The Big Tease

From election 2008 to election 2010, seems that the nation (as reported by the handful of corporations controlling virtually all major media in this country) has gone from "Yes We Can," to "No You Don't."  The Republicans successfully ran on 3 issues:

• Jobs
• the stimulus spending was a waste because it did not generate enough jobs
• the size of the federal defecit will make it difficult to create jobs

The running theme of course, is jobs.  When there's a recession, people look for jobs.  The Republicans and Tea Party candidates "promised" jobs.  The Democrats were unable to make the case they had created jobs.  So, the Democrats got exactly what they deserved. 

"Throw the rascals out, and let's vote in some new rascals," said the electorate.  Such is the state of mind of most voters who are not hard-core one party or the other.

Now, I did say the Republicans and Tea Party candidates "promised" jobs. It's a bit of a stretch to say they "promised" anything.  They would say things like "we need to put America back to work," or "keep taxes low so small businesses can hire workers."  But, as much as Republicans are traditionally pro-business, they are oddly not pro jobs.  The proof is right not there in the Republican National Committee platform discussion of issues.... jobs is not one of them!

Well, you say, what about the Pledge to America?  Isn't there something about jobs there?  You can google it, like I did, and let the word processor find every occurrance of any word containing "job," and copying the entire sentence.  If you get bored, just skip past the bullets.  My results:

• Rising joblessness, crushing debt, and a polarizing political environment are fraying the bonds
  among our people and blurring our sense of national purpose.
• Our economy has declined and our debt has mushroomed with the loss of millions of jobs.
• A plan to create jobs, end economic uncertainty, and make America more competitive
• We will end the attack on free enterprise by repealing jobkilling policies and taking steps to assure
  current businesses and future entrepreneurs that the government will not stifle their ability to compete in the global marketplace.
• By permanently stopping job-killing tax hikes, families will be able to keep more of
  their hard-earned money and small businesses will have the stability they need to invest in our economy and help grow our workforce.
• We will further encourage small businesses to create jobs by allowing them to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their income.
• We will rein in the red tape factory in Washington, DC by requiring congressional approval of any new federal regulation that may add to our deficit and make it harder to create jobs.
• We offer sense solutions focused on lowering costs and protecting American jobs.
• Joblessness is the single most important challenge facing America today.
• Jobs are the lifeblood of our economy, and for our workforce, there is no substitute for the pride and dignity that comes with an honest day’s work and a steady paycheck.
• Private sector unemployment remains at or near 10 percent, jobless claims continue to soar, and the only parts of the economy expanding are government and our national debt.
• We need private sector jobs, not more government.
• We have a plan that will help create jobs, end economic uncertainty, and make America more competitive.
• The trillion-dollar “stimulus” spending bill has made “where are the jobs?”
• Undeterred by dismal results, Washington Democrats continue to double-down on their job-killing policies.
• “An economy constrained by high tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget, just as it will never create enough jobs.”
  – President John F. Kennedy
• The longer our government refuses to wake up and abandon its jobkilling agenda, the longer it will take to turn things around and get people working again.
• WHERE ARE THE JOBS?
• Our Plan
  to End the Uncertainty and
• Permanently Stop All Job-Killing Tax Hikes
• That means protecting middle-class families, seniors worried about their retirement, and the entrepreneurs and family-owned small businesses on which we depend to create jobs in America.
• Excessive federal regulation is a de facto tax on employers and consumers that stifles
  job creation, hampers innovation and postpones investment in the economy.
• If a regulation is so “significant” and costly that it may harm job creation, Congress should vote on it first.
  Repeal Job-Killing Small Business Mandates
• We will repeal this job-killing small business mandate.
• Economists have warned that all this borrowing runs the risk of causing a damaging spike in interest rates, which would cripple job creation.
• We will curb Washington’s spending habits and promote job creation, bring down the deficit, and build long-term fiscal stability.
• Jobs.
• Employers large and small coast-to-coast have announced that they are considering laying off employees or dropping their health care coverage in response to the new law, despite President Obama’s boast that it is also a jobs plan.
• Instead of bringing the full weight of the government to bear in enforcing this jobkilling health care law, Washington Democrats should listen to the American people and stand down.
• Our Plan to Repeal the Job Killing Health Care Law and Put in Place Real Reform
• Because the new health care law kills jobs, raises taxes, and increases the cost of health care, we will immediately take action to repeal this law.

And that's it.  Somebody stop me if I'm wrong, but all that is simply the plan that was being followed in the years leading up to the Great Recession!  The Bush tax cuts were enacted in 2001 and 2003, the Recession started in 2007 and hit big time in 2008.  If it was such a great plan, there would not have been a Great Recession!  I suggest that in terms of an actual plan to generate jobs, the Pledge to America is best read while listening to the old James Brown song "Talking Loud, and Saying Nothing." 

The same old tax policies in the Pledge to America do little if anything to actually create or bring back those lost middle-class jobs that are essential to an economic recovery.  The jobs the middle class lost over the past 10 years, the jobs lost to outsourcing because businesses got a tax break from your federal (much of that time Republican) government, the jobs lost because businesses were encouraged to import foreign workers while fully-qualified American citizens were overlooked, the jobs other American small businesses and individuals winked as they hired illegal immigrants at low wages and no benefits rather than to hire their fellow American citizens at a higher wage with benefits.  But its "ok" if the Pledge to America doesn't deliver any jobs, because the Pledge to America is not promising any jobs. 

It's just all a big tease.  A come-on.  A gimmick.  Hype. In other words, the voters got had.  You know, it's like when your older sibling (usually a brother) would stand over you and hold his/her right hand up high to get your attention, and then punch you with the left hand.  You fell for it again and again until you realized how the trick worked and then you learned to keep an eye on what your sibling's left hand was doing.  So, the politicians, who are for the most part very wealthy and have their own interests at heart, will keep pulling the national version of that trick until you and alot of other voters realize what to look out for.

 Again, I'm not taking sides... because ultimately, the NATIONAL problem is not about liberals versus conservatives, or Republican versus Democrat, or people of color against whites, but it's the very wealthy versus the 80 percent of us who are not. 


 The "champions" for middle class America, probable Speaker of the House John Boehner, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, are as far removed from understanding life in the middle class as the average American is removed from understanding life in the slums of Haiti.  Rep. Boehner has a net worth about $6 million or so, and Senator McConnell has a net worth of around $32 million.  Even rising Republican star Eric Cantor is worth $6-7 million.  (All the net worth figures I'm stating here exclude the primary home).  In contrast, the median net worth of American households, excluding their home, is about $34,000.   The tax cuts they want to keep or enhance help their income levels, not yours.  And as for health care, they can easily afford whatever health care they need, plus the U.S. Congress has a free health care plan superior to that of most Americans anyway. 


Oh, in the interest of fairness, Nancy Pelosi is worth at least $25 million, perhaps much more.

Finally, a parting thought. Congress could lead by example with its Pledge to America by doing at least the following:

1. Forfeit their free congressional health care coverage
2. Transfer their health care coverage to an American family that currently has no health insurance
3. Take a pay cut from $174,000 per year to $34,000, which is about the annual pay of the average school teacher
4. Transfer the remaining $140,000 of their salaries to reducing the national debt

Let's Honor Our Veterans. Really.

It's Veteran's Day, and I never served one day in the military in any way shape or form.  Not even the Reserves or the Coast Guard. The closest I ever came to serving was during my last two years of high school.  Back then, about 1972-73, most of us thought serving meant army or navy or air force or marines.  Except for maybe the navy, serving also meant getting shipped off to Viet Nam. There was a military draft in those days, but by the time I was of age to serve, the draft was modified into a lottery system.  Each day of the year was put in a hat (so to speak), and the birthdays pulled first were most likely going to serve.  I believe in the two years I was in the lottery, my birthday was like 150 and 314.  I think if you were above about 90, you were not going to be drafted.  Now, while I had no real desire to serve, if my number was higher, I would have gone.  I would not have fled to Canada, or quickly enlisted in the coast guard, or avoided going to Nam some other way. 

In a way, serving in the military is like "paying" your tithes at church.  At church, you give your tithes, and hope that the church is using the money for purposes of spreading the Gospel, and not for spreading making the pastor or the treasurer rich.  And, for doing your duty to God, you are promised good things in this life (perhaps even more money than you gave, or better quality of life, or better health, etc.), and a good place in heaven. 

Likewise, you serve in the military hoping the government is not engaging in war just for the fun of it.  And for doing your duty to your country, you are promised... well, what?

The politicians in our nation are very very good at putting on that "patriotic face" on Veteran's Day, to honor the war dead, to declare how brave these young men and women were to make the ultimate sacrifice for "freedom."  Truth is, politicians, and even the general public spend too much time and energy honoring our vets in their graves. I say that because the dead don't need know we are honoring them.  That only serves to make us -- the living -- feel good.  The hard part is to honor the war living -- the wounded, the amputee, the wheelchair bound.  Also, those suffering the mental wounds of war caused by the images of war seared in their memories. 

Our vets should get the utmost good treatment for the rest of their lives.  Period.  It does not matter if the war they fought in was "unjust" or "illegal" or even "essential to the nation's survival."  It wasn't their decision to go to war.  They were not consulted on purpose or strategy.  It wasn't for them to decide if the cost of lives lost and the physical and mental wounds of war were worth the battle.  They were not the ones to decide, "going into this war is so important that not only would I send the sons and daughters of people I don't know, but would I even send my own sons and daughters, and put them in the same line of fire." They did what was required of them. Just as the churchgoer giving their tithe is not asked how the money should be spent.  Yes, you can withhold your tithe, and spend your hard-earned money in the manner you see fit.  And yes, you can not serve your country, and use the best years of your life in the way you see fit. But in both cases, your duty is not to judge the intent of those receiving your money or even your life.  You are required to trust that your tithe and your military service will be used for legitimate purposes, and will not be abused or misused.

Because our vets put it all on the line to serve our nation -- not just risking their lives, or risking life-long injury, but they definitely lose something the middle-class and even the wealthy value greatly, time.  Time spent serving is time lost from career and from normal family life, even if there is no war. 

Our veterans deserve the best of life after serving because they offered the best years of their life.  After serving, there should be no question that they should get unlimited physical and mental health care.  If they left their job to serve, that job should be guaranteed to be there when their service is over.  They should get a special and sizable "veteran's discount" off the price of any home they want to live in. If they become unemployed, their unemployment benefits should last for as long as they served, if needed.  In reality, veterans get minimal benefits compared to the sacrifice made. So many veterans are homeless, jobless, and ill-equipped to life in civilian society.  Politicians, so willing to praise the war dead,  are loathe to improve veterans benefits, and are more likely to cut those benefits in the name of cutting "wasteful government spending."

These politicians, many of whom never served, avoided service, and focused on generating personal wealth in this Land of the Free.  Their ability to generate this wealth depended on men and women who sacrificed their time, career, physical health, even their sanity. Those who served deserve some of that wealth.  The top 20 percent of households own 93 percent of the nations wealth.  Most vets are in that lower 80 percent of households who share the remaining 7 percent of the wealth.  I'm not saying the wealthy need to give up some of their stocks and extra real estate... but they should be willing to pay more in taxes to pay for the benefits all vets richly deserve. 

But the wealthy for the most part have no interest in sharing with the living vets.  However, they are very quick to salute the dead, and make sure the graveyards are well-maintained.

For the man (or woman) who has everything

There are a number of news reports from major newspaper blogs and independent bloggers documenting how wealthy U.S. Senators and Congressmen are.  Perhaps the best single source of such information is via Opensecrets.org, an independent watchdog, where you not only get a list of wealthiest congressmen and senators, but you can even look up via a PDF database the wealth of ANY congressman or senator.  Because this information is so available, I won't bother repeating that list.  While distressing in and of itself, I have more interesting election season food for thought.

I want to draw your attention to a list of the ten most expensive SELF-FUNDED candidates for U.S. Senator and U.S. House of Representatives in 2010.  The list, shown below, was also obtained from http://opensecrets.org/.  These are the most recent totals as of this writing, a few days before election day:

House Candidates

Flinn, George S Jr (R) (Tennessee District 08)	$3,500,000
Rigell, Scott (R) (Virginia District 02)	$2,424,364
DelBene, Suzan (D) (Washington District 08)	$2,284,033
Ganley, Tom (R) (Ohio District 13)	$2,213,417
Altschuler, Randy (R) (New York District 01)	$2,010,213
Hartman, Wink (R) (Kansas District 04)	$1,995,025
Doheny, Matt (R) (New York District 23)	$1,690,000
Iott, Rich (R) (Ohio District 09)	$1,673,100
D'Annunzio, Tim (R) (North Carolina District 08)	$1,397,445
Moise, Rudolph (D) (Florida District 17)	$1,386,540

Senate Candidates

McMahon, Linda (R) (Connecticut Senate)	$46,600,161
Greene, Jeff (D) (Florida Senate)	$23,788,077
Johnson, Ron (R) (Wisconsin Senate)	$8,238,465
Pagliuca, Steve (D) (Massachusetts Senate)	$7,590,643
Binnie, William H (R) (New Hampshire Senate)	$6,587,594
Fiorina, Carly (R) (California Senate)	$5,511,080
Raese, John R (R) (West Virginia Senate)	$2,358,240
Blumenthal, Richard (D) (Connecticut Senate)	$2,269,607
Lowden, Sue (R) (Nevada Senate)	$1,939,065
Malpass, David (R) (New York Senate)	$1,600,500

Again, the amount of money spent by these candidates is only what they decided to spend out of their own pocket, and yes, these are DEEP pockets.  WEALTHY pockets.  These totals do not include contributions from anyone else. 

I am not taking sides in any of these races.  There's no point.   But I will vote, because too many people suffered and died for me to not use the privilege to vote while we still have it.  I invite you to google each of these people on the list and read about what they did before deciding to run for public office.  For example:

• Linda McMahon, wife of Vince McMahon, majority owners of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), the billion-dollar corporation, spent $15 million of her own money just to win the Republican nomination for Senator of Connecticut.  She now also spent an additional $46 million to win the seat on Election Day.  It's also of interest that her Democratic opponent, Richard Blumenthal, a long-time Attorney General in Connecticut, is also on the list, spending $2 million of his own money.
• George Flinn is, among other things, the President of Flinn Broadcasting in Tennessee.  Flinn Broadcasting owns a network of radio stations, mostly in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi, but also in California, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, and Missouri.  He, like Linda McMahon, has amassed substantial wealth.  However, while the leading out-of-pocket spender for a congressional seat, his $3.5 million did not win his party's nomination. 

I could go on and on, and you are free to look up any or all of these names on this list. 
Four things all of these people have in common: 

1. They are very wealthy, successful businesspeople.  Duh.
2. Because they are all successful businesspeople: they have a talent/skill for recognizing a good investment, and for knowing what expenses are worth the return on investment. None of them became wealthy throwing money around without a vision of how that investment would make them even more money and wealth in the long run. 
3. They felt it was worthwhile for them to spend millions of dollars to get elected.  
4. If they manage to get elected, their salary as a U.S. Senator or Representative will be $174,000 per year.

So, knowing these are all successful businesspeople, with good business sense, why would any of them think it good business sense to spend MILLIONS of their own money for a job which pays $174,000 per year?  It would typically take each of these candidates 10 years or more just to break even, not considering any expenses for getting re-elected (a Congressman's term is 2 years, a Senator's is 6 years).  I always thought that if you had to spend MORE to GET THE JOB than the job PAID, it was not financially worthwhile to get that job. You'd be better off to have no income versus losing money trying to get a job, any job. That's why working moms opt to become stay-at-home moms, because the cost of daycare is about equal to their salary.  So why do these savvy businesspeople think it's worthwhile to spend ten to fifty times the annual salary to get this job?

Clearly, these people are not running for public office for the paycheck --IT'S NOT ABOUT THE MONEY.  Maybe they want to do something to help the average American in their district or state?  If you believe that, you should consider getting yourself into rehab asap.

These very wealthy people oddly have a huge DISADVANTAGE when it comes to trying to help the average American.  Specifically, they do not have a clue about your NEEDS, or your PROBLEMS, or how difficult it has become to live a middle-class life style, let alone understand the woes of the poor.  They don't have to shop for the best deals to save a few bucks, they hire someone to do that for them.  They don't cook, they don't clean their toilets, and they don't worry about their job being outsourced.  They don't worry about how they can afford to take care of their aging parents AND get their children through college.  They don't worry about their pension being stolen by the company they worked hard for. They don't worry about having to choose between eating human food AND paying for their prescription.  They don't worry about making the mortgage payment, or the car payment.  They don't worry about their neighbors having hard times and losing THEIR homes, which causes neighborhood housing values to fall, and with it, their nest egg breaks and spills into the gutter.  They don't worry about their credit rating.

These people can afford to put their kids in any school that will take them, they are not affected by public schools not having enough money to pay all the teachers or to keep all the schools open.  These people ALWAYS have much MORE money than month.  These people no longer have to work in the sense we do, in order to make money.  These people can afford to spend millions to get elected and then hesitate to give to the local homeless shelter.  These very wealthy people do not feel your pain any more than you or I feel the pain of a cockroach we shower with bug spray from a distance, and then walk away.  These very wealthy people live on a different plane of existence from you and I.  Your vote is more important to them than you ever will be, and once you've voted, your existence is of little consequence.  They no longer send their sons and daughters off to fight wars, because it has become the task of the "have-nots" to defend the American way of life for the "haves."

And such is the sad truth, they pretend to care, say a few "feel good" catch phrases, bashing what their (often) wealthy opponent has said or done, but never committing to do anything positive to help the average American.  For these people, getting elected is Job One.  The return on their investment is not in that $174,000 per year paycheck, nor in the satisfaction of having done something to improve the lives of average Americans.  The return on investment, their profit, what they get out of getting into that position of power is that they can pursue an agenda which best serves their own business enterprise.  Maybe it's a matter of "deregulation,"  or perhaps a "tax-incentive" for certain industries.  Maybe it's the influence they can now sell to "special interests" which may be several times their salary as a Senator or Congressman. 

So what do you get for the man (or woman) who has everything?  Sorry, it was a trick question... there's nothing you can give them.  What they want they are in the process of taking for themselves -- ever greater power combined with ever decreasing accountability. 

Health Care: I don't know what Jesus would do, BUT...

The health care debate is one of three non-personal attack issues in the upcoming elections November 2.  The other two are the the size of government/budget deficit, and jobs.  The health care debate makes me sick, and is just another example of how the wealthy seek to confuse the average voting American.  And when I say "average," I mean the bottom 80% of households in this country, who own a combined 7% of the wealth of this nation (remember, the top 1% of households own 43% of the wealth, the next top 19% of households own 50% of the wealth).  Almost everyone who is likely to read this blog are in the 80% group).

I'm not going to dive into the tar pit which has become the recent history of health care, I'll just say it wasn't supposed to be so complicated, but special interests such as the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry bought weak-minded and spineless people in Washington and made it as complex as string theory (if you don't know about string theory, google it, and good luck understanding it).

In the Bible, it is written that Jesus once said, ""If you had a sheep that fell into a well on the Sabbath, wouldn't you work to pull it out? Of course you would. And how much more valuable is a person than a sheep!"  (Matthew 12:11-12).  Now, in the USA, most of us do not have sheep, but we do have cars.  The law requires that EVERY car on the road have auto insurance, or else.  I'm not in a position to speak for Jesus, but I do have to wonder out loud, if we must have car insurance, shouldn't people be required to have health insurance?  How much more valuable is a human life than a car?

Almost all of us have stories about not having adequate or no health care, or at least we know others with such personal stories.  And unless you are among the very wealthy (i.e., in that top 20% of households), you need health insurance to be able to afford adequate health care, if you value your own life.

Any politician who says or implies that national health care is not needed, is inherently wasteful spending, or is a burden on the people, is a liar, and has their own greedy agenda which has nothing to do with treating people at least as well as the cars they use.  Do they think Jesus would agree with them?

The Rich and the Wealthy, Part 2

To put it in proper perspective, the path of income inequality during the last century is marked by two main events: a sharp fall in inequality beginning with the onset of the "New Deal" programs in the mid 1930's Depression, and an extended rise in inequality that began in the mid-1970s and accelerated in the 1980s. Income inequality today is about as large as it was prior to the Great Depression.


Now rest assured, there are those who will insist that the wide gap of income -- and the even wider gap in wealth -- between the top few percent and everybody else, is quite natural.  Those who don't like it "obviously" have issues of some sort with capitalism, free enterprise, mom, apple pie, and the American Way.  I personally have nothing against someone being rich or wealthy, even obscenely rich or obscenely wealthy.  They managed to climb the ladder of success, I applaud them.  The problem is that after they climb to the top, they are effectively pulling the ladder up behind them.

I'm going to lay out some general facts about income distribution in the USA:

• The top 10 percent of households, with average income of about $200,000, received 42 percent of all pretax money income in the late 1990s.
• The top 1 percent of households, averaging $800,000 of income, received 15 percent of all pretax money income.
• The bottom 90 percent of households shared the remaining 68 percent of all pretax income

Since many of us are "math challenged," look at it this way:  in terms of income, if there were 100 people in a room with 100 seats, and the number of seats represented each person's pre-tax income, ten people would have 42 seats, just one of those ten people would have 15 of those seats... and the other 90 people would have to sit in the remaining 68 seats.  Another way to comprehend the distribution is via a video of the L-Curve, which is less than 4 minutes long.

Now, if you think the distribution of income is bad, the distribution of wealth is even worse!  Some facts about wealth distribution in the USA, and I'm talking about financial wealth distribution, which excludes the primary residences of each household:

• The wealthiest 20 percent of households owned 93 percent of total wealth in 2007
• The wealthiest 1 percent of households owned 43 percent of total wealth in 2007
• The bottom 80 percent of households split the remaining 7 percent of total household wealth

Using the same allegory again:  in terms of wealth, if there were 100 people in a room with 100 seats, and the number of seats represented each person's wealth, twenty people would have 93 seats, and just one of those twenty people would have 43 of those seats... and the other 80 people would have to sit in the remaining 7 seats. 

Many of those holding public office on the state or national level (or trying to get elected to those high offices) would have you believe that by voting for them, and not their "opponent," all of us who "work hard" and "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" will join the privileged few (so don't raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans, you're going to be one of them... do you want YOUR taxes to be increased?).


Fact, most people do not understand how much the wealth of this country is owned by a small segment of the population.  A recent article describes this in greater detail. Truth is in a perfect world, everyone in this country has the OPPORTUNITY to be among the privileged few... but if it was ever possible for most of us to get there, the privileged few wouldn't be so few in number today.  If you're not there now, your chances of getting there by old-fashioned hard work are only a little better than buying a winning a million dollar lotto ticket. 


Fact is, those in power, or trying to get in power, are for the most part already wealthy or have wealthy connections.  Their objective is NOT for you to be come wealthy or powerful, but instead to simply get your vote so as to maintain and increase their own wealth and power.   And if you think about it, the wealthy don't need to try to get more wealth... who would they get it from, except from their other wealthy friends? (Yes, the top 1 percent tend to hang around other top 1 percent people, not around the bottom 80 percent).  No, as I've already said, it's not about the money.  So, "what do you get the person who has everything?"  The answer is simple: power.  More specifically, power without accountability.  Why the answer is so simple, at least to me, I will attempt to explain in the next one or two entries.