The truth About the "Takers"

Who is the real burden on society?

According to the right wing, the country is broke because there are too many "takers" in society. According to the right wing, these "takers" will vote for whichever candidate offers the most "free candy"--by which they mean welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc. When in these conversations, I first concede that entitlement spending is out of control and is unsustainable. I also usually find it necessary to point out that the low income people in our country are not the only people after "free candy". For every hundred low wage workers who gets $120 a month in food stamps, there's a big corporation that gets billions of dollars in tax breaks, subsidies and other "free candy" from the government every year. Even politicians, are helping themselves to free taxpayer money.

Mitt Romney was one of the worst candidates that the Republican Party could have picked as their presidential nominee in the 2012 election because his company, Bain Capital, often made money by being one of the biggest takers in the country. They would see a company that employed hundreds of people, giving them capital to spend in the community, which created an environment where other businesses could thrive, and where a healthy community could exist. Bain bought some of those companies and took out huge loans on the companies' credit so that they could pay themselves hundreds of millions of dollars in "management fees". Often times the companies could not pay back the enormous loans and the companies went out of business, the workers were laid off and the entire community took a big hit. Even though the Bain people made out quite well, I'm sure some of the workers lost homes and had to resort to unemployment insurance, food stamps and other forms of government assistance to get by. So, who were the takers in this scenario? It seems to me that he laid-off workers had something taken from them and Bain did the taking.

What's worse is that we, the taxpayers, had to pay for Bain's greed/poor management by providing assistance to the workers that were laid off. As for Bain, they got sweetheart tax rates on their profits because--due to successful lobbying efforts--the government has apparently been convinced that their business model is somehow good for the country. It is the new American business model: collect the profits while leaving the taxpayers responsible for losses and the costs of collateral damages.

Of course, Bain is just one private equity (aka "vulture capital") operation. There are others. And there are banks that illegally foreclosed on peoples' homes, banks that invested peoples' life savings and retirement funds in schemes the banks knew were worthless. All so they could make enormous profits and pass on the bill for the damages to the taxpayers. Now, they call anyone who needs assistance as a result of their schemes a "taker" while they enjoy the title of "job creator". And they are appalled when anyone suggests that they pay back some of their ill-gotten gains by way of higher taxes.

I assume that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to figure out a way to fairly raise taxes on just the institutions that acted unethically. But I know that every thinking American would agree that carried interest profits should be taxed at the same rate as workers' wages. There is no stimulative effect to the economy from these special tax breaks and it rewards private equity firms for destroying jobs.

So, do you wonder why the pundits on TV who claim to have our best interests in mind don't scream about this issue and urge you daily to call your representatives to eliminate this subsidy for job loss? Could it be that they are paid millions of dollars to create controversy rather than find solutions to problems? Should we stop getting our information and talking points from them and assess for ourselves what issues deserve our immediate, focused attention? Only if we want to improve our country and economy, I suppose.

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

Union Labor and the Battle for the Union

[The following is a bit of a retro piece but I feel that is serves as a good example of how things are blown out of proportion by political operatives in the Democratic and Republican Parties and in the media. Also, Labor Day is approaching which seems like a good time to discuss labor issues.]

The Scott Walker recall is another one of those issues that just begs a response because the rhetoric has gotten so extreme and silly. Is this really the epic battle of a free America vs. socialism? Is it the last stand of the common man, the worker vs. fascism? Let’s examine it:

Has anyone considered that this argument, this battle needs to be constant? Honestly, how does either side win? The government beats the union workers and forces them to work for peanuts and no health care or retirement benefits? Or the union workers win and get a 25 hour work week with full benefits and an extremely generous salary? What would either scenario mean for the greater economy?

Government jobs are supposed to be low wage jobs. They need to be. A government does not run effectively unless it is run efficiently. Once people's wages rise too high, we are all overly-burdened by the cost. There are a lot of government employees that are not in unions and they are not complaining about their pay and benefits. That's because they are well compensated for their work. These are politicians, scientists, judges, high level federal law enforcement personnel, etc. You see, if you want a big salary and nice benefits, you need to try to become one of those people. The educated, the invaluable and those that work risky jobs or jobs that require their attention 24/7. Driving a street-sweeper isn’t very risky and doesn't require much of an education. Most anybody can do it. Therefore the person hired to do that job should be compensated as such.

The flip side is that you can't just hire Hillbilly Harold to be a crossing guard if he's going to stare at the young girls and creep them out when they walk past and try to rub up against them when they're waiting for the light to change. You'd better be damn sure that whomever you hire for a rock bottom salary with limited benefits won't conduct themselves in a way that opens up the city, state or federal government up to liabilities, PR nightmares or other black eyes. After all, in order for the government to run efficiently, it has to run effectively.

Also, it takes time to train a new person, does it not? Even simple jobs have many nuances. In my street-sweeper driver example, what are the routes a driver must learn? What are the procedures? What does s/he do if there's a car in the way? What does that switch next to the fuel gauge do? At a point it is economically beneficial to pay a person enough that they won’t want to leave for quite some time. This balance is the free market at work.

So here's how I bridge the gap: we need to pay people enough to attract employees that will conduct themselves appropriately as they carry out their duties. They need to be paid enough that we can attract people who will be good representatives of our cities, states and of our country. The jobs need to pay enough that we can attract people who will be good stewards of our government resources (our vehicles, equipment, tools, funds, other employees and citizens). I think we may need to give up the idea of collective bargaining for government workers in favor of contractually-mandated bargaining power for each individual. Otherwise, the worst worker gets the same pay and benefits of the best workers. I believe that this is another area where we need to re-think things fundamentally to come up with a better system.

So people, this issue is a fight that we are always going to have. We must continually seek to find the correct balance of how much of a salary we should pay someone so that the government is running at its most efficient and most effective. It's not about which people want to destroy the country by suckling off the government teat vs. the people that want to suppress everybody they can to take all of the money for themselves. This is about hiring people we can trust to do the government's work and allow them to live a life of dignity for doing those necessary jobs. Why are people acting like you need to crush the other side to save the country? What's the point? The argument will never be won and just go away. It is the constant tug-of-war that is the political process.

If you're so passionate about it, form a citizen review board to evaluate the compensation of people in your community. Then pressure the government so that your findings will have influence. If you don't get the political influence you believe you deserve then shine the light on the politicians, get media attention and get others to vote people out. Otherwise what you have is politicians on the left catering to unions and politicians on the right trying to destroy them. And they want you to act as their minions to help them do something that will ultimately harm the country. Why play that game?

~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