In the United States, there is a federal government program called the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program. It is the largest governmental program in the world, and in the U.S. it is the single greatest expenditure of tax monies, greater even than federal defense spending. It is also the greatest redistribution of income in the country--from the poor to the rich. Yes, the poor to the rich. It is known as the Social Security program.
Consider another U.S. government program--the federal income tax program. The federal income tax program is described as a progressive tax, i.e., the greater the amount of income, the higher the rate of tax. So higher income wage-earners pay a higher percentage of their income to the federal government than lower income people. Why? The belief is that if a person has a high income, they are likely to be able to pay a higher rate of income tax because it is less of a sacrifice for them. This is often considered tax fairness. But, surprisingly, when it comes to Social Security, people with higher income pay a lower tax rate than do those with lower income.
If one's income is $25,000 per year, one pays 6.2% of it to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax, called FICA on your pay receipt. But for someone who earns a $250,000 salary, they pay only 2.7% of their income to FICA. For a $500k salary, the FICA tax rate drops to 1.4%, and a million dollar salary is required to pay less than 1% to FICA. So lower income wage-earners pay over 6 times the tax rate of millionaires. Those who can least afford it are subsidizing those who can best afford it. Why is this tax regressive instead of progressive as the income tax?
The FICA tax is actually a 12.4% flat tax, half paid by the employee and half by the employer. However, in 2012 it is limited to the first $110,100 earned. Any income above that threshold is FICA tax-free. Compare that to the 2.9% Medicare flat tax for health care insurance for seniors, again half paid by the employee. There is no maximum income threshold for Medicare tax.
If you purchase a car, the sales tax is applied to the price of the car, regardless of the amount of the price. There is no price limit. A low-priced Kia is taxed at the same rate as a high-priced Mercedes Benz.
The fund that holds all the FICA tax is being depleted and, depending on the analysis, could use up all it funds in 20 years or less. So there is much discussion about reducing benefits or raising the retirement age in order to make the funds last longer. Why?
The obvious solution to the continuation of funding Social Security is not to cut benefits. It is to eliminate the income limit on which the tax is applied. Why is this not being considered, or even discussed by our elected U.S. Senators and Representatives whose individual salary is at least $174,000 per year, or in the case of the Speaker of the House over $223,000? Wait--how much?
Why is this not being considered?
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Election
What happened in the U.S. election? That was the question asked when the phone call came through early in the evening on election day from Adelaide, Australia, where it was 15 1/2 hours later than Pittsburgh. Our friends were very concerned about the outcome of the Presidential vote, and the polls hadn't even closed in Pennsylvania.
"Don't worry," I told them. "Obama will win more than 50% of the popular vote for the second time, and at least 313 electoral votes, and all he needs is 270."
They couldn't believe me. How did I know? How could I be so certain? To me it was very simple. The Republican Party had been moving to the right ever since the Tea Party got their first mention in the national media, and the American people had been moving to the left during the same time period. The Democratic Party had recognized the demographic changes that were developing in the population and had emphasized the social and financial issues that were important to that changing populace, and addressed those issues in ways that appealed to them. Racial and ethnic minorities were becoming a larger percentage of the population, and especially the voting population, and would continue for decades in the future. Women would also be a big factor, especially those women who saw Republicans as a threat to freedom of choice and health care. This election was the last chance for the extreme right-wing to take over the government. This would be the last chance for an election controlled by the old rich white guys
African-Americans had been approximately 13% of the population for decades, but even after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 had outlawed discriminatory practices, they had not voted anywhere near the rate of whites. This had been changing in recent national elections, and had reached a peak for Obama in 2008. This year, for the first time, Hispanics would be over 10% of U.S. voters. If both groups voted for Obama this year as they had in 2008, along with Asians, women, and young people, it would be difficult if not impossible for the Republicans to win the Presidency and increase their numbers in the Senate. The only arm of the national government that Republicans had a lock on was the House of Representatives. Due to gerrymandering of voting districts by state governments, nearly every Republican in the House was guaranteed to get re-elected.
Health care, education, immigration, income inequality, past tax cuts for the richest 1%, social justice, marriage equality, climate change, wars, corporate welfare--these are the issues the new voter majority wanted to have addressed. And all the Republicans had were birthers, the NRA, more tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts in needed social programs, attacks on Planned Parenthood, and demonizing of the poor.
How could you not be certain that Obama and the Democrats would win? Everything was in their favor, except the amount of money that billionaires gave to Republican political action committees. And Romney had the rich, or as George Bush called them "my base". He had a slow economy to blame on Obama, high unemployment, high debt, and Fox News. Obama had the people and the multicultural future.
The extreme right-wing which controls the Republican Party threatens to destroy it as a viable political force for the foreseeable future in a country which will, in the near future, have a majority minority population. Cosmetic changes in how the Republicans approach minorities will not be sufficient to hide the real right-wing agenda. The only chance Republicans have to remain as a force in national politics is to divorce themselves of the extremists and make a serious attempt to re-form the Party around Jon Huntsman Jr and Gary Johnson, and perhaps pull in Chris Christie and some very blue-dog (conservative) Democrats. That probably will not work, because the populace is becoming even more progressive, as is seen by the choice of Senators-Elect Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin who will be the first openly gay U.S. Senator, and the defeat of a number of high-profile Tea Party candidates for both the U.S. House and Senate.
With the House controlled by Republicans, there still may not be much that will be accomplished under Obama. At least we will not see the massive damage that could have been caused if the Senate and Presidency had been lost. And the future is bright.
"Don't worry," I told them. "Obama will win more than 50% of the popular vote for the second time, and at least 313 electoral votes, and all he needs is 270."
They couldn't believe me. How did I know? How could I be so certain? To me it was very simple. The Republican Party had been moving to the right ever since the Tea Party got their first mention in the national media, and the American people had been moving to the left during the same time period. The Democratic Party had recognized the demographic changes that were developing in the population and had emphasized the social and financial issues that were important to that changing populace, and addressed those issues in ways that appealed to them. Racial and ethnic minorities were becoming a larger percentage of the population, and especially the voting population, and would continue for decades in the future. Women would also be a big factor, especially those women who saw Republicans as a threat to freedom of choice and health care. This election was the last chance for the extreme right-wing to take over the government. This would be the last chance for an election controlled by the old rich white guys
African-Americans had been approximately 13% of the population for decades, but even after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 had outlawed discriminatory practices, they had not voted anywhere near the rate of whites. This had been changing in recent national elections, and had reached a peak for Obama in 2008. This year, for the first time, Hispanics would be over 10% of U.S. voters. If both groups voted for Obama this year as they had in 2008, along with Asians, women, and young people, it would be difficult if not impossible for the Republicans to win the Presidency and increase their numbers in the Senate. The only arm of the national government that Republicans had a lock on was the House of Representatives. Due to gerrymandering of voting districts by state governments, nearly every Republican in the House was guaranteed to get re-elected.
Health care, education, immigration, income inequality, past tax cuts for the richest 1%, social justice, marriage equality, climate change, wars, corporate welfare--these are the issues the new voter majority wanted to have addressed. And all the Republicans had were birthers, the NRA, more tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts in needed social programs, attacks on Planned Parenthood, and demonizing of the poor.
How could you not be certain that Obama and the Democrats would win? Everything was in their favor, except the amount of money that billionaires gave to Republican political action committees. And Romney had the rich, or as George Bush called them "my base". He had a slow economy to blame on Obama, high unemployment, high debt, and Fox News. Obama had the people and the multicultural future.
The extreme right-wing which controls the Republican Party threatens to destroy it as a viable political force for the foreseeable future in a country which will, in the near future, have a majority minority population. Cosmetic changes in how the Republicans approach minorities will not be sufficient to hide the real right-wing agenda. The only chance Republicans have to remain as a force in national politics is to divorce themselves of the extremists and make a serious attempt to re-form the Party around Jon Huntsman Jr and Gary Johnson, and perhaps pull in Chris Christie and some very blue-dog (conservative) Democrats. That probably will not work, because the populace is becoming even more progressive, as is seen by the choice of Senators-Elect Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin who will be the first openly gay U.S. Senator, and the defeat of a number of high-profile Tea Party candidates for both the U.S. House and Senate.
With the House controlled by Republicans, there still may not be much that will be accomplished under Obama. At least we will not see the massive damage that could have been caused if the Senate and Presidency had been lost. And the future is bright.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
American dream or nightmare 2
So no one can get elected to any official office in the USA without stating support for American Exceptionalism by repeatedly referring to America as The Land of Opportunity, to The American Dream, and any of many other trite pseudo-patriotic expressions. Why is this important? Mainly due to the fact that since the Reagan era, America has no longer been The Land of Opportunity, and The American Dream has turned into a myth.
Since Reagan, the percentage of national wealth held by the richest 1% of Americans has doubled, the percentage of wealth of the richest 0.1% has tripled, and the average income for the 99% has barely moved. This is one of the points that the Occupy Movement was trying to emphasize. Compared to the other first world countries, the USA has the lowest equality of opportunity, and this includes "Old Europe". We have low social mobility. The status you were born into largely determines the status you will obtain in your adult life. Much of this has to do with differences in nutrition, education, peers, social pressures--things that are mainly a result of the opportunities that wealth can provide. And the rate of difference in equality has been increasing, especially through the eight Bush years, and not slowed much through the first four Obama years. We are heading toward an America that has two classes--the rich and the poor, and very few in the middle class--if we cannot stop and reverse this trend toward income inequality.
As "Americans", we have to acknowledge that Obamacare is important for the future of our people. We have to acknowledge that true improvement in education (not voucher schools) is important for the future of our people. We have to acknowledge that those richest Americans who create wealth for themselves but not economic growth for the 99% have to pay their fair share and stop filling their pockets with corporate welfare.
This failure of the American system is hurting the 99% by restricting economic growth for the middle class, keeping the poor from having a fair shot at obtaining their potential, and will eventually negatively affect those at the top, who have for the past few decades benefited from tax cuts for themselves and spending cuts for programs that can help improve income equality. This is what the New Deal and the Great Society programs were trying to accomplish, and Reagan, the Bushes, and, yes, even Clinton have created the means to destroy. "We went so well so long...when I think of the road were travelling on, I wonder what's gone wrong."
We have seen the enemy in the mirror. Yes, he is us. We must change, or the loss of The American Dream will be permanent.
Since Reagan, the percentage of national wealth held by the richest 1% of Americans has doubled, the percentage of wealth of the richest 0.1% has tripled, and the average income for the 99% has barely moved. This is one of the points that the Occupy Movement was trying to emphasize. Compared to the other first world countries, the USA has the lowest equality of opportunity, and this includes "Old Europe". We have low social mobility. The status you were born into largely determines the status you will obtain in your adult life. Much of this has to do with differences in nutrition, education, peers, social pressures--things that are mainly a result of the opportunities that wealth can provide. And the rate of difference in equality has been increasing, especially through the eight Bush years, and not slowed much through the first four Obama years. We are heading toward an America that has two classes--the rich and the poor, and very few in the middle class--if we cannot stop and reverse this trend toward income inequality.
As "Americans", we have to acknowledge that Obamacare is important for the future of our people. We have to acknowledge that true improvement in education (not voucher schools) is important for the future of our people. We have to acknowledge that those richest Americans who create wealth for themselves but not economic growth for the 99% have to pay their fair share and stop filling their pockets with corporate welfare.
This failure of the American system is hurting the 99% by restricting economic growth for the middle class, keeping the poor from having a fair shot at obtaining their potential, and will eventually negatively affect those at the top, who have for the past few decades benefited from tax cuts for themselves and spending cuts for programs that can help improve income equality. This is what the New Deal and the Great Society programs were trying to accomplish, and Reagan, the Bushes, and, yes, even Clinton have created the means to destroy. "We went so well so long...when I think of the road were travelling on, I wonder what's gone wrong."
We have seen the enemy in the mirror. Yes, he is us. We must change, or the loss of The American Dream will be permanent.
Monday, October 29, 2012
American dream or nightmare
Every person seeking elected office in this country says that America is the "Land Of Opportunity". It is a requirement. The public must hear those words in every speech, along with "The American Dream", and every speech must now end with "And God Bless The United States Of America". It has become mandatory. What is the meaning and what is the purpose? They are trite phrases without meaning or purpose, but if not said will result in reactionary criticism that includes being un-American and God-less.
Being reactionary used to be an undesirable trait in American politics, but the neo-con right and uber-Christian Tea Party wing-nuts have sadly convinced American low-information voters to believe that it is now desirable. Low-information voters is not a description for people who are unintelligent or do not have the capability to understand issues, but rather they are people who, either intentionally or unintentionally, are poorly informed about the political issues in their country. A large proportion of them are white, working-class people who make voting decisions often based on useless information such as gender or race rather than where a candidate stands on the issues. They often vote against their own interests when purposefully misinformed about a candidate. A classic example of this is the swift-boating attacks on John Kerry.
Before I get too far off track, I want to get back to the "God Bless" point. For over 12 years I was an elected official and for much of that time served with a fellow official who was a couple decades older than I. It is important to note his relative age, because it explains why, at the start of every official meeting, he always said the "Pledge of Allegience to the Flag" differently than most other elected officials with whom I served. He was a very devout Roman Catholic Irishman who did not include the words "under God" in the Pledge. Why not? Because when he went to school, the Pledge did not include those words. They were added in 1954 by a joint resolution of Congress, in reaction to the anti-communist fervor that swept the nation during the Cold War in the late 1940s and early 1950s. If you don't understand this point, refer to Senator Joseph McCarthy and Edward R. Murrow. Check Wikipedia. I'll wait.
So my fellow official learned the Pledge by rote, and seemingly never forgot the original words he memorized. The interesting twist about this story is that the actual original Pledge was created by a Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy, in 1892, and specifically excluded any mention of God. So a religious leader who wanted to encourage Americans to be more patriotic, and to celebrate the 400 anniversary of the Columbus voyage to the New World, saw no need to include "under God" or any reference to religion in the Pledge he wrote. Yet here we are today expecting every political speech to include a trite statement that God should bless our country. And supposedly, no other country. At least not to the extent that God blesses our country. Goes back to American Exceptionalism, doesn't it.
Being reactionary used to be an undesirable trait in American politics, but the neo-con right and uber-Christian Tea Party wing-nuts have sadly convinced American low-information voters to believe that it is now desirable. Low-information voters is not a description for people who are unintelligent or do not have the capability to understand issues, but rather they are people who, either intentionally or unintentionally, are poorly informed about the political issues in their country. A large proportion of them are white, working-class people who make voting decisions often based on useless information such as gender or race rather than where a candidate stands on the issues. They often vote against their own interests when purposefully misinformed about a candidate. A classic example of this is the swift-boating attacks on John Kerry.
Before I get too far off track, I want to get back to the "God Bless" point. For over 12 years I was an elected official and for much of that time served with a fellow official who was a couple decades older than I. It is important to note his relative age, because it explains why, at the start of every official meeting, he always said the "Pledge of Allegience to the Flag" differently than most other elected officials with whom I served. He was a very devout Roman Catholic Irishman who did not include the words "under God" in the Pledge. Why not? Because when he went to school, the Pledge did not include those words. They were added in 1954 by a joint resolution of Congress, in reaction to the anti-communist fervor that swept the nation during the Cold War in the late 1940s and early 1950s. If you don't understand this point, refer to Senator Joseph McCarthy and Edward R. Murrow. Check Wikipedia. I'll wait.
So my fellow official learned the Pledge by rote, and seemingly never forgot the original words he memorized. The interesting twist about this story is that the actual original Pledge was created by a Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy, in 1892, and specifically excluded any mention of God. So a religious leader who wanted to encourage Americans to be more patriotic, and to celebrate the 400 anniversary of the Columbus voyage to the New World, saw no need to include "under God" or any reference to religion in the Pledge he wrote. Yet here we are today expecting every political speech to include a trite statement that God should bless our country. And supposedly, no other country. At least not to the extent that God blesses our country. Goes back to American Exceptionalism, doesn't it.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
An Answer
Previously I was asked why Americans believe that anything their country does is "right". I had only a short time to try to explain to the two Germans sitting opposite me on the Inter-City Express train from Brussels to Frankfurt the concept of "American Exceptionalism".
You could say that de Tocqueville started it in the 1830s in his Democracy in America when he said Americans were "quite exceptional" and that perhaps no people would ever be in the same position again. Individual liberty and equality was supposedly unique in America. According to de Tocqueville, it was the Puritan ethic of the American settlers, the lack of a history of feudalism, and the "virgin" land itself that made America "exceptional". Americans differed from Europeans even though they came from Europe. This was the support Americans used for "Manifest Destiny" or the right to expand throughout the continent without questioning the destruction of the existing Native American civilization that millions of indigenous people had established for thousands of years. America became the Land Of Opportunity.
The phrase "American Exceptionalism" became common in the 1920s when it was used--are you ready for this--by the American Communist Party to explain that America was not subject to the Maxist Laws because it was a classless society. However, to the Soviet Communists, the Depression showed the flaw in that argument.
The most concern should be directed toward the present interpretation of the phrase by the neo-conservatives in America, which use the term to mean America is superior to all other countries, and is not subject to the rules of law which the international community has established. The neo-cons argue for an American Empire, which has a mission to forcibly impose American values of government and culture on any other country it sees fit through military and economic power. The neo-cons argue that President Obama does not believe in "American Exceptionalism", because he believes that while America has a major role in leading the nations of the world toward democracy, morality, and peace, it cannot do it alone but must join in partnerships with other nations.
What is exceptional about a country founded on accepting the principle of slavery, genocide of the indigenous peoples, and voting rights only for male property owners? What is exceptional about a country that has less social mobility than many European countries, and greater income inequality than most European countries? What is exceptional about a country that tries to limit the voting rights of minorities, that has more weapons in private hands than the next 20 countries combined, and that attempts to erase 60 years of gains in civil rights, woman's rights, and gay rights in one election? American cannot be the "shining city on a hill" when it has a very high murder rate, a huge prison population, pockets of extreme poverty, and a terribly inequitable health care system. American is no more exceptional than many other countries, and in many ways less exceptional.
As we pulled into Frankfurt bahnhof, I thanked my fellow riders for letting me rant on. We walked down the platform, and I wished them well, as my journey was continuing on another ICE train to Stuttgart. We will never meet again, but we did communicate. It is possible.
You could say that de Tocqueville started it in the 1830s in his Democracy in America when he said Americans were "quite exceptional" and that perhaps no people would ever be in the same position again. Individual liberty and equality was supposedly unique in America. According to de Tocqueville, it was the Puritan ethic of the American settlers, the lack of a history of feudalism, and the "virgin" land itself that made America "exceptional". Americans differed from Europeans even though they came from Europe. This was the support Americans used for "Manifest Destiny" or the right to expand throughout the continent without questioning the destruction of the existing Native American civilization that millions of indigenous people had established for thousands of years. America became the Land Of Opportunity.
The phrase "American Exceptionalism" became common in the 1920s when it was used--are you ready for this--by the American Communist Party to explain that America was not subject to the Maxist Laws because it was a classless society. However, to the Soviet Communists, the Depression showed the flaw in that argument.
The most concern should be directed toward the present interpretation of the phrase by the neo-conservatives in America, which use the term to mean America is superior to all other countries, and is not subject to the rules of law which the international community has established. The neo-cons argue for an American Empire, which has a mission to forcibly impose American values of government and culture on any other country it sees fit through military and economic power. The neo-cons argue that President Obama does not believe in "American Exceptionalism", because he believes that while America has a major role in leading the nations of the world toward democracy, morality, and peace, it cannot do it alone but must join in partnerships with other nations.
What is exceptional about a country founded on accepting the principle of slavery, genocide of the indigenous peoples, and voting rights only for male property owners? What is exceptional about a country that has less social mobility than many European countries, and greater income inequality than most European countries? What is exceptional about a country that tries to limit the voting rights of minorities, that has more weapons in private hands than the next 20 countries combined, and that attempts to erase 60 years of gains in civil rights, woman's rights, and gay rights in one election? American cannot be the "shining city on a hill" when it has a very high murder rate, a huge prison population, pockets of extreme poverty, and a terribly inequitable health care system. American is no more exceptional than many other countries, and in many ways less exceptional.
As we pulled into Frankfurt bahnhof, I thanked my fellow riders for letting me rant on. We walked down the platform, and I wished them well, as my journey was continuing on another ICE train to Stuttgart. We will never meet again, but we did communicate. It is possible.
And more questions
I was on the ICE train from Brussels to Frankfurt reading the Australian magazine, The Monthly, with the cover article by Peter Conrad titled "Obama: Too Good For America?" When I put the magazine down, the two Germans across from me asked what my opinion was of the U.S President. I answered by asking them what their opinion was.
So they told me. It seems that Europeans really like Obama. None of the EU countries are as multicultural as the U.S. is. None have the percentage of their citizens that are of different races than the U.S.--African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Native Americans. None have the number of first and second generation immigrants than the U.S. Yet Americans seem to understand little of the world outside of their own country, and when they do speak of the outside world, it usually is stated in terms of America's control of the course of world events. To Europeans this is heard as the American "might makes right" philosophy. Unlike the second President Bush, Obama has moved America back into the world community of nations
Obama has a more realistic comprehension of the present position of the U.S. in the world, and he also understands that, as Peter Conrad wrote, there is no longer any part of the world that is non-American. While American culture is omnipresent, and America is militarily as powerful as it ever has been, the U.S. does not seem to be as threatening with Obama as its leader. At least that was their opinion. Perhaps Obama is too good for America. But what they could not understand was the number of Americans who, it seemed to them, were greatly un-informed and supportive of the extreme right-wing of the Republican party.
They were amazed that so many Americans could not accept climate change, could have such archaic attitudes concerning the rights of women, minorities, and the poor, and especially be so supportive of the growing income inequality in the country.
It was difficult and took much of the rest of the train ride to try to explain the completely foreign concept of "American Exceptionalism". Foreign to them, and probably to you too. But that is for another time.
So they told me. It seems that Europeans really like Obama. None of the EU countries are as multicultural as the U.S. is. None have the percentage of their citizens that are of different races than the U.S.--African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Native Americans. None have the number of first and second generation immigrants than the U.S. Yet Americans seem to understand little of the world outside of their own country, and when they do speak of the outside world, it usually is stated in terms of America's control of the course of world events. To Europeans this is heard as the American "might makes right" philosophy. Unlike the second President Bush, Obama has moved America back into the world community of nations
Obama has a more realistic comprehension of the present position of the U.S. in the world, and he also understands that, as Peter Conrad wrote, there is no longer any part of the world that is non-American. While American culture is omnipresent, and America is militarily as powerful as it ever has been, the U.S. does not seem to be as threatening with Obama as its leader. At least that was their opinion. Perhaps Obama is too good for America. But what they could not understand was the number of Americans who, it seemed to them, were greatly un-informed and supportive of the extreme right-wing of the Republican party.
They were amazed that so many Americans could not accept climate change, could have such archaic attitudes concerning the rights of women, minorities, and the poor, and especially be so supportive of the growing income inequality in the country.
It was difficult and took much of the rest of the train ride to try to explain the completely foreign concept of "American Exceptionalism". Foreign to them, and probably to you too. But that is for another time.
Friday, October 19, 2012
More questions
Living every day in the American culture, being immersed in it, can make it difficult to determine the effect American actions have on other people. Is it relevant to consider other people's interests to prevent negative effects on those who are not part of our society? I would hope so, but this is similar to another question I was asked while in Europe: Why do Americans think that anything their country does is always "right"? Before I get into this issue, let me present an example of how some U.S. politicians manipulate Americans.
One of the present political arguments being made in the U.S. is that the European Union (commonly called "Old Europe") is socialist, and any actions taken by the U.S. government that mirrors the way the EU does it is a socialist action, and is therefore "bad" because socialism is bad. That is the simplistic way that neo-conservatives package their political philosophy. No questions are asked, no true analysis is done to see if an EU action has value, it is just wrong.
However, one specific point that neo-cons emphasize is that America has a high corporate tax rate, and other Western industrialized nations have a much lower rate. The result of this is lower job creation in the U.S. compared to other countries. Note that they do not specifically use the term EU or "Old Europe" when talking about this issue. If they did, then it would be socialist, and therefore, bad.
In order to be more competitive, and multinational-corporation-friendly, the U.S. should lower their corporate tax rate from the commonly-stated 35% to the 25% rate of other countries, or better yet, the 16% that Canada has. This is argued as if there were no other requirements on corporations in other countries that differ from those in the U.S., and as if there were no other differences in tax burdens on people. Look at a few actual examples.
In Germany, it is true that the federal corporate tax rate is about 16%. However, corporations are also subjected to local taxes from 14% to 17% on top of the federal rate. The maximum personal income tax rate is 45%, and the VAT (sales tax) is 19%. Those last two rates are never mentioned by the neo-cons.
Okay, let's look at the UK. Corporate rate of 20 - 24%, personal income rate of 20% - 50%, and a VAT of 20%. Ouch!
All right, what about Norway. They are in Europe but they are not a member state of the EU. Corporate rate of 28%, personal income rate of 54%, and VAT of 25%.
You get the point. Every country in Europe is similar to the above examples. And this doesn't include regulations that result in increased costs for corporations. In Germany, most large corporations are required to allow employees to elect a percentage of seats on the corporation's supervisory board. In many EU countries, if a layoff occurs, the unemployed workers are entitled to a living allowance, help in finding work, and alternative training. In Ireland the unemployed worker can get a rent supplement, mortgage interest supplement, and fuel allowance. In the Netherlands, the unemployed worker gets 70% of their last wage for 38 months, all paid by the company.
It is irresponsible to argue for a lower U.S. corporate tax rate as if it were a black box, with no other inputs that would affect the true value of such an action. And if you really want to know the complete truth, most large American corporations--due to loopholes, subsidies, and various government benefits--actually pay less than a 15% effective tax rate. Some pay no tax at all, and have not for years.
One of the present political arguments being made in the U.S. is that the European Union (commonly called "Old Europe") is socialist, and any actions taken by the U.S. government that mirrors the way the EU does it is a socialist action, and is therefore "bad" because socialism is bad. That is the simplistic way that neo-conservatives package their political philosophy. No questions are asked, no true analysis is done to see if an EU action has value, it is just wrong.
However, one specific point that neo-cons emphasize is that America has a high corporate tax rate, and other Western industrialized nations have a much lower rate. The result of this is lower job creation in the U.S. compared to other countries. Note that they do not specifically use the term EU or "Old Europe" when talking about this issue. If they did, then it would be socialist, and therefore, bad.
In order to be more competitive, and multinational-corporation-friendly, the U.S. should lower their corporate tax rate from the commonly-stated 35% to the 25% rate of other countries, or better yet, the 16% that Canada has. This is argued as if there were no other requirements on corporations in other countries that differ from those in the U.S., and as if there were no other differences in tax burdens on people. Look at a few actual examples.
In Germany, it is true that the federal corporate tax rate is about 16%. However, corporations are also subjected to local taxes from 14% to 17% on top of the federal rate. The maximum personal income tax rate is 45%, and the VAT (sales tax) is 19%. Those last two rates are never mentioned by the neo-cons.
Okay, let's look at the UK. Corporate rate of 20 - 24%, personal income rate of 20% - 50%, and a VAT of 20%. Ouch!
All right, what about Norway. They are in Europe but they are not a member state of the EU. Corporate rate of 28%, personal income rate of 54%, and VAT of 25%.
You get the point. Every country in Europe is similar to the above examples. And this doesn't include regulations that result in increased costs for corporations. In Germany, most large corporations are required to allow employees to elect a percentage of seats on the corporation's supervisory board. In many EU countries, if a layoff occurs, the unemployed workers are entitled to a living allowance, help in finding work, and alternative training. In Ireland the unemployed worker can get a rent supplement, mortgage interest supplement, and fuel allowance. In the Netherlands, the unemployed worker gets 70% of their last wage for 38 months, all paid by the company.
It is irresponsible to argue for a lower U.S. corporate tax rate as if it were a black box, with no other inputs that would affect the true value of such an action. And if you really want to know the complete truth, most large American corporations--due to loopholes, subsidies, and various government benefits--actually pay less than a 15% effective tax rate. Some pay no tax at all, and have not for years.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Questions
I was asked a number of interesting questions while in Europe while meeting British, German, and Australian friends, and discovered a number of interesting impressions others have of the political situation in the USA. One impression is that the two political parties in America are simply two variants of the same center-right political party, with the Democrats being slightly more center, and the Republicans being slightly more right. When compared to other Western industrialized countries, this is usually true.
In the UK there are 3 major political parties which have over 90% of the seats in the House of Commons: Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrats, all of which would be more "liberal" than either the Democrats or Republicans. But there minor parties which also have seats: the Scottish National, the Plaid Cymru in Wales, Democratic Unionist, and a few others.
In Germany, the two major parties, the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats have controlled the selection of Chancellors since 1949, but the Free Democrats, and the Green Party also have seats in the Government and have important roles in policy decisions. The Pirate Party is growing rapidly. All are to the left of American parties.
Perhaps Australian politics comes closest to the USA with the two major parties, Labor and Liberal/National Coalition dominating the country in recent years, but the Greens, Australian Party, and Democratic Labor Party also have seats in the government. The Liberal/National Coalition is perhaps the only one that is center-right similar to the Democrats or Republicans in the U.S. The ruling Labor Party is considered center-left.
I would have to agree with my friends concerning the position of American political parties on the political spectrum, however I would have to disagree with them that the difference is so small that there is no value in supporting one over the other in the present election cycle. When one party supports women's rights and the other opposes it, one party supports health insurance for 30 million people who are now without it and the other party opposes it, and one party supports the great income inequality in the country and the other party opposes it, then I believe these are sufficient reasons to value one over the other. Granted there is little chance for a third party to become established nationally, or even locally, in the near future. The influence of money in American politics is well recognized, and, sadly, will prevent the growth of third parties, just as it has prevented the existing parties from moving to the center. Forget about center-left or even radical centrist parties. The last chance for that was lost in 1972 when I was in the Antipodes having a pie floater.
In the UK there are 3 major political parties which have over 90% of the seats in the House of Commons: Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrats, all of which would be more "liberal" than either the Democrats or Republicans. But there minor parties which also have seats: the Scottish National, the Plaid Cymru in Wales, Democratic Unionist, and a few others.
In Germany, the two major parties, the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats have controlled the selection of Chancellors since 1949, but the Free Democrats, and the Green Party also have seats in the Government and have important roles in policy decisions. The Pirate Party is growing rapidly. All are to the left of American parties.
Perhaps Australian politics comes closest to the USA with the two major parties, Labor and Liberal/National Coalition dominating the country in recent years, but the Greens, Australian Party, and Democratic Labor Party also have seats in the government. The Liberal/National Coalition is perhaps the only one that is center-right similar to the Democrats or Republicans in the U.S. The ruling Labor Party is considered center-left.
I would have to agree with my friends concerning the position of American political parties on the political spectrum, however I would have to disagree with them that the difference is so small that there is no value in supporting one over the other in the present election cycle. When one party supports women's rights and the other opposes it, one party supports health insurance for 30 million people who are now without it and the other party opposes it, and one party supports the great income inequality in the country and the other party opposes it, then I believe these are sufficient reasons to value one over the other. Granted there is little chance for a third party to become established nationally, or even locally, in the near future. The influence of money in American politics is well recognized, and, sadly, will prevent the growth of third parties, just as it has prevented the existing parties from moving to the center. Forget about center-left or even radical centrist parties. The last chance for that was lost in 1972 when I was in the Antipodes having a pie floater.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
More fears
Back at my friend's home north of Stuttgart, the town was having their annual medieval festival. My friend and I, along with the whinging pommy bastard who is the other male member of my friend's family, laughed at the jesters, listened to the merry tunes, and drank some hearty grog. For those who are unaware, as a former Australian, the term I just used to describe an Englishman was the most common one used at any drinking establishment in New South Wales and is not necessarily derogatory. Whinging means complaining, and pommy is the common term for a Brit in Oz, as limey is in the U.S . Bastard is usually added for emphasis, especially at cricket matches. Well, maybe it is derogatory. Nothing personal, John.
The Brit did wonder a bit about my explanation at the Volkfest earlier in the day concerning fear in America. He wondered if I really believed what I had said, or if it was the biere talking.
I was born into an America that was taught to fear. The earliest I remember was the Soviet Union which was run by dictatorial communists who wanted to dominate the world, so we had to build countless nuclear weapons that could destroy an enemy, and likely the entire world, many times over to deter an attack upon our country. We had an appropriate acronym for this policy, which was called MAD, for Mutually Assured Destruction. Tens of thousands of Americans died fighting in a war in Korea because we had to fear the Communist Chinese Red Hordes who wanted to dominate the world. The Soviet surrogate, Cuba, had to be feared, so it became US policy to overthrow the Cuban government by supporting the Bay of Pigs invasion, the establishment of Operation Mongoose, and the eventual naval blockade called the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The Vietnam War became an equally large reason to fear the Soviets and Chinese, because the fall of Vietnam would result in a domino effect, culminating in the Vietnamese dominating the world, or at least Vanuatu, Brunei, and the Maldives. Twice the number of Americans died in Vietnam as had died in Korea. The US government knew that the Vietnamese had fought the Chinese, the French, the Japanese, and the French again, and despite no indication of wanting to dominate anyone but themselves, the US had to fear them. They are now a welcome U.S. trading partner .
After Vietnam, the US still had the Soviets and Chinese to fear. We soon lost the Chinese when Nixon visited the Great Wall in 1972. But, another fear was created when the Shah of Iran, an ally of the US, was replaced by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Now the US had not only Arabs, a whole race of people to fear, but an unusual religion, Islam. Ignoring the fact that Iranians are Caucasians and not Arabs, the religion thing was a bonus for generating fear, because it was a completely foreign, read non-Christian, religion.
The Soviet Union disintegrated, and Communist China turned into Business China, so the Arab / Islam fear was encouraged. After the 9/11 attacks, fear of Arabs and Islam grew into the fear we know today. Then fear of Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan, etc.
Of course there had been other fears: The Philippines, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Grenada, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and many others. And these are all only the foreign country fears to which Americans have been constantly subjected.
Don't get me started on domestic fears of black, brown, yellow, and red people. Keep Americans fearing that all their problems are caused by others, and you end up with Germany in the 1920s and 1930s.
Yes fear is a basic requirement for living in the USA.
The Brit did wonder a bit about my explanation at the Volkfest earlier in the day concerning fear in America. He wondered if I really believed what I had said, or if it was the biere talking.
I was born into an America that was taught to fear. The earliest I remember was the Soviet Union which was run by dictatorial communists who wanted to dominate the world, so we had to build countless nuclear weapons that could destroy an enemy, and likely the entire world, many times over to deter an attack upon our country. We had an appropriate acronym for this policy, which was called MAD, for Mutually Assured Destruction. Tens of thousands of Americans died fighting in a war in Korea because we had to fear the Communist Chinese Red Hordes who wanted to dominate the world. The Soviet surrogate, Cuba, had to be feared, so it became US policy to overthrow the Cuban government by supporting the Bay of Pigs invasion, the establishment of Operation Mongoose, and the eventual naval blockade called the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The Vietnam War became an equally large reason to fear the Soviets and Chinese, because the fall of Vietnam would result in a domino effect, culminating in the Vietnamese dominating the world, or at least Vanuatu, Brunei, and the Maldives. Twice the number of Americans died in Vietnam as had died in Korea. The US government knew that the Vietnamese had fought the Chinese, the French, the Japanese, and the French again, and despite no indication of wanting to dominate anyone but themselves, the US had to fear them. They are now a welcome U.S. trading partner .
After Vietnam, the US still had the Soviets and Chinese to fear. We soon lost the Chinese when Nixon visited the Great Wall in 1972. But, another fear was created when the Shah of Iran, an ally of the US, was replaced by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Now the US had not only Arabs, a whole race of people to fear, but an unusual religion, Islam. Ignoring the fact that Iranians are Caucasians and not Arabs, the religion thing was a bonus for generating fear, because it was a completely foreign, read non-Christian, religion.
The Soviet Union disintegrated, and Communist China turned into Business China, so the Arab / Islam fear was encouraged. After the 9/11 attacks, fear of Arabs and Islam grew into the fear we know today. Then fear of Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan, etc.
Of course there had been other fears: The Philippines, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Grenada, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and many others. And these are all only the foreign country fears to which Americans have been constantly subjected.
Don't get me started on domestic fears of black, brown, yellow, and red people. Keep Americans fearing that all their problems are caused by others, and you end up with Germany in the 1920s and 1930s.
Yes fear is a basic requirement for living in the USA.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Fears
It was perfect weather for the first Saturday of the Cannstatter Volkfest in Stuttgart. Thousands of people from, based on all the different languages I heard, every country in the world. They had come to see the largest carnival in Europe, and to eat and drink with the Stuttgarters. I was sitting with my friend and his family at a large picnic table in one of the large temporary buildings the Germans call "tents" that are erected by the Stuttgart brewers. Having just finished a very tasty Ganze knusprige Schweinshaxe, which was once an important part of a now-deceased pig and can also be used as a deadly weapon due to its size, two middle-aged couples sat beside us to enjoy the music. There is no explanation for it, but the favorite song of the Volkfest is John Denver's Country Roads, and everyone stops what they are doing to join in singing the song. "Dark and dusty, painted on the sky." The second favorite is YMCA, but isn't that the case everywhere.
Having been introduced as the American visitor, I was asked by one of the newcomers, "What is wrong with America?" Being asked this question was not a surprise. I had been asked the same question earlier in the week at a coffee shop in Brussels, then again while having tea and a Belgian waffle in Brugge, on the Inter-City Express train from Brussels to Frankfort, and on a second ICE train from Frankfort to Stuttgart. So I knew exactly what it was they were asking. How could America actually consider any of the eight nutcases that the US Republican Party put forward for President, and how can it be that President Obama is in a tight political race when he should win 90% of the vote? They do so like Obama in Europe. He seems to understand what America's relationship should be with other countries in the world.
But what they really couldn't understand was how Americans could vote for Mitt Romney after knowing about his foreign bank accounts, his unwillingness to produce tax returns, and his accusation that 47% of Americans were lazy parasites.
Previously I had provided my pat answer. "I live there, and I ask myself the same question every day. What is wrong with America? I don't know." That seemed to satisfy Europeans, who obviously know more about American politics than Americans. But I was half-way through my second masse of Schwaben Welt, and the pat answer was getting a bit old. They deserved the truth. "Right-wing politicians need Americans to be in constant state of fear."
By the shocked faces now before me, I came to the belief that this was the answer they were neither expecting nor hoping for. Country Roads was played again, and everyone stood up to sing. "Radio reminds me of my home far away." When the song was finished, I was asked, "What do you mean?"
So I finished the bier and said, "Consider the 47% speech. There was Mitt Romney speaking at a wealthy white private residence to a number of wealthy white financial contributors. What would bring fear to that audience? Of course it would be the losing of any of their wealth. And what would cause them to lose their wealth? A non-white President who supports any social program that assists those in need, such as African-Americans, or Hispanic-Americans, which is financed by taxing the wealthy. Yes, they ignore the fact that they and their friends on Wall Street, and in the Bush administration caused the massive recession that put those people in need. Is this racist? Of course, but many Americans respond to racist threats. Most will not admit to being racist. They might use other terms that sound like acceptable political disagreements. Some might say these types of social programs are "redistribution of income", or are "socialist". But these are just code words to induce whites with fear of blacks and immigrants.
"Or take Romney's constant comments decrying China's purchasing of US treasury notes. In reality, China has actually reduced the amount of US debt it owns, and it is now about the same as Japan at 8%. The biggest holders are the US Federal Reserve, and the Social Security Trust Fund. So why all the China-bashing? To create fear in the minds of Americans. The Communist Chinese Red Hordes will soon own the country! Fear China!"
They quickly finished drinking and said their goodbyes.
It was quite some time later that I realized I should have given them the pat answer which would have satisfied them. But I had driven them away by giving them the real answer. And they now feared what would happen to America.
"Take me home. Country Roads."
Having been introduced as the American visitor, I was asked by one of the newcomers, "What is wrong with America?" Being asked this question was not a surprise. I had been asked the same question earlier in the week at a coffee shop in Brussels, then again while having tea and a Belgian waffle in Brugge, on the Inter-City Express train from Brussels to Frankfort, and on a second ICE train from Frankfort to Stuttgart. So I knew exactly what it was they were asking. How could America actually consider any of the eight nutcases that the US Republican Party put forward for President, and how can it be that President Obama is in a tight political race when he should win 90% of the vote? They do so like Obama in Europe. He seems to understand what America's relationship should be with other countries in the world.
But what they really couldn't understand was how Americans could vote for Mitt Romney after knowing about his foreign bank accounts, his unwillingness to produce tax returns, and his accusation that 47% of Americans were lazy parasites.
Previously I had provided my pat answer. "I live there, and I ask myself the same question every day. What is wrong with America? I don't know." That seemed to satisfy Europeans, who obviously know more about American politics than Americans. But I was half-way through my second masse of Schwaben Welt, and the pat answer was getting a bit old. They deserved the truth. "Right-wing politicians need Americans to be in constant state of fear."
By the shocked faces now before me, I came to the belief that this was the answer they were neither expecting nor hoping for. Country Roads was played again, and everyone stood up to sing. "Radio reminds me of my home far away." When the song was finished, I was asked, "What do you mean?"
So I finished the bier and said, "Consider the 47% speech. There was Mitt Romney speaking at a wealthy white private residence to a number of wealthy white financial contributors. What would bring fear to that audience? Of course it would be the losing of any of their wealth. And what would cause them to lose their wealth? A non-white President who supports any social program that assists those in need, such as African-Americans, or Hispanic-Americans, which is financed by taxing the wealthy. Yes, they ignore the fact that they and their friends on Wall Street, and in the Bush administration caused the massive recession that put those people in need. Is this racist? Of course, but many Americans respond to racist threats. Most will not admit to being racist. They might use other terms that sound like acceptable political disagreements. Some might say these types of social programs are "redistribution of income", or are "socialist". But these are just code words to induce whites with fear of blacks and immigrants.
"Or take Romney's constant comments decrying China's purchasing of US treasury notes. In reality, China has actually reduced the amount of US debt it owns, and it is now about the same as Japan at 8%. The biggest holders are the US Federal Reserve, and the Social Security Trust Fund. So why all the China-bashing? To create fear in the minds of Americans. The Communist Chinese Red Hordes will soon own the country! Fear China!"
They quickly finished drinking and said their goodbyes.
It was quite some time later that I realized I should have given them the pat answer which would have satisfied them. But I had driven them away by giving them the real answer. And they now feared what would happen to America.
"Take me home. Country Roads."
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
More misguided hatred
You may believe that "freedom of speech and expression" is a right that is absolute and cannot be restricted because it is addressed in the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, recognized in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and stated as law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Each of these guides by which modern societies function recognize that there also exist duties and responsibilities which subject that "freedom" to restrictions when necessary to respect the rights of others. This is the part of "freedom of speech and expression" that some groups do not understand. You may say they are misguided, but they are not. They are wrong.
Neo-nazis, racist skinheads, Patriot groups, white supremacists, black separatists, armed border militias, and dozens of other types of hate groups exist across our country, and are growing daily fueled by fear of a diminishing majority of whites, Christians, English-speakers, straights, and people with any characteristic the hate group doesn't like. These are the recognizable groups that most everyone acknowledges. But there are others that exhibit the same fear and anger, but are not part of the 1,018 groups recognized as "hate groups" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
What about your neighbor who will drive 2 miles to an ABC supermarket because the local ABC has too many people who use food stamps. Or who makes excuses every year to not go to John's Christmas party because they don't like his "partner" Bob. Or who will never vote for Abdul for Mayor, or shop in Dinesh's convenience store, or who sends the email with photo of the politician looking like Hitler. Well, those people at the supermarket are loud, and they bother me, and I don't like to be around gay people, and that guy wears a turban, and that store smells like some strange spice, and that photo was just a joke. Is this personal preference, misguided hate, or political correctness? Does this form of expression respect the rights of others? If not, then what is it?
Remember, as residents of the only habitable planet in our solar system, we have duties and responsibilities. Hate toward those unlike ourselves is not one of them. Treating others as we would wish to be treated ourselves--well, that should be.
Neo-nazis, racist skinheads, Patriot groups, white supremacists, black separatists, armed border militias, and dozens of other types of hate groups exist across our country, and are growing daily fueled by fear of a diminishing majority of whites, Christians, English-speakers, straights, and people with any characteristic the hate group doesn't like. These are the recognizable groups that most everyone acknowledges. But there are others that exhibit the same fear and anger, but are not part of the 1,018 groups recognized as "hate groups" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
What about your neighbor who will drive 2 miles to an ABC supermarket because the local ABC has too many people who use food stamps. Or who makes excuses every year to not go to John's Christmas party because they don't like his "partner" Bob. Or who will never vote for Abdul for Mayor, or shop in Dinesh's convenience store, or who sends the email with photo of the politician looking like Hitler. Well, those people at the supermarket are loud, and they bother me, and I don't like to be around gay people, and that guy wears a turban, and that store smells like some strange spice, and that photo was just a joke. Is this personal preference, misguided hate, or political correctness? Does this form of expression respect the rights of others? If not, then what is it?
Remember, as residents of the only habitable planet in our solar system, we have duties and responsibilities. Hate toward those unlike ourselves is not one of them. Treating others as we would wish to be treated ourselves--well, that should be.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Misguided hatred
It has been stated repeatedly in news accounts of the "misguided hatred" shown by the shootings of 6 Sikhs at their gurdwara in Wisconsin by a neo-nazi who was a former member of the U.S. Army. It is not "misguided hatred". There is nothing misguided about this gun violence. It is simply hate. And every time it happens, it is said to be an isolated incident. It is not isolated. It happens constantly in our country towards various ethnic groups that are considered to be "different" from most Americans.
The day after the Sikh shooting, an Islamic mosque was burned to the ground in Missouri, after the first arson attempt to do so failed on the Fourth of July. In May, the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, Tennessee was denied an occupancy permit and a Federal District Court had to overrule the denial, thus allowing the opening of the Center for the start of Ramadan. In August of last year, a former TSA employee (federal Transportation Security Administration) pleaded guilty to a hate crime for assaulting an elderly Somali man because he thought he was Muslim and yelled at him to go back to Africa. In February of last year an Arlington, Texas man pleaded guilty to the Church Arson Prevention Act by setting fire to a children's playground at a mosque. Three Columbia, Tennessee men pleaded guilty to spraypainting swastikas and "white power" on a mosque, and set an arson fire that burned it down. A man pleaded guilty to sending email and voice mail threats to the Director and staff members of the Arab American Institute in Washington DC. A Burbank, Illinois man pleaded guilty to blowing up a van of a Palestinian family when it was parked in front of their home. A man pleaded guilty to throwing a "Molotov Cocktail" at the Islamic Center of El Paso where children were playing, but luckily it did not ignite. In Sacramento, CA a man pleaded guilty to shooting and wounding a Sikh postal carrier. In Salt Lake City, a man pleaded guilty to pouring gasoline on a wall of a Pakistani-American restaurant in an attempt to burn it down. There have been hundreds of violations of discrimination in education, employment, housing, public facilities, public accommodations, and religious land use throughout the country.
All of these and more can be found on the website of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. None of these were misguided. They were "guided" directly against people who do not look like us, whose religion differs from ours, who are what??? Trying to practice their religion? Trying to carry on their home country's traditions? Trying to cook their traditional foods?
These were acts of hate, and they are all too common in our society. I suppose I should be happy that my Grandmother was not assaulted for baking Croatian nutrolls, or my grandfather was not shot at for playing bocce, or my aunt was not attacked for cooking pierogies at the SNPJ club.
It is hate that is destroying communication and understanding of our fellow citizens.
The day after the Sikh shooting, an Islamic mosque was burned to the ground in Missouri, after the first arson attempt to do so failed on the Fourth of July. In May, the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, Tennessee was denied an occupancy permit and a Federal District Court had to overrule the denial, thus allowing the opening of the Center for the start of Ramadan. In August of last year, a former TSA employee (federal Transportation Security Administration) pleaded guilty to a hate crime for assaulting an elderly Somali man because he thought he was Muslim and yelled at him to go back to Africa. In February of last year an Arlington, Texas man pleaded guilty to the Church Arson Prevention Act by setting fire to a children's playground at a mosque. Three Columbia, Tennessee men pleaded guilty to spraypainting swastikas and "white power" on a mosque, and set an arson fire that burned it down. A man pleaded guilty to sending email and voice mail threats to the Director and staff members of the Arab American Institute in Washington DC. A Burbank, Illinois man pleaded guilty to blowing up a van of a Palestinian family when it was parked in front of their home. A man pleaded guilty to throwing a "Molotov Cocktail" at the Islamic Center of El Paso where children were playing, but luckily it did not ignite. In Sacramento, CA a man pleaded guilty to shooting and wounding a Sikh postal carrier. In Salt Lake City, a man pleaded guilty to pouring gasoline on a wall of a Pakistani-American restaurant in an attempt to burn it down. There have been hundreds of violations of discrimination in education, employment, housing, public facilities, public accommodations, and religious land use throughout the country.
All of these and more can be found on the website of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. None of these were misguided. They were "guided" directly against people who do not look like us, whose religion differs from ours, who are what??? Trying to practice their religion? Trying to carry on their home country's traditions? Trying to cook their traditional foods?
These were acts of hate, and they are all too common in our society. I suppose I should be happy that my Grandmother was not assaulted for baking Croatian nutrolls, or my grandfather was not shot at for playing bocce, or my aunt was not attacked for cooking pierogies at the SNPJ club.
It is hate that is destroying communication and understanding of our fellow citizens.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
More divided
Yes, we are becoming more divided in this country, and this wasn't how it was supposed to be. We were supposed to come together and make our society better than it was. At a minimum, better than it has become. Instead, we have given in to the irrational fear that our lifestyle is threatened by various changes in our country and in the world, and by the irrational non-belief in changes that actually do threaten our lifestyle.
Look at the concept of American superiority. We constantly hear from politicians that America is the "best country in the world." A politician could never get elected to national office who did not utter that phrase at every political rally. Is it true, or is it comparable to Mother, Baseball, and Apple Pie?
As a former expat, I have heard the same said from Australian, British, New Zealand, and Canadian politicians about their respective countries, and the same is probably said by politicians in many countries. Do the people in those countries and their leaders believe it? Of course, and just as sincerely as Americans do. But you don't hear it constantly in other countries as you do in America. Ask any other expat you may know, and they will probably tell you the same story.
When it comes to military superiority, there is no doubt that the USA leads the world. Of the over $1.7 trillion of the world's total military expenditures, 41% is by the USA. Approximately the same spent by the next 14 countries--combined. Does that alone make America the best country in the world? No, it just buys us the best military. We are continually fed the line that if we cut any military spending, we are putting our country at risk. From what? Oh, various and sundry irrational threats. It used to be the USSR, so we had to build thousands of nuclear weapons and be able to use them at a moment's notice so we could wipe out the civilized world if we detected the thread of attack on us. It was called Mutually Assured Destruction, or appropriately enough, MAD. Because it was. Or the risk was from China, or Vietnam (now both strong trading partners), or North Korea or Iran.
Iran's nuclear threat is very interesting. How did they obtain it? In 1957, the U.S. and Iran signed a nuclear cooperation agreement. In 1967 the U.S. supplied Iran with fissile isotopes of uranium and plutonium for their reactors. In the 1970, plans were completed to build up to 20 nuclear reactors with U.S support and backing. In 1975, MIT signed a contract to train Iranian nuclear engineers. So we helped create our own threat, rational or not. Somewhat ironic.
Let's get back to American superiority, and the irrational fear that we are losing it. Most of these fears concern cultural issues: non-white illegal immigrants, African-American political power, gay rights, abortion rights, religious tolerance or intolerance, class warfare, environmental issues, etc. Fear of those who differ from us, or who have beliefs that differ from ours. The fear that "real Americans" (read: white, Christian) will no longer be the majority and will lose power. The fear that those who presently have advantages (read: the old boy network), may lose those advantages. The fear that one's hatred of niggers, spics, fags, rag-heads, tree-huggers, and bat-shit gun nuts may become illegal. All irrational fears. Although that last part sounds somewhat desirable.
Our leaders say we have the best health system in the world, yet every study shows we do not. Our leaders say we have the best basic educational system in the world, yet every study of elementary and secondary education systems show that we do not. Did we ever have the best of these systems? Probably, but we do not now, and for some strange irrational reason, we do not fear this loss. Neither do we fear our impact on the environment and the harm it causes our country and the world.
Fear is being used to further divide our country. It was not supposed to be this way. America, where are you now? We were once travelling down the right road. I wonder how we got lost.
Look at the concept of American superiority. We constantly hear from politicians that America is the "best country in the world." A politician could never get elected to national office who did not utter that phrase at every political rally. Is it true, or is it comparable to Mother, Baseball, and Apple Pie?
As a former expat, I have heard the same said from Australian, British, New Zealand, and Canadian politicians about their respective countries, and the same is probably said by politicians in many countries. Do the people in those countries and their leaders believe it? Of course, and just as sincerely as Americans do. But you don't hear it constantly in other countries as you do in America. Ask any other expat you may know, and they will probably tell you the same story.
When it comes to military superiority, there is no doubt that the USA leads the world. Of the over $1.7 trillion of the world's total military expenditures, 41% is by the USA. Approximately the same spent by the next 14 countries--combined. Does that alone make America the best country in the world? No, it just buys us the best military. We are continually fed the line that if we cut any military spending, we are putting our country at risk. From what? Oh, various and sundry irrational threats. It used to be the USSR, so we had to build thousands of nuclear weapons and be able to use them at a moment's notice so we could wipe out the civilized world if we detected the thread of attack on us. It was called Mutually Assured Destruction, or appropriately enough, MAD. Because it was. Or the risk was from China, or Vietnam (now both strong trading partners), or North Korea or Iran.
Iran's nuclear threat is very interesting. How did they obtain it? In 1957, the U.S. and Iran signed a nuclear cooperation agreement. In 1967 the U.S. supplied Iran with fissile isotopes of uranium and plutonium for their reactors. In the 1970, plans were completed to build up to 20 nuclear reactors with U.S support and backing. In 1975, MIT signed a contract to train Iranian nuclear engineers. So we helped create our own threat, rational or not. Somewhat ironic.
Let's get back to American superiority, and the irrational fear that we are losing it. Most of these fears concern cultural issues: non-white illegal immigrants, African-American political power, gay rights, abortion rights, religious tolerance or intolerance, class warfare, environmental issues, etc. Fear of those who differ from us, or who have beliefs that differ from ours. The fear that "real Americans" (read: white, Christian) will no longer be the majority and will lose power. The fear that those who presently have advantages (read: the old boy network), may lose those advantages. The fear that one's hatred of niggers, spics, fags, rag-heads, tree-huggers, and bat-shit gun nuts may become illegal. All irrational fears. Although that last part sounds somewhat desirable.
Our leaders say we have the best health system in the world, yet every study shows we do not. Our leaders say we have the best basic educational system in the world, yet every study of elementary and secondary education systems show that we do not. Did we ever have the best of these systems? Probably, but we do not now, and for some strange irrational reason, we do not fear this loss. Neither do we fear our impact on the environment and the harm it causes our country and the world.
Fear is being used to further divide our country. It was not supposed to be this way. America, where are you now? We were once travelling down the right road. I wonder how we got lost.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Divided
Let's temporarily return to the gun violence issue. Nearly everyone wants to reduce the amount of gun violence in our society. I would say everyone, but there are people who are members of the Flat Earth Society; who think the earth is only 4000 years old; and who believe that JFK and Elvis are living in a senior citizen community in rural Mississippi, which actually was a movie called Bubba Ho-Tep with Ossie Davis as JFK and Bruce Campbell as Elvis. I highly recommend it. Yes, I know Ossie Davis was black and JFK was not, but that's one of the interesting concepts in the movie.
The point is that even nearly all NRA members do not want to see mass shootings of innocent people. A survey of gun owners has shown that a majority of them are not opposed to some form of firearms restrictions, while it seems that the leaders of the NRA do oppose any restrictions. So what is to be made of this conflicting information in which the members of an organization disagree with their leaders? Perhaps it is not that unusual. People elect leaders with whom they rarely completely agree.
It seems that as a society, as a country of people with a variety of political, religious, and other beliefs, we cannot agree that we have common points of agreement. Why not? Is it the ideological division existing in our society that we cannot acknowledge our common ground? Have we always had this problem? I don't think so, but...
Today, we have a new method of spreading misinformation--the Internet. Instead of looking through windows and seeing the world that we live in with all its faults and failures, we can look into our mirror and immediately see others who have the same beliefs we have, and it reinforces our own preconceptions. We don't have to even look at the window, let alone through it. We don't want to. If we do, we may see changes we dislike--and fear. Demographic changes that we feel threaten our "way of life." Our superior at the factory who is Latino. The police officer who is a woman. The President who's father was not white.
Obviously what I am talking about here is an American tradition--bigotry. Ku Klux Klan, Asian exclusion laws, the Irish need-not-apply, John Jay. What? John Jay, one of the "Founding Fathers" of the USA, the 1st Chief Justice, President of the Continental Congress, one of the writers of the Federalist Papers, Governor of New York who tried to abolish slavery was a bigot??? Well, yes, he was. He tried to include a provision in the New York State constitution barring Catholics from owning property and having the right to vote. Why? Because of their false, wicked, and dangerous beliefs. The same reason the members of the John Birch Society opposed JFK. The same John Birch Society founded by, among others, Fred Koch, the father of the present infamous Koch Brothers who are spending their fortune opposing President Obama.
But I have really digressed. Almost everyone wants to reduce gun violence, but since we refuse to speak to one another, hide in our favorite Internet sites, solely watch our favorite slanted cable channels, we don't even know that we agree to reduce the number of our relatives, friends, and neighbors who are going to be killed by guns. We don't even know.
The point is that even nearly all NRA members do not want to see mass shootings of innocent people. A survey of gun owners has shown that a majority of them are not opposed to some form of firearms restrictions, while it seems that the leaders of the NRA do oppose any restrictions. So what is to be made of this conflicting information in which the members of an organization disagree with their leaders? Perhaps it is not that unusual. People elect leaders with whom they rarely completely agree.
It seems that as a society, as a country of people with a variety of political, religious, and other beliefs, we cannot agree that we have common points of agreement. Why not? Is it the ideological division existing in our society that we cannot acknowledge our common ground? Have we always had this problem? I don't think so, but...
Today, we have a new method of spreading misinformation--the Internet. Instead of looking through windows and seeing the world that we live in with all its faults and failures, we can look into our mirror and immediately see others who have the same beliefs we have, and it reinforces our own preconceptions. We don't have to even look at the window, let alone through it. We don't want to. If we do, we may see changes we dislike--and fear. Demographic changes that we feel threaten our "way of life." Our superior at the factory who is Latino. The police officer who is a woman. The President who's father was not white.
Obviously what I am talking about here is an American tradition--bigotry. Ku Klux Klan, Asian exclusion laws, the Irish need-not-apply, John Jay. What? John Jay, one of the "Founding Fathers" of the USA, the 1st Chief Justice, President of the Continental Congress, one of the writers of the Federalist Papers, Governor of New York who tried to abolish slavery was a bigot??? Well, yes, he was. He tried to include a provision in the New York State constitution barring Catholics from owning property and having the right to vote. Why? Because of their false, wicked, and dangerous beliefs. The same reason the members of the John Birch Society opposed JFK. The same John Birch Society founded by, among others, Fred Koch, the father of the present infamous Koch Brothers who are spending their fortune opposing President Obama.
But I have really digressed. Almost everyone wants to reduce gun violence, but since we refuse to speak to one another, hide in our favorite Internet sites, solely watch our favorite slanted cable channels, we don't even know that we agree to reduce the number of our relatives, friends, and neighbors who are going to be killed by guns. We don't even know.
Friday, July 27, 2012
More listening
There is one concern that could detrimentally affect the ability to listen even if you are trying very hard to do so. I was confronted with this concern recently, and don't worry, it was not about gun violence.
An acquaintance told me that 30% of the inmates in the Federal detention system are illegal aliens and it is costing us billions of tax dollars yearly. I asked him to repeat the comment so I was certain I understood his words, and so he did. I had heard correctly, so I repeated back to him his comment but prefaced it with "Are you saying that ..." Yes, he replied, absolutely, and isn't that just terrible. This was news to me, so I carefully changed the subject to a non-controversial one. Later I researched the substance of his comment and found that the US Dept of Justice reports that 14% (not 30%) of Federal inmates are illegal aliens and most of those are guilty of immigration-related non-violent violations. It is important to note that there are not a large percentage of inmates in Federal prisons that have committed violent crimes. Most violent crimes are prosecuted in state courts, and in state prisons illegal aliens make up less than 5% of the inmates.
What had happened? In an honest attempt to communicate, I had listened and understood what I had been told. The problem was that my attempt to listen had been subjected to manipulation. The acquaintance had wanted me to understand a false statement, and accept it as the truth. Did he care about the cost of housing illegal aliens in Federal prisons? Of course not. His intent was to show that illegal aliens were a severe threat to the safety of Americans by implying that there exists a viscous crime wave rampant in the country and that illegal aliens are the scourge we should all fear. They have unleashed an Hispanic epidemic of murder, robbery, and even rape. And, of course, if you support his candidate for office, this terror will end.
What is the truth? Studies have repeatedly shown that of all ethnic groups, undocumented young men from Central America have the lowest rate of violent crime incarceration. Second and third generation Mexican-Americans, for example, have the same rate of violence as whites.
Is it not difficult to understand why illegal aliens have low crime rates. What have they done with their lives? They have left their families and made the arduous sacrifice of leaving their birthplace in an attempt to find a better life in a strange land. Their motivation was not to find a new land to commit crimes, but to find work and to become what immigrants to these shores have always wanted. They wanted to be Americans.
So even if you try very hard to listen, do so with your eyes wide open. As President Reagan said: Trust, but Verify.
An acquaintance told me that 30% of the inmates in the Federal detention system are illegal aliens and it is costing us billions of tax dollars yearly. I asked him to repeat the comment so I was certain I understood his words, and so he did. I had heard correctly, so I repeated back to him his comment but prefaced it with "Are you saying that ..." Yes, he replied, absolutely, and isn't that just terrible. This was news to me, so I carefully changed the subject to a non-controversial one. Later I researched the substance of his comment and found that the US Dept of Justice reports that 14% (not 30%) of Federal inmates are illegal aliens and most of those are guilty of immigration-related non-violent violations. It is important to note that there are not a large percentage of inmates in Federal prisons that have committed violent crimes. Most violent crimes are prosecuted in state courts, and in state prisons illegal aliens make up less than 5% of the inmates.
What had happened? In an honest attempt to communicate, I had listened and understood what I had been told. The problem was that my attempt to listen had been subjected to manipulation. The acquaintance had wanted me to understand a false statement, and accept it as the truth. Did he care about the cost of housing illegal aliens in Federal prisons? Of course not. His intent was to show that illegal aliens were a severe threat to the safety of Americans by implying that there exists a viscous crime wave rampant in the country and that illegal aliens are the scourge we should all fear. They have unleashed an Hispanic epidemic of murder, robbery, and even rape. And, of course, if you support his candidate for office, this terror will end.
What is the truth? Studies have repeatedly shown that of all ethnic groups, undocumented young men from Central America have the lowest rate of violent crime incarceration. Second and third generation Mexican-Americans, for example, have the same rate of violence as whites.
Is it not difficult to understand why illegal aliens have low crime rates. What have they done with their lives? They have left their families and made the arduous sacrifice of leaving their birthplace in an attempt to find a better life in a strange land. Their motivation was not to find a new land to commit crimes, but to find work and to become what immigrants to these shores have always wanted. They wanted to be Americans.
So even if you try very hard to listen, do so with your eyes wide open. As President Reagan said: Trust, but Verify.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Listening
There is a scene from Tarantino's Pulp Fiction which the director deleted from the original that I feel made a very important statement about communication, even though it is unimportant to the film itself, and is probably the reason Tarantino deleted it. It takes place in Mia's place when she first meets Vincent prior to going to have dinner at Jack Rabbit Slim's. Mia appears with a video camera and asks trivia type questions of Vincent in order to determine the type of person he is. Did he prefer The Brady Bunch or The Partridge Family? Is he a Beatles man or an Elvis man? And finally Mia's most interesting question: When you are having a conversation with people, do you listen, or wait to speak? And Vincent answers: I have to admit that I wait to speak, but I'm trying very hard to listen.
And isn't that the problem we seem to be having with the gun violence issue in America? Everyone is speaking, but no one is listening. No one is even trying very hard to listen. If it could be agreed that a reasonable discussion be held, and all agree to listen--truly listen--to the others' points, perhaps we could accomplish something that would reduce the level of gun violence. No matter how minor the accomplishment would be, it would be an improvement over the existing situation.
What seems to be missing is the desire to listen. I won't say that one group or the other is solely to blame (although I have my personal opinion), because that will not be beneficial. It will only drive us further apart. And I do believe that we are so very far apart today (and we may always have been) that no amount of effort applied may be able to reverse it. But we must try, for the sake of our children, our grandchildren, and our country.
Years ago I worked for an engineering company whose head of the Personnel Department (before they became the Human Resources Department--I have never seen an Inhuman Resources Department) had many good in-house programs to improve interdepartmental communications. One was an Active Listening seminar. I think that is what we need as a society today--a mandatory Active Listening seminar before we are permitted to vote in elections. Like passing a driving test before getting a license. We have to learn to hear what others say, to demonstrate a sincere understanding of what they are saying. Nothing should be assumed, else it be misinterpreted. Suspend judgment of others until you listen. Try very hard to listen.
And isn't that the problem we seem to be having with the gun violence issue in America? Everyone is speaking, but no one is listening. No one is even trying very hard to listen. If it could be agreed that a reasonable discussion be held, and all agree to listen--truly listen--to the others' points, perhaps we could accomplish something that would reduce the level of gun violence. No matter how minor the accomplishment would be, it would be an improvement over the existing situation.
What seems to be missing is the desire to listen. I won't say that one group or the other is solely to blame (although I have my personal opinion), because that will not be beneficial. It will only drive us further apart. And I do believe that we are so very far apart today (and we may always have been) that no amount of effort applied may be able to reverse it. But we must try, for the sake of our children, our grandchildren, and our country.
Years ago I worked for an engineering company whose head of the Personnel Department (before they became the Human Resources Department--I have never seen an Inhuman Resources Department) had many good in-house programs to improve interdepartmental communications. One was an Active Listening seminar. I think that is what we need as a society today--a mandatory Active Listening seminar before we are permitted to vote in elections. Like passing a driving test before getting a license. We have to learn to hear what others say, to demonstrate a sincere understanding of what they are saying. Nothing should be assumed, else it be misinterpreted. Suspend judgment of others until you listen. Try very hard to listen.
Monday, July 23, 2012
More Roadblocks?
Can we communicate with other people in our society? Why not, we always have been able to, haven't we? Well, no. I don't believe so. People have always argued politics, religion, and whether to bunt with a man on first and less than two outs. Before the Internet and Facebook we argued in pamphlets, newspapers, books, and over a beer at the AMS Club. And we rarely if ever came to a universally agreed-to solution to a problem. Oftentimes these arguments resulted in wars. Refer here to the early 1860s. Not my idea of a good ending to a beer, especially if it was my shout..
How has technological advancements in modern communication systems affected the ability to have reasonable discussions? When we communicate with others, do we reach better solutions to our differences?
Again, consider the recent mass shootings at Aurora, Colorado. American society has an obvious problem of extreme gun violence. I think that most Americans would acknowledge it as fact. Every other country in the world (at least every one I have lived in, visited, known anyone who has lived in or visited, or could identify on a world map) knows that America has a problem with gun violence. The statistics verify it. But can we reasonably discuss the problem? I'm not suggesting any form of gun control or that we should be like Australia or Switzerland--just discuss how to reduce gun violence. Seems like we should want to. When the issue comes up on the Internet, or the 24/7 cable TV networks, or anyone's smartphone, what happens? Bumper-sticker philosophies. Bigoted cartoons. Or one-sided discussions with people in the same mirror.
What has technology given us? Has it assisted our ability to have reasonable discussions and helped improve American society? I don't think so. It seems that we are left with discussions with others who support our preconceived beliefs. Do we even want to have discussions with those who are unlike us? I think we should, but technology has hampered any attempt to do so. Can we change this?
How has technological advancements in modern communication systems affected the ability to have reasonable discussions? When we communicate with others, do we reach better solutions to our differences?
Again, consider the recent mass shootings at Aurora, Colorado. American society has an obvious problem of extreme gun violence. I think that most Americans would acknowledge it as fact. Every other country in the world (at least every one I have lived in, visited, known anyone who has lived in or visited, or could identify on a world map) knows that America has a problem with gun violence. The statistics verify it. But can we reasonably discuss the problem? I'm not suggesting any form of gun control or that we should be like Australia or Switzerland--just discuss how to reduce gun violence. Seems like we should want to. When the issue comes up on the Internet, or the 24/7 cable TV networks, or anyone's smartphone, what happens? Bumper-sticker philosophies. Bigoted cartoons. Or one-sided discussions with people in the same mirror.
What has technology given us? Has it assisted our ability to have reasonable discussions and helped improve American society? I don't think so. It seems that we are left with discussions with others who support our preconceived beliefs. Do we even want to have discussions with those who are unlike us? I think we should, but technology has hampered any attempt to do so. Can we change this?
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Roadblocks
In this world of technology-enhanced social networks, do we actually communicate with our fellow human beings? Can we actually communicate with them? Or is it something else? The more advanced the technology becomes, the more it seems to me to be similar to talking to the mirror, and I worry about it.
Take the current example of the mass shootings at Aurora, Colorado. In an attempt to communicate my concern of the problem (and I definitely see it as a problem) caused by the proliferation of guns in American society, I posted a satirical piece on a social network site. It was an attempt to make a point by embarrassing the positions taken by those pro-gun people who read my posts. The response was quick and to the point--another liberal anti-gun reaction to an isolated incident.
So was my point communicated to the intended people. Obviously not. The point is made only to those in my mirror. So how does one communicate with those whose positions differ from one's own. Perhaps ridicule is not going to change anyone's mindset. But does a request for reasonable discussion work? A request can be made for reasonable discussions on common grounds. It would seem that the common grounds in this instance is that an approach must be made to reduce gun violence in America. However, there are people who will not even acknowledge that the problem exists. So what happens when I say the wall is painted red, and you say it is painted blue, and neither of us is colorblind. Roadblocks. What is the source of the roadblocks to communication? What if there is unwillingness to communicate? What action do you then take? What options are left. You can ignore those who are not in your mirror. But that will not improve communication in our society. And I worry that our technology-enhanced communication networks are driving us to avoid all mirrors but our own.
Take the current example of the mass shootings at Aurora, Colorado. In an attempt to communicate my concern of the problem (and I definitely see it as a problem) caused by the proliferation of guns in American society, I posted a satirical piece on a social network site. It was an attempt to make a point by embarrassing the positions taken by those pro-gun people who read my posts. The response was quick and to the point--another liberal anti-gun reaction to an isolated incident.
So was my point communicated to the intended people. Obviously not. The point is made only to those in my mirror. So how does one communicate with those whose positions differ from one's own. Perhaps ridicule is not going to change anyone's mindset. But does a request for reasonable discussion work? A request can be made for reasonable discussions on common grounds. It would seem that the common grounds in this instance is that an approach must be made to reduce gun violence in America. However, there are people who will not even acknowledge that the problem exists. So what happens when I say the wall is painted red, and you say it is painted blue, and neither of us is colorblind. Roadblocks. What is the source of the roadblocks to communication? What if there is unwillingness to communicate? What action do you then take? What options are left. You can ignore those who are not in your mirror. But that will not improve communication in our society. And I worry that our technology-enhanced communication networks are driving us to avoid all mirrors but our own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)