Preamble
There are two things that are initially repelling to most who would read the title If I Were King. First is the egotistic nature of the statement. Well…this is a blog, and any expression; spoken, written, drawn, sculpted, spray painted on cinderblock, tattooed over pectoral muscles, or whatever inextricably includes the ego - can’t help that.
The second disturbing aspect is the King thing. In our national desire to raise the concept of Democracy to that of a theology we have come to look suspiciously at other means of social order as heretical, which is a little odd considering the comedy our representative Democracy stages for us almost daily. The fact is, a generationally determined Monarchy is potentially a better, more efficient, more responsive form of government, and less blind to inequities. It just has that one pesky problem of getting really bad monarchs, which may happen more often than not. There’s not much to be done about a squirrely succession.
So, would I make a good king? No, I’d probably make a lousy king. But occasionally I believe I have a good or fun idea, and how I wish I could make it happen by proclamation instead of the perhaps greater fantasy of it coming to pass within the context of a society that believes it can be run by consensus.
Therefore, as your Sovereign, I hereby proclaim that:
I - All prescription drug advertisements shall be banned from television and radio. Doesn’t that sound good? We don’t need the information, the doctors do. All it does is raise drug costs and a bunch of other nasty stuff (see www.CAPDA.blogspot.com ).
II - All new cars sold in this country will not have analogue speedometers reading above 100mph. Speedometer inflation is both absurd and insulting - and probably promotes speeding. My little 4 cylinder Elantra’s speedometer reads up to 140mph! It couldn’t go that fast if I drove it off a cliff. Do they really believe I feel more powerful with a number like that?
III – That every male in the country upon reaching the age of 18 be required to do 2 years of “service”. Although you’ve heard that before, this service would only necessitate that they live for those two years in the house of a family who has just sent their own 18 year old son off. However, that family would have to be of an ethnic origin (European American, African American, Latin American, or Native American) different than their own. During those two years they would either work and/or attend a community college. Women could participate on a voluntary basis, because when it comes to social acceptance, quite frankly, today’s young women have their shit together and men don’t.
IV – There will, once again, be a national speed limit of 55mph. Jimmy Carter was right. 55 because no one is willing to drive the speed limit and cars hit their maximum aerodynamic efficiency somewhere between 60 and 65mph. The savings in national fuel consumption would be astronomical. The loss of 67 minutes on a drive between Richmond and New York can easily be made up by the elimination of one mindless reality program and/or the healthy consumption of Metamucil. The decline in highway fatalities would be just a bonus.
V - Social Security will simply become taxable income (instead of partially, as it is now). Furthermore, at gross incomes exceeding $80,000 Social Security will be taxed at a progressively higher rate than other income, so when a person’s total income reaches $140,000 Social Security will be taxed at 100%, i.e., those individuals will receive no Social Security. It is beyond reason that our current form of social welfare for the elderly and disabled is routinely paid out to wealthy individuals. The illusion that this is some kind of paid-in annuity strikes at the heart of why we are the largest debtor nation in the history of mankind.
VI - All push lawn mowers with grass catchers shall be banned. Only mulching mowers will be sold. This decree is intended to give psychological help to those unfortunates who believe that the few minutes of momentary bliss they receive from a spotless lawn is worth the weighted down mower, the endless stopping and dumping of the bags, the pilings of grass clippings in the backyard (or worse - plastic bags), the green fingernails, and the higher original cost.
VII – All television stations and networks shall not sell more than 20 minutes of commercial airtime advertising one political candidate over that sold to another (in any given market). It wouldn’t matter who buys the ad, but the candidates campaign would have right of first refusal. A candidate would be defined as one who is currently projected to receive at least 25% of the popular vote. Further, all commercial airtime purchased by political candidates must be a minimum of 2 minutes in duration for Presidential and Senatorial candidates and 1 minute for all others. The net result would be that there would be equal exposure or a popular minority candidate could stop the use of television commercials – a medium where 15 second political sound bites appeal to that part of the brain which handles such activities as nose picking and making imitation fart sounds. Maybe we would actually learn something from what was broadcast or find better means of learning about all the candidates. Hell, in Britain they don’t allow political TV ads at all, which errs on the side of common sense.
VIII – That 5% of all gross television ad revenues be paid over to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Call it a tax if you’d like, but for a society not to fund a media source, especially news, which is free from a corporate profit interest, is like a theft of understanding. Further, having funding within a government budget can allow politicians the same kind of leverage. Upper management and the board of the CPB would be replaced if average viewer/listenership fell below a pre-determined level for 3 successive quarters – letting the people vote on the content with their TV remotes.
IX – There will be a Value Added Tax on oil to gasoline intended to bring the price up to at least $4 per gallon. This would both reduce debt and find a strike price which will curb consumption and stimulate innovation. If consumption does not flatten or decline, the rate of tax will increase. There would be no VAT on diesel fuel, which would reduce the impact on the trucking business. One half of revenues would be applied to transportation infrastructure (roads, bridges etc), which would be mostly transferred to the States. There will be an annual windfall profits tax on energy companies. All new roads and fuel efficient cars will be named after me.
X – That all cable, satellite, and fiber optic television companies shall provide a new Sarah Palin Channel. This channel will broadcast nothing but Sarah Palin interviews and speeches in an endless loop. I hope by doing such, devoted fans will actually begin to see what this woman is saying. Every two hours there will be 10 minutes of an old 1950s Howdy-Doody broadcast inserted. The channel shall remain in effect until it is determined that polled Republican viewers can finally no longer tell the difference between Palin and Buffalo Bob.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
My Enemy...My Friend
This morning I watched my wife Jan go to the cupboard and take out her daily vitamin and calcium pills from their bottles, as she does each morning. I, who had snagged from CVS freebie plastic pill containers with seven handy little compartments, asked her why she doesn’t use one of them. “That way you’d only have to take your pill bottles out once a week instead of once a day”. She looked at me incredulously and said: “…why would I want to do that? I’m perfectly fine and content with doing it the way I’m doing it.” I grumbled something about efficiency and cleverly omitted the fact that I use the container to help remind me to take my damned pills – something for which her methodical abilities require no assistance.
Of course, she was right. What is the point of making a change when no change is necessary? It made me wonder if my almost evangelistic belief that there is always a better way of doing things (if one just looks hard enough) may be self-defeating. One might suggest such is the origin of the phrase don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. The desire for change, in and of itself, has no explicit value. Only the value of the actual proposed change can be judged. To those who might disagree, pointing out the individuals who have championed or actually developed the many technological advancements we enjoy, I would suggest that it was dissatisfaction with the status quo that was probably the greater motivator…and doubtless money as well.
Still, I wonder. Is a desire for change per se a necessary attribute allowing us to successfully adapt? Perhaps so. There is change swirling about us continually - tied to events, tied to time, or tied to mystery for example. How do we react when what makes us content doesn’t seem consistent with the environment that surrounds us? Isn’t it a common reaction to blame “the world” or one of its many components as the cause of why this or that just isn’t the same? In spending a career working with “seniors” (say 70 and up) I noticed that those who most acutely felt the stresses of age were those to whom felt their lives abandoned. They felt they had lived a lifetime only to find that what was comfortable, what was dependable, and what had shaped trust was not clearly identifiable in the world around them. The anguish that assumption creates is a tragic consequence for individuals in the last period of their lives.
Maybe there is contentment itself in recognizing and appreciating the impermanence of all things? Some years ago I developed an infection in my sinuses and ears. For unfortunate reasons I was unable to get to a doctor, so I stuck out the illness. For about three days I lost most of my hearing. I got a kick out of driving my old pickup truck, as the low murmur of its normally ruckus engine sounded like a Mercedes-Benz E Class. When my hearing came back it also brought an unwelcomed enemy – tinnitus or ringing in the ears. I have it to this day.
At first I tried to read whatever I could about tinnitus. I wasn’t encourage to see that one, there was no cure for it, and two, some people are driven half (or entirely) mad by the condition. To consider a noise over which you have no control one could understand such a reaction. Mine is primarily in my left ear and frequently when it is quiet outside (as in the evening) or if that ear is covered the noise can sound like a relentless high-pitched car horn. However, I did find some good information, although I had to modify it for my own purposes. I found I could conquer the ringing, not by trying to overcome it, but rather by listening to it...and accepting it. This change that had taken place in my life was okay…in fact it was better than okay. It helped me to step out of the possible chains inflexibility can cause in any of us. Now at night when I lay with the left side of my head on the pillow I attentively marvel at the volume of the ringing, but when I’m through listening it essentially goes away. It has become my friend and I'm better for it. If I didn’t have the desire to embrace change could I have done this, or would I be pounding my head against a wall? I’m not sure.
I read from the internet an explanation about the baby/bath water saying. It suggested that the origin was from centuries before when an entire family would take their weekly or monthly bath in the same bath water. The baby, it said, was normally the last to be bathed and by that time you could just imagine what the water looked like. It was joked (back then) that the mother could lose the baby in the muck. I like the explanation, true or not. But it does make me think that unless we can adapt, we may be cleaning with the same water too long and lose that which is dear. Maybe a love of change helps.
Of course, she was right. What is the point of making a change when no change is necessary? It made me wonder if my almost evangelistic belief that there is always a better way of doing things (if one just looks hard enough) may be self-defeating. One might suggest such is the origin of the phrase don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. The desire for change, in and of itself, has no explicit value. Only the value of the actual proposed change can be judged. To those who might disagree, pointing out the individuals who have championed or actually developed the many technological advancements we enjoy, I would suggest that it was dissatisfaction with the status quo that was probably the greater motivator…and doubtless money as well.
Still, I wonder. Is a desire for change per se a necessary attribute allowing us to successfully adapt? Perhaps so. There is change swirling about us continually - tied to events, tied to time, or tied to mystery for example. How do we react when what makes us content doesn’t seem consistent with the environment that surrounds us? Isn’t it a common reaction to blame “the world” or one of its many components as the cause of why this or that just isn’t the same? In spending a career working with “seniors” (say 70 and up) I noticed that those who most acutely felt the stresses of age were those to whom felt their lives abandoned. They felt they had lived a lifetime only to find that what was comfortable, what was dependable, and what had shaped trust was not clearly identifiable in the world around them. The anguish that assumption creates is a tragic consequence for individuals in the last period of their lives.
Maybe there is contentment itself in recognizing and appreciating the impermanence of all things? Some years ago I developed an infection in my sinuses and ears. For unfortunate reasons I was unable to get to a doctor, so I stuck out the illness. For about three days I lost most of my hearing. I got a kick out of driving my old pickup truck, as the low murmur of its normally ruckus engine sounded like a Mercedes-Benz E Class. When my hearing came back it also brought an unwelcomed enemy – tinnitus or ringing in the ears. I have it to this day.
At first I tried to read whatever I could about tinnitus. I wasn’t encourage to see that one, there was no cure for it, and two, some people are driven half (or entirely) mad by the condition. To consider a noise over which you have no control one could understand such a reaction. Mine is primarily in my left ear and frequently when it is quiet outside (as in the evening) or if that ear is covered the noise can sound like a relentless high-pitched car horn. However, I did find some good information, although I had to modify it for my own purposes. I found I could conquer the ringing, not by trying to overcome it, but rather by listening to it...and accepting it. This change that had taken place in my life was okay…in fact it was better than okay. It helped me to step out of the possible chains inflexibility can cause in any of us. Now at night when I lay with the left side of my head on the pillow I attentively marvel at the volume of the ringing, but when I’m through listening it essentially goes away. It has become my friend and I'm better for it. If I didn’t have the desire to embrace change could I have done this, or would I be pounding my head against a wall? I’m not sure.
I read from the internet an explanation about the baby/bath water saying. It suggested that the origin was from centuries before when an entire family would take their weekly or monthly bath in the same bath water. The baby, it said, was normally the last to be bathed and by that time you could just imagine what the water looked like. It was joked (back then) that the mother could lose the baby in the muck. I like the explanation, true or not. But it does make me think that unless we can adapt, we may be cleaning with the same water too long and lose that which is dear. Maybe a love of change helps.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
The New Racism?
One afternoon recently I asked a thoughtful friend, a self-proclaimed Conservative, sympathetic with the “Tea Party” events and energetically opposed to the recent Health Reform Law, if he thought racism played a part in the “spirited” opposition to the Obama Administration. He reflected that pockets of racism will likely always exist, but he emphatically believed it was not part of the current vocal Conservative activism. Further, he felt for sure that (I paraphrase) claims of racism were merely a way for Liberal big government types to undermine the issues addressed by the “Tea Party” and similar Obama opponents. I’m confident his view is typical.
The possibility of racism as a motivation for popular political or social action is difficult to swallow. It cuts at the very heart of a trend over the past 60 years where “Jim Crow” laws were not only eliminated from the books, but overtly discounted as socially acceptable. A byproduct of the election of Obama seemed to be putting a period at the end of that chapter of Americana, suggesting we had turned a new page. Here I’m not wondering that an old chapter has probably ended, but rather what exactly is the new chapter beginning?
Aside from the lunatic fringe of the Christian Conservative Right (a fringe I might add that is notably large and uncomfortably armed), one doesn’t see blatant demonstrations of racism surfacing in public by mainstream Conservative activists, regardless of their own racial uniformity. I haven’t seen it at any rate, and I would accept that for most, like my friend, it doesn’t manifest in private as well. Still, the possibility of prejudice is ever so slightly alluded to by official Administration supporters, a bit like TV weather reporters trying to suggest that a 10% chance of rain is something to be concerned about, and on the street, well… many anti-Tea Party types and African-Americans uniformly see racism as a staple of Conservative protest.
Is it not possible that these Obama Administration supporters in their zeal to discount the issues raised by Conservative activists hang onto the actions of the lunatic fringe (name calling, spitting, voicemail threats & so on) and extrapolate it out to include all Conservatives? After all, the issues raised are real by any centrist (or liberal) standard, primarily focused on the fiscal irresponsibility of lawmakers. It’s hard to see how racism is a motivation in the opposition of red ink.
Still, simple observation makes me irresistibly feel something else is going on. The issues raised by Conservative activists are hardly new to this decade. Sure, given his rhetorical skills, George W. Bush’s elections in 2000 and 2004 were like full employment acts for comedians everywhere (he got his lumps), but the massive literal and shadow debt produced by his reductions of income and unbridled expenses (much of it without Congressional oversight) didn’t spark even an ember of protest from Conservatives. Further, although he and his Lord Vader (Cheney) may have been despised by those few who actually felt the sacrifice of their foreign adventures, Bush was not that I recall vilified in the way Obama has been. An 88 year old grandmother I know, who occasionally can be confused as to the days of the week, is convinced that Obama is the new Hitler, because he “speaks so well”. She reflects the banners that show up everywhere at Conservative rallies. Another otherwise ordinary, college educated public employee shared with me his real suspicions that Obama is the Anti-Christ. I don’t believe these views are atypical.
Where has this come from? Obama’s political pragmatism has been a major disappointment to many of his supporters who had shouted yes we can in 2008 to fiscal and political change, but it should have reverberated as a relief to Conservatives, or at least dampened their vitriolic enthusiasm. Just the opposite seems to have occurred. Not even the renewed stature Obama has brought America internationally (a source of pride for me) has explicitly resonated an iota with Conservatives. The almost junkyard dog attacks on what was essentially a health care insurance reform bill, with an intended benefit for almost everyone except those wealthy enough to be self-insured, was like a beacon shinning on something perhaps new and different.
Isn’t it also possible that Obama by his stature, his position, and his race has touched on something that is difficult for a large portion of white America to accept at a gut level? As human beings we have the challenge of recognizing our humanity while simultaneously engaged in establishing our identities…and mostly we fail. We fail because our identities are usually false, based on constructs that are superficial or illusionary. They include such things as possessions, physical appearance, organizations, intelligence, nationalities, relationships, handicaps, religions, and (oh yeah) race - to name just a few. The need to want or be right as to any of these is a powerful motivator. Identifying with race is a problem for both blacks and whites. It’s almost silly to think that it doesn’t play a role here. However, is it racism as we have known it?
White Americans prior to the middle of the 20th century were comfortable with that aspect of their identities as “white” (which they never thought of as “white”) because historically non-whites were considered inferior by a variety of external standards (including laws). That concept was debunked in the last 60 years, but perhaps only intellectually and legally. Now, however, something new, something undeniably tangible has occurred much sooner than almost anyone might have predicted. Too many white Americans are negatively faced with a realization that a black man is not only more intelligent, more refined, and of higher station than they are, but is also their leader and superior. That reality cannot be rationalized away as it might for any other non-white. It undermines the core of the construct of how they view themselves, even though being white really has nothing to do with who they are or that being black has anything to do with who Obama is. If Obama were just seen as man, not as a black man, it’s hard for me to believe that the rancorous attacks would be the same. It is not that those individuals would necessarily be in agreement with the Obama Administration, they just simply would not feel so personally threatened.
This may not be racism by traditional definitions, but a cancer is a cancer whether the symptoms are obvious or not. I’d call it selfism (for lack of something cleverer) since it exists on a plain where laws or ethics cannot govern, and of which the individual is frankly unaware.
The possibility of racism as a motivation for popular political or social action is difficult to swallow. It cuts at the very heart of a trend over the past 60 years where “Jim Crow” laws were not only eliminated from the books, but overtly discounted as socially acceptable. A byproduct of the election of Obama seemed to be putting a period at the end of that chapter of Americana, suggesting we had turned a new page. Here I’m not wondering that an old chapter has probably ended, but rather what exactly is the new chapter beginning?
Aside from the lunatic fringe of the Christian Conservative Right (a fringe I might add that is notably large and uncomfortably armed), one doesn’t see blatant demonstrations of racism surfacing in public by mainstream Conservative activists, regardless of their own racial uniformity. I haven’t seen it at any rate, and I would accept that for most, like my friend, it doesn’t manifest in private as well. Still, the possibility of prejudice is ever so slightly alluded to by official Administration supporters, a bit like TV weather reporters trying to suggest that a 10% chance of rain is something to be concerned about, and on the street, well… many anti-Tea Party types and African-Americans uniformly see racism as a staple of Conservative protest.
Is it not possible that these Obama Administration supporters in their zeal to discount the issues raised by Conservative activists hang onto the actions of the lunatic fringe (name calling, spitting, voicemail threats & so on) and extrapolate it out to include all Conservatives? After all, the issues raised are real by any centrist (or liberal) standard, primarily focused on the fiscal irresponsibility of lawmakers. It’s hard to see how racism is a motivation in the opposition of red ink.
Still, simple observation makes me irresistibly feel something else is going on. The issues raised by Conservative activists are hardly new to this decade. Sure, given his rhetorical skills, George W. Bush’s elections in 2000 and 2004 were like full employment acts for comedians everywhere (he got his lumps), but the massive literal and shadow debt produced by his reductions of income and unbridled expenses (much of it without Congressional oversight) didn’t spark even an ember of protest from Conservatives. Further, although he and his Lord Vader (Cheney) may have been despised by those few who actually felt the sacrifice of their foreign adventures, Bush was not that I recall vilified in the way Obama has been. An 88 year old grandmother I know, who occasionally can be confused as to the days of the week, is convinced that Obama is the new Hitler, because he “speaks so well”. She reflects the banners that show up everywhere at Conservative rallies. Another otherwise ordinary, college educated public employee shared with me his real suspicions that Obama is the Anti-Christ. I don’t believe these views are atypical.
Where has this come from? Obama’s political pragmatism has been a major disappointment to many of his supporters who had shouted yes we can in 2008 to fiscal and political change, but it should have reverberated as a relief to Conservatives, or at least dampened their vitriolic enthusiasm. Just the opposite seems to have occurred. Not even the renewed stature Obama has brought America internationally (a source of pride for me) has explicitly resonated an iota with Conservatives. The almost junkyard dog attacks on what was essentially a health care insurance reform bill, with an intended benefit for almost everyone except those wealthy enough to be self-insured, was like a beacon shinning on something perhaps new and different.
Isn’t it also possible that Obama by his stature, his position, and his race has touched on something that is difficult for a large portion of white America to accept at a gut level? As human beings we have the challenge of recognizing our humanity while simultaneously engaged in establishing our identities…and mostly we fail. We fail because our identities are usually false, based on constructs that are superficial or illusionary. They include such things as possessions, physical appearance, organizations, intelligence, nationalities, relationships, handicaps, religions, and (oh yeah) race - to name just a few. The need to want or be right as to any of these is a powerful motivator. Identifying with race is a problem for both blacks and whites. It’s almost silly to think that it doesn’t play a role here. However, is it racism as we have known it?
White Americans prior to the middle of the 20th century were comfortable with that aspect of their identities as “white” (which they never thought of as “white”) because historically non-whites were considered inferior by a variety of external standards (including laws). That concept was debunked in the last 60 years, but perhaps only intellectually and legally. Now, however, something new, something undeniably tangible has occurred much sooner than almost anyone might have predicted. Too many white Americans are negatively faced with a realization that a black man is not only more intelligent, more refined, and of higher station than they are, but is also their leader and superior. That reality cannot be rationalized away as it might for any other non-white. It undermines the core of the construct of how they view themselves, even though being white really has nothing to do with who they are or that being black has anything to do with who Obama is. If Obama were just seen as man, not as a black man, it’s hard for me to believe that the rancorous attacks would be the same. It is not that those individuals would necessarily be in agreement with the Obama Administration, they just simply would not feel so personally threatened.
This may not be racism by traditional definitions, but a cancer is a cancer whether the symptoms are obvious or not. I’d call it selfism (for lack of something cleverer) since it exists on a plain where laws or ethics cannot govern, and of which the individual is frankly unaware.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Larry King's Tea Party
As I grumbled over the protracted news coverage of Larry King’s latest divorce, one gram of information sparked my interest. It was reported that King’s current contract with CNN was worth $50 million. Here is a competent interviewer in the very twilight of his career, who (in my opinion) is on cruise mode when compared to the dynamics of his industry, and still he can command an income the equivalent of a lotto bonanza to a middle class American. It’s not that Larry is an icon for humanity, his desire to be cryogenically preserved upon death speaks volumes as to his character, not to mention his eight divorces (one pending). Sure, it’s all show business, but when two hours of Larry King’s often rambling conversation is the equivalent of a provider for a family of four, working full time at a wage above the poverty line... for about 43 years…it gets me thinking.
What is it about the disparity of wealth in our country that the general population doesn’t get? In formal Economics wealth is more simply defined as the claim on resources, or what an individual (or wealth holder generally) can demand from society as a whole. It relates closely to power over other individuals. Inequality of such demand has always, and undoubtedly will always be the case to some degreee. What’s interesting is the trends that have taken place, especially here in the US.
With the founding of the country and the expansion of free enterprise (combined with universal education and representative government) the lack of parity between financial classes (if you will) went on a steady decline, with some minor exceptions, for about 200 years. It is only in the last 30 years, thereabouts, that such class structure did an about face and began to widen dramatically. The reasons are varied and complex, some simply due to demographic changes like massive population increases, many intentionally created. The point of this analysis is not to point fingers necessarily, but rather to look at the results of such disparity and how we as a nation react to it.
POTUS radio has done several man in the street interview sessions at “Tea Party” rallies in various locations. I was impressed that the producers made an honest attempt to circumvent the wacko Theodore Kaczynski types (of which there are many – including those who think writing checks out to Sarah Palin is patriotic) to interview thoughtful individuals who have attempted to reason out their activism. These Tea Party warriors have points which are often grounded in solid dirt, expounding, for example, on the long term consequences of huge budget deficits, incomprehensible national debt, the role of government in business ownership to name a few. However, one theme kept creeping back into the conversations, like the recognition of the boogie man that lives under the bed – taxation. The very concept of taxation is poison in the tea cups of these “activists”, ergo the actual name of the group based on the Colonial tax protest of 1773 (which BTW had nothing to do with assessing tax, rather representation in deciding the use of that tax).
Now let’s not be too confused with their Boston “Indian” counterparts. These 21st century “patriots” love their massive national defense bureaucracy, they like quality universal education, hurricane clean ups, filled potholes, Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid (at least for their moms – bless their hearts), food subsidies, suspension bridges, intelligence agencies, crime fighters of every description, 911, attractive roadsides, national parks and on and on. They just don’t want to be taxed - plain and simple. One well thinking person I know put it this way: “I just don’t trust Government” period. Where did this thinking come from, that the funding of our government (which is effectively funding ourselves) wasn’t just a question of the efficient use of accumulated wealth, but an inherent evil or, at best, the propagation of evil. How many of such middle class Tea Party people could honestly identify how their lives were literally less meaningful due to the taxes they have paid. The contradictions are so obvious and pervasive that it nearly defies understanding.
In 2001 George Bush’s first order of business as President presiding over a Republican Congress was to enact enormous tax cuts, followed again in 2003. The CBO projected at that time that such cuts would add $1.2 trillion to the National Debt over the following 10 years (which has come to pass – further they are currently projecting an additional $1.8 trillion deficit if the cuts are extended). This was done before Bush went on a $1.2 trillion (or more) spending spree in the Middle East. The rank and file Tea Partiers don’t have a problem with any of that. Their conclusions remain unchanged, that out of control spending is the culprit (unless it's for something worth while - like killing Saddam Hussain) and that any tax cut is a good cut. But who did these tax cuts go to and who has the interest to leave them in place?
The tax cuts were spread primarily from the middleclass up. However, those who make little income have little to gain by an income based tax cut. The benefit (or lack thereof) to the poor is obvious. In the case of the Bush tax cuts, the more income the more fun at the party. The middle 20% of middle class taxpayers received 8.9% of the cut. That would be 8.9% distributed among about 50 million people. The top 0.2% of income earners received 15.3% of the benefit. The nation’s 257,000 millionaires (at that time - based on income) received an initial $30 billion in benefits. This disparity between the haves and the have-nots just doesn’t resonate with the have-nots (even the have-nots who rally at Tea Party conventions shouting rage at efforts to reverse these disparities as “Obama Socialism” pounding on their doors). Why has this complacency with those of wealth and power, never more obvious since post WWII America, been so inherent in Conservative ethics?
There’s nothing unique about Larry King. He is only one of several million individuals who by fate, ingenuity, or cunning have found themselves economically separated from mainstream America. There is a further gap between our middle class and those who struggle at the bottom of claims on resources (which may include a disproportionate portion of our next generation). The “Contract with America” Conservatism that drives the Republican caucus, the Tea Partiers, the Palins, the Limbaughs, and others has a vitriolic subtext which contains the frightening ability to get people to energetically act against their own self interest. The fight over the recent health care law couldn’t have proved it better. The benefits from such Conservatism has yielded enormous tangible benefits for those seek to retain their claim to resources and illusionary benefits for those who shout on public malls.
The musical 1776 (the life’s passion of composer-lyricist Sherman Edwards to accurately put the struggle of the founding of this country to music) has a song in it called Cool, Cool Considerate Men. It was originally entitled “Cool, Cool Conservative Men” but the producers forced the change so as not to turn away a segment of possible patrons. The song recounts what was occurring both in the Continental Congress of 1776 and the Colonies as a whole – the fight between those who advocated independence and those who wanted reconciliation with Britain. It is sung in the form of a minuet by those who felt reconciliation would protect their wealth and lifestyle. Near the end of the minuet John Rutledge, the Conservative representative from South Carolina, stops the song and asks John Hancock why he supports John Adams in Adam’s quest for independence, since he (Hancock) was “one of us” - a man of property. Hancock says “…fortunately there aren’t enough men of property in America to dictate policy”. Rutledge responds by saying “…but don’t forget that most men would rather protect the possibility of being rich than face the reality of being poor…so they will follow us.”
One could argue that Rutledge’s belief was wrong in his assessment that control over an effort to exact a common good was vested in a select group of people. After all, the Revolution proceeded. Then again, maybe the only thing wrong with the prediction…was his timing.
What is it about the disparity of wealth in our country that the general population doesn’t get? In formal Economics wealth is more simply defined as the claim on resources, or what an individual (or wealth holder generally) can demand from society as a whole. It relates closely to power over other individuals. Inequality of such demand has always, and undoubtedly will always be the case to some degreee. What’s interesting is the trends that have taken place, especially here in the US.
With the founding of the country and the expansion of free enterprise (combined with universal education and representative government) the lack of parity between financial classes (if you will) went on a steady decline, with some minor exceptions, for about 200 years. It is only in the last 30 years, thereabouts, that such class structure did an about face and began to widen dramatically. The reasons are varied and complex, some simply due to demographic changes like massive population increases, many intentionally created. The point of this analysis is not to point fingers necessarily, but rather to look at the results of such disparity and how we as a nation react to it.
POTUS radio has done several man in the street interview sessions at “Tea Party” rallies in various locations. I was impressed that the producers made an honest attempt to circumvent the wacko Theodore Kaczynski types (of which there are many – including those who think writing checks out to Sarah Palin is patriotic) to interview thoughtful individuals who have attempted to reason out their activism. These Tea Party warriors have points which are often grounded in solid dirt, expounding, for example, on the long term consequences of huge budget deficits, incomprehensible national debt, the role of government in business ownership to name a few. However, one theme kept creeping back into the conversations, like the recognition of the boogie man that lives under the bed – taxation. The very concept of taxation is poison in the tea cups of these “activists”, ergo the actual name of the group based on the Colonial tax protest of 1773 (which BTW had nothing to do with assessing tax, rather representation in deciding the use of that tax).
Now let’s not be too confused with their Boston “Indian” counterparts. These 21st century “patriots” love their massive national defense bureaucracy, they like quality universal education, hurricane clean ups, filled potholes, Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid (at least for their moms – bless their hearts), food subsidies, suspension bridges, intelligence agencies, crime fighters of every description, 911, attractive roadsides, national parks and on and on. They just don’t want to be taxed - plain and simple. One well thinking person I know put it this way: “I just don’t trust Government” period. Where did this thinking come from, that the funding of our government (which is effectively funding ourselves) wasn’t just a question of the efficient use of accumulated wealth, but an inherent evil or, at best, the propagation of evil. How many of such middle class Tea Party people could honestly identify how their lives were literally less meaningful due to the taxes they have paid. The contradictions are so obvious and pervasive that it nearly defies understanding.
In 2001 George Bush’s first order of business as President presiding over a Republican Congress was to enact enormous tax cuts, followed again in 2003. The CBO projected at that time that such cuts would add $1.2 trillion to the National Debt over the following 10 years (which has come to pass – further they are currently projecting an additional $1.8 trillion deficit if the cuts are extended). This was done before Bush went on a $1.2 trillion (or more) spending spree in the Middle East. The rank and file Tea Partiers don’t have a problem with any of that. Their conclusions remain unchanged, that out of control spending is the culprit (unless it's for something worth while - like killing Saddam Hussain) and that any tax cut is a good cut. But who did these tax cuts go to and who has the interest to leave them in place?
The tax cuts were spread primarily from the middleclass up. However, those who make little income have little to gain by an income based tax cut. The benefit (or lack thereof) to the poor is obvious. In the case of the Bush tax cuts, the more income the more fun at the party. The middle 20% of middle class taxpayers received 8.9% of the cut. That would be 8.9% distributed among about 50 million people. The top 0.2% of income earners received 15.3% of the benefit. The nation’s 257,000 millionaires (at that time - based on income) received an initial $30 billion in benefits. This disparity between the haves and the have-nots just doesn’t resonate with the have-nots (even the have-nots who rally at Tea Party conventions shouting rage at efforts to reverse these disparities as “Obama Socialism” pounding on their doors). Why has this complacency with those of wealth and power, never more obvious since post WWII America, been so inherent in Conservative ethics?
There’s nothing unique about Larry King. He is only one of several million individuals who by fate, ingenuity, or cunning have found themselves economically separated from mainstream America. There is a further gap between our middle class and those who struggle at the bottom of claims on resources (which may include a disproportionate portion of our next generation). The “Contract with America” Conservatism that drives the Republican caucus, the Tea Partiers, the Palins, the Limbaughs, and others has a vitriolic subtext which contains the frightening ability to get people to energetically act against their own self interest. The fight over the recent health care law couldn’t have proved it better. The benefits from such Conservatism has yielded enormous tangible benefits for those seek to retain their claim to resources and illusionary benefits for those who shout on public malls.
The musical 1776 (the life’s passion of composer-lyricist Sherman Edwards to accurately put the struggle of the founding of this country to music) has a song in it called Cool, Cool Considerate Men. It was originally entitled “Cool, Cool Conservative Men” but the producers forced the change so as not to turn away a segment of possible patrons. The song recounts what was occurring both in the Continental Congress of 1776 and the Colonies as a whole – the fight between those who advocated independence and those who wanted reconciliation with Britain. It is sung in the form of a minuet by those who felt reconciliation would protect their wealth and lifestyle. Near the end of the minuet John Rutledge, the Conservative representative from South Carolina, stops the song and asks John Hancock why he supports John Adams in Adam’s quest for independence, since he (Hancock) was “one of us” - a man of property. Hancock says “…fortunately there aren’t enough men of property in America to dictate policy”. Rutledge responds by saying “…but don’t forget that most men would rather protect the possibility of being rich than face the reality of being poor…so they will follow us.”
One could argue that Rutledge’s belief was wrong in his assessment that control over an effort to exact a common good was vested in a select group of people. After all, the Revolution proceeded. Then again, maybe the only thing wrong with the prediction…was his timing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
