It’s Getting Cold Out There (Here)

Those of us who live in northern climes are starting to feel it. The chill in the air, the extremely early sunset, even some flurries beginning to fall.

It’s getting cold out there.

But it’s getting cold in other ways, as well. Cities across the country are starting to crack down on the “Occupy Wall Street” protests that have sprung up all over the country – and, indeed the world. It’s also true that the Arab League has suspended the country of Syria from their ranks for their brutal, murderous response to protestors in that country. That is a “cold” that I welcome.

Here in the U.S. we are in the early phases of the 2012 presidential election. The Republicans are trying to decide whom they are going to nominate, and having a tough time doing so. First Perry was on top, then Cain, now Romney, and now Gingrich is gaining traction. The most popular Republican candidate? Anyone other than those who are running. Can’t we have Chris Christie or Mitch Daniels or Jeb Bush? Not this time around, it doesn’t seem.

The current occupant, Mr. Obama, who will be running for reelection, is not enjoying great approval numbers in the polls. The latest one I saw indicated that 46% of the electorate think he’s basically doing a good job. But, it is also instructive to look at polling that indicates that Mr. Obama would beat any of the leading Republican candidates if the election were held today. The only contest he loses is against a Republican who is not running, some dream candidate who has yet to emerge from the woodwork.

“Obamacare,” as my friends on the right like to call it, is heading to the Supreme Court, and we all knew that would happen. Fine. We’ve had two appellate court decisions that upheld it as Constitutional, and one that didn’t. It will be fascinating to see what the Supremes decide on the matter. Either way, our country is going to face a clear – and, I suspect, a stark – choice in a little less than a year.

Will we decide to elect someone who wants to cater to the 1% or the 99% (to borrow the parlance of the Occupy Movement protesters)? Certainly, the Republicans are not going to be able to argue that Mr. Obama is soft on national security – after all, he has presided over more drone attacks than Mr. Bush, found and killed Osama bin Laden (and many other Al Qaeda leaders), and helped orchestrate the removal of Gaddafi from power in Libya. Mr. Obama is also fulfilling the terms of the Iraq withdrawal, negotiated by the Bush administration, and removing our troops by the end of this year.

Here’s where we are: The economy is growing – slowly. Too slowly. Unemployment remains a problem, and a significant one, but it is VERY slowly becoming slightly less of a problem. The Obama administration is trying to enact what it can to ease the burden on the unemployed or underemployed, on those who are severely burdened by student loan debt, on those whose mortgages are underwater, and on veterans who will soon be returning, looking for both work and adequate health care. Are these programs perfect? No. Are they a good start? I think so.

Many of us are hurting in our country today. I’m among them. I am fortunate to have work, but it’s not enough to make ends meet. I am “floating rope” – borrowing money from a credit card for one month to the next – in order to try to keep up with bills. There’s only so long that this kind of behavior can go on, and yet I am convinced that the answer is not to lower the corporate tax rate or to keep the Bush tax cuts in effect. How is that going to help those of us who are struggling? I keep hearing about these so-called “job-creators.” Where are the jobs that they are creating?

It is long past time to eliminate loopholes that allow corporations to park money in tax havens (such as The Netherlands, Ireland, and the Cayman Islands) to avoid paying taxes on income. No one wants confiscatory taxes, we just want fair ones. If you, corporation X, have earnings of one hundred million dollars in a given quarter, then you should pay your fair share of taxes on one hundred million dollars. I pay taxes on every penny I earn. And, I don’t earn anywhere near that much per quarter, as I’m sure will not surprise any reader of this blog.

Please don’t misunderstand what I’ve written above. I’m not about “soaking the rich” and I’m not interested in engaging in class warfare. I’m interested in our country adopting a more fair and equitable tax system. I find it alarming that when I was a boy, the average CEO made about 40 times more than the average worker at his company. (I say only his, because, back then, there were no female CEOs) Today, the average CEO makes 350 times more than the average worker at his or her company. This is obscene. Call me kooky, but is a CEO of a company really worth 350 times more than the sales staff, the very people who are ensuring the success of the company? I don’t think so.

I’m afraid I’ve gotten a bit riled up. Must be because it’s cold outside, and I’m not quite ready for winter.

The good news: I’m working. My wife is working – although for the past couple days, she’s been working so much that I haven’t seen her at all; we’ve been like ships hoping to pass in the night, but having to settle with passing in the briefest of moments in the early morning hours when we are both resting and about to get up. We are both grateful. We both love this country. We both want this country to succeed and to live up to its fullest potential.

Election season is upon us. The cold us upon us – in more ways than one. Let us rise up and meet it with thought and foresight and compassion. Let us strive to be the best Americans we can be.

Namaste

A Regrettable Ruling

Thirteen years ago, I received a letter from my natural father, Bob Jaycox, in which he railed against “legal fiction of the corporation,” observing that they have “never breathed a breath of air, never watched a sunset, never held a child,” but they “feed at the trough of government largesse, wield political power on a measure which should never exist in this nation, and cast off those who live and breath at their own whim and convenience.”

Today, in a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that corporations should be able to spend whatever they want to spend in political campaigns, arguing that corporations had the same rights as individuals and that this spending was protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. But, wait a minute… First of all, are corporations really individuals? The Supreme Court has held as much for many years so let’s put that aside for a moment. But, another question: I, as an individual, am limited as to how much I can spend on a political campaign. I have a cap on my contribution to a candidate or party I support. Now, corporations have no limitations whatsoever, but my ability to contribute to a candidate or party remains limited. What’s up with that?

Is a corporation now more of a “person” than I am? Or than you are? Your political contributions are strictly limited under current law and yet Aetna or Philip Morris or Pfizer can now donate whatever they want. No limits. None. What in Sam Hill’s name is going on?

My friends on the right (and I do have some) will likely not approve of what I’m about to suggest but I think the time has come for serious reform of campaign finance, and the reform I want is public financing. This would stop the millionaires from having an unfair leg up on the rest of us and level the playing field. We would (collectively – uh-oh, he must be a Socialist!) finance campaigns for all federal elected offices; states could decide what they want to do for statewide elections on their own. But it seems to me it wouldn’t be that hard to create a legitimacy test for prospective federal candidates that entitle them to public financing. Once they satisfy that test they could only receive public financing and we would have a level playing field in terms of ad buys and the like. Each candidate would have to prove him or herself in the arena, through the cleverness of the ads the public finances allow them to buy to their personal pressing-of-the-flesh to their performance at debates. Let the best woman or man win.

Corporations are NOT individuals. As my late father said, they’ve “never breathed a breath of air, never watched a sunset, never held a child.” Individuals do all of those things. We breathe, we notice the sunset (and the sunrise), we hold children, even if we don’t have them ourselves – we hold our nieces and nephews or the children of friends, or, our own younger siblings. We are individuals. We breathe, we see, we touch, we taste, we feel. Corporations don’t cry or hurt or laugh. Their stocks rise or fall and individuals involved with them might cry or hurt or laugh, but corporations themselves demonstrably do not. That’s why they can lay off 10,000 workers at a time without blinking an eye.

Let me be clear. I am not anti-corporation. In fact, I, along with my wife, own a corporation. It’s called Russell Creative, Inc., and we formed it because it was a good tax move. But Russell Creative, Inc. is not and never will be an individual. It is a tax haven. It is a way for us to pay for medical expenses and research expenses and other business related necessities on a pre-tax basis. But, I wouldn’t ever in a million years argue that Russell Creative, Inc. should be thought of as an individual. It is demonstrably NOT an individual. It is a VERY small company run by my wife and me. It exists because given the current tax laws it makes sense for it to exist. Why should it be able to spend more money in support of a candidate than I am able to? This makes no sense.

This ruling will surely be overturned eventually, but meanwhile, I urge you to be in touch with your Representatives and Senators and push them to enact new legislation to try to work around this abominable ruling the Supreme Court. Our lives do, in fact, depend upon it.

Namaste.

On Our Political Discourse

I’m concerned about how we talk about things over which we disagree.

When I read a posting where someone refers to the president of the United States as the “Commander in Thief,” I worry that perhaps we are too far gone to have civil debates and conversations with one another about important public policy issues. I was no fan of the previous occupant, but I never referred to him as Commander in Thief, despite how he ascended to the presidency in the aftermath of the 2000 election debacle. When I referred to him, I referred to him as the president – plain and simple. I might have noted that I neither voted for nor supported him, but I never smeared him with epithets like “Commander in Thief,” nor did I ever hope that he would fail, as Rush Limbaugh and several other Republicans have opined about Mr. Obama, the current occupant (to borrow a phrase from Garrison Keillor).

How can any American citizen want his or her president to fail? We can surely argue against policy initiatives with which we don’t agree without expressing the wish that we hope the president will fail, can we not? Maybe I’m naïve. Maybe I’m overly optimistic.

I did not agree with the decision for this county to invade Iraq (a country that had not attacked us and that had no ready means to do so) but never once did I express that I hoped our president or our troops would fail. Especially the troops! They, after all, are simply following orders. I hoped that our troops would be as safe as possible and grieved over stories of hearing that they were not being provided with adequate body armor or adequately protected vehicles.

Elections matter. They are of consequence. The American people made a choice last November. And to my friends who did not vote for Mr. Obama I would simply say, please understand that we had an election – the people chose. Should you express your opinions? Should you share your concerns about the direction in which Mr. Obama is attempting to lead the country? Of course! Big-time of course. That is your right and your duty. But is it too much to ask that you do so without resorting to calling Mr. Obama and others in his administration or those he has nominated to high office names? Aren’t we a little more mature than that?

People call Sonia Sotomayor a racist for her ruling in the Ricci decision in the Second Circuit Court. Anyone saying that of the other judge who voted with her to uphold the actions of the City of New Haven? I think not. But look – here’s my point – I also think that that case was decided wrongly when it comes down to simple fairness, but Sotomayor was following precedent and the law. And, she and her colleagues vehemently expressed their sympathy for the plaintiffs' situation, but ruled on a matter of law as they saw it. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled differently there is new precedent, new law to be followed by the lower courts.

I think it’s far past time for us to grow up in this country, for us to give each other the respect we are all due, whatever our political beliefs and affiliations. To hear Rush Limbaugh say that Judge Sotomayor and Mr. Obama are “anti-constitutionalists” is an outrage! Mr. Obama was a constitutional law professor and Ms. Sotomayor has been a judge sworn to uphold the Constitution for seventeen years. Please. Let’s stop the grenade throwing and the headline grabbing nonsense like the term “Commander in Thief” with which I began this posting. I’m tired of it. I’m ready for us all to embrace Lincoln’s dream of a country “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” And, if we’re going to succeed at that dream, we need to turn the rhetorical temperature down a bit and give each other a little respect and the benefit of the doubt. And, let’s dispense with the name calling once and for all.

Namaste.