anything perceived to be even slightly over “awesome.”

“F*** bombs” of any sort and including “Get F****ed,” “I’m F****ed,” “You’re F****ed,” “F*** Off,”and “F***ing A.” Regrettably, the phrases are the go-to, catch-all words offered in response to any perceived act of aggression, misunderstanding, employment review, bounced check, foul-ball, car cut-off, price misunderstanding, and on and on. Americans, a deeply familial society, use the preface of “Mother-F****er” in order to raise the ante and emphasize a heightened sense of disappointment, anger, or outrage.

“In real time” – A phrase used to supplant “live” and used to contrast one’s viewing of an event or occurrence to that strangely, never-referred-term “un-real time.”

“Just sayin …” – The multi-purpose, edge-taker-off applicable to the delivery of anything approaching criticism or cold truth. The phrase can be used in social situations and nearly all conversations approaching the subject of politics.

“Like …” with all of its iterations – “I was like (expression of alarm), and “he was like” (expression of disdain), and “now I’m like” (expression of dismissal usually delivered with a wave-off of the hand).”

“Literally” – See “Actually” and “Literally” above.

“No worry” – The go-to, ready phrase of comfort and assurance which is routinely offered to anyone suffering from mild anxiety to xanax-worthy panic.

“Oh, wow” – This phrase is starting to phase out of the American lexicon, but it deserves inclusion in this list because the phrase completely dominated the entire decade of the Sixties. Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the 1960s — from good to bad, from hot to cold, from up to down, from time to distance, from sounds to smells – was exempt from the universal response of “oh wow.” Some say that the last “oh wow” was heard as Nixon announced his resignation as the 37th President of the United States in August, 1974, but we have all heard the phrase mumbled at more than a few rock concerts since then, and there was certainly a resurgence of the expression with the election of Donald Trump in November, 2016. Note: whether or not  either “oh” or “wow” deserves to be called words  is far beyond the scope of this article.

 “Perfect storm” – Unlike most over-used phrases, the phrase “perfect storm” can, to a degree, be specifically traced to the nightmarish storm which resulted from the Category 5, Hurricane Grace which swept up America’s eastern seaboard in October, 1991. For those Americans who were not yet born, who were not living on the Eastern seaboard, or who were not tuned into the Weather Station, it is more likely that the phrase joined their vocabulary sometime after the release of Wolfgang Petersen’s 2002 film, The Perfect Storm starring George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg. Since that time, the phrase has come to be associated with every collision of bad or even consequential events – from business deal mis-timings to personal or family catastrophes.

“To tell the truth” – Similar to the emphatic use of the word “honestly,” “to tell the truth” is the curious preamble phrase used by people in response to a question or line of inquiry. The inherent curiosity of the phrase stems from the fact that the parties to the conversation had presumably been expecting “the truth” all along. When the phrase is used, it seems necessary for the listeners to ask how far back they should go in the conversation in order to determine when the speaker was not “telling the truth.”

“Whatever” – The ultimate word of dismissal used by every teenager — ah, but not my own — to the suggestion, comment, command, or, god forbid, criticism made to the former “apple of their eye.”

“You know” or “You know what I’m sayin.” This suggestion of embracement and implied agreement or understanding  is far too commonly used. More problematic, however, is that the response of “no, I don’t know” is often needed, but rarely heard. This author would be more than willing to expand further about the use and mis-use of these phrases, but “you know what I’m sayin.’


Politics, Culture, and the Media

“Anything—Gate” — The short-cut, tag phrase suggesting wrongful or illegal behavior which is used with respect to every political scandal which survives three or four news cycles. The origin of the phrase comes from Nixon’s “third-rate burglary” which occurred at Watergate back in 1972, but since that time the tag line has been evenly distributed amongst many politicians. It has been used for Reagan’s Irangate; Clinton’s Whitewater-gate Troopergate, and Monicagate; Bush’s waterboarding-gate and Blackwater-gate; Obama’s Deepwatergate; and Hilary Clinton’s Benghazigate,[5] In rare instances, the tag line is also applied in the context of state-level matters (such as New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s Bridgegate) and sports (such as the New Orleans Saints’ Bountygate and New England Patriot’s Deflategate).

“Drive-By Media” and “Mainstream Media” — While the origins of these dismissive phrase is hard to track, many credit (if that is the correct term to use) their use to the Rush Limbaugh Show which has been dominating the conservative talk shows for nearly 20 years now. “Drive-by media” is intended to imply that reporters talk more than they investigate. In other words, speed dominates over accuracy, and journalists of all varieties — reporters, commentators, talk show hosts – report what they can quickly see by merely “driving by” a story. “Mainstream media” is different. It does not connote the supposedly light quality of the news. Instead, it connotes that there is a “mainstream media” which is unified in its presumptions, biases, and political preferences, if not affiliations. In this sense, the “mainstream media” should be contrasted with the more objective, deep-investigative reporting of the non-mainstream media, who, you know, report the news in a “fair and balanced” manner.

“Fake News” and “Alt Facts” and “Post-truth” — These phrases are arguably too new to be included in the list, however, it is the opinion of this author that they are here to stay. The terms “fake news” and “alt facts” can be viewed as mere extensions, logical or otherwise, of the long traditions of criticism implied by the phrases “drive-by media” and “mainstream media” discussed above. But in the opinion of this author, all of these phrases – “fake news,” “alt facts,” and “post-truth” are merely political code expressions of cynicism, and people’s too-ready dismissal of news which is counter to the desires or objectives of a given person or party.

“Middle America” – For at least three reasons, this phrase may be the most misleading of all of the over-used and tedious phrases of Modern America. The first reason is that, somewhat confusingly for some, Middle America is not a place. In other words, don’t think Nebraska; don’t think Kansas. The second reason is that there are serious questions as to whether Middle America ever really existed. At least historically Americans have not been known for their lock-step thinking. Instead, individualism and family, along with racial, ethnic, religious associations and income and wealth levels have been far more a component of one’s association with other’s than the blind  association of oneself with Middle America. The third reason is that even if a Middle America did at one time exist, it may not now. Much has changed. Loyalties and associations are increasingly negotiable. And definitions are, at best, elusive. Nevertheless, for reasons beyond the full understanding of this author, all politicians claim to represent Middle America wherever or whatever it is. It remains the tired phrase of every echo chamber and every political speech.

Business Parlance and Office Speak Conversational Parlance Politics and Culture
All hands on deck Aha Moment I can’t even …
Back to the drawing board Bang for your buck It’s on my radar
Data points Boys will be boys Keep calm and …
Get the bal rolling Bucket List Let’s touch base
Guesstimate Chin up Move the goal post
I don’t have the bandwidth Could care less … My bad
Leverage Cray cray … No brainer
Elephant in the room It is what it is … On my plate
Optimize Everything happens for a reason Par for the course
Value Added Hit the ground running Thrown under the bus

And the 2017 Special: You’re fired!!


There is no perfect way in which to end any essay – but let me try with this best-efforts, assemblage of words:

At the end of the day” and even though it was “beyond my pay grade,” this author  just “leaned in” to “work smarter, not harder ” in order to “actually,” “like” “literally” write this “awesome,”epic” essay in order “to tell the truth” about the over-used and tedious phrases of Modern America. “I’m just sayin'” that I have done so in a manner lying somewhere between “whatever” andoh wow.” “You know what I mean,” but, if I have failed, “no worry,” but maybe “your people can talk with my people” “in real time” or whenever.

And with that, please have a great, great summer …. …

– – –

Notes and Citations

[1] Part of this section is paragraph is excerpted from Part I of Mack W. Borgen’s forthcoming Dead Serious and Lighthearted – The Memorable Words of Modern America (Vols I, II, and III). 

[2]    See, e.g. Munari, B., Speak Italian: The Fine Art of the Gesture (2005).

[3] Swaim, B., “Managing the Decline of, Like, a Great Language,” The Wall Street Journal, April 20, 2015.

[4]   For a clever listing and charting of these and other examples of “nonsensical office speak,” see Green, E., “Me Talk Office One Day,” The Atlantic, May, 2014, p. 18.

[5]  See, Carter, G., Vanity Fair, August, 2010, p. 42.

Something Lighter for the Summer – The 35 Most Over-Used and Tedious Words and Phrases in the Parlance of Modern America

Blog 72

June 21, 2017

By Mack W. Borgen

Santa Barbara, California

Copyright (c) 2017. Mack W. Borgen. All rights reserved. University of California at Berkeley (Honors, Economics); Harvard Law School; Author, The Relevance of Reason – Business Politics (Volume 1) and —  Society and Cultue (Volume 2) – As Advertised in The New York Review of Books and Recipient of Four National Book Awards.  A portion of the below essay will be included in my forthcoming book, May the Bridges I Burn, Light the Way – A Lifetime of Writings – 1977-2017.

Tags: , , , , ,