Wednesday, October 5, 2011

PALIN SAYS "NO THANKS" TOO!

Today, Sarah Palin made it official. She's not running for President next year. Good riddance!

Monday, October 3, 2011

A FEW THOUGHTS ABOUT THE DEATH PENALTY

One man's immorality is another man's justifiable act. The Amish community across the river from my mine considers the death penalty immoral. Most people in my middle-class neighborhood think differently. I gravitate toward the belief that morality is not as set in stone as people would like to think, so I understand and appreciate both points of view.

There's no disputing that some killers deserve the death penalty. I just don't think that we as a society should stoop to their level by returning violence for violence. That's never been a positive proposition, and given all the inequities that exist within our justice system when it comes to applying the death penalty, it appears highly unlikely that attempts at reform will achieve a positive end either.

Wanting an eye for an eye is an understandable sentiment, as is seeking a sense of closure for a victim's family and friends who want to move on with their lives. Striving for justice is certainly a must, but perhaps our society would benefit from examining all that is lost by maintaining a form of punishment so filled with inequity and uncertainty. Putting a prisoner to death costs more than a lifetime of incarceration and holds no possibility of correcting any injustice once carried out. Our money and time seem better spent elsewhere.

Then, there's the alternative. Pearl Buck once wrote, "To eat bread without hope is still slowly to starve to death." Pearl recognized that a life without hope holds little measurable value, which is why I tend to think that a life sentence without the possibility of parole or pardon, a sentence with no hope, is a much harsher punishment than a lethal injection.

Sunday, October 2, 2011

PULPITS NO FRIEND TO THE POOR

Yesterday's New York Times on-line edition carried a story by Stephanie Strom about a planned protest being staged in pulpits across the nation this morning by hundreds of right-wing Christian pastors itching for a fight against the Internal Revenue Service. The pastors intend to deliver openly political sermons that endorse certain candidates and denounce others in direct violation of IRS regulations that prohibit churches who want their members to be able to deduct church contributions on their tax returns from engaging in political activity. Once more, those pastors who are participating in the event plan to tape their sermons and forward them to the IRS – a direct "double dog dare" aimed at the government's tax collection arm in hopes of provoking a court fight with the government.

The whole effort shows how low Christian fundamentalism has sunk. Somewhere, even Christ is shaking His head in disbelief.

When the G.O.P. attacks government efforts to feed the poor via the food stamp program, right-wing Christian Pastors remain mute.

When the G.O.P. attacks government efforts to house the poor via section eight housing and federal rent assistance programs, right-wing Christian Pastors remain mute.

When the G.O.P. attacks government efforts to keep the poor warm during winter months via the federal emergency heating assistance program, right-wing Christian Pastors remain mute.

When the G.O.P. attacks government efforts to provide health care to the poor via the Medicaid program, right-wing Christian Pastors remain mute.

BUT…when the government threatens to disallow a tax deduction for mostly G.O.P. contributors to those right-wing Christian Pastors, well, that's what sends those Pastors into a rage, itching for a fight.

It's sad, but it's telling that a group of right-wing Christian Pastors finds it more necessary to battle for tax deductions for the wealthy than benefits for the poor. I thought Christ's message was the other way around.

Saturday, October 1, 2011

SANTA CLAUS THINKING IS NOT THE SOLUTION

Santa Claus is a wonderful fiction. He allows people to see the world as they'd want it to be, but there comes a time in life when that fiction no longer works and folks have to face reality. Facing reality though is not an easy task. Fictions like Santa Claus may not be true, but oftentimes people become so comfortable with their fictions that they cannot distinguish what is real from what is not. Fictions can also blind people from the true nature of things, and that's not good, especially in times of peril when recognizing reality is most critical.

Today, America faces a severe economic crisis. Tens of millions of Americans are out of work, many for so long that their unemployment benefits have expired. Millions more have given up hope of ever finding meaningful jobs. For those individuals and the families who depend on them, the peril is here today, and now is not the time for wishful thinking or wonderful fictions.

Behind the jobs debate in America is a fiction peddled by a number of our politicians. It's a fiction that plays like Santa Claus, and it goes like this: If you lower taxes on the wealthy and reduce government regulation on businesses, jobs will flow like the Biblical land of milk and honey. It's an attractive fiction, and many have heard it repeated so often they've come to believe it as Gospel truth, but belief doesn't equal reality. Here's why.

During each of the eight year of the last Bush Administration, federal taxes on the wealthy and corporations declined. Government agencies headed by Republican appointees of President Bush systematically dismantled many regulatory structures so that on the day Bush left office, there were less federal regulations than the day he took office. How did business respond to this reduction of taxation and regulation? They responded by cutting their workforces and shipping tens of millions of American jobs overseas. How did wealthy investors respond to lower taxation? They responded by investing in those same companies that were reducing workforces and shipping jobs overseas. If it sounds like I'm criticizing businesses and wealthy investors, that's not my intention. In reality, both were acting prudently. Let's consider why that's so.

A business operates to generate profits. If job creation enables a company to generate higher profits - great, but companies do not create jobs in a vacuum. They create jobs when demand for their products or services increase. Conversely, companies shed jobs when those demands decrease. Take The Bon Ton stores, for example. In response to the 2008 economic downturn, Bon Ton executives laid off 1,150 employees in the beginning of 2009. In order to remain viable, the company took the prudent and necessary step of reducing its workforce. The move wasn't popular, but it was a good business decision.

If it were true that cutting taxes and regulations produce jobs, the Bon Ton would have been hiring workers in January of 2009 instead of laying them off, because the lower taxes and regulations they were enjoying would have convinced them to hire more workers. But that's not what happened. The executives at The Bon Ton saw a drop off in demand for their products and they wisely cut workers so their company would survive. The Bon Ton will start hiring again when demand for their products goes up – probably at the start of the Christmas buying season. Lower taxes and less business regulations did not prevent Bon Ton layoffs. The drop in consumer demand was the driving force.

Next, consider a wealthy investor. The goal of an investor is to make money. Typically, that means investing in companies that are posting profits, paying dividends and/or gaining value. In difficult economic times, the majority of those companies are like The Bon Ton, companies that have significantly cut their workforce to remain viable. If it were true that cutting taxes and regulations produce jobs, as soon as word spread that The Bon Ton was cutting its workforce, investors would have deserted that company because the fiction says that investors create jobs, but that's not what happened. When The Bon Ton executives dramatically cut the number of its employees, Bon Ton stock, which in November of 2008 was as low as ninety cents per share, started an upward run that eventually climbed to over seventeen dollars per share in April of 2010. Those lucky enough to ride that investment wave made a substantial profit, but they didn't create any jobs.

Bank of America is another good example. It's one of the largest, if not the largest of all U.S. banking corporations. Its profits have plummeted over the past several years and pulled its share price down along with them. Investors have shied away from buying Bank of America stock. A week or so ago, news that the banking giant is undertaking a massive layoff of 30,000 employees immediately boosted the bank's share price, and no doubt its bottom line, and investors once again signaled a willingness to purchase Bank of America shares. That's because prudent investors invest where the profits are, and in this economic era, that means buying into companies that are downsizing, not hiring.

A corollary to the fiction that investors create jobs is the notion that if we reduce taxes on wealthy investors, besides investing, they will spend more on products and services. Supposedly, that increased spending will create the need for more jobs. On the surface, this notion sounds plausible, but the reality is just the opposite. Consumer surveys conducted during the current economic downturn have consistently shown that America's wealthy investors did not reduce their level of spending. That's not a knock on the wealthy. They had sufficient money to maintain their standard of living and they did so, which in all honesty probably kept the economy from getting worse than it is. However, because wealthy spending never dropped off, there's no reason to believe that wealthy American investors are itching to embark on a major shopping spree, if only their taxes were lowered. Few people become wealthy by spending foolishly. The wealthy invest their money instead of foolishly spending it, and as I've shown earlier, they invest in companies that are making money, not creating jobs.

If businesses and the wealthy aren't creating jobs, what's left? Another fiction– evil government spending!

The arguments against government funded job creation are essentially twofold: (1) it invites waste and fraud, and (2) it adds to the national debt. Both arguments contain a measure of truth. Government spending does expose taxpayer dollars to a degree of waste and fraud. Where money is involved, those predisposed to manipulation and greed will follow. There's also no denying that increased government spending today would add to America's national debt, which is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Neither argument, however, justifies our government sitting on the sideline doing nothing.

Imagine for a moment that you are the captain of the Titanic. The boat is sinking. You issue an order to have all staff report to the lifeboat stations to assist with boarding passengers. The first mate turns to you and complains, "But Captain, if all the staff reports to the lifeboat stations, there will be nobody left to prevent third class passengers from stealing the gold utensils in the first class dining room. And if we order staff that are off-duty to report now, we'll have to pay overtime and the company is already in financial trouble." Do you suddenly countermand your order? Of course not! The urgency of the situation demands extraordinary intervention.

The same applies to America's economy. Government funded job creation is the only viable choice for placing our nation's economic engine back on the road to recovery. We cannot rely on the fiction that wealthy investors and businesses will do it instead, if only their taxes and regulations are lowered. It never worked that way in the past. There's no reason to think it would in the future, unless of course, you believe in Santa Claus.

THE VACATION IS OVER

September, 2011 is in the past and the vacation is over. America's most under-read liberal blogger is back on track!