Dead On Arrival

When Republican leadership announced that President Obama’s Budget was “Dead On Arrival”, they took upon themselves the full responsibility for whatever budget is put in place.  That’s been true now for some time.  Republicans in Congress have been rejecting outright all budget solutions presented by the President.  By so doing, they cannot rightfully claim that the President is at fault for there being no budget (instead, having to live with Continuing Resolutions).  We are in trouble because of Republican intransigence and their complete negativity.  The “Party of NO” has kept the current budget in limbo since the President first presented it, and now they plan to keep next year’s budget in the same suspended state.

But, the issue is even larger.  Republicans are not just the Party of NO, they are also the Party of “NO TRUTH”.  When it comes to the Constitution, and its provisions, they are likely to twist it to their own version of truth.  For instance, let’s take the issue of budget authority.  Republicans want you to believe that it is the President’s responsibility to present a budget and to shepherd it through the Congress.  While that may be the custom and tradition that has grown over the years, based on Budget law, it is not a constitutional concept.  Who has the prime responsibility for the budget according to the Constitution?  Congress, Congress, Congress.  I say it three times to emphasize the following:

1)  Nowhere in the Constitution is the President given responsibility for the origination of the national budget; let alone of being responsible for “leading” the way on its progress once his budget is delivered to the Congress

The closest the Constitution comes to this is in Section 3 of Article II where it says that the President “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient…”  That’s it.  No mention of budget; no mention of spending plan; no mention of fiscal responsibility.  All the Republican rhetoric about “lack of leadership” and “responsibility for budget” and “no budget from the President” is hollow in terms of the Constitution.

2)  The Congress has the full responsibility for the generation of all legislation that has to do with the operation of the national government (spending plan).

Article I, Section 1 vests all legislative powers in the Congress.  Section 7 of the same Article says clearly that “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.”  Then, after enumeration of the many responsibilities and powers granted to Congress in Section 8 of this first Article (including borrowing money, regulating commerce, coining money, raising and supporting the armies and the navy as well as militias, declaring war) there is this sentence giving Congress the charge “to make all laws which shall be necessary for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution…”

3)  The Congress is the progenitor of all appropriation of funds.

In Section 9 of Article I, this appropriation power is made clear: “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.” 

Let us again be quite clear:  there is no mention of “a budget plan” in the Constitution.  The process for the making of a national budget has been arrived at through a combination of custom, rules, regulations, and legislation promulgated over the years. The framework used by Congress to formulate the budget was established by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, and by other budget legislation.  Prior to 1974, Congress had no formal process for establishing a coherent budget.  The Congressional Budget Act created the Congressional Budget Office and directed more control of the budget to the CBO.  Such a process is necessary, but not sacrosanct or constitutionally mandated, and is therefore quite amendable and changeable. 

The process itself has contributed to the problem of gridlock in Washington.  And that is where a major emphasis should be placed: reforming the process rather than simply ridiculing the substance.  Instead of trying to make “political points” by incorrectly blaming the President for the lack of authenticity in this process, the Republicans (and Democrats) should be concentrating on how to amend the process to make it fluid, efficient and effective.  Even the Heritage Foundation has called attention to the flaws of the budget process, saying: “Created in 1974, the current budget process has been subjected to over 30 years of abuse from lawmakers trying to exploit its structural flaws. Instead of providing an orderly roadmap for determining the nation's annual spending and revenue priorities, the current budget process stifles debate, prevents cooperation, and frequently breaks down.”

Here are some thoughts:

1)  Put budget-making in the hands of a neutral authority , with the power to solicit suggestions from the public, the citizenry (by means of the internet perhaps), the written word, hearings, etc.-- all of which must be public.  There can be no closed-door meetings, except in the case of national security.  Lobbyists, special interests, and organizations should be excluded from any actual budget planning and making, except that all interests should be given the ability to make suggestions to this neutral budgeting authority before a budget is constructed. At the very least, the President and Congress need to be brought together to agree on a basic framework at the beginning rather than at the end of the budget-making process.  Perhaps this neutral authority might contain a combination of members from OMB, the GAO and the CBO.

2) Whatever non-political group might emerge, it must contain ordinary citizens in its membership.  That is what’s missing in most of our governmental operations.  The idea of representation has been taken to a point where the significance of government “of the people, by the people and for the people” is being lost (unless, of course, you consider the powerful 1% as the “people.”).  The Constitution tries to balance the concept of representative government with the power of the people.  As discussed elsewhere on this Blog, Amendments IX and X support the idea that the people have a unique position in the body politic. First of all, the enumeration of rights in the Constitution “shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  Secondly, Amendment X grants: “The powers not delegated to the United States… nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” As much as conservatives would like to deny such power to the people, while strongly supporting power to the elite, the Constitution stands in their way.

We need ordinary citizens to be a part of the national budget process to keep that process oriented to the needs of the people, and not just to the needs of an elite or those of special interests. How they are to be chosen, and their length of tenure, needs to be decided based on qualifications, kinds of experience required, ties to the electorate needed, etc.  

3)  Chief complaints revolve around the complexity, duplication, and time-consuming nature of the budgetary process. For example, spending policy is now made in three distinct phases: budget, authorization, and appropriation. Each requires a separate set of hearings, reports, votes, and procedures, and the Congress must act several times on each spending proposal. The result is a system so confusing that it is difficult to identify responsible individuals, key votes, or actual policy direction, according to the Joint Economic Committee Report of 1997.

The President, according to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, must submit a budget to Congress each year. In its current form, federal budget legislation law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a)) specifies that the President submit a budget between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February. In recent times, the President's budget has been issued in the first week of February.  The President's budget contains detailed information on spending and revenue proposals, along with policy proposals and initiatives with significant budgetary implications.  The President's budget proposal includes volumes of supporting information intended to persuade Congress of the necessity and value of the budget provisions. In addition, each federal executive department and independent agency provides additional detail and supporting documentation to Congress on its own funding requests.

This Executive budget, with some changes in current law, could be part of the process of submitting budgetary information to a neutral authority (along with all other budgetary information from other sources), which entity would then have the responsibility of crafting a budget for the Congress.  Currently, each year in March, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) publishes an analysis of the President's budget proposals.  CBO computes a current law baseline budget projection that is intended to estimate what federal spending and revenues would be in the absence of new legislation for the current fiscal year and for the coming 10 fiscal years.  This CBO responsibility could easily be continued as it is, or could become part of the responsibility of a unified neutral budget-making entity.

4) The authorization process used by the Congress seems to me to be duplicative and unnecessary.  Wikipedia explains it this way:  “In general, funds for Federal Government programs must be authorized by an ‘authorizing committee’ through enactment of legislation. Then, through subsequent acts by Congress, budget authority is then appropriated by the Appropriations Committee of the House. In principle, committees with jurisdiction to authorize programs make policy decisions, while the Appropriations Committees decide on funding levels, limited to a program's authorized funding level, though the amount may be any amount less than the limit.  In practice, the separation between policy making and funding, and the division between appropriations and authorization activities are imperfect. Authorizations for many programs have long lapsed, yet still receive appropriated amounts. Other programs that are authorized receive no funds at all.  In addition, policy language—that is, legislative text changing permanent law—is included in appropriation measures.”

The authorization process is an opportunity for Congressional oversight, if done properly. All departments/divisions of the federal government could be brought before appropriate congressional committees and subcommittees to present (or, to submit in writing) their mission plans for the next year (or more) including goals, objectives and action steps required to meet their overall mission.  Attached to each goal could be the estimated amount of money needed to accomplish that goal, broken down beside each objective and action step for each goal.  The committees would have the opportunity to question all aspects of the plans, and to question past spending. Then they could decide to authorize the plan, not authorize the plan, or authorize with conditions.  In the latter case, there could be room for negotiations, compromises, changes, and a return hearing.   The Congress would be responsible for submitting their written findings and authorizations of such plans to the budgeting authority before it crafts a final budget.

The Heritage Foundation has suggested: “The most promising budget reform would be to cap federal spending increases at the inflation rate plus population growth (economic growth rates could be another, albeit more loose, target). Lawmakers could allocate federal spending however they wish as long as total government growth does not exceed this predetermined rate.”

While I disagree with the Congress placing spending caps on all programs individually, because a conservative Congress can thereby reduce spending on discretionary and entitlement programs and eventually starve them out of existence, I do believe an  independent budget entity could propose a universal inflation-rate increase cap to Congress for each upcoming fiscal year, based on inflation, population growth, economic growth, GDP, and whatever else is pertinent.  However, such a growth rate cap should be presented to Congress for passage before a budget is crafted, and department/division budget plans should be based on that rate.  Exceptions to that rate could be allowed for certain exigencies that exist within departments, but the universal growth rate for the overall budget should be maintained except in national emergencies.

However, in my estimation, it is more important to craft a budget based on another starting point.  Since every department or division of government already has a budget in existence, should every department/division begin crafting its next year’s budget based on what was authorized last year, what was appropriated last year, or on what was spent last year?  OR, should every department/division start all over at zero and craft an annual  budget based only on what is absolutely necessary for the coming year?   The latter would involve several conditions: oversight of spending plans and actual spending by Congress, justification of every line item, a spending plan from every department/division with clearly defined mission, goals, objectives and action steps with corresponding budget amounts assigned to each goal, objective and action, as stated above, and perhaps a pay-as-you-go strategy.  I believe this concept of zero-based budgeting is worthy of re-consideration, but with the added feature of a mission plan as described.

With these few thoughts upon which to ruminate, let us return to this topic at another opportune time.

Women’s Health or Religious Freedom: Hiding the Real Issue

The latest “flap” over heath care law is an example of a controversy being defined that doesn’t quite get at all the underlying issues.

Apparently, most of the protagonists, and certainly the media analysts, were satisfied with the issues as presented in the title of this piece.  So let’s take a look at them.

The Obama administration announced on Jan. 20 that Catholic hospitals and other religious institutions would have an extra year to comply with a new requirement that  health plans must provide contraceptive benefits at no cost to their members. The extra year to comply was no consolation to Catholic bishops, who were infuriated that the law required most health plans to eventually offer free contraception.  They argued that it amounted to forcing members of the church, which has long opposed birth control, to offer it or pay for it in health plans. The coverage of contraceptive services could include abortion-inducing drugs, the church said.

Before going any further, it is important to know what the new rule actually said.  Otherwise, the issues get clouded by rhetoric that has little or nothing to do with the real issues (for instance, it clearly forbids coverage of “abortifacient“ drugs).  The Rule is summarized as follows:

“Contraception and contraceptive counseling: Women will have access to all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling. These recommendations do not include abortifacient drugs. Most workers in employer-sponsored plans are currently covered for contraceptives. Family planning services are an essential preventive service for women and critical to appropriately spacing and ensuring intended pregnancies, which results in improved maternal health and better birth outcomes.”

So, let us be clear: we are concerned here with women having access to important preventive services, including contraceptives and contraceptive counseling.  It is not about attacks on religion, or condoning abortions, or  forcing individual Catholics, or the Roman Catholic Church, to change their beliefs.  The rule does not apply to houses of worship, but does apply to church-affiliated hospitals, colleges, and social service agencies, most of which receive federal funding to aid their operations.

Kathleen Sebelius, President Obama's secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS),  said the rule, while allowing some exceptions and giving church-linked institutions a year from Aug. 1 to comply, is designed to ensure that women have access to birth control without co-pays or a deductible.  "Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families," she also said. "It is documented to significantly reduce health costs, and is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women."

On the other hand, Alexander Sample, Bishop of Marquette, Mich., in one of the letters read to local Catholics, said: “Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those 'services' in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies."  Critics of the move said it puts many employees at Catholic hospitals in the position of performing services that would violate their conscience.  The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops fiercely opposed the new rule, which it said "forces religious employers and schools to sponsor and subsidize coverage that violates their beliefs" and "forces religious employees and students to purchase coverage that violates their beliefs."

“Some have noted that HHS included a religious exemption in the new mandate. But to be eligible for this exemption, an organization must meet four strict criteria, including the requirement that it both hire and serve primarily people of its own faith. Catholic hospitals, for example, would have to eject their non-Catholic employees and limit their patients to Catholics in order to qualify for the exemption.”  (from Statement by The Most Rev. Kevin C. Rhoades, bishop of the Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese)

The HHS rule was also challenged in Congress, where Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., sponsored legislation that would restore the option for religious organizations to opt out of coverage.  "This is about whether the government of the United States should have the power to go in and tell a faith-based organization they have to pay for something that they teach their members shouldn't be doing. It’s that simple," Rubio said.

Advocates for the rule say the measure is an advance for women's reproductive rights, pointing to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit group that studies sexual and reproductive issues, which reported last year that nearly all sexually active U.S. women had used birth control. That includes 98 percent of Catholic women, the study reported.

David Axelrod, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama, said the administration was willing to work with Catholic universities and hospitals to find a way for them to cover contraception without abridging "anyone's religious freedom."  So, on Friday, February 10, 2012, President Obama announced a compromise that would ensure that women’s access to free contraception would be maintained and that “religious liberty” would also be protected by ensuring that workers for religious-affiliated institutions would be able to get free contraception covered directly by insurance companies.  Although the Administration had originally given itself a year to work out the details of birth control coverage, the President acknowledged that the situation could not wait that long and had to be addressed swiftly. 

In spite of all the debate, it is my contention that not all the issues were clearly addressed in-depth. Here are two thoughts that need further exploration, in my opinion.

1)  Churches have certain obligations in a pluralistic society, one of which is the constraint of a tendency to want to establish their beliefs, doctrines, practices and dogmas as the law of the land, or at least as the prevailing opinion.

--It is incumbent upon religions and religious institutions not to push its beliefs and practices on others; only on its own members.  The separation of church and state means, for example, that prayer in schools is unconstitutional because no matter how it is done, prayer is a religious practice, usually done in a format of a particular faith or sect.   No religion or sect should be able to impose its own beliefs or practices upon others (and prayers , in whatever form, are theological statements of belief)
--Likewise, the dogma that contraception is against God’s will for His creation, is a statement that  is totally unacceptable to millions of our citizens 
--If a church or agency of the church accepts federal funds, it becomes a contractor of the government (and of the people) and cannot expect to set the rules as though there was no  separation of church & state
--As a provider of tax-supported services, a religious institution should not be allowed to  use religious doctrine as an excuse to deny certain services that are mandated for its clients or employees

2)  Moreover,  it is most important to realize that Government should not establish a religion, or any particular dogma of it, in its services and operations.  The Catholic Church is trying to get the government to make an exception for its particular beliefs.  John F. Kennedy had the answer for that when he said that no cleric or pope would set government policy under his administration

Forgotten in this heated rhetoric about First Amendment rights is the very important declaration of the 1st amendment (in that phrase that comes before that of the “free exercise of religion”) and that is: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” The development of this over time through legislation and Court decisions has led us to a society in which separation of church and state is of tremendous consequence.

It is my very strong opinion that Congress (and past Presidents) have skirted, ignored, undermined, and completely overturned this very important part of our Constitution.   In my opinion:  Any money given by government to religious groups for any reason, is an establishment of that religion and is a violation of this provision -- no matter what the Supreme Court may say for they have been complicit in the undermining of this constitutional principle.   It doesn’t even matter whether all religions are treated the same, and all receive funds, for that is still an establishment of religion, as opposed, for instance to those who have no religion.  It violates the right to have no favoring of (any) religion at all.

Traditionally, religiously affiliated non-profits such as Catholic Charities, the Jewish Federation and Lutheran Social Services had to set up separate, secular non-profits in order to receive federal funds and were restricted in how much religious content their programs could have.

However, then-Sen. John D. Ashcroft (R-Mo.), added something called “charitable choice” to the 1996 Welfare Reform Act to ensure that faith-based organizations were not prevented from applying for federal welfare-to-work funds because of their religious character. Later, Congress extended the concept to some federal block grants and drug treatment funding.  This was the “foot in the door.”  From there it was a cake-walk to diminution of the establishment clause, and on to the present situation where the RC Church has the audacity to assert that the government must respect their opposition to both birth control and abortion.  In my opinion, while there is room for government respect of religious belief, there is no room for funding of that belief, directly or indirectly.

Under “charitable choice“, religious groups no longer had to form secular non-profits to receive federal money. And they could hold voluntary prayers, display religious icons and use "religious principles and concepts" in counseling and providing services. However, government money could not be used for sectarian worship, instruction or proselytizing.  “Charitable choice” also allowed faith groups an exemption from federal bans on religious discrimination in hiring. 

Religious groups could not require people in federally-funded programs to participate in religious activities nor could they discriminate in providing social services based on religion. Anyone uncomfortable in a faith-run program was legally entitled to a secular alternative.  The Rev. Emory Searcy, national organizer for Call to Renewal, a Washington-based ecumenical anti-poverty coalition, said his group still encourages congregations to form separate nonprofits to maintain their independence. Perhaps in advancing their argument against government in this instance, the Catholic Bishops and clergy have unwittingly raised the issue of whether their non-worshipping institutions (and those of other faiths) should be required to return to that standard.

It was George W. Bush who followed up on “charitable choice” to establish his “faith-based initiative.”  He said his administration would put the federal government ''squarely on the side of America's armies of compassion'' and he added: ``The days of discriminating against religious institutions simply because they are religious must come to an end''  (an amazing statement, since the establishment clause essentially requires the government to discriminate against all religion in order not to favor any one particular manifestation of it).  But Bush also insisted his faith-based plan to give religious groups a greater role in curing social problems like homelessness, alcoholism and drug addiction, by letting them compete for government grants, would not cross the constitutional boundary separating church and state.  “As president, I'm interested in what is constitutional and I'm interested in what works,'' he said.

As was so often true, Bush missed the main point: giving government money to religious institutions is an establishment of religion, even if the institution is involved “in curing social problems,” and even if all institutions - religious and non-religious -- have equal opportunity to obtain the government funds.  The Government is still enabling religious institutions to establish religious influence with non-members.  The government should simply not be in the business of monetarily supporting religious organizations in any form of proselytizing.  And, that is a major problem here with the Catholic Church and others who support them on the question of contraception:  the Government is using the people’s money to support religious institutions with certain beliefs about abortion and contraception that run counter to the beliefs of others (and to the law of the land), and who do not shrink from trying to force their beliefs upon the rest of the Republic, utilizing the very funds provided by the government. 

If the Catholic Church (or Evangelicals) want to advocate their religious views in a pluralistic society, they are free to do so,  but let them give up receipt of government funds in the pursuit of their enterprise.  That is the price of religious liberty and the price of separation of church and state.

The Catholic Church has accused the government of an attack on religious liberty in this case, but the truth is that the Church is advocating the diminution of others’ liberties by trying to overlook, and to veto, the separation of church and state by accepting government aid while (and in support of) spreading its activities and its beliefs.

The “faith-based program” of George W. Bush was ill-conceived from the beginning.  He tried to walk a line that one cannot walk under our constitution.  He was right to say: “Government, of course, cannot fund, and will not fund, religious activities.”  He should have stuck with that view, because that is the essence of separation of church and state and the non-establishment of religion.  Non-discrimination against religious agencies doing social work, or putting them on an equal footing with non-religious agencies who do the same work, are not valid reasons for overturning the concept of separation or establishment.  They are simply rationalizations for aiding and abetting certain religious groups.

A reader commenting in The New York Times, said: "The honorable thing for Catholic universities to do under these circumstances is to refuse to accept federal aid, in order to be true to their principles. If these universities do not refuse federal aid, then they should abide by federal rules."

Another reader commented: “Catholic universities are free to pursue their religion without federal aid, and in this case, should do so and celebrate their freedom.”

It is time for the American Catholic Bishops to advocate for a return to the Constitutional provision of no establishment of religion and its legal interpretations leading to separation of church and state.  Let them affirm their beliefs by giving up government aid for their institutions and programs -- including hospitals, Catholic Charities, universities, etc. -- if they do not agree with mandates by government that disagree with their doctrines or practices. Unfortunately, they are disparaging government restriction of their religious liberty while, at the same time, freely accepting government funding.  Strong and true advocates would protest government action by giving up government funds!  If they cannot voluntarily do that,  consideration should be given to the gradual withdrawal of federal funds from all religious institutions so that we can begin to reassert the primacy of the establishment clause in the 1st Amendment!  (Since that is probably not going to happen, a return to separate secular non-profit arms of religious organizations that seek federal funding is an acceptable alternative).

The Obama administration’s compromise on the issue of contraceptive coverage and religious liberty is certainly one way around this controversy, taking both the government and the Catholic Church off the hook. Bill Moyers, writing in an op-ed piece on February 16, said this about the compromise:  “So here we are once again, arguing over how to honor religious liberty without it becoming the liberty to impose on others moral beliefs they don't share. Our practical solution is the one Barack Obama embraced the other day: protect freedom of religion -- and protect freedom from religion. Can't get more American than that.”

However, the issues of no establishment of religion and separation of church and state remain, and must eventually be carefully addressed.  This is the “elephant in the room” that has grown larger and larger as religious organizations continue to talk out of both sides of their mouths, viz., ‘don’t interfere with our beliefs but keep the government money flowing.’  The establishment of religion by government funding leads inevitably to a conclusion on the part of religious organizations that they have been given the right to make protection of their beliefs the main issue rather than the primary issue being: how do we prevent government establishment of any set of religious beliefs or practices, while still supporting free exercise of religion?

TAXES: Who’s Paying What to Whom?

According to a post by Kevin McCormally, Editorial Director, Kiplinger.com, October 13, 2011:
“The latest numbers from the IRS -- based on 2009 tax returns -- show what it takes to be among the top 1% of income earners: adjusted gross income of $343,927 or more. The 1.4 million Americans with this elite status reported 16.9% of all the country's taxable income.   But that same tiny group also kicked in 37% of all the taxes paid.

“How much do you need to make to be in the top 50% of earners? Just $32,396.
Fall below that level and you are in the bottom half, along with nearly 70 million of your fellow taxpayers. All told, that bottom group earned just 13% of the income reported on 2009 tax returns. And they coughed up 2.25% of all the income taxes paid.

(Note that these figures include only federal income taxes. According to one study, more than half of all wage earners pay more in Social Security and Medicare taxes than they do income tax. The percentage of those paying more payroll tax than income tax soars to nearly 90% if you count both the employer and employee share of those levies.)

For historical perspective, back in 1986, the top 1% of earners reported 11% of all income and paid 26% of the income taxes; the lower-earning 50% made 17% of the income and paid 6% of the nation’s individual income tax bill.”

Want to find out where you fall on this spectrum?  Take a look at the calculator tool developed by Kiplinger.com.  Enter the AGI from your 2009 or 2010 tax return (line 37 if you used the Form 1040, line 21 on Form 1040A or line 4 on the 1040-EZ. Or enter your annual salary; the IRS categories are broad enough that your result will likely be the same) and you’ll instantly know the answer.  How did you make out?  Were you Surprised?  Satisfied? Horrified?  About where you expected?

Where does it all go?
I found another fascinating tool on Wheredidmytaxdollarsgo.com.  You can enter the same information (your AIG from 2009 or 2010 or your gross salary) into a calculator and it will bring up for you a chart that is interactive, allowing you to click on pieces of a pie that will then give a more detailed analysis of where your dollars specifically end up; based, I assume, on percentage distributions of overall tax revenues.  Nonetheless, it provides a telling portrayal of what our tax dollars are supporting.  The chart uses statistics from 2009, as did the previous calculator, because that is what is available from the IRS right now.  I’ve pulled in an example of what you’ll see if you try it.  Go ahead--try it!

       For an income of $50,000
Federal Taxes: $4,955
(Filing as Married (Filing Jointly), your adjusted gross income was $38,600 after a standard deduction of $11,400)
Social Security Taxes: $3,100
The first $106,800 of your total income is taxed at 6.20%.
Medicare Taxes: $725
Your total income is taxed at 1.45%. There is no upper limit on your taxable income here.
The employer pays an equal amount ($3,825) of Social Security and Medicare taxes on your behalf
Your Total Taxes were $8,780, an effective tax rate of 17.6% for a SALARIED PERSON
(NOTE: The standard deduction is used here.  Your actual tax liability will vary based on the deductions and exemptions you may qualify for)

Using this example, the contribution to Income Security was around $1,406
(notice this piece of the pie above is pulled out from the rest).  Here’s where some of that money goes in this category:
$336    Unemployment Trust Fund
    3.8% of total

$131    Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund
    1.5% of total

$128    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
    1.5% of total

$95    Military Retirement Fund
    1.1% of total

$88    Supplemental Security Income Program
    1.0% of total

$34    Tenant Based Rental Assistance
    0.4% of total

$32    Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
    0.4% of total

$31    Child Nutrition Programs
    0.4% of total

Who and what are your tax dollars supporting beyond the usual budgetary process?

An article written in 2010 by Lily Batchelder and Eric Toder for Americanprogress.org gets at the heart of where so much of taxpayer dollars end up.  These particular payments are “under-the-radar” so to speak, as they do not fall under the usual budgetary process of the Congress.  As the article explains:

“When policymakers look to trim fat from the federal government they too often ignore half the problem: the vast and complicated set of spending programs administered by the Internal Revenue Service. These programs are often referred to as tax expenditures, but…  they should be viewed just like any other type of government spending.

’Tax expenditures’ are government spending through the tax code. They are distributed through deductions, exclusions, credits, exemptions, preferential tax rates, and deferrals. What makes them look different from grants or checks is that they are delivered through the tax code as part of tax expenditure spending programs.

In fiscal year 2011 we will spend over $1 trillion on tax expenditures. That’s more than three-fourths of all corporate and individual income tax revenues and more than one-and-a-half times the cost of all federal domestic discretionary spending. If all these programs were repealed we could cut corporate and individual income tax rates by over 40 percent and still collect the same amount of revenue.  (OK, Tea Partiers -- where are you when we really need you to pay attention to tax cuts?)

These programs fly under the radar of media and popular opinion for two reasons. First, almost all IRS-administered spending programs are not subject to the same annual appropriations process as discretionary spending. Just as with big entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and farm subsidies, their costs depend on formulas created by Congress that once set are rarely changed. Spending on them rises automatically with increases in eligible beneficiaries and changes in economic conditions, such as health care costs or interest rates.  Second, IRS-administered spending programs appear to be tax cuts instead of spending because they transfer funds to businesses and individuals through rebates that reduce tax liability. But make no mistake: These programs are the same as spending by other agencies.”
 
If you took your tax dollars and paid corporations directly, instead of through the IRS, you might see your outlay in a different light.  Onenationundermom.com gives an example of a taxpayer owing $2,324  in taxes for 2010 which would be divided between the following companies:
Exxon Mobil: $95
Monsanto: $89
General Electric: $62
Archer Daniels Midlands: $83
Lockheed Martin: $143
DuPont: $139 
and 27 other checks to corporations utilizing the balance

Oil companies pay less in U.S. taxes in part because they receive generous tax subsidies. For example, in 2009, Exxon Mobile paid no taxes and continues to pay at least 10% less than it would in non-US countries.  In other words, Exxon’s U.S. “effective tax rate” is made lower by tax subsidies.  These subsidies will cost the U.S. taxpayers about $3 billion next year in lost revenue and nearly $20 billion over the next five years.

These tax expenditures can amount to a significant portion of federal subsidies for oil and gas. The cost of tax expenditure programs for oil and gas companies made up about 88 percent of total federal subsidies in 2006 (Americanprogress.org).

While we’re at it, let’s mention a few more subsidies or tax expenditures that might not get reported with any great transparency:

--Among the members of the 112th Congress who collect subsidy payments from USDA are six Democrats and 17 Republicans. The disparity between the parties is even greater in terms of dollar amounts: $489,856 went to Democrats, but more than 10 times as much, $5,334,565, to Republicans.  Several new members of Congress who won with tea party support have been less than eager to talk about farm subsidies ever since the news broke last year that they, or their families, personally benefit from those very taxpayer dollars. (www.ewg.org)

--Millionaires in the United States receive about $30 billion annually in government subsidies according to a report released recently by Senator Tom Coburn.
The 37-page report, dubbed 'Subsidies of the Rich and Famous,' details government payments provided to individuals with annual gross incomes of at least $1million.  These subsidies come through unemployment checks, Social Security payments, farm subsidies and numerous tax credits.  (www.dailymail.co.uk)

--The extensive federal welfare system for farm businesses is costly to taxpayers and it creates distortions in the economy. Subsidies induce farmers to overproduce, which pushes down prices and creates political demands for further subsidies. Subsidies inflate land prices in rural America. And the flow of subsidies from Washington hinders farmers from innovating, cutting costs, diversifying their land use, and taking the actions needed to prosper in a competitive global economy.
 
Farm subsidies transfer the earnings of taxpayers to a small group of fairly well-off farm businesses and landowners.  Although policymakers love to discuss the plight of the small farmer, the bulk of federal farm subsidies goes to the largest farms. Since 2000, the USDA has even paid $1.3 billion in farm subsidies to people who own land that is no longer used for farming. (www.downsizinggovernment.org)

--The government paid millions of dollars last year in farm subsidies to wealthy city-dwellers – many of them receiving taxpayer dollars not to farm their rural country estates, according to a new report by the Environmental Working Group.  According to the group, 290 people in New York City received farm subsidies in 2010 and raked in a total of $880,887, 734 "farmers" in Chicago got $2,173,344 in federal subsidies, and 203 people in Miami got $2,472,071 worth. On the West Coast, 179 people in San Francisco were paid $1,094,172.  (ABCnews)

--How would you like to get the Federal Government to invest with you in a hot new business in the global market? For every buck you put up, the government, in the form of something called the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), puts up two bucks. Best of all, if the deal goes sour because of a crumbling economy, currency devaluation or some other unforeseen event, you won't have to pay back the government's share.

Sound too good to be true? It is, unless you have $1 million or more to put in the pot. That's most often the minimum investment required for one of these deals. As a result, investors fall into three broad groups: wealthy individuals, institutions such as pension funds, and large corporations like GE and Citicorp.

In the 1990s, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation established 26 funds, which have invested $3.2 billion in businesses in Europe, Asia and Latin America. The U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) has established 11 other funds with 1.4 billion taxpayer dollars.  In the case of AID's so-called enterprise funds, the investment dollars are supplied directly by you, the taxpayer.  (www.cps-news.com)

My point?  Don’t be BAMBOOZLED by all the political rhetoric that says the only way to deal with our deficit is to cut budgetary discretionary spending, and to raise taxes on the rich.  Although necessary to some extent, both remedies are short-sighted and inadequate.  The off-budget expenditure of tax-payer dollars is far more out-of-date, over-blown, unregulated, and costly to your tax-paying wallet.  Let’s get real.  It’s time to look at tax expenditures as we would at all those budgetary expenses and excesses.  Corporate welfare is eating up our tax dollars like nothing else, and makes welfare for the poor look like a pittance in comparison. 

COMMUNITY ORGANIZING: WHAT ARE CONSERVATIVES AFRAID OF?

Newt Gingrich accused President Obama of being an advocate of Saul Alinsky’s community organizing principles, and therefore, that Obama’s principles and policies are somehow foreign to American ideology and practice.  Is that true?  I don’t think so, and I will attempt to show how Alinsky’s basic principles are deeply rooted in this country’s ideals, and that those principles are, at heart, solidly constitutional.

Alinsky's own words, from his 1946 "Reveille for Radicals", capture his early perspective, his motivation, and his style of engagement:
”A People’s Organization is a conflict group, [and] this must be openly and fully recognized. Its sole reason in coming into being is to wage war against all evils which cause suffering and unhappiness. A People’s Organization is the banding together of large numbers of men and women to fight for those rights which insure a decent way of life. . . .
”A People’s Organization is dedicated to an eternal war. It is a war against poverty, misery, delinquency, disease, injustice, hopelessness, despair, and unhappiness. They are basically the same issues for which nations have gone to war in almost every generation. . . . War is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play. . . .
“A People’s Organization lives in a world of hard reality. It lives in the midst of smashing forces, dashing struggles, sweeping cross-currents, ripping passions, conflict, confusion, seeming chaos, the hot and the cold, the squalor and the drama, which people prosaically refer to as life and students describe as 'society'.”

So let us be clear.  Alinsky looks at community organizing as the way to approach the forces, the exigencies, the conditions - poverty, misery, delinquency, disease, injustice, hopelessness, despair and unhappiness -  that force people into ghettos of the body, mind and spirit.  His language scares the supporters of the status quo because they know that  the vehicles and support mechanisms for these forces and conditions include the very institutions and structures of which they are an integral part.  They are scared, and repulsed by talk of “conflict”, “war”,  “smashing”, “ripping passions”, etc.  

And there is the crux of the problem:  disadvantaged people, who organize to confront the forces that intend to keep them in their “place”, threaten the establishment with changes that the establishment does not desire, so the establishment reacts with vehemence.  Look around: what happened to community action agencies, to people’s lawyer groups, to the civil rights demonstrators of the 1960s, to government support for programs that aid the poor and disadvantaged; or for that matter, what has happened to affirmative action that grew out of community organizations and their advocacy, or lately to labor unions?  You KNOW what happened.  First with Nixon,  but certainly with the ascent of that conservative icon, Ronald Reagan, the neo-cons, with his administration’s help, launched an all-out war against these so-called liberal, socialist, undemocratic, communist-sympathizing radical ideas and organizations.  Today, there are remnants, but they are a  shadow of their former selves.  And today, there is the Occupy Wall Street movement which is experiencing that same ire and degradation that was unleashed upon the community action groups of an earlier time.  (Strange, isn’t it, that the conservative brand of “warfare” draws no ire?)

Gingrich is trying to do to President Obama what conservative Republicans did to community organizing: smear and destroy.  Remember what was done to ACORN?

But let‘s take another look.  In Alinsky’s Prologue to his later book, Rules for Radicals, first published in 1971, we find him trying to speak to the young protagonists of the ‘60s, and to future organizers, and there is a somewhat different tone.  He says he is writing “in desperation, partly because it is what they do and will do that will give meaning to what I and the radicals of my generation have done with our lives.”

He says things like:
--”What the present generation wants is what all generations have always wanted -- a meaning, a sense of what the world and life are--a chance to strive for some sort of order…. They are searching for an answer…to man’s greatest question, ‘Why am I here?’”
--”Let’s keep some perspective.  We will start with the system…. It is most important for those of us who want revolutionary change to understand that revolution must be preceded by reformation.”
--”A reformation means that masses of our people have reached the point of disillusionment with past ways and values.  They don’t know what will work but they do know that the prevailing system is self-defeating, frustrating, and hopeless.  They won’t act for change but they won’t strongly oppose those who do.”
--”Radicals should keep in mind Franklin D. Roosevelt’s response to a reform delegation, ‘Okay, you’ve convinced me.  Now go on out and bring pressure on me!’”
--”People cannot be free unless they are willing to sacrifice some of their interests to guarantee the freedom of others.  The price of democracy is the ongoing pursuit of the common good by all of the people. The separation of the people from the routine daily functions of citizenship is heartbreak in a democracy.”
--”My aim here is to suggest how to organize for power: how to get it and how to use it…for a more equitable distribution of the means of life for all people….”

Is community organizing any different, fundamentally, from that “spirit of ‘76” that organized farmers, and traders and shop-keepers and other citizens to contend against an oppressive force in order to win “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?”  Not really, except in method.  The principles are deeply rooted in the American Way.

1.  Give people a voice in their own destiny (free speech and free association)
2.  Organize people to modify their own circumstances (take personal responsibility) 
3.  Utilize organizational power to bring about constructive change (continental congress; the minute men; Sons of Liberty)
4.  Make society more democratic and more equitable (Bill of Rights, franchise expansion, equal opportunity)
5.  Organize groups (like church groups) at the local level to solve community (and individual) problems (transportation; housing; jobs; renter rights, etc.)
6.  Neighbor helping neighbor (barn-raisings; Habitat for Humanity)
7.  Organize demonstrations to push those with power and authority to do the right thing (right of the people to peaceably assemble)
8.  Petition the Government for redress of grievances (first amendment).

In my opinion, those who vociferously oppose community organizing principles expounded by Alinsky and others, are the very ones of whom we have to be fearful.  They are, at their core, opposed to the principles of our founding, and to constitutional rights and principles that are fundamental to our representative democracy.  They are the ones who tear at our democratic fiber when they try to prevent people from using the rights and powers granted to them in the Constitution, and the principles of revolution enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. 

Never forget that constitutional Amendments IX and X support the idea that the people have a unique position in the body politic.  First of all, the enumeration of rights in the Constitution “shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  That statement in the Constitution is too often overlooked or kept in check by those who try to have all power and authority reside in their particular views, or their group, or their community.  The word “disparage” here is apropos when looking at those who, like Newt Gingrich, try to “discredit” or “show disrespect for” or “belittle” the principles of community organizing and action.  In so doing, they border on undermining the right of any group of people to organize against, to make demands to, to oppose, to petition those who hold power or authority in governmental institutions.  At the very least, they are demonstrating opposition to the unique rights of the people granted by our Constitution.  

Secondly, Amendment X grants even more power to the people than can be tolerated by those who oppose community action.  “The powers not delegated to the United States… nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  As much as conservatives would like to deny such power to the people, while strongly supporting power to the elite, the Constitution stands in their way.  Again, a unique status is granted to the people in Amendment X, and the power that all those one per-centers want to deny to the poor, or the middle class, or senior citizens, or persons with disabilities, is a power that cannot be denied without denigrating Article X.

It’s the methods - not necessarily the aims -- of community action that most agitate the defenders of the status quo.  I believe the problem here is the concept of “power”, and its utilization.  Those who have power or who are in power are threatened by the rhetoric of community organizing that suggests that seizing power is the key to accomplishing their aims.  But the concept of power as coercion or violence is not what is being presented in Alinsky’s narrative.  “Power gained and exerted in community organizing is…not the coercion applied by legal, illegal, physical, or economic means, such as those applied by banks, syndicates, corporations, governments, or other institutions. Rather, organizing makes use of the voluntary efforts of a community's members acting jointly to achieve an economic or other benefit.”  The development of durable "power" and influence is a key aim of community organizing, in order that people power may confront the “powers-that-be.”

Alinsky is very positive about power indicating that it is the essence, the “dynamo” of life.  Power is “active citizen participation, pulsing upward, providing a unified strength for a common purpose; an essential life force always in operation…changing the world.”  He quotes Hamilton in The Federalist Papers who said, “What is a power, but the ability or faculty of doing a thing?  What is the ability to do a thing, but the power of employing the means necessary to its execution.”  He says that the only choice is between unorganized and organized power, and he indicates that every “organization known to man…has had one reason for being -- that is, organization for power in order to put into practice or promote its common purpose.”  Lobbying done by major multinational corporations is a form of such organized power.

While community organizing groups often engage in protest actions designed to force those in power to respond to their demands, protest is only one aspect of the activity of organizing groups. To the extent that a group’s actions generate a sense in the larger community that they have "power," they are often able to engage with and influence  powerful institutions through dialogue, backed up by a history of successful protest-based campaigns.  As Alinsky said, "the first rule of power tactics" is that "power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have." 

According to Wikipedia, “Where negotiations fail, these organizations seek to inform others outside of the organization of the issues being addressed and expose or pressure the decision-makers through a variety of means, including picketing, boycotting, sit-ins, petitioning, and electoral politics…. This allows them to draw in and educate participants, build commitment, and establish a reputation for winning.”

Community organizers seek to build groups that are democratic in governance, open and accessible to community members, and concerned with the general health of the community rather than a specific interest group. Organizing seeks to broadly empower community members, with the end goal of distributing power more equally throughout the community.  That is the key, and as a matter of fact, is that which gives rise to that ever-present canard used by conservatives to scare or intimidate those who might want to support community groups in their goals, and that is -- “class warfare” (discussed in last week’s Blog).

For now, let us resolve not to let elitists, like the present cadre of Republicans, define community organizing as wholly negative.  It is one of the most positive and constitutional, as well as fundamentally conservative, views of our republic: the people have the right to speak out, the people have the right to organize, to assemble peaceably, and to petition their government for a redress of their grievances.  The people have rights beyond those enumerated in the Constitution, and these shall not be disparaged or denied.  The people have powers reserved to them alone. 

It is past time to acknowledge that community movements and organizations (like ACORN and Occupy Wall Street) that seek a level playing field, greater voice in the decisions affecting people’s lives, and greater power to influence the power brokers, are not to be belittled and demeaned, but to be respected as true inheritors and progenitors of the revolutionary founding and spirit of this country.  It is time to embrace and encourage those who seek to strengthen a system of governing that embodies the hallowed phrase: government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

Class Warfare?

Some say class warfare began when Karl Marx (1818–1883) (often with Richard Engels) published his economic works, and when the communist party became a reality.  Wrong!

Class warfare has been going on for as long as there has been an elite that possesses power through the accumulation of wealth and position.  Whenever the elite recognize that chaos or envy could work against them in the form of a rebellious under-class, they become very possessive and obsessive about their assets.  Some of the elite recognize that they must give back to those who helped to put them where they are, while too many believe that it is incumbent upon them to keep the “others” in their place lest the “others” demand and take back what is needed to fill their own desires.

So before we go any further, let me be clear in my opinion that “class warfare” is not the battle that the poor and the working class -- the proletariat according to Marx -- foment against the powers that be in the elite class.  Class warfare -- or the maintenance of privilege through the utilization of power -- is the instrument of the rich and powerful used to keep “lesser beings” in their place in society, and to maintain a status quo favorable to themselves.

This classic warfare has evolved through the centuries, especially noted in that European country that bequeathed so much of itself to America.  England was a bastion of an aristocracy that took every advantage of its standing and position in relation to the  lesser classes.  Just one example of their rapaciousness was the enclosure of in-common lands so that they could expand ownership of such lands for themselves.  That led to peasant revolts and even some riots by returning soldiers and sailors who found it difficult to make a living.

The class warfare of rich upon the poor and “middling” folk pushed the latter into periodic rebellious actions throughout the long history of humankind.  In fact, downward pressure on the poor by the nobility, and the suppression of their yearnings for greater prosperity, resulted in popular uprisings across Europe as early as the 14th and 15th centuries.  However, to characterize such historic rebellions, revolutions and riots of the poor as “class warfare” is a misnomer; they are simply the reactions of those without power to those  in power who suppressed, repressed, coerced, manipulated, and ridiculed the “others” who the elite claimed fed off of their riches, the largesse of their charity, and the “welfare” of governments and organizations.

When modern-day politicians charge President Obama with class warfare because his administration wishes to allow tax cuts for the rich to expire, or tries to establish improved programs for the poor and broad middle class that require some re-distribution of wealth by taxing the rich their fair share; this is not class warfare.  It is a social contract in action whereby all who can afford to be are taxed fairly, and all who cannot contribute monetarily are helped, aided, lifted up, provided with supplements they might not otherwise have.

The social contract is a fundamental agreement that says that to lift up all in a society is the wise and prudent thing to do because it strengthens the whole society and provides for that society to utilize the  talent, wisdom, innovation and entrepreneurship of all, not just of a privileged class.  How does this differ from Communism or socialism?  It differs fundamentally in that the state is not the controller of all life and work, nor are workers at war with the rich.  The State -- democratic government in our case -- is seen rather as the primary means by which fair, equitable and just solutions are legislated and arbitrated so that all may prosper, all may achieve, all may give back, all may rise to a level to which they aspire.

So, I would argue that every “battle” fought by the lower or “middling” classes to counter the oppression of a ruling class, is not class warfare, but simply an attempt to stop oppression or repression; to gain greater rights; to awaken both rich and poor to injustice; or, to gain a foothold on another rung of the ladder toward freedom, prosperity, and even ownership.  Rarely do the poorer classes initiate a rebellion or riot out of thin air.  It always has a context and that context is the overt and covert attempts of the oligarchs, the plutocrats, the aristocrats, the barons of industry, the rich and powerful, to be taxed less, to gain special privileges at someone else’s expense, to be free from regulation or restrictions on their enterprises, to protect their property and assets by any means, to gain more wealth by quasi-legal and even illegal means, to gain more power by controlling the mechanisms of government and free enterprise.

Right now the cry of the “shills” for the rich -- mostly conservative Republican politicians -- is that all social programs that aid the poor (food stamps being the latest straw man) and entitlements (social security, Medicare and Medicaid) are socialistic attempts to control where the wealth goes in this country.  Even Universal health care (known by the derisive term, “ObamaCare”), controlled by for-profit private companies, is decried as socialism, as government controlled, as re-distribution of wealth.  It’s all a smokescreen for the age-old complaint of the rich and powerful that “their money” is being unfairly given to the lower classes which contain unproductive and irresponsible people.  They are doing everything they can to protect their assets and property and to deny their riches being bestowed on unworthy people, and their shills in the political world are assisting them in this enterprise, attempting to undo their contractual obligation to the whole of our democratic society.  The following are a few of their machinations:

**They have so taken over the institutions of governing that the ability to do what is best for most people at any point of need is rejected out-of-hand (the Jobs bill; infrastructure improvement; public option in universal health care; extension of the payroll tax cut, protection of the environment, etc.). 
**They are so influential within the court system that the Supreme Court has taken their side (Citizens United decision) allowing corporations to become the voice, not of ordinary people, but of the moneyed interests so that their allies can be elected by the infusion of 3rd party cash and negative advertising. 
**They so control the institutions of government that labor unions are in jeopardy along with their bargaining rights; that school curricula based on facts and science are threatened; that environmental improvements and alternatives to oil are not even considered. 
**Elections are currently being rigged to support their supporters, first, through re-districting and second, by the passage of  laws that restrict the registration of the poor, the elderly, and the disabled, along with minorities. 
**When a consumer protection agency is proposed, and legislated, all kinds of restrictions are imposed upon it (by the very people who decry restrictions and regulations on business enterprises), and its director’s appointment is delayed endlessly until a recess appointment is the only alternative (which, of course, is time-limited and can be overturned).  Recognizing that the original Constitution and subsequent Bill of Rights omitted any protection for common people against corporations or capitalist profiteers, modern-day elite intend to keep it that way.
**The tax code is so shot through with their exemptions, incentives, loopholes, special privileges and deductions that some billionaires like Warren Buffet (and multi-millionaires like Mitt Romney) get to pay a lower rate than their secretaries.  At the same time, their cronies in Congress seek to reduce their taxes even further (helping themselves as well, since almost half the members of Congress are millionaires):  lowering the regular tax rate, the corporate tax rate, the capital gains tax, the inheritance tax and who knows what-all. 
**And now, that structure of communication for all people, but especially for the broad middle class, the internet (which has been successfully utilized against dictators to bring down oligarchic regimes, and to fight by petition against unjust actions by banks and others) is under an attack to gain control of its uses.  Bills in the House and Senate (lately put on hold) masquerading under the guise of controlling pirating of intellectual and artistic property, are nothing more than an attempt to gain control over advocacy by the “others” in their quest to gain some justice, equality, and advantage for the 99% of the population whose voices are being drowned out by the 1% in power.  (Does it seem a bit ironic that the Party that insists on free markets and lack of restriction or regulation from government, is using government to control a particular market when it should instead be encouraging the manufacturers affected to find their own ways to stop the pirating?).

In light of all of these examples, is it any wonder that the “Occupy Wall Street” movement has materialized?  This is the same grassroots type of movement that has arisen throughout our history (e.g. the Patriotic Society of Philadelphia, Shay’s Rebellion, the Dorr movement, the labor movement, etc.), and the history of other countries.  Unfortunately, without the wealth of the rich, or the advocacy of lobbyists and lawyers, or the backing of a Super-PAC, or the organization of a political party, this movement is probably headed to the trash-heap of history wherein lie the hopes and dreams of so many movements that could not flourish in the midst of the class warfare being waged against them by the rich and powerful. 

It is a very sad commentary that the poor, the downtrodden and the needy of most societies have failed in their attempts to achieve substantial victory against the class warfare perpetrated by the rich and powerful.  Although the rich have been able to use the power of government to quell most demonstrations of discontent, our American enterprise is one ray of light in an otherwise defeated enterprise.  We have seen victory over an oppressive king; the emancipation of slaves; the legitimization of labor unions and their bargaining rights; the triumph of women’s suffrage; the acquisition of civil rights for African-Americans and other minority groups; the rise of a broad middle class; the vote for 18-year olds; the acquisition of universal health care, old-age insurance, and medical care for the poor and disabled.  

But we now face the annihilation of so many of the gains we have made, all because the rich and powerful - “Greedy Bastards” as Dylan Ratigan calls them --  want to control, and direct the government to their ends and not to the ends that we have long proclaimed as our credo: “liberty and justice for all”; “government of the people, by the people and for the people”; “that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, … life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness;” “to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

Can we reclaim the social contract that expresses the common welfare of all?  It is an open question.  Part of the answer will occur in the elections of November 2012.  But the other parts of the answer will only come as we try to prevent, by all necessary means -- including an amended Constitution and nation-wide demonstrations -- the complete takeover of our governmental institutions and economic system by a small 1% of our population. 
 
Voting for shills for the rich is the greatest single failing of our electorate.  Putting more control in the hands of radical Republicans will continue to put more money and power in the hands of the 1% of elite power-brokers who are reaping all the rewards, while the middle class keeps struggling to maintain what little they have.  

Don’t continue to be bamboozled by politicians acting as shills for the rich proclaiming “class warfare.”  Class warfare is overwhelmingly initiated by those in control, not by those who are being controlled.    

“FOOD STAMP” PRESIDENT?

Newt Gingrich (he of doubtful ethical standards) has called President Obama the “Food Stamp President”, and alleged that under this President, more people have been put on food stamps than ever before in American history.  The self-styled historian failed to mention that both Democrat and Republican administrations have distributed food stamps or food surplus to the unemployed and the needy.  The food stamp act that created a program much like we now have was passed under Lyndon Johnson, and the program got underway in 1969.  So the great historian failed to clarify that “ever before in American history” is a bit of an exaggeration since the food stamp program has had a relatively short span of just 43 years.

In that same 43-year history, we have never been in a more difficult economic period than we are living through right now.  Thank goodness, President Obama’s administration has seen fit to uplift, rescue and sustain the many people who have had to apply for food stamps in order to keep body and soul together.

Politifact.com says that Newt is only half-right about all this and concludes that the economy, not Obama, is the major reason for the increase. 

“The number of SNAP beneficiaries is at a record level, and it has risen in most months of the Obama presidency. But Gingrich oversimplifies when he suggests that Obama is the root cause. Much of the reason for the increase was a combination of the economic problems Obama inherited combined with a longstanding upward trend from policy changes. But Obama has supported those policies. On balance, we rate Gingrich’s statement Half True.”

Here are a few more things that Gingrich failed to mention:

--Under George W. Bush, the eligibility for SNAP was widened considerably so more families and individuals could be covered; Obama simply followed that trend
--According to Politifact.com, “the number rose in seven out of the eight years of Bush’s presidency -- most of which were years not considered recessionary. All told, the number of recipients rose by a cumulative 63 percent during Bush’s eight-year presidency.”
--More red states utilize food stamps, so apparently a large number of Republican Governors don’t act on the ideology that such “welfare” should be discontinued. “So far, few elected officials have objected to the program’s growth,” says NYTimes.com

What Newt fails to acknowledge, above all, is that the downturn of the economy under George W. Bush is what brought us to the brink of an economic depression (through policies and ideology that Newt supports).  The failures of the Bush years -- lack of regulation of wall street and large corporations; the tax breaks given to the rich without corresponding funding; the failure to understand that banks were over-leveraged; the housing bubble - created by unregulated lending practices - that burst and created millions of foreclosures; the unnecessary war of personal revenge in Iraq that cost us not only young lives but young limbs and young psyches; the attack upon the middle class and workers as more and more jobs and industries moved abroad without a whimper of protest from the Bush administration; the massive layoffs and the failure to create jobs; the lack of attention to our infrastructure and our environment; the failure to break our addiction to foreign oil -- all of these and more created the situation in which we now find ourselves.  And the preposterous assertion that this economic downturn is Obama’s fault because he had to spend more to work us out of it, is perhaps the biggest bamboozle of them all.

Yes, President Obama has strongly utilized the SNAP program to provide qualifying, low-income Americans with vouchers to buy groceries--and more power to him!  Again, according to PolitiFact.com:  “Obviously, the rise in food stamps is a direct consequence of the serious recession that began in December 2007 -- more than a year before Obama took office.  The experts we spoke to, conservative and liberal, agree that Obama inherited a serious economic situation.”

Gingrich makes it sound as though all recipients of food stamps are “on the take” and cheating the federal government.  In contrast, the most recent Department of Agriculture report on the general characteristics of the SNAP program's beneficiaries paints an entirely different picture of recipients.  In the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2010:

•47% of beneficiaries were children under age 18.
•8% were age 60 or older.
•41% lived in a household with earnings from a job — the so-called "working poor." 
•The average household received a monthly benefit of  just $287.
•36% were White (non-Hispanic), 22% were African American (non-Hispanic) and 10% were Hispanic.

In the first three years of the Obama administration, the food stamp program has been used to address certain needs and concerns that have arisen because of the deep recession, as we learn from a comprehensive article on the NYTimes.com website:
 
--Obama's stimulus act made it easier for childless, jobless adults to qualify for the program and increased the monthly benefit by about 15% through 2013
--Food stamps have become a lifeline for the millions of long-term unemployed. More than 20% of those unemployed for more than six months received benefits, according to Congress' Joint Economic Committee
--The range of people struggling with basic needs includes single mothers and married couples, the newly jobless and the chronically poor, longtime recipients of welfare checks and workers whose reduced hours or slender wages leave their pantries bare.
--Growth has been especially swift in once-prosperous places hit by the housing bust. There are about 50 small counties and a dozen sizable ones where the rolls have doubled in the last two years. In another 205 counties, they have risen by at least two-thirds. These places with soaring rolls include populous Riverside County, Calif., most of greater Phoenix and Las Vegas, a ring of affluent Atlanta suburbs, and a 150-mile stretch of southwest Florida from Bradenton to the Everglades.
--The program’s growing reach can be seen in a corner of southwestern Ohio where red state politics reign and blue-collar workers have often called food stamps a sign of laziness. But unemployment has soared, and food stamp use in a six-county area outside Cincinnati has risen more than 50 percent.
--In Indiana, Elkhart County makes the majority of the nation’s recreational vehicles. Sales have fallen more than half during the recession, and nearly 30 percent of the county’s children are receiving food stamps.
--This is the first recession in which a majority of the poor in metropolitan areas live in the suburbs, giving food stamps new prominence there. Use has grown by half or more in dozens of suburban counties from Boston to Seattle, including such bulwarks of modern conservatism as California’s Orange County, where the rolls are up more than 50 percent.
--Most enlisted military personnel E-5 and below qualify for some kind of government assistance, i.e. food stamps, subsidized daycare.  “Poverty among military families is a greatly under-reported story,” said Barbara Ehrenreich, New York Times columnist… Last year, Ehrenreich reported that according to her sources, some 25,000 families of service members were eligible for Food Stamps.

Stacy Dean of the Centre for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a think-tank, argues that the rapid growth of food stamps in recent years is a sign that they are working as intended, responding promptly to hard economic times. In contrast, she points out, block-grant programs (favored by Gingrich and his colleagues) grow much more slowly when times are tough, since funding for them does not increase in line with demand. Food-stamp participation rose by 45% between December 2007 and December 2009, CBPP calculates, while the number of families receiving cash grants under TANF, a block-grant scheme, rose by just 13%.

Food stamps also help stimulate the economy more than other forms of government spending, points out Jim Weill of Food Research and Action Centre, a charity, since their recipients are so poor that they tend to spend them immediately. When Moody’s Analytics assessed different forms of stimulus, it found that food stamps were the most effective, increasing economic activity by $1.73 for every dollar spent. Unemployment insurance came in second, at $1.62, whereas most tax cuts yielded a dollar or less.

As usual, Newt Gingrich uses half-truths and bloated rhetoric to sound intelligent, but as is so often true, he misses the mark.  In contrast, President Obama has taken action to protect and expand an important program so that millions of people could be helped.  What, after all, is Newt Gingrich (and his clown gang) proposing: that food stamps should be drastically reduced or simply eliminated?  He doesn’t really tell us exactly what he would do as President.  But you can bet your bottom dollar (and a lot of people have reached that precarious level) that he would not protect or expand this program even though millions of hungry people of all ages, races, and conditions in life are depending on it to get through a day, a week or a month. 

Job Creators vs. Lost Creators

I’m concerned this week on two fronts that are most often seen separately, although they are inexorably intertwined by an interdependence and mutual responsibility engendered by the nature of our democratic society. 

One, is the rhetorical keystone used by the radical right-wing Republicans that attempts to equate being rich with being a “job creator.”  It’s so patently misleading as to fall easily into the category of bamboozling.  This isn’t the first time Republicans have used this ruse to mislead the public. 

An article from September 2011 on Salon.com recalls that Republicans have been using it for years (even decades) to push a vision of capitalism in which those who most benefit from the system are most essential to its continued success.  As long ago as 1991, a Republican conservative, who just happens to be running currently for the Republican nomination for President, Newt Gingrich, characterized  Democratic opposition to a cut in the capital gains tax as evidence that liberals “hate job creators; they’re envious of job creators.  They want to punish job creators” and then he added that they “believe in class warfare.”  Sound familiar?

Even more revealing is the debate over the 1993 Clinton budget plan, which aimed to cut the deficit by raising the top income tax rate.  Republicans fought this tooth and nail, but ended up losing on a tie-breaking vote by Vice-President Al Gore in the Senate.  Of course, one of their leaders at the time, Phil Gramm, made it plain that this was very unlikely to promote investment and job creation.  In fact, he invoked pretty much the whole world as believing it could not succeed.  Hindsight lets us see that higher taxes on the “job creators” did not create an obstacle to economic growth.  In fact, what resulted was economic growth for 116 consecutive months, the deficit cut by $290 billion, and a path established toward a balanced budget.  

As the comedian, Jon Stewart, has pointed out, “Republicans are no longer allowed to say that people are rich.  You have to refer to them as ‘job creators’.”  However, it is harder and harder to figure out who the job creators among the rich truly are.  All Americans spend, save, invest money in varying ways and varying degrees.  What distinguishes the rich as job creators from everyone else?  As a group, they have more money but probably don’t create any more jobs than all the other 99% of us. 

The success of capitalism, or “free-enterprise,” is dependent on a complex system of work and exchange that depends on the “assistance and cooperation of many thousands” of people, as Adam Smith once said.  In such a society, no single group can be meaningfully singled out as the “job creators.”  It takes a society of managers, supervisors, workers, and consumers in the stores and broader marketplace, to create jobs and to keep on creating them.  The current rhetoric about “job creators” seems to elevate a group of people whose only outstanding trait is their shared tax bracket.

Finally, it has to be said that the 1% in this country - basically the millionaires and billionaires - are not necessarily employers.  They are essentially investors; they are the moneyed making money off their money.  Those who are CEOs or Executives are not necessarily in total charge of hiring whenever they feel the need to do so.  They may be the heads of corporations, but they are constrained by their investors and their boards, and moreover, by the appeal of their products or services.  Expansion is not necessarily in their hands.  So, the so-called job creators have to answer to others with money who may decide that expansion is not feasible, especially within the United States.

We also hear from Republicans (and many Democrats) that small businesses are the engine of job growth and economic growth in this country.  While there are lots of small businesses, there are not a lot of jobs in businesses with 20 or fewer employees.  Numbers suggest there are about 6 million businesses with paid employees.  Ninety percent of these are small businesses defined as having 20 or fewer employees. (Another definition of small businesses having 500 employees or less is nonsensical).  However, that 90% of firms only makes up 20% of all jobs.  So, this so-called engine of the economy can only be characterized as a very small engine!  Looked at another way, while small businesses may create a lot of jobs, they also destroy a lot of jobs.  If we only count small business successes, then we can say they do a lot of hiring.  But small businesses often fail, and that produces a lot of lost jobs and lost wages.  Finally, what is so often not taken into account is that many of these small businesses are made up of just one person, or a few persons: the barber, the dry cleaner, lawyers, doctors, the hairdresser, etc.  And, these businesses are not innovative or expansive.  They are interested in the day-to-day operation of a small enterprise, delivering a service or product to their customers.  Thus, most small businesses don’t even contemplate being the engines of economic growth or of jobs.

One very important reason why this rhetoric about the rich as “job creators” and small businesses as the engine of growth bothers me is because of something that came to my attention on television news the other night.  The story was about a young high school student who has a chance to participate in a prestigious national science competition because of her research and scientific involvement.  This young woman - Samantha - is also homeless.  She lives in a shelter with her mother, and does not have all the advantages of wealth or position.  The story brought home to me the interconnectedness of our society, and the danger of rhetoric that divides us into groups that must, or must not, have our undivided attention.

Right now, the middle class, those living below a defined poverty level (almost 50% of us), the homeless, the disabled and the aged, and many others, are being stereotyped and addressed as though they are not an essential part of the commonwealth of persons that makes up our whole nation.  They are being seen as dregs, as drains, as groups pulling us down from being a productive economy and government.  They are the groups being targeted as having too much government support, as being responsible for programs that cost too much, as being responsible for moving us toward a “welfare state”, like the socialistic countries of Europe.   Where is the understanding that we live within a contractual society that must support each other - the rich and the poor and those in-between-- because everyone must have a chance to contribute for the good and the advancement of all.  The divisive rhetoric of the radical Right is destructive of a social contract theory of government and society that has been in effect since the founding of our country.

Although someone has now come forward and offered a home to Samantha and her family, we are continuing to damage our democracy when we neglect the potential of all people, no matter to which grouping of society they may belong.   Here is a very brief list of some successful people of this country who either started out in poverty or in unusual circumstances that were far from privileged:

Oprah Winfrey who went from being a young girl clothed in potato sacks (literally) to the richest and most powerful female media mogul in the world;  worth around $2.9 billion in 2009.

J.K. Rowling went from being on the dole to starting a $15 billion industry. The author of the Harry Potter books series was estimated to be worth $843.92 million U.S. dollars as of 2008.

David Geffen is responsible for signing Crosby, Stills and Nash, Bob Dylan and Nirvana, starting Geffen Records and was a founding member of DreamWorks studio.  He grew up poor in Brooklyn, living in a one-bedroom apartment with his family and sleeping on the couch.  At 67, renowned art collector and philanthropist Geffen is worth an estimated $4.6 billion.

Starbucks Chairman and CEO Howard Schultz is the man known for transforming the Seattle coffee chain into a global empire.  Schultz grew up in the Canarsie Projects of Brooklyn where he lived in a cramped two-bedroom unit in an apartment building that housed about 150 families. He recalls how embarrassed he was when he found out that the sleep-away camp he went to as a kid one summer was "a subsidized program for underprivileged kids". 

John Paul Dejoria’s hair care company John Paul Mitchell Systems began as a $700 startup from loans.  He started his first job at the age of nine when Dejoria, his mom, and his brother would wake up at 4 a.m. everyday to fold and deliver newspapers.  When his mom could not support him anymore, he was sent to a foster home. He was homeless twice before making his fortune, working jobs from being a janitor to driving a tow truck.

The Xerox CEO,  Ursula M. Burns, grew up on New York City's Lower East Side "when it was really bad, when the gangs were there and the drug addicts were there," she told the NY Times.  Her mother ran an at-home daycare center taking care of other children and also ironed shirts for people in order to allow her daughter to afford to go to Catholic school. Burns is the first African-American woman to oversee a Fortune 500 company.

My point?  
We are not only on the wrong track with this divisive rhetoric.  By buying into this rhetoric, and by defending a government structure that fails to deliver on freedom and justice and support for all the citizens of this wonderful country, we are heading for destruction of our social contract, and thus of our democracy, our economy, our principles, and of our way of life. .  Let us pay attention to all our job creators, and to all the creators who may be lost to us if we fail to recognize the potential of people at all levels of our society.   It is long past time to expand our vision of what we can do and what we should do and what we need to do to support, involve, and nurture our citizenry.  A narrow vision of that task - centered on the 1% of the richest among us - does not bode well for our future.

Real Reform of Washington

Congressman Richard Hanna (R-NY 24th) has again sent his constituents a colorful (and expensive) flyer that makes claims far beyond reality.  Entitled, “Reforming Washington to Work for You”,  this piece of propaganda makes the absurd claim that Mr. Hanna has been “focused on reforming government to make it more responsive and responsible.”

To back up this claim, he points to several pieces of legislation that he has either sponsored, co-sponsored, or voted to support:
--sponsored legislation that would put a “time-out” on rules and regulations
--voted to support a “balanced budget amendment”
-- voted to cut Congress’ budget by 5%
--offered an amendment that would ban Members of Congress from leasing luxury vehicles
--introduced a bipartisan “AGREE Act” which combines the best jobs ideas from Republicans and Democrats
--cosponsored the Congressional Budget Accountability Act that requires leftover dollars in congressional budgets be used for deficit reduction

Mr. Hanna desperately wants us to believe that these measures constitute reform of Washington.  They do not.  They simply nibble around the edges of what is being passed-off as reform by a regressive Republican majority in the House and a recalcitrant minority in the Senate.  Putting a time-out on regulation and rule-making, for instance, does nothing more than leave the playing field wide-open for those business entities that want to earn profits in an unfettered environment, and end up cheating consumers like you and me.  Look at what big banks are trying to do with outrageous new fees; or what Verizon wanted to do by charging you a fee to pay your bill by phone or online.  Anyone remember the Netflix debacle?

A balanced budget amendment is not reform.  It is a power-grab meant to limit the Executive’s ability to propose federal solutions to national problems and a way to put a cap on spending, especially for government programs that assist the poor and workers and the middle class.  It limits the power of the Presidency without a corresponding check on Congress.  If we need a Balanced Budget Amendment to limit the spending that the  President can propose, then we also must have a Line Item Veto Amendment to give the President some control over the penchant of Congress to pass unneeded spending within large essential appropriation bills.  It also limits the federal government from taking necessary measures to address an ugly recession or an emergency situation.  Moreover, it serves as a crutch for the Congress to lean on.  Instead of making difficult decisions like raising more revenue through a fair tax system, and cutting out all the loopholes in that system, they would get to hide from that particular responsibility. 

Real reform is what President Obama is trying to bring about with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (C.F.P.B.) that will regulate mortgage brokers, lenders and servicers, as well as payday lenders, credit card companies, private student loan providers, and all banks with assets over $10 billion.  This is a rulemaking and enforcement authority that has been consolidated out of 12 different federal agencies and placed in a semi-independent bureau that targets the very groups that happen to be large donor patrons for the Republican Party.  Congressional Republicans (including Rep. Hanna) tried to undercut the bureau at every opportunity.  Let me count the ways:

--trashed Elizabeth Warren in hearings when they thought she would end up being nominated as head of the agency.
--tried to replace the C.F.P.B.’s single director with a five-member bipartisan commission
--attempted to lower the number of votes required for the newly created Financial Stability Oversight Council to overturn any CFPB rule.
--proposed legislation to prevent the Bureau from functioning without a Senate-confirmed director in place; and then proceeded to hold up, oppose, and delay the approval of Obama’s appointee (until the President made a recess appointment)
--in addition, its budget is capped; it is subject to GAO oversight, and is required to report regularly to Congress -- all compromises with Republicans in order to get it passed as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Real reform of Washington will be accomplished when politicians like Mr. Hanna stand up for consumer protection, public financing of elections, ending of all PACs that benefit no one but special interests;  re-districting drawn by non-partisan citizen commissions in every state; restricting amounts that can be spent for primaries or general elections for all offices; setting standards for political advertisements in all media and restricting the length of time allowed for campaigning; enhancing voter registration, not curtailing it with pseudo reforms like picture IDs.

Real reform of Washington will be accomplished when representatives and senators vote to amend our constitution in a thoughtful and balanced way:  by establishing term limits for congressional and judicial office-holders; outlawing any and all gifts or contributions (broadly defined) to office-seekers or office-holders;  severely limiting the ability of office-holders, and their family and staff members, from any involvement with consulting or lobbying firms while they hold, and after they leave, office; not only calling for a balanced budget but for a line-item veto; and, ending any ability to establish earmarks and tax loopholes that benefit a limited constituency.

Finally, real reform of Congress will involve the transparency of the budget of every congressional office; reduction in the number of committees and sub-committees (they all cost money); the demolition of all political offices within the leadership of the House and Senate;  the elimination of irrelevant or special privilege offices like chaplains or in-house medical clinicians; the elimination of all special privileges not available to most ordinary citizens (like leased limousines and special drivers; and corporate jet transport by big business interests); no more exemptions or exceptions for members of the legislative branch -- all laws passed must apply equally to them as to ordinary citizens; legal restrictions on the use of insider information to feather their own nests in the stock market, land development or 3rd party aggrandizement.

Although this is just a starting point, it is a much more substantive plan than that presented by Mr. Hanna, or by most of our representatives who fear real governmental reform and the threat it augurs for their positions, their power, and their crony capitalism.  Nibbling at the edges like Mr. Hanna wants to do will not solve our issues with a dysfunctional Congress, nor will it change the way Washington functions.  Real reform must aim at the very core of our governmental processes.  I challenge Mr. Hanna, and his colleagues, to make such in-depth reform of  our federal government a top priority and the imperative for our times.