Revolution Now? (part 1)

Gas explosion; San Bruno, CA

In my last post I suggested establishing a 21st Century Continental Congress to wrest power from current political forces and demand common sense reforms to government and to laws and regulations. You may be wondering why I am recommending such a radical solution to address our country’s problems. I’ll be the first to admit that I have more comfort and convenience than any person has a right to. I’m not downtrodden or feeling oppressed. I have actually prospered in this country and I feel secure. But what I lack in my life is justice and I demand it. I demand justice for myself and for My Fellow Americans whose tax dollars are squandered on wasteful government spending. I demand justice for the citizens of other nations who suffer at the hands of US (military and financial) foreign policy. And because I feel that government corruption has reached lethal proportions.

On September 9th, 2010 in San Bruno, California, a natural gas pipeline exploded and killed 8 people. You can read about it here. [an excerpt from the article] On January 13, 2012, an independent audit from the State of California issued a report stating that PG&E had illegally diverted over $100 million from a fund used for safety operations, and instead used it for executive compensation and bonuses. These types of incidents occur rather frequently. I could recount hundreds of similar incidents. Americans killed due to lax government oversight and inappropriate collusion between government and big business. So where are the arrests? Where are the CEOs doing perp walks for taking money from a public safety fund to pay themselves millions of dollars?

So now that we all understand that our lives can be at stake when government does not work effectively--and I assume that most of us have little faith in government cleaning up its own act--is it unreasonable to demand that government do its job? Is it unreasonable to take dramatic action to ensure that the government does?

Hummer after IED blast

In Iraq and Afghanistan, we supplied our troops with Hummers which are inferior vehicles when pitted against the main threat, the improvised explosive device (IED). Other vehicles available could have been deployed to protect our soldiers from IEDs but were sent to the war front in far fewer numbers than the Hummer.(1) There are a few reasons for this: cost, government bureaucracy failings, logistics, military ineptitude and lack of fore-thought.(2) But I am suspicious that our politicians look at such issues, to some degree, from their own point of view and not ours. To them, the Hummer was perhaps a perfect solution. Sure, it didn't do much to ensure the safety of our soldiers, but the contract to provide them was already in place. People were already making money on the program. More money for the war profiteers means more money in the campaign coffers of politicians come election time. And the more Hummers that got blown up, the more that needed to be purchased. It was a feedback loop and a war profiteer's wet dream and I question if it is not another example of government corruption reaching lethal proportions. After all, in World War II automotive plants throughout the country were converted to produce war planes within a couple of years. What has kept us from producing and delivering the needed war vehicles in the Middle East?

Here is a bit more about how a new Continental Congress might work to reform government: delegates would be appointed by majority vote of the constituents of their district (districts and constituencies to be determined) and would propose reforms to current laws, regulations and Congressional rules that do not make sense, or propose laws, regulations and rules that do make sense. Once drawn, the proposals must be approved by the delegate’s constituents by a simple majority vote (>50%). The proposal would then be presented to the other delegates and must pass by a super majority (>75%), with each delegate in the Continental Congress getting simple majority approval of each proposal from their constituents. Once a proposal has been ratified as outlined above, it would then be presented to Congress to be implemented.

Any Congress member that opposes any of the proposals would be voted out of office in the next election. That’s where the impossible part comes in. We would need backing by a huge number of the citizens of the country. Ideally, the “constituencies” combined would number 100 million or more, although the objectives would likely be accomplished with as few as 30 million people. Any number greater than 30 million would represent a voting block so large that every politician would be at our mercy. No longer would lobbyists and big campaign contributors have undue sway over our elected officials. It is the way we flex our power and protect our own interests.

So how do we get 30+ million people on the same page? We have to look past the general arguments of the two parties and focus on the minutia of government function, regulations and budget line items. Here’s an example:

Conservatives want to cut spending in general. Liberals want to cut military spending. Here, the two sides can agree because there are a lot of wasteful military spending programs that can be improved or eliminated. We have military programs that are out-dated and only remain funded because they make a few powerful people money. The F-22 was the poster child for wasteful military spending. You can read about it here. That program has finally ended but there are others that can be examined. If we can eliminate similar programs we could save billions of dollars in wasted government spending. Some of that money can be re-allocated into research and development of new, modern-era weapons and surveillance systems that will make our military more effective at a lower cost. Are we really so entrenched in partisan ideology that we are unwilling to accept a win/win scenario (a more effective military for less money) when it is in our power to achieve it?

If Grover Norquist can strong-arm Republicans with his ridiculous oath that prevents them from eliminating any tax loophole, then we can certainly strong-arm all politicians to adopt common sense reforms that will help to eliminate corruption, promote transparency, make our elections accurate and over-seeable, reduce spending and ensure in a better, more efficient government.

I could live my convenient, comfortable life and not bother rocking the boat. I could occupy my time with enjoying my toys and distractions but my commitment to justice precludes me from doing so. It may be an impossible mission but I am convinced that direct democratic action is the only way to fix our government. And I will advocate for it for as long as our government is dysfunctional.

[please join this blog or return for part 2 of this post...]

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/
(1) http://jalopnik.com/5542789/the-m1117-guardian-
(2) http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008317.html

Why Manipulating the Tax Code Won’t Fix the Economy and My Blueprint for Fixing the Federal Government

A 21st Century Continental Congress?

Republicans believe that there are a lot of wealthy people out there who are deciding whether or not to hire someone. They’re contemplating whether or not increasing their workforce will help them succeed in their businesses. And if we cut their taxes, it will increase the likelihood that these “job-creators” will be able to add new workers and create jobs.

If any of the above came out sounding sarcastic, it is unintended. There certainly must be some validity to this theory. It makes a great deal of sense. Anyone on the fence about creating a job will absolutely create more jobs if there is a bit of risk taken out of it. Lowering their taxes will give them more capital in their pockets to decide in favor of expanding their enterprise.

Democrats believe that if you shift that tax burden from the rich to the poor, the middle class and lower class will not have the purchasing power to create a demand for products that would drive that side of the economic engine. Claiming that wealthy individuals will not create jobs unless there is a demand for the products they are producing.

Again, if anything I’ve written sounds sarcastic, it is not intended. Certainly in the last few decades the tax burden has been shifted away from the wealthy and toward the middle class. And as for the poor, even if you don’t earn enough money to have to pay a federal income tax—you know, you’re elderly, a student, a handy-capped individual, etc.—you still pay a lot of state and local taxes, sales taxes and then there are the fees. Proportional to their income, the poor pay a great deal of tax leaving them with little money to purchase goods and services from others.

I think that both sides are correct but their arguments are eroding. What I see occurring daily is most wealthy people invest their money in foreign markets and store it in offshore tax havens. Then they fly to the Bahamas to enjoy mojitos on the beach. I don’t mean to make every wealthy person to be an evil, maniacal, greed-consumed person. But again, there has certainly been more of this going on in the past few decades. It is one of the results of globalization. And although not all wealthy people are consumed by greed, every person is aggressive with their money. Even the liberal anti-corporate crusader, Michael Moore, I’m sure has accountants who manage his money and will put it where it makes the most economic sense. Even if in places that are not necessarily good for America. And as consumers, we buy from China rather than products made in in the US because we want to save a dime so that we can make our money go further. We’re doing it too!!!

The goal seems to be to get the most bang for your buck, whether it hurts America or it helps America, which is a great economic drain on the country. We can favor the wealthy with the tax code and they will fund sweatshops in China, or we can favor the middle class, who will flock to buy Chinese products. Either way, America loses. Now we can ask the lower and middle class people to buy American and be willing to work harder to complete globally. But we have to cut the tax loopholes for the wealthy as well. For instance, the common rate of tax on so-called “carried interest” is about 15%. This is a cut of interest earned from investing someone else’s money. There is no stimulative benefit to giving a tax break on those earnings. Why should they be taxed at roughly half the rate of the wages of someone who shows up to work every day to drive a truck?

The point of all this is that we’re all to blame. So you can stop blaming our economic woes on the other side. We’re all pretty complicit. What we have to do is start thinking about how we correct it or adapt to the new economic reality. You see, nobody set out to destroy our nation. We all just drifted that way by our common human emotion: self-interest.

People, this is going to be a tough riddle to solve. While we are all fighting about who’s to blame, we are losing precious time to fix the nation’s problems. Moving forward is going to take concessions from both sides. And we may have to do a few more things that will hurt America in the short term.

Are there any adults left in the country to sit down and work out the country’s problems? How about a movement to appoint a short-term delegation that would direct Congress (no person having previously run for public office shall qualify). Candidates would have to be willing to compromise and get rid of any wasteful spending program or useless tax loophole. I can imagine a procedure much like the framing of our Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. Hopefully, without bloodshed. As groups of citizens, we’d establish a 21^st Century Continental Congress and work out the details for a reformed government in a civil manner. Then demand that our representatives do as we ask (with enough citizens backing the delegation). Positions on the delegation would be voluntary and strict rules would be in place to prevent any corruption. Our panel would work with the president to make the changes that make sense. And the body would have the ability to direct its constituents to vote out the president if his/her actions are deemed sufficiently counter to the demands of the delegation. Current politicians could either remain in their positions, with pay, or retire. Elections to fill vacant seats would commence when government reforms are complete. The delegation would dissolve at that time. It would be direct democratic action in the purest sense. And there is no reason that this can’t work openly and transparently with the cooperation of the government. If we all demand it, politicians will comply. They would have no choice. If politicians oppose our 21^st Century Continental Congress they would casting themselves in the roles of King George III and England.

But you know what, people? You may have to turn off American Idol and put some effort into it. And it may take years. No zapping it in the microwave for this thing.

So, do we have the strength, wisdom, courage and convictions of our forefathers who fought for this country’s independence? The rugged men who built this country? The steadfast citizens that led the Abolitionist Movement, the Women’s Suffrage Movement and the Civil Rights Movement? The soldiers that defeated the Nazis? The people that put us on the moon and have placed our technological footprint on the outer reaches of the galaxy? This is our moment and we are floundering. Our last, best hope of fixing this country is not in a voting booth. It is in the palms of our hands. Will we have the wisdom to seize it?

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

Letter to President Obama RE Soldier Suicides

President Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500

President Obama:

The last time I wrote to you, I asked that you do something about the 9/11 first responders that are ill from working in the toxic conditions of Ground Zero following the terrorist attacks. Eventually the fund to give those heroes the health care that they deserved was approved by Congress. The fact that so much effort had to go toward approving the meager amount of money required to provide health care to those that stepped forward to bear the burden of rescuing survivors--before they were added to the list of casualties--reflects very poorly on the government of this country. And the fund did not initially include coverage of cancer unless the victim could prove that their cancer was caused by the toxic chemicals and elements at Ground Zero. I'm not sure how they were supposed to do that and I'm sure they were stumped as well. It is absolutely shameful the way we have treated those heroes.(1)

I've been hearing for years that our veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan are committing suicide at rates far above what has been present in our military since the founding of our nation.(2) I expected that this problem would be addressed and get better over time but that does not appear to be the case. This is not acceptable to me so I call upon you, Mr. President, to address the issue personally.

I understand that you have a lot on your plate. The economy, the financial system and job creation all need your attention. These problems are monumental and affect the entire nation. But when the people who have given us our country, our way of life, our prosperity--and protect those things every day--are in jeopardy, I don't know what could be more important than making sure they are taken care of. How can I enjoy prosperity, safety and peace of mind knowing that the people responsible for allowing me to have those things are incapable of enjoying such things themselves?

Mr. President, it is not really your job to solve this problem personally but it wasn't exactly in the job description of our soldiers to be deployed on multiple protracted tours, fighting the two longest wars in our country's history simultaneously. None of our  soldiers could have known what they were signing up for. After all, the United States usually conducts wars competently and efficiently. But that was before profit became the primary motive for going to war. Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan may have post-traumatic stress disorder, depleted uranium contamination, parasites and pathogens due to poorly treated drinking water and financial difficulties due to a lack of jobs. Some soldiers may be unable to work due to injuries sustained in battle and they are struggling as they wait for benefits.(3)

How long must they wait? Every veteran who needs health care should get it, no questions asked. There should be anonymous psychiatric services available 24/7 and just a phone call away. Currently, soldiers often refuse mental health assistance because it may be a black mark on their record and affect career advancement. Programs should be established to allow civilians to contact soldiers, meet with them and express their gratitude. Perhaps a program could be created whereby the US Post Office would deliver postcards from grateful citizens to struggling soldiers for free. How powerful would it be for someone to bring their best fried chicken to a struggling soldier to say "Thank you"?

The very wealthy in our country may not be willing to give up one dollar of their tax cuts to take care of our soldiers. But I believe and I hope that the rest of us, the so-called 99%, will step up and pledge to provide for our soldiers, no matter the cost. Our country can afford to take care of them. And if one soldier is contemplating suicide then we are not doing enough. So, Mr. President, please raise my taxes if necessary to ensure that needs of all veterans are provided for.

Sir, you were elected because we wanted a different kind of politician. One that would re-prioritize the nation's problems and find unique and effective ways of dealing with them. People believed we could make big, important changes for the country. But like George W. Bush, you have asked little of the citizens of the country while asking a tremendous amount of our soldiers and their families. In 2008, you stated on the campaign trail that change and strength for our nation must come from the bottom up.(4) But part of what satisfies and empowers people is being a part of effectuating that change and not just being beneficiaries of it.

Someone needs to lead the charge the way our soldiers have done. Like them, someone needs to go above and beyond for a cause that is so urgent and so critical. If you lead us, I believe this is a change we can make, despite the political division in the country right now. Please appoint someone you trust to address this problem as what it is: an urgent crisis. Oversee the operation personally and call upon US citizens to do what we can do to help. If we choose not do whatever is necessary to care for those that have sacrificed for us, what will other nations think of us? What will our soldiers think of us and what should we think of ourselves?

Respectfully,

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

(1)          http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/zadroga-act-expanded-to-cover-50-different-types-of-cancer-159911035.html

(2)          http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57394452-10391704/study-suicide-rates-among-army-soldiers-up-80-percent/

(3)          http://politics.heraldtribune.com/2012/07/16/backlog-of-military-vets-awaits-service-disability-benefits/

(4)          http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/technology/07hughes.html?pagewanted=all

Here's Why (the rich need to pay more taxes)

Are you paying your fair share?



I assume that most people who are in favor of a totally flat tax (every citizen pays the same dollar amount in taxes) find the flat tax fair because each person basically uses the same government services. But I disagree. Here’s why:

First off, the flat tax would pose a problem because to raise enough revenue, the amount of taxes the low and middle class taxpayers have to pay would need to increase significantly. Most low and middle class individuals and families are out of work or working but already struggling to pay their bills. What will we do when those millions of citizens are unable to meet their tax obligations? Prisons are already full in increasing the ranks of the homeless and destitute by such a large margin would not be good for the country. What would that image do to the strength of our T-bill and our credit rating?

So let’s examine the concept that all citizens use the same amount of government services. I recall my situation during my “college years” (quotes used because I spent most of my college years not going to college). I was struggling to find my way in the world and I was earning $10,000 - $18,000 per year during that time. I didn’t travel because I couldn’t afford time off for vacation, let alone a trip anywhere. I did not need the services of the FAA or the TSA. I wasn’t making any road trips so I wasn’t using the state, interstate and federal highways.

These days I earn a comfortable living and find myself on an airplane several times each year. I enjoy taking road trips to my friends’ houses and to visit with family. I certainly use the FAA, TSA and highway system, and I’m glad the highway patrol is there if I need them. It is easy to see that for these services it is fair that I should pay more in taxes than I did during my “college years”.

For any wealthy person that enjoys boating: would you feel safe on the open seas and continue boating if there was no Coast Guard to assist you if something hit the fan? Have fun out on the water. But recognize that for you to enjoy that luxury safely requires a great deal of government resources and taxpayer dollars.

Think of any person that started a business in this country and achieved great success and wealth. Did they ship products through the US mail or on the highway system? Did they send bills and receipts through the mail? Did they utilize the intranet to advertise, take orders and process sales? Did they utilize US airspace or waterways? Did they get a public school education or government backed student loans? All of these things were provided by and/or developed by the government. How can they now say that they don't want to help provide the same opportunities for the next generation? Don’t such companies and individuals owe something back to the government, beyond the empty promise to create jobs if they’re given more tax cuts?

The flip side, of course, is that poor many people get food stamps, welfare, housing and transportation assistance, etc. How do these government services stack up monetarily against the government resources used by the wealthy? I haven’t done the math so I couldn’t say. But government services aren’t provided to poor people out of a sense of fairness or “entitlement”. It has always been done because people in this country have traditionally been unwilling to stand by idly while their neighbors starve to death. In our nation’s past, we have wanted to have a safety net, for ourselves--in the event that we find ourselves in need--and also for members of our communities that may need assistance. Are we now becoming a country that would prefer to turn its back on needy children, the mentally handicapped, single mothers and schizophrenics?

That brings us to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: does anyone really believe that we invaded those countries for national security? Those wars were (and are) government-sponsored corporate ventures. The invasion of Afghanistan secured a lucrative pipeline deal for U.S. corporations and taking over Iraq was intended to grant U.S. oil companies access to Iraq’s oil reserves. Haliburton sure profited handsomely from the invasions, as did Blackwater (now Xe). And everybody got a cost plus 10% deal from the government which rewarded them for wasting U.S. taxpayer dollars, which they did in no small measure. I’m sure companies in other industries were also excited about the prospect of opening new markets in the Middle East. War profiteering companies got far wealthier while our soldiers shed blood and lost lives. And our citizens were burdened by increased gas prices, the reduced value of the dollar and the effects of a shaky economy. I certainly feel that those who benefited from the travesty of the wars owe a debt to the rest of us.

 
Finally, we subsidize the wealthy to support their hobbies, vanity and whims. Didn’t know that? Every time someone donates $10 million to some bogus charity like a religious organization that’s already richer than god or a wealthy university that will erect a building in the name of the donor, they avoid paying taxes on that income. Each time you send you child off to an under-funded school, just pray that they can somehow get into Columbia or Harvard because only then may they reap the benefits of our broken tax system.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

Politics 101 (The Role of the Federal Government)

US Capitol Building

I’ve spent three of the past four weeks working in San Francisco. I’ve missed a lot of my usual news programs and have had to supplement the information with mainstream media news, my mortal enemy! Anyway, I can see why mainstream media news is so popular. It is nauseating yet totally intoxicating and addictive at the same time.

I found the hard right Fox News and the hard left MSNBC to be the most compelling stations. MSNBC has a series of promotional videos that I rather enjoy. One features Lawrence O’Donnell talking about the G.I. Bill. [I had hoped to provide a link to the video but it doesn’t appear to be online anywhere.] O’Donnell states that the percentage of college graduates in the country before the G.I. Bill was just 6%. He then states that the G.I. Bill pushed that up to 20%. He said that it allowed his father to go to college and receive a good education so that his father could then put his five kids through college. O’Donnell ends the promo saying that “the critics called it ‘welfare’.”

This video really strikes at the heart of one of the philosophical divides in our country. Should the federal government provide things to its citizens in an attempt to improve their lives, strengthen the country and make a better world or should the federal government stay out of things and hope that the private sector and individual states make the correct choices to accomplish that end, to the best of their ability?

Right-wing thinkers would say that the federal government should stay out of everything that The Constitution doesn’t specifically grant it the power to do. I certainly understand that and agree with the sentiment. But my more contemplative answer would be that if the government can do something to improve the lives of people then--in some cases--it should. Building our highway system and great public works projects like the Hoover Dam are good examples. These are things that have been enormously beneficial for the country and could not have been done by private businesses because the scope was too great and/or the costs were too high, with no real way to garner a profit from the giant expenditure.

And this brings me back to Lawrence O’Donnell’s promo. Would we have been able to become the world’s biggest military super power without a healthy stock of college graduates in our country to build our weapons systems? Would we have been able to build a nation with the greatest infrastructure in the world? Would we have been able to beat the Russians to the moon? Think of all the amazing technologies and advances that were made because of that one goal. Would our country have the reputation and prestige had we not established ourselves as the world’s greatest and most dominant nation? Were it not for government investment, we would not have the internet as we know it today. The gadgets you love and depend on (e.g. iPhone, iPad, GPS, etc.) would certainly not exist.

What innovations for tomorrow are being cultivated by the federal government today? What inventions of tomorrow will spring from those investments? New gadgets, cures for diseases, better ways to educate, better and more efficient ways to communicate, better and more efficient energy sources? Certainly the government can run amok and create disastrous programs or programs that in time go far beyond the scope and cost of what was initially proposed and agreed to. This is why citizens need to be involved and informed so that we can provide the proper oversight.

So the politics of our country is not, and should not be, an argument about which side is going to “destroy our nation” and which side will save it. It should be a civil discussion about finding the correct balance of harnessing the power of our amazing country and utilizing our federal government to bring about beneficial changes to society without creating a government that is too vast or over-reaching. That’s it. Once we recognize this, fixing the problems of our country will be much simpler.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/