Dear President Trump,
Kudos to you for unequivocally lambasting White Supremacists in your speech to the nation a few nights ago. You sounded sincere and you are certainly supporting the ethos of our founding fathers....all men are created equal....though they didn't really mean ALL men. Those people, whom we hold in such high esteem, those people who created a nation that has become the most powerful, and in some years the most revered, in the world, those people wise as they were, could not confront and exorcise a human failing that is only one degree less evil than genocide, slavery. Yet we honor these men.
We honor our founding fathers because they accomplished an amazing task, they fought for independence from what was then the most powerful nation in the world, they won, and they crafted a nation that not only survives changes in administrations, it survived a civil war.
But we don't honor our founding fathers for their one glaring fault, for ignoring the human beings among them not included in "all men are created equal".
And there's the rub. We didn't really survive the Civil War, did we. We did not emerge whole or wiser. We didn't survive the Civil War the way Germany survived the Holocaust or South Africa survived Apartheid. Germans and white South Africans acknowledged and acknowledge their past was wrong, it was unconscionable, it was not something to be remembered in any way but with sorrow, shame, and sadness.
A great part of our nation does not remember slavery with sorrow, shame, and sadness. That is why white supremacists are emboldened.
It is time, Mr. President, to speak the truth, the truth that American leaders have never apologized to African Americans in our society, never apologized for enslaving their grandparents and great grandparents, never apologized for treating African Americans post-Civil War like second class citizens. We celebrate Martin Luther King's birthday, but we don't cringe with embarrassment when discussing our history of slavery. Why one hundred years after African Americans were "freed", there were multitudes of laws on the books denying them freedom, freedom to eat where they wished, freedom to drink from a water fountain, freedom to go to any school, live in any neighborhood, freedom to vote.
And African Americans are not the only victims in our "great" society. We don't acknowledge any degree of sorrow for robbing the Native Americans of their homelands less than 300 years ago. We don't remember by saying never-again the incarceration of our Japanese citizens during World War II or the exclusion of our Chinese citizen's families in the 1900's. And we sanitize our textbooks regarding these stains in our history. If we mention them at all, it is in passing, barely footnotes in our story.
Acknowledging our shortcomings is far more difficult than proclaiming our strengths. Humility is hard, but it can earn respect deeper than any strutting or braggadocio. Greatness resonates with people. People gravitate towards greatness, We feel it in our bones. Claiming superiority over the other guy may provoke a cheer, but it doesn't dig deep in your gut the way an inclusive message does. Caring about all of our people will resonate with each of us in a way that "us versus them" can never match.
Mr. President, we are so far from "great". We could become "great again" by acknowledging our history. Mr. President, you could turn the political climate on its head, you could stun the press, you could guarantee yourself a two-term presidency if you simply acknowledged the truth in our history.
Thursday, August 24, 2017
Sunday, August 20, 2017
Honesty goes a long way towards winning an election
Let's be honest about the difference between democrats and republicans. Then let's have an election and see if the results are close.
Democrats believe there is a critical role in society for government.
Democrats believe government should be robust.
Republicans believe government should be minimal.
Republicans believe government should stay out of people's hair,
and it's always a good argument to say don't give the government your hard-earned money.
For starters, how refreshing would it be for candidates to agree on that much, owning their own party's position.
Digging into the details gets muddier.
Democrats claim to be the working person's party, the party that cares if you have a job and a decent wage. But democrats aren't honest about trade. They argue that free trade brings lower prices (good for the working person), but they don't highlight what happens to hundreds of people thrown out of work when the factories move to countries with lower wages.
Don't blame democrats, or companies, for pursuing efficiency. Companies don't exist to employ people; they exist to make great products. If companies can make greater products overseas, they should. Capitalists' strength is making the best product for the cheapest price. They have every right to claim that strength.
Business cannot claim, however, that capitalism is the only or the best way to create jobs. Today's economy is proof. Supposedly we have low unemployment. That is up for debate. What is not debated at all is our record homelessness and our rates of poverty. If capitalism doesn't create enough decent jobs, government needs to step in. Democrats can croon about the global economy and free trade only when they also figure out how to guarantee jobs for everyone.
Republicans don't claim that government should be in the business of creating jobs. Strangely, though, republicans aren't honest about wanting a minimalist government. They don't believe people will support them if they come right out and say we don't need this or that program. So they cut spending for programs and then proclaim that the programs don't work.
I'm a democrat. I believe that in a vibrant economy the government plays a vital role, smoothing the rough edges of capitalism. If you don't think capitalism has rough edges, explain the rationale for one person making $12 an hour and another making $1,200 an hour. No amount of hard work or expertise can justify earning as much in a single year as many people earn in a life time. There's no justification for it, but that's the way life is, and it's not going to change. That's one 'rough edge of capitalism.' Companies can make great products and pollute the dickens out of the air and water. Their shareholders profit and their workers and communities suffer. That's another rough edge.
We should use government to smooth the rough edges, to upbraid the polluters, to identify the disparities in the work place, and provide a helping hand for the least among us. I'm not interested in limiting the high salary. But I am interested in making sure the low salary is enough to live on. If the market place, the holy city of capitalism, cannot provide decent food and shelter for the clerk, the laborer, the secretary or errand boy, then government should step up to the plate and get busy.
Business thrives in America because we are a nation of laws. These laws protect all people, but people with property profit most from the laws. If you own stock, the laws tax you less than if your wages come from a nine to five job. If you have a lot of money, the laws make it easy for you to make more money without even working. If you have a couple of million dollars and half a brain, you can live your life, long or short, with no job at all. Laws, and some common sense, make life pretty comfortable for the well-to-do.
It's time to write some laws specifically designed to support the unemployed and the under-employed.
Here's one: create an Army of Workers. We'll call it the US WARMY (Workers ARMY). Anyone can enlist. You get ten year tours of duty, and you can re-enlist. You don't fight, you work. The WARMY will house you, feed your family, educate your kids, look after your health, train you and send you anywhere it pleases. You don't get to own your own house, but you will be gainfully employed and a member of a service looked at with pride, if our current Armed Services are any example.
BOOM.
Joblessness, homelessness, shoddy education all tackled with one program. That's a platform a democrat can be proud to hang her hat on. That's a program worth debating, worth ironing out the kinks. That's a program worth paying for.
How about health insurance. Let's cut the crap, cancel Obamacare (at least President Obama's heart was in the right place), and create Bernie Sanders' MedicareForAll plan. This one's even easier than the WARMY. Medicare already exists. The whole plan is already humming, fiscally solvent and providing world class care. I don't hear many over 65 complaining about health premiums. Oddly government health insurance was supported by President Teddy Roosevelt over a hundred years ago, but there were forces opposed, including, incredibly, labor unions, which did not want the government interfering with union benefits (tax-deferred health insurance payments). The history of universal health insurance is full of surprises! The last surprise could be that it is cheaper and easier to implement than 90% of our politicians will admit. Go figure.
Mid term elections are around the corner, and democrats may make inroads because President Trump knows no bounds when it comes to tweeting himself in the foot. But if they do win an election because of the President's incompetence, they will surely lose the next election if they don't show front and center their own competence.
It is time to be honest with the voters. Homelessness and poverty exist in great numbers. Health insurance is wildly unfair for non-corporate workers who aren't themselves in poverty (yet). These are big problems, but they are far from insurmountable.
But surmounting a big problem costs big money, you say. We have to worry about the national debt.
Is that right? Why didn't we have to worry about the national debt when fighting the Iraq war.
Why was money no issue when preparing for Saddam Hussein, but it's a debilitating issue when preparing for full employment?
"No money" is always the excuse when you really mean "not my problem".
I have a (really good) job, I have a (really good) home, I have (really good) health insurance, so don't even think about using my (hard earned) money to pay for your problem.
The truth is that we probably have enough money to fix our problems if we choose to tax the well-off a little more and let the government issue bonds (i.e. increase our national debt) a little more. I say "probably" because I don't know for sure. I don't know for sure because if you ask ten economists to answer this question, you will get ten different answers.
The powerful and the politicians and the economists know full well that the federal government can create money (issue bonds) out of thin air, and as long as inflation is held in check, no harm is done. The federal government is not like your personal budget or your town's budget or your state's budget. Those budgets must balance income with expenses, always. The federal government, however, can create income when it wants to cover more expenses. Put simply it just prints more money. This works. The extra expenses get paid for. The downside is that inflation MAY occur. Prices MAY go up. When inflation occurs, the government can create higher taxes or cut back on spending, and prices will go down (because people have less money to spend). Inflation has been under 6% since 1983 and under 4% since 1992. We have some big problems today, but inflation is not one of them. Neither is our national debt.
If we want to win elections, it's time to stop lying about make-believe problems, it's time to tell the truth about real problems, and it's time to be gutsy with daring solutions. Stop criticizing the other party and start presenting viable plans. When voters hear politicians spouting honest rhetoric, elections will stop being close.
Democrats believe there is a critical role in society for government.
Democrats believe government should be robust.
Republicans believe government should be minimal.
Republicans believe government should stay out of people's hair,
and it's always a good argument to say don't give the government your hard-earned money.
Digging into the details gets muddier.
Democrats claim to be the working person's party, the party that cares if you have a job and a decent wage. But democrats aren't honest about trade. They argue that free trade brings lower prices (good for the working person), but they don't highlight what happens to hundreds of people thrown out of work when the factories move to countries with lower wages.
Don't blame democrats, or companies, for pursuing efficiency. Companies don't exist to employ people; they exist to make great products. If companies can make greater products overseas, they should. Capitalists' strength is making the best product for the cheapest price. They have every right to claim that strength.
Business cannot claim, however, that capitalism is the only or the best way to create jobs. Today's economy is proof. Supposedly we have low unemployment. That is up for debate. What is not debated at all is our record homelessness and our rates of poverty. If capitalism doesn't create enough decent jobs, government needs to step in. Democrats can croon about the global economy and free trade only when they also figure out how to guarantee jobs for everyone.
I'm a democrat. I believe that in a vibrant economy the government plays a vital role, smoothing the rough edges of capitalism. If you don't think capitalism has rough edges, explain the rationale for one person making $12 an hour and another making $1,200 an hour. No amount of hard work or expertise can justify earning as much in a single year as many people earn in a life time. There's no justification for it, but that's the way life is, and it's not going to change. That's one 'rough edge of capitalism.' Companies can make great products and pollute the dickens out of the air and water. Their shareholders profit and their workers and communities suffer. That's another rough edge.
We should use government to smooth the rough edges, to upbraid the polluters, to identify the disparities in the work place, and provide a helping hand for the least among us. I'm not interested in limiting the high salary. But I am interested in making sure the low salary is enough to live on. If the market place, the holy city of capitalism, cannot provide decent food and shelter for the clerk, the laborer, the secretary or errand boy, then government should step up to the plate and get busy.
Business thrives in America because we are a nation of laws. These laws protect all people, but people with property profit most from the laws. If you own stock, the laws tax you less than if your wages come from a nine to five job. If you have a lot of money, the laws make it easy for you to make more money without even working. If you have a couple of million dollars and half a brain, you can live your life, long or short, with no job at all. Laws, and some common sense, make life pretty comfortable for the well-to-do.
It's time to write some laws specifically designed to support the unemployed and the under-employed.
Here's one: create an Army of Workers. We'll call it the US WARMY (Workers ARMY). Anyone can enlist. You get ten year tours of duty, and you can re-enlist. You don't fight, you work. The WARMY will house you, feed your family, educate your kids, look after your health, train you and send you anywhere it pleases. You don't get to own your own house, but you will be gainfully employed and a member of a service looked at with pride, if our current Armed Services are any example.
BOOM.
Joblessness, homelessness, shoddy education all tackled with one program. That's a platform a democrat can be proud to hang her hat on. That's a program worth debating, worth ironing out the kinks. That's a program worth paying for.
How about health insurance. Let's cut the crap, cancel Obamacare (at least President Obama's heart was in the right place), and create Bernie Sanders' MedicareForAll plan. This one's even easier than the WARMY. Medicare already exists. The whole plan is already humming, fiscally solvent and providing world class care. I don't hear many over 65 complaining about health premiums. Oddly government health insurance was supported by President Teddy Roosevelt over a hundred years ago, but there were forces opposed, including, incredibly, labor unions, which did not want the government interfering with union benefits (tax-deferred health insurance payments). The history of universal health insurance is full of surprises! The last surprise could be that it is cheaper and easier to implement than 90% of our politicians will admit. Go figure.
Mid term elections are around the corner, and democrats may make inroads because President Trump knows no bounds when it comes to tweeting himself in the foot. But if they do win an election because of the President's incompetence, they will surely lose the next election if they don't show front and center their own competence.
It is time to be honest with the voters. Homelessness and poverty exist in great numbers. Health insurance is wildly unfair for non-corporate workers who aren't themselves in poverty (yet). These are big problems, but they are far from insurmountable.
But surmounting a big problem costs big money, you say. We have to worry about the national debt.
Is that right? Why didn't we have to worry about the national debt when fighting the Iraq war.
Why was money no issue when preparing for Saddam Hussein, but it's a debilitating issue when preparing for full employment?
"No money" is always the excuse when you really mean "not my problem".
I have a (really good) job, I have a (really good) home, I have (really good) health insurance, so don't even think about using my (hard earned) money to pay for your problem.
The truth is that we probably have enough money to fix our problems if we choose to tax the well-off a little more and let the government issue bonds (i.e. increase our national debt) a little more. I say "probably" because I don't know for sure. I don't know for sure because if you ask ten economists to answer this question, you will get ten different answers.
The powerful and the politicians and the economists know full well that the federal government can create money (issue bonds) out of thin air, and as long as inflation is held in check, no harm is done. The federal government is not like your personal budget or your town's budget or your state's budget. Those budgets must balance income with expenses, always. The federal government, however, can create income when it wants to cover more expenses. Put simply it just prints more money. This works. The extra expenses get paid for. The downside is that inflation MAY occur. Prices MAY go up. When inflation occurs, the government can create higher taxes or cut back on spending, and prices will go down (because people have less money to spend). Inflation has been under 6% since 1983 and under 4% since 1992. We have some big problems today, but inflation is not one of them. Neither is our national debt.
If we want to win elections, it's time to stop lying about make-believe problems, it's time to tell the truth about real problems, and it's time to be gutsy with daring solutions. Stop criticizing the other party and start presenting viable plans. When voters hear politicians spouting honest rhetoric, elections will stop being close.
Friday, March 24, 2017
Nix Norquist
Grover Norquist is the leader of those who oppose all tax increases as a matter of principle. This is a mean spirited policy that cripples government as it attempts to perform its vital role of softening the excesses of capitalism. Capitalism may be the best economic system that people have developed, but few would deny that it produces gross inequities between those who are massively successful and those who are marginally successful and those who are simply impoverished within the system. Government is the tool a decent society can use to address these inequities. Mr. Norquist really doesn't care about any but the massively successful people in society, so he is quite happy to promote his limited taxation policies. These policies really affect the rich the most, though Mr. Norquist will encourage you to believe they affect us all equally.
It's the Economy Stupid, and It's Not Simple, but It's Worth Trying
People need jobs. We all know that. The private sector...small business, big business, mom-and-pop business....creates jobs. We know that too. And the private sector works well, better than a government, at creating good business. That's the beauty of our capitalist system. Good businesses survive, bad ones don't. The job of capitalism is to create good business. The job of capitalism is not to create full employment.
Government needs to help capitalism out when we don't have enough jobs for all the people. And government needs to help people out when businesses try to call it a day with low wages or pollution or monopolies or any number of other poor business practices.
It IS the economy, though contrary to the campaign slogan Clinton used against Bush in '92, we're not stupid for not understanding it. Economics is not simple, even to economists.They disagree more than they agree. However one thing is clear: if the economy is to work well, business has to thrive and the government has to be a watch dog.
There is a vital role for government in this big picture. The role is simply described, though the execution is anything but simple. The role is easy....make sure there are enough jobs to go around, and make sure these jobs provide folks with a livable wage and a decent work environment. Doesn't seem unreasonable or outrageous. And it doesn't seem out of wack to lean on the government to pursue this role and leave it to business to make the best product possible.
The devil, of course, is in the details, and the details can be complex.
How much is a minimum wage? Is it the same in all parts of the country? We want to be sure people have adequate shelter and enough food to eat. What does that entail in a winter climate, a summer climate, in the city, in the rural heartlands?
Right out of the gate we can hear from those who have made it in our society, why the hell do I have to worry about the lazy bum who doesn't have a job, or a home, or enough to eat? Again, the answer is simple and the solution is not. You have to worry about the lazy bum who doesn't have a job, or a home, or enough to eat, because it's quite possible she's not lazy, it's quite possible she got screwed by the same system that works so well for you. And, finally, it's quite possible that you could be the next lazy bum, and you KNOW you aren't lazy. Seriously. I'm not being sarcastic. You aren't lazy, and in this world's economy, you could be out on the street tomorrow, and in debt next year, if not next month. (If you're the 1%, I'm not talking to you. You're lucky in this lifetime, by birth, genes, environment, circumstance, at least one of those factors. Not to take away from your hard work and drive, you're still lucky, and it doesn't take a very big imagination to appreciate that.)
So even without being religious and taking to heart that we are indeed our brothers' keepers, we can acknowledge with even the smallest amount of compassion that we should create a world in which everyone shares in the basic necessities, in which everyone has a job, a home, and food.
That's the simple part, agreeing that everyone deserves a decent job.
Creating an economy that provides those jobs....that's the hard part.
Government needs to help capitalism out when we don't have enough jobs for all the people. And government needs to help people out when businesses try to call it a day with low wages or pollution or monopolies or any number of other poor business practices.
It IS the economy, though contrary to the campaign slogan Clinton used against Bush in '92, we're not stupid for not understanding it. Economics is not simple, even to economists.They disagree more than they agree. However one thing is clear: if the economy is to work well, business has to thrive and the government has to be a watch dog.
There is a vital role for government in this big picture. The role is simply described, though the execution is anything but simple. The role is easy....make sure there are enough jobs to go around, and make sure these jobs provide folks with a livable wage and a decent work environment. Doesn't seem unreasonable or outrageous. And it doesn't seem out of wack to lean on the government to pursue this role and leave it to business to make the best product possible.
The devil, of course, is in the details, and the details can be complex.
How much is a minimum wage? Is it the same in all parts of the country? We want to be sure people have adequate shelter and enough food to eat. What does that entail in a winter climate, a summer climate, in the city, in the rural heartlands?
Right out of the gate we can hear from those who have made it in our society, why the hell do I have to worry about the lazy bum who doesn't have a job, or a home, or enough to eat? Again, the answer is simple and the solution is not. You have to worry about the lazy bum who doesn't have a job, or a home, or enough to eat, because it's quite possible she's not lazy, it's quite possible she got screwed by the same system that works so well for you. And, finally, it's quite possible that you could be the next lazy bum, and you KNOW you aren't lazy. Seriously. I'm not being sarcastic. You aren't lazy, and in this world's economy, you could be out on the street tomorrow, and in debt next year, if not next month. (If you're the 1%, I'm not talking to you. You're lucky in this lifetime, by birth, genes, environment, circumstance, at least one of those factors. Not to take away from your hard work and drive, you're still lucky, and it doesn't take a very big imagination to appreciate that.)
So even without being religious and taking to heart that we are indeed our brothers' keepers, we can acknowledge with even the smallest amount of compassion that we should create a world in which everyone shares in the basic necessities, in which everyone has a job, a home, and food.
That's the simple part, agreeing that everyone deserves a decent job.
Creating an economy that provides those jobs....that's the hard part.
Three strikes you're out has got to go
Three strikes and you're out has got to go. Debby Irving, in her book "Waking Up White," spoke of a black classmate who had gone to Winchester schools with Debby. Her classmate said, "My mother trained us well. She told us, 'This is where the good schools are (Winchester), and if you want to make the most of it, you need to stay away from drugs.' You know what else she told us? 'White kids who do drugs go to college; black kids go to jail.'"
There are so many things to fix. Sending kids to jail for drugs. Sending one race of kids but not another race. Some things we may never fix. But we can make one small fix in our lousy prison system and that is get away from "three strikes you're out". It is a racist policy.
There are so many things to fix. Sending kids to jail for drugs. Sending one race of kids but not another race. Some things we may never fix. But we can make one small fix in our lousy prison system and that is get away from "three strikes you're out". It is a racist policy.
Thursday, August 4, 2016
God, the Pope and Gays
Pope: Dear God, How shall I tell the world to love gay people without condoning their gay behavior?
God: I made the world, though not in seven days as one of your books claims....surely you see that is an allegory. I created life, breath, cells, with such myriad forms that even I am impressed. I made all this possible and you don't believe I could also create a man who loves a man and a woman who loves a woman. This is not remotely as mysterious as the life of my Son, yet you believe he Lived and you cannot see the beauty of a man loving a man and a woman loving a woman. Open your mind!
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
God love the rich man
Don't you think it's our inequality that makes us so special. We cherish it. We laud it. Clearly we vote for it, because the one tenth of the one percent who own it, "it" being one side of the inequality, still only have one tenth of one percent of the votes. God bless us all.....and screw the foolish camel trying to get through the eye of the needle!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
