Wealth Gap 101

Fox News and Republicans (Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, et al.) are trying to re-brand the GOP as the Party of the middle class.  They are desperately blaming the policies of Barack Obama for the great disparity in wealth between the top 2 or 3 percent of our population and everyone else.  Blink twice, click your heels or click on Bushed, and return to... ah, how about reality!

Let me remind you that President Obama was first elected President on Nov. 3, 2008 and assumed office on January 20, 2009. As you can see from the Vulture Chart the wealth gap was huge well before President Obama was even elected.

So how do you create a wealth gap?

1. Starve the beast:

• In a 11/20/2012 New York Times article entitled “The New Republican Tax Policy” Bruce Bartlett wrote: “Although it is commonly believed that the Laffer curve – the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves – is the core Republican idea about tax policy, this is wrong. The true core idea is something called starve-the-beast – the idea that tax cuts will force cuts in spending precisely because they reduce revenue. But there are slight indications that some conservatives have awakened to the reality that not only does starve-the-beast not work, but it also leads to higher spending.” I presume that by “some conservatives” Mr. Bartlett was referring to real conservatives as opposed to the mindless reactionaries that are driving so much of the Republican Party's agenda.

• The problem is that the Republicans are very selective in the government spending they want to limit. Their real goal is to cut spending on the safety nets and earned benefits programs while increasing spending on the things they favor.  In a Feb 22, 2011 article entitled Infographic: Tax Breaks vs. Budget Cuts, Donna Cooper at The Center For American Progress showed who benefits from the things Republicans favor. Her analysis and chart of the cost of the Republicans' proposed tax breaks for the wealthy vs. the Republicans' proposed cuts in safety-net programs is a real eye opener. (See DailyKos Comparison)

• I know some of you are saying “yes, but that chart reflects what was happening clear back in 2011.” All right, so lets look at the Republicans' most recent budget proposals. Here is what Paul Krugman said about them in his March 20, 2015 New York Times article entitled : Trillion Dollar Fraudster.

“… the just-released budgets from the House and Senate majorities break new ground. Each contains not one but two trillion-dollar magic asterisks: one on spending, one on revenue. And that’s actually an understatement. If either budget were to become law, it would leave the federal government several trillion dollars deeper in debt than claimed, and that’s just in the first decade.

… Some of those spending reductions are specified: There would be savage cuts in food stamps, similarly savage cuts in Medicaid over and above reversing the recent expansion, and an end to Obamacare’s health insurance subsidies. Rough estimates suggest that either plan would roughly double the number of Americans without health insurance. But both also claim more than a trillion dollars in further cuts to mandatory spending, which would almost surely have to come out of Medicare or Social Security. What form would these further cuts take? 

… Think about what these budgets would do if you ignore the mysterious trillions in unspecified spending cuts and revenue enhancements.  What you’re left with is huge transfers of income  from the poor and the working class, who would see severe benefit cuts, to the rich, who would see big tax cuts. And the simplest way to understand these budgets is surely to suppose that they are intended to do what they would, in fact, actually do: make the rich richer and ordinary families poorer.”

• In a post entitled “Why do Republicans Really Oppose Infrastructure Spending?” Daily Kos shows us just how greedy and destructive the Republican Party has become in its quest to enrich the rich.

“While Republicans continue to refuse to raise revenue necessary to fund infrastructure spending (traditional Starve the Beast), the latest application - Starve the Beast 2.0 - looks to hold hostage any and all necessary spending for cuts to other, unfavored, government spending.  In that sense, you have to understand the crucial (even threatening) need for infrastructure spending as identical to the "debt ceiling."  For Republicans, the hundreds of billions to trillions of unmet infrastructure spending represents a massive, annualgolden opportunity to extort draconian cuts to social, regulatory, non-defense spending.  That is why Republicans also reject deficit-financing for infrastructure spending (at historically low interest rates) or alternative proposals like a private-public infrastructure bank.  The goal here is not to invest in the country, but to seize upon any vulnerability to "drown the government in a bathtub."

…In sum, the question of why we cannot enact needed, common-sense infrastructure spending is truly mystifying . . . so long as we ignore that the Republican party is hyper-partisan, engaged in a destructive Starve the Beast agenda, wants to privatize public infrastructure, promotes an increasing "financialization" of the economy, and is ideologically opposed to labor and environmental laws...”

* It is not a great secret: the few examples I have just given tell you that when Republicans say they will “fix or reform entitlements” they mean they will deprive you of the benefits you have earned so they can make the rich richer. The Republican Party also opposes raising the minimum wage and actually brags about busting unions. They do this even though they know the minimum wage and labor unions have a positive impact on real wages and job creation. (See Minimum Wage Mythbuster and Unions and Wealth)

So how do the Republicans justify enriching the rich at your expense? With the trickle down theory hypothesis of economics, of course.

2. Does Trickle Down Work?

• From 1954 to 1963 the top marginal tax rate was 91% with an effective rate of 86% (See Top Marginal Tax Rate ). If the Republicans were right about all the horrible things that happen when you tax the “job creators,” the jobless rate should have gone through the roof and the economy should have spent the entire decade spinning in the toilet. But that did not happen! In only three of those nine years ( 1958, 1961, and 1963) did the unemployment rate rise higher than 5.5%, and it did not reach 7% in any of those years (See Employment Statistics).

• Even the International Monetary Fund has concluded that Trickle Down Does Not Work, and the IMF is just one of many organizations and/or individuals who say the data does not support the Trickle Down hypothesis.

See the page entitled “About Important Links” on this blog to discover links to other sites containing information about economic myths such as Trickle Down.

* The Bottom line is that the Republican Party is distributing the wealth upwards! Justifying this enrichment of the rich at your expense by citing the fallacious trickle down hypothesis is analogous to pissing on your head and telling you it's raining!

3. What about trade agreements?

• Trade agreements are a cause of the wealth gap that both major political parties would rather not discuss because they are both to blame for those agreements. Bad trade agreements are destroying our industries and depressing our wages! Those agreements are also causing deficits that are far more dangerous than our federal budget deficits. It is only a matter time before the trade imbalances or trade deficits undermine confidence in our ability to meet our obligations and cause large increases in the amount of interest we are paying for the money we are borrowing! (See Trade deficits Widen)
  
  Some have said we are entering into bad trade agreements for military reasons. If this is true we are fools. Military power without economic power cannot be sustained. The collapse of the Soviet Union was just the most recent and spectacular example of this. Did we learn nothing from it?

In Pursuit Of Selfishness

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created [almost] equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of [Selfishness].” This is the Republican Party's interpretation of the Declaration of Independence. They think “the buck stops here” means they get to keep all the money they can lay their hands on, and that no blame or shame should be visited upon they who strive to take it all. One must do what it takes to be happy, don't you know? And God knows you would not be happy if any of that money went to the wrong people; meaning anyone you do not know or the “[almost] equal people” who are different than you and I. The attitude of the typical Republican is: “Let the rest of the damn world take care of itself. No one is going to be here that long anyhow!”

All right, as my mother used to say, I have a bee under my bonnet. What the Republicans are doing is beyond outrageous. And I am not the only one who thinks so. In a May 15, 2015 post entitled “Why Do Republicans Really Oppose Infrastructure Spending?" Daily Kos answered that question as follows:  

"The most accepted (or easily reported) explanation is that today's Republican party is dominated by Southern states, the center of heavy infrastructure (and costs) is located in the Northeast, and Republicans refuse to spend on states that don't vote Republican. There is truth to this explanation and, frankly, it is not properly reported as part of the wider partisan scandal that it is. For example, although federal disaster relief is uniformly passed in the wake of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc., the Hurricane Sandy relief bill was passed only when (as one of a few instances) the "Boehner Rule" was lifted to allow a bill to pass with largely Democratic votes. Why? Because only 70 House Republicans could be found who were willing to vote for federal emergency hurricane relief if the affected area was the East Coast. Nice."

While that might be the most accepted explanation it is not the only one, nor is it necessarily the best one. As Daily Kos points out, one of the reasons for opposing spending on our infrastructure is the old “Starve the Beast” tactic, which has become so much a part of right wing ideology. In other words, withholding the funding for much needed work on our infrastructure is taking advantage of an “opportunity to extort draconian cuts to social, regulatory, non-defense spending.” And holding hostage any and all necessary government spending for cuts to spending the Republicans deem unfavorable appeals very much to the selfish, short sighted, paranoid, government hating base of the Republican Party. As Daily Kos so aptly put it: “The goal here is not to invest in the country, but to seize upon any vulnerability to 'drown the government in a bathtub.'"

My own observations tell me this is a tactic that can involve quite a bit of risk to the Plutocrats who support the Republican Party. The problem is that the bellicose, ignoramuses Republican politicians exploit on behalf of the Plutocrats often push the Republican Politicians to go too far. There is a reason why even the Koch brothers put pressure on Republicans legislators to back down when it became apparent that President Obama was not going pay the ransom the Republicans demanded in order to get them to rise the debt ceiling! What I find so dangerous about this game of chicken is the fact that the Plutocrats believe the potential rewards are great enough to justify the risks. And they believe this even when they complain about the danger posed by lunatics who primary any Republican that is not extreme enough to suit them.

So what reward, other than lower taxes, could be great enough to make the plutocrats take the risks associated with empowering people who are so angry and unreasonable, and therefore unpredictable?

According to Daily Kos the Republicans want to Privatize the Infrastructure and “...turn such public resources into privately owned profit centers.” They also want to fund projects through use of Private Equity Bonds, which means that local and state governments would “delegate the ability to issue tax-free bonds to private corporations and investors.” Talk about a boondoggle! Daily Kos is absolutely correct in saying: “Privatization is not just a golden opportunity, but a tax-payer subsidized, tax-free opportunity - - with no demonstrated public benefit[.]” Finally, the party of the Greedy Old Plutocrats wants to repeal the labor and environmental laws.

This Daily Kos post is something everyone should read. But they should not be surprised that no main stream news organization is revealing this outrageous Republican agenda. After all, the media moguls are also Plutocrats and part of the Oligopoly.  Ain't Deregulation Grand?

Political ADD

For decades now a very large percentage of our citizens have been suffering from a mental disorder. The disorder I am referring to is PADD, Political Attention Deficit Disorder. Sadly, the people who are afflicted with PADD are the very ones who can least afford to deal with the consequences of this disorder. For twenty years now at least eighty per cent of our citizens have seen their incomes remain flat while the price of energy, food and housing rose. During that same time the top ten percent have seen their incomes grow and the top one percent have seen their incomes soar to unprecedented heights. This degeneration of the wealth of the middle class did not happen all at once. It took place over a period of time. The people noticed it as they struggled to make ends meet, but they did not think beyond their personal finances. This is understandable. Unless there is a national crises to draw their attention people will ignore the larger picture and concentrate on what they can do to provide for their families.

The crash of 2007 was such a crises, and the reaction to it was predictable. Even a majority of the people suffering from PADD voted for change by electing President Obama and the other Democrats running for office. Unfortunately, this vote for change was not an informed decision; rather it was an instinctive, emotional reaction. During the mid-term elections of 2010 the voters reacted emotionally again. The economy had improved by then, but unemployment was still at an unacceptable level. Furthermore, far too many people were still losing their homes, and the wages of the people who were fortunate enough to be employed were not increasing. So the voters blindly punished all incumbents, a very large percentage of which were Democrats. This incredibly stupid act on the part of the voters actually rewarded the Republican Party for its failed economic policies and its unconscionable obstruction of all reasonable attempts to relieve the suffering and get us out of the recession. So what accounts for such stupidity?

It has been said that they who do not know history are condemned to repeating it. What the people of this nation have forgotten is the very struggle that created the middle class in the first place. At the start of the twentieth century it was becoming obvious that unregulated capitalism was degenerating into the sort Social Darwinism that makes a few people unbelievably wealthy while everyone else is left with very little or nothing. Furthermore, Frederick Jackson Turner’s safety valve, the frontier, no longer existed. President Theodore Roosevelt reacted to the emerging oligopoly that was concentrating our resources, our means of production, and our wealth into fewer and fewer hands by breaking up the trusts in order to bring about the sort of competition that stimulates innovation and opportunity. As beneficial as the trust busting was it did not go far enough. The people soon realized that the greed of the few was insatiable. It was that greed that brought about the labor movement and the unions. By the time of the great depression the people of this nation had accepted the fact that they needed unions to collectively bargain with their employers. The depression also made them realize how much they needed a proactive government that would pass and enforce the regulations needed to keep the unscrupulous few from putting our entire economy at risk by taking unfair advantage of the many. The oligopoly and the Republican Party fought the reforms of President Theodore Roosevelt, even though he was a Republican. They also fought the labor unions, and they fought Franklin Roosevelt during the depression. They accused the labor unions and both Roosevelts of class warfare and of creating a big, oppressive government. If those charges sound familiar it is because the new oligopoly and the Republican Party are falsely using those same accusations against the Democrats today.

The difference between then and now is that the generation that suffered through the depression and the generation that fought in World War II were paying attention to what was really happening. They realized how hypocritical and false those accusations were. They knew which political party and which politicians where representing the people and which ones were selling out to the special interests. They had labor unions and other groups that helped to keep them informed and active. What changed this was an adjustment made by the Republican Party. With the election of Dwight Eisenhower the Republicans finally acknowledged that the political center had moved. Most people identified themselves as moderates, but even moderates were embracing the changes brought about by Franklin Roosevelt and by the labor unions that fought for fair wages and safer work places. What Eisenhower taught the Republican Party was that it had no choice. If it was to remain a viable political party it had to accept the regulation of Wall Street and the banks, it had to accept the anti-trust laws that prevented monopolies, and it had to accept Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and the other safety nets. With both parties now trying to occupy the middle ground a nap was sounding pretty good to the voters. Neither party seemed inclined to do anything too damn radical, and the voters felt free to concentrate on their daily lives without worrying too much about what their government might be doing.

The Republicans, however, had accepted the changes of the New Deal grudgingly. In the early nineteen sixties they decided to test the political waters by nominating Barry Goldwater as their Presidential candidate. This hard turn to the right was a wake up call, and the voters handed the Republicans a stinging rebuke. The Republicans reacted to this by returning to the center. Vietnam and the civil rights movement then provided a jolt no one could sleep through. The combination was devastating in many ways. It was an era in which much needed changes took place, but the war and the effort it took to accomplish those needed changes left the people of this nation totally exhausted. As Harding said before the great depression, the people wanted “a return to normalcy.” The general attitude was “enough with the social movements and the politics. Let me get on with my life.” The people then stopped paying attention. They accepted as a fact the notion that each generation would be better off than the preceding generation. They saw no need to pay that much attention to the larger picture. They believed that if they worked hard and made the right decisions everything else would take care of itself. This is how we got Political Attention Deficit Disorder, another Harding in the form of George W. Bush, and another economic crises.

Because of PADD we became too lethargic to see how the need to raise enough money to cover the increasing costs of political campaigns was perverting our political system. Now that our politicians are so dependent on the support of the special interests, the strategy of those interests has become quite simple: “Keep the public in the dark and the political wheels well greased.” The Republicans are more than happy to serve their wealthy masters by keeping us in the dark. They do this by eagerly quoting Ronald Reagan: “Government is not the solution it is the problem,” they say. The Republicans want us to believe that it is the power of the government to govern rather than the power of money that corrupts our politicians. The reasoning, if you can call it that, is that a government that does not govern, tax, or regulate cannot be corrupt because it has nothing to sell. If you do not breath you will not get lung cancer either. The result of accepting this nihilistic crap is already apparent. Not since the gilded age following the Civil War has there been a time when so many politicians have done so much for so few at the expense of so many.

The generations before us knew better. They knew that the solution must be political because it is only by exerting our collective strength in the form of our government that we can curb the greed of the few and maintain a system that provides opportunities for all. The first step in doing this is to deal with the corrupting influence of money. In talking about political corruption and graft the old political boss, Plunkett of Tamanny Hall, once said, “it is the pigs that do not know when to back away from the trough who get caught.” Invariably those pigs will use the excuse that everyone does it, thereby demonstrating the need to prevent anyone from doing it. The first step in preventing anyone from doing it is to make an example of the pigs that are greedy enough to draw attention to it by getting caught. In this case the pigs are the Republicans and the blue dog Democrats. It is the Republicans and the blue dogs that oppose the regulations needed to keep Wall Street and the banks from crashing our economy again. It is the Republicans and the blue dogs that oppose making the corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share of the taxes. It is the Republicans and the blue dogs that are blocking all reasonable efforts to create jobs, and it is the Republicans and the blue dogs that are fighting our efforts decrease the influence money has on our politicians by opposing our efforts to reform the way we finance political campaigns. The first step then is to vote the Republicans and the blue dogs out of office.

In order to do this we must jar the hell out of the people suffering from Political Attention Deficit Disorder. This will require a movement they cannot ignore. The first phase of any movement is the expression of dissatisfaction. But the anger must be well directed and the goal must be positive reform. In that regard the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations are useful. As unfocused as the demonstrators are they are drawing attention to what is happening to us. We must let them know they are not alone. We are all feeling the pain that makes them demonstrate. The next phase is to take some positive political action. Holding accountable the worst politicians who are so shameless in the way they serve Wall Street and the other special interests to the detriment of the rest of us will be the first sign that the movement is taking the action it needs to take in order to gain the necessary political power to fight those interests. This should be done as an in your face demonstration of political power that cannot be ignored. The Demonstrators should get behind the American Jobs Act as well. This will show the low information voters and the Democratic Party that the movement has positive goals and is not simply looking for scapegoats. This is the way to gain credibility and momentum. The power to help pass legislation and the willingness to punish opponents will make a major political party pay attention to us. Just look at what the tea party has done to the Republican Party. The difference between the tea party and us, however, is that the tea party has a negative agenda whereas we must have a positive agenda. I will submit to you that returning the control of our government back to the people and rebuilding an equitable economy is a positive agenda.

I believe that the goals of the Occupy Wall Street Demonstrators are our goals. Those goals will not be easy to accomplish. Rebuilding our economy and restoring an equitable distribution of the wealth will require sweeping reforms that will not take place until we greatly decrease the influence money has on our political system. As I said in my previous post, we need a constitutional amendment to change the way campaigns are financed. Passing such an amendment will take time, a tremendous effort, and a strong belief that we, the people, have the power to make it happen. We have to start building the political momentum now. To the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators I say keep demonstrating, but do not lose sight of the larger goals. Realize that the political power we must gain to accomplish those goals will require us to achieve a pattern of success. Taking this country back will depend on our ability to win more than one battle. Few wars are won or lost in a single battle, and this is a class war in the same sense that the labor movement was a class war! Among the things labor unions won for us are the eight hour work day, safer work places, and reasonable wages. In order for labor unions to accomplish those goals they had to break the hold the business tycoons had on our politicians. It was a very difficult, sometimes violent, struggle, but the middle class the labor movement created gave us the most prosperous market economy in the world. That is what we must now fight to restore!

Don’t Damn All The Taxes!

I was given a Kindle for Christmas. I downloaded Ben Franklin’s autobiography and have just finished reading it. What we tend to remember about Mr. Franklin’s writing are the proverbs or short phrases from Poor Richard’s Almanac, such as “a stitch in time saves nine” or “a penny saved is a penny earned.” What we tend to forget is how leisurely the writing of that era was, and how complex the sentences are. It seems that writers felt the need not merely to express a thought but also to explain that thought within a single sentence. They assumed that the reader had the time and patience to wade through such complex sentences and understand them. Today this style of writing seems quaint and rambling, like a pastoral scene stretching far off into the horizon. Such an image, however, ignores the issues addressed in many of those writings. Many of those issues are very similar to today’s issues. As the reader shall see in the following paragraphs, I am having some fun with the language and the issues.

In regard to the services it is deemed desirable and necessary for the government to perform for the greater good of its citizens and their communities, there is inevitably an argument as to who reaps the greater benefit there from, and who should, therefore, bear a larger proportion of the costs thereof. There are those who say that men of wealth and substance have obviously benefited the most from those services and are better able to assume the burden of paying the costs thereof; in saying this, however, the people subscribing to that notion are ignoring the investments such virtuous men have already made to our society and our common welfare; investments by which those men have secured the land on which so many have now settled and thereby made productive.

Requiring the proprietors of the colonies to contribute sums of money to pay for the common defense of our communities and the expenses incurred by enforcing the laws to insure the order necessary for the peaceful pursuit of commerce and the conduct of business enterprises from which we all benefit would violate the charters of the proprietorships and discourage further investments by those proprietors; this is true regardless of the fact that those proprietors have already profited greatly from the sale of the land which the settlers have purchased from them. Furthermore, the proprietors and other men of wealth and substance are now paying a disproportionate share of the expenses of governing in order secure legislation favorable to the conduct of their businesses; they are doing this by contributing money for the campaigns and general welfare of the gentlemen who represent us. It is incumbent upon us, therefore, to levy taxes only on the settlers and the owners of smaller businesses that do not contribute as much to our society, even though the burden of such taxes will consume a larger percentage of the incomes of those individuals than would be the case if the proprietors and other gentleman of wealth and substance were also paying such taxes.

Although the above paragraph is fictional, it is not far fetched. During the French and Indian War the proprietors of the colonies, such as the Penn family, were making a similar argument. In fact, the Pennsylvania Assembly sent Ben Franklin to England to argue that such proprietors should help pay for the war. You will undoubtedly notice that I have interjected into the fictional paragraph a comment about campaign contributions and lobbying. This is not far fetched either. Even in colonial times the commercial interests were well represented and there was a form of lobbying. In modern times, the argument advanced in regard to who should be taxed was best summarized by Leona Helmsley when she said “only the little people pay taxes.” Her statement was, of course, refuted much to her detriment. The question today is not who should pay taxes, but rather how much different groups or classes of people should pay. What I mean by that is that the same arguments I have stated above are being used to attack the concept of a graduated income tax.

The attack on the graduated income tax became effective when Ronald Regan greatly decreased the percentage of income the wealthy were paying in taxes. The attack was greatly accelerated by George W. Bush’s further reduction of taxes on the wealthy. Both tax cuts resulted in huge federal deficits and failed to produce the jobs used to justify the reduction in revenues. President Obama tried to reach a compromise to tax all citizens the same percentage on the first two hundred fifty thousand dollars of income and a higher percentage on amounts above two hundred fifty dollars thousand dollars. The Republicans rejected the compromise and are doing their best to eliminate the graduated income tax.

The graduated income tax is not only desirable because it is equitable but also because it is very sound economics. In our market driven economy allowing more people to retain a greater share of their income allows them to purchase more goods and services, thereby creating the demand that stimulates the economy and produces more jobs. Decreasing the tax burden on people who can already afford to purchase the goods and services they desire does not increase demand or stimulate the economy, which is why giving tax cuts to the wealthy does not create jobs. It is that simple.

This brings up the subject of taxes and government services in general. In his autobiography, Mr. Franklin discussed a road in a commercial district of Philadelphia. The portion of that road lined by stores and other businesses was paved. The problem was that the dirt form the unpaved part of the road blew onto the paved portion during the dry season, and horses, wagon wheals and the shoes of pedestrians tracked mud onto the paved portion of the road during the wet season; this made the benefits of the paved portion of the road seem somewhat dubious to the businesses located there. Ben Franklin addressed this issue by paying someone to sweep the paved portion of the road for several days. When the benefits of cleaning the paved road became apparent to the owners of the businesses there Mr. Franklin asked those owners to subscribe to that road cleaning service. The owners of those businesses readily agreed to pay a small fee for that purpose. People owning businesses on unpaved roads then petitioned the government to pave and clean those roads. The benefits of having the government perform those services were great enough to make the owners of the businesses agree to pay the taxes necessary for those services.

Ben Franklin also used his ability to solicit subscribers when he convinced wealthy individuals to pay for the building of a hospital and to help defray some of costs of the services provided by the care givers employed there. One of the arguments slave holders used to try to justify that horrible institution was that the slaves were well cared for because healthy, well fed workers were stronger and more productive. Nothing could justify slavery, and a large number of the slave holders were not that wise. The argument that healthy, well fed workers are more productive, however, is true. Providing affordable health care is not only morally right it is also sound economics.

Mr. Franklin’s foresight can also be seen in the establishment of a college that became the University of Pennsylvania. Once again he solicited subscribers to pay for the building of the school and to pay a portion of the cost of providing a higher education to deserving students. The benefits derived from providing that education become so apparent that many colleges both private and public were eventually established.

The point is this: the benefits of the services our taxes pay for often seem remote unless the government is not providing those services. Ben Franklin demonstrated the benefits of many of those services by finding a way to provide them through subscriptions. Far from being opposed to the government providing those services, he actually advocated it. Was he our first liberal? Conservatives would deny it because it does not conform to their philosophy of small government. They want us to believe that our founding fathers are sacrosanct, and that none of our founding fathers could possibly be tax and spend liberals! The conservatives are wrong. Freeing us from an empire that actually stifled our industry was only a small part of what they accomplished. They also established a form of government that was flexible enough to provide the infra structure, the regulations, and the other services needed to make this the most prosperous nation on earth. Their commitment to their nation and their communities also set the tone for the leaders who followed them.

At its best ours is a society that rewards public service and sacrifices made for the general good. At its worst it is a society that rewards exploitation, and the greed of the privileged few who have the where with all to exert an undue influence on our government. The health, education, and opportunity to improve our circumstances are vital not just to the individual citizens of this country but also to the welfare of our nation as a nation. Many are the hard battles we have fought in order to make the lofty ideals stated by our founding fathers a reality. Many are the battles we have fought and must continue to fight to provide opportunities for our workers who want to secure decent wages for producing goods here in this country. We must also fight for the small entrepreneurs who want the opportunity to compete with the mega corporations that are now exporting our jobs. If there is anything we should have learned from our history, it is that an equitable society that rewards initiative and hard work is a prosperous society; whereas a society that allows the wealthy to greatly increase their wealth at the expense of everyone else is a failing society!

God and Country

Hold your bible in front of you and wrap yourself in the flag; as long as the booze and the money are out of sight you will be all right. This political advice is even older than the statement about patriotism being the last refuge of scoundrels.

Whose Jesus do those politicians claim to represent? Is it the Jesus of the Puritans who came to America to escape persecution by the Church of England? Is it the Jesus of all Protestants who split off from the Catholic Church? Is it the Jesus of Catholics who the Protestant majority in this country did not consider Christians for centuries? The demagogues are acting as though they want a theocracy rather than a secular democracy that protects the rights of those who hold divergent views. Obviously the freedom of religion guaranteed by the first amendment of our Constitution was difficult to make a reality even for fellow Christians. This fact is strong evidence supporting the adage that if anyone’s rights are trampled everyone’s rights are in peril. We either have freedom of religion or we do not.

Whose America do those politicians claim they are defending? Is it the America of Standard Oil of New Jersey, U.S. Steel and J.P. Morgan, or is it the America of the majority of the citizens who had the reasonable belief that in order for competition to produce quality goods at affordable prices we had to prevent the monopolies that crushed competition? Is it the America of Andrew Carnegie and other industrialists who exploited their worker, or is it the America of the workers who had to form unions and fight for a living wage? To put it in more modern terms is it the America of the corporations who are exporting our jobs and driving down our wages, or is it the America of people who depend on those jobs and are eager to produce the products that provide them with their livelihood?

The short answer is that it is the America of all of its citizens and all of the people going through the process of becoming citizens regardless of race, creed, ethnicity or gender. It is the nation of the majority who select our leaders and our policies. It is also the nation of the minorities and competing ideas. It is the nation of grand principles and wise laws that protect the free speech of the dissenters so that people holding a minority view can become the majority.

During the administration of George W. Bush I said that I considered myself to be a moderate, and that I only appeared to be a liberal because the country had swung so far to the right. The Republican Party has now swung so far to the right that here is no room for moderates. According to the demagogues anyone who embraces the pragmatic rationality and broad principles that have made our country so great are now liberals. The demagogues wrap themselves in the flag and scream about God as though America and virtue belonged only to them. From whom do they wish to take America back? Do they wish to take America away from all the ethnic, racial, and religious minorities who collectively form a powerful voting block? Do they wish to take America away from anyone who disagrees with them in any way?

The demagogues are divisive rather than inclusive. They appeal to emotions rather than reason, therein lies the problem. Living wages and opportunities to advance are good for everyone. If one group is paid lower wages than another for the same work, the people commanding the higher wages are at a disadvantage in finding gainful employment and the wages paid sink to the lower level. If one or two companies command the market place for a particular product those companies do not just set the price for the product they also set the price for the labor they hire unless there is a labor union to prevent that. Fair competition and living wages benefit everyone except the companies trying to gain an unfair advantage. So why do the Republicans oppose any regulations that would prevent unfair competition, and why do they oppose all labor unions? Loans that would let small businesses expand and hire more people are good for everyone except for the large corporations that might face more competition. So why are the Republicans opposing a bill that would provide those loans even though they once favored such a bill? Green industries would lesson our dependence on fossil fuels from other countries and would also produce jobs. Those green industries would be good for everyone except the oil companies and coal companies. So why are the Republicans opposing attempts to stimulate green industries? Unemployment insurance stabilizes the market place during times of high unemployment. Everyone benefits from that stabilization unless they consider the United States market expendable. So why did the Republicans oppose the extension of unemployment benefits? Affordable health care helps to provide healthy workers. Healthy workers benefit everyone except for the people who are profiting from the broken health care system and the people who see a world wide supply of labor that makes workers in this country expendable. So way did the Republicans oppose health care reform?

The scapegoating and demagoguery of the Republican Party is a cynical attempt to keep you from asking the questions I just posed. Do not let your misery in this economy make you join the people that can be fooled all of the time. Do not fall prey to the demagogues. You deserve to be represented by politicians who represent your interests. The Democratic Party may not be doing everything you want done, but it is the only party that is trying to get this economy moving again. The Republican Party is offering nothing but divisive demagoguery and the same incompetent policies that created this mess in the first place!