The Occupy Movement: A Christian Movement?

It's known as the Occupy Movement. It's also known as the 99% Movement. Most people understand that this movement is pretty much about the have-nots pushing back against the abuses of wealth, power, and politics of the haves (the 1%). But what do these people really want, and by what means do they propose to get it? Do they have a right to get it? Is what they want somehow "un-American"?

The movement has taken root because there are alot of people who feel the free enterprise system has been free to concentrate the wealth of this country in the hands of a few (the1%), and oppress the bottom 99%. Whether you think its 1 vs 99 or 2 vs 98 doesn't really matter. Millions and millions of people feel this is not the American Dream they were raised to believe in, that they or their blood relatives fought to preserve. Still, the Movement has no single leader, and no defined strategic objective. The protests to date seem to call attention of the existence of a 99%. But there are no defined core values or priorities. The movement is like a building without a foundation. Unless and until there is some easily identifiable principle, the Movement will be subject to being defined by the media, which is largely controlled by the 1%. The Movement is also in danger of being hijacked by those with sinister motivations.

I like the Occupy Movement. I see great value in it. This is the biggest thing to happen in America since the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's. So I am going to offer the Movement an easily identifiable principle, a foundation to build upon.

While America does not have an official religion, this is largely a Christian nation, at least on paper. I suggest that the Occupy/99% Movement put America -- and that 1% -- to the test.

The Occupy Movement wants the 1% to treat the 99% with dignity, with respect, with fairness, with equality. But beyond that, the 1% should be willing to take action to restore the middle class, and reduce the burden on the poor. The 1% is wrong to oppress the 99% economically and politically. The 1% -- the very wealthy, including most of those in high political office -- need to be reminded that in the sight of God, we are equals, and thus we are morally, and ethically obligated to help one another.

I'm using Christianity as the foundation because that is what I'm familiar with. But I believe the concept is common among many beliefs. But since so many of the 1% and in the government claim to be Christian, they should get the point. The following quotes are from the New King James Version of the Bible:

"You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 22:39)

"...love one another; as I have loved you, ...also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:34, 35)

"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them..." (Matthew 7:12)

"Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another." (Romans 12:9-10)

"...You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Leviticus 19:18)

Is this asking too much?  I believe the Occupy Movement should make this appeal:

• to the very wealthy  -- individuals and corporations;
• to politicians who by their actions favor the haves over the have-nots;
• to those among the poor and middle-class who seek to get ahead by ripping off other poor and middle-class people.  

The methods being used to amass wealth and political power (by oppressing and marginalizing the poor, and destroying the middle class) are totally against the Christian principals which are supposedly the foundation of this nation.  The 99% calls on the 1% to live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.'

Again, an idendifiable foundation for the Movement can be Christian Bible-based:
"Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but... let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others." (Philippians 2:3-4)

If you're a Christian, or even if you think you're a good but non-religious person, greed is not an option. Greed is not a sustainable way of life. It has to stop. We are stronger when we help each other up, instead of climbing over each other and pushing someone else down in the process.

Hopefully, this may help you understand what the Occupy Movement is trying to do. Hopefully this will help the Occupy Movement understand itself.

My (Partial) Solution to the Housing Crisis

Prologue.
I had a serious idea the other day, and I ran to my computer and jotted it down before I could have a senior moment.  So what follows is not intended to be funny, and does not intend to point fingers at bad guys.  All I want to do is to try to offer a possible solution to a devestating problem.  As the title indicates, it still is not a complete solution, but potentially goes a long way to mitigate most of the problem.  If you think the idea outlined below has merit, let your congressman or governor or somebody like that know about it.  It might even be improved upon.


The ongoing housing crisis persists because of four issues which were not a concern before 2007:

1- There are a very high number of foreclosed properties in all price ranges, which are simply sitting unoccupied,

2- There are not enough buyers for these foreclosed properties, at the price the mortgage companies are currently willing to sell

3- It has become difficult for real estate investors to have the capital on hand or the necessary borrowing ability to purchase the properties. (Yes, some do, but nearly enough). Furthermore, it has become difficult for these investors to make a profit on these properties either by selling them to a third party, or renting them out.

4- Property owners in the vicinity of these foreclosed properties are concerned that, whether these foreclosures are sold or not, the value of their own properties will decrease, robbing them of the equity they had prior to 2007. This is especially true in the homeowner market. Mortgage companies also may be reluctant to put all of their foreclosed properties on the market because of the negative impact it would have on neighboring property owners.

In order to resolve this problem, the rules of buying and selling properties need to be altered to reflect this new reality.  To that end, I offer the following strategy to mitigate the housing crisis.

a- Have the mortgage companies sell the foreclosed properties at an 80% (instead of 30-50%) discount.  This will encourage investors to take a larger number of the properties off the mortgage holder's books.  It will also make the properties more profitable to investors.

b- Only compare foreclosed properties with other similar foreclosed properties when estimating comparable value (or "comps") for purposes of resale or refinance or equity loans.   Essentially, this puts the foreclosed properties in a "Comp Coocoon".

c- For property tax purposes, allow these properties to reflect "open market" as its tax basis.   For income tax purposes, allow these properties to depreciate from it's "open market" value. This will help protect owners of non-foreclosed properties from losing property value.

d- Improvements made to a "Comp Coocoon" property increase the value of the property the same as for any other property, and are thus exempt from the Coocoon.  This will encourage an investor to improve the property.

e- A foreclosed property, once sold to an investor, remains in the "Comp Coocoon" for a period of 10 years.  After that, it is treated the same as any non-foreclosed property. This should encourage an investor to hold onto a property longer (and thus help stablize a neighborhood) in order to maximize his profit by selling at "open market" prices, rather than the "Coocoon" price. 

The window for such a strategy should be limited, assuming the foreclosure problem as it is today is of limited duration.  A 5-year window should be enough to move the vast majority of properties off the books of the mortgage companies.

Epilogue:
The solution outlined above does not directly address those property owners who have been making the mortgage, but are in danger of slipping into foreclosure.  Sorry.

Approaching a World Trade Center Moment

As we are at 10 years since "9-11," I have new reason to discuss the real-world "no-win" scenario presented that day.  Normally, the line of discussion goes something like this:

"Say you're on the 107th floor of the World Trade Center on 9-11... the planes have hit, the flames below you block the stairway, there is no elevator, and the flames are working their way up to your floor.  You can even feel the increasing heat coming through your shoes.  What do you do? Do you jump out the window to certain -- but quick -- death, or do you stay in the burning building and hope for a miricle that isn't coming anyway?"

We know now that there was no right or wrong answer.  Whether you burned up, or were crushed when the tower collapsed, or jumped out the window, the end result was the same. 

Which brings us to our national political situation.  I've not written anything about the the actions of either the President Lawn Chair, or the Cadaverous Congress, or the subset of the GOP accurately described as the Tonto Party.  And as if I'd spent the past 9 months eating nothing but cheese and white bread, and then suddenly switching to a diet of carrots, oat bran, and and Ex-Lax, I suddenly feel compelled to get this now painful, smelly load out of my system.

The sadest thing that President Obama has earned a reputation of folding like a lawn chair under opposing pressure "If you stand up to him, he WILL back down." I supported him actively in 2008, so I don't say any of this with glee.  He was (still is?) intelligent, articulate, and wise.  But since the 2010 election, even a few months before that, his expressed long-term vision and short-term goals, are simply not consistent with his actions and results.

Whether it's the environment, or energy policy, or the debt limit, or even when to address the nation about his #1 priority, jobs, it's been "Cave-ins, cave-ins, and more cave-ins.   The 1st Black President (sorry Bill Clinton) has ironicly failed to make use of the ultimate Black Power, the power of the Presidency.  He has allowed not only the minority party (the GOP) to run him around, but freshmen members of the House of Representatives, mostly Tonto Party members to dictate terms to the single most powerful man on the planet.  The resulting pattern of stated position and retreat from said position, can only be described as weakness, impotence, a total lack of resolve.  Caving-in is not the new compromise.  The "Audacity of Hope" has become "the Audacity of Nope".... "Yes we can" has morphed into "I wish we could, but no we can't."

Not only has President Obama lost the faith of his Democratic base, he has lost the faith of middle America.  A weak President is not a good leader, and even his stated direction can't be trusted.  In contrast, Ronald Reagan (who Obama often refered to in his first presidential campaign) and who I have never liked as a President) at least was consistent between his words and his actions; so was Bill Clinton.  So should we re-elect a demonstratively weak President?  It's not such a simple choice.  It's the 107th floor of the WTC all over again. 

Not sure what to do in 2012... the Republicans seem to be in a race to see who is the most ignorant and stupid. I don't really want to spend the energy recounting all the crazy, insensitive, ignorant, "don't confuse me with the facts" set of candidates out there.  And I say this in kindness.  There is no other way to describe a group of candidates who don't believe in evolution, don't believe in global warming, are against raising the debt ceiling, are against the very wealthy paying taxes, against regulations in general, against human beings having affordable health care, and believe with all their heart that if Obama is not President, it will be "morning in America" again.  They all seem to be out to corner the Tonto Party vote.  This group is so mentally bankrupt, they give Obama a punchers chance of getting re-elected. 

Could you imagine one of them as President?  I can't.  Do you really think any of them would do better?  If anything, they are likely to accelerate the fall of this nation. 

So there we are, in September, 2011.  Our own 9-11 dilemma.  Re-elect a weak ineffective President, or elect a Republican who would purposely steer the Titanic into an iceberg?

Here's a riddle Mr. President: what do baseball, tennis, golf, and national politics have in common?  You got to have some balls to play...  if you really want a place in history.

Trickle-down Gaming

In the news in late August it was reported that the Social Security Disability Fund was rapidly going broke.   The reported reason being that as people with disabilities lose their jobs and can't find new ones, they are forced to apply for disability benefits in order to survive.   Now, without going into any detail, I will say here that many people taking disability are not so disabled that they can't work.  There are four things going on:
1- People are taking disability because they have been laid off and cannot find a enough work to make a living wage
2- People are taking disability because they are not yet elegible for social security benefits
3- People are taking disability because their welfare time limit expired (4 or 5 years in most states)
4- People are taking disability because it's an easy paycheck they can get for life, regardless of their age.

Reason #4 is another way to say these are lazy people scamming the system, and thus ripping off the taxpayer.  How they manage to do this I'll leave to your imagination.

It's not fair, it's not right, they should be paying into the system instead of taking from it... and they are following the example -- and the intent -- of the very wealthy.  Of course, the poor (which in practical terms is about 80% of Americans) don't have the resources to scam the system as well as the wealthy.  However, they do the best they can with their limited resources and understanding.  For lack of a better term I call it Trickle-Down Gaming.

The wealthy don't need to trifle with stuff like taking disability at an early age.  The wealthy have "tax shelters" for almost everything they do that either makes money or costs money....doesn't that cover about everything?  And of course, the reason these "tax shelters" exist is because millionaire congressmen (both houses) make the tax rules, to their own benefit, or to the benefit of their wealthiest campaign contributors.  As a result, many very wealthy people pay less tax than a person considered middle-class.  Is it cheating?  No, because the law allows it.  Is it gaming the system?  Definately.  Are tax shelters intended to let the very wealthiest Americans pay little or no tax perverting the original intent of the tax code?  You bet it is!

With the very wealthy setting the example, the less wealthy, the middle-class, and the poor do what they can to pervert the intent of the system, within the means available to them.  If the wealthiest of us paid their fair share of taxes, maybe that sense of fairness would trickle down to the rest of us.

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.