Monday, November 7, 2011
An Open Letter to Senator Tom Udall (NM)
(Originally posted to Facebook November 3, 2011)
Senator Udall,
While many of us applaud your efforts to tackle the issue of campaign finance reform, your recent proposal for an Amendment to the Constitution is a proverbial slap in the face. One would almost assume you attempted to take the temperature of public sentiment, primarily in regards to the Occupy movement, and, perhaps, were unable to correctly read the thermometer or, in fact, used the wrong tool.
Let's look at your solution to the current problems provide by the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizen' United vs. FEC.
It doesn't do anything else. More importantly, it doesn't provide any protection from the corporate or private interest sector influencing our political system.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Amendment passes and is accepted as part of the Constitution.
Let's then continue with assumption. A congressperson proposes a bill that would severely limit the ability of corporate donations to campaign funds. For the sake of this hypothetical situation, let's allow for this being the first such proposed legislation following the passage of the Amendment. Given the desire of career politicians and incumbents to maintain their position, corporations supporting the incumbents threaten to refuse all campaign donations, special favors (such as bringing jobs into an incumbents region... those types of favors), etc. They threaten to put all their power into removing the incumbents from office in the available time before the proposed bill is even signed into law.
We know how this goes. The incumbents and those politicians with aspirations of a career will fall in line, just as they have always done. This is not corruption of a true variety, mind you... it's simply human nature. Humans are generally good, but will often act in their own interests and in the interest of their own preservation. They will vote down the proposed legislation and, perhaps, might even propose bills increasing the limits of contributions and expenditures, allowing the corporations greater power.
With the Amendment, our system of checks and balances would be next to useless. All the Amendment accomplishes is allowing career politicians to regulate their own campaign financial laws, which is like... what's the old adage, letting the fox run the hen house? A President would be unable to prevent a corporate-backed majority in the House and Senate from overturning a veto. The Supreme Court could only shrug their collective shoulders and uphold the new laws as "constitutional" under the new Amendment.
Certainly, I see the potential for good in the Amendment. I would like to believe it would be used for the betterment of the people, to reduce the imbalance in the strength of individual voices. No longer would volume be measured by money. However, I must sadly admit that I do not have that much faith in human nature to ascend beyond the need for self-preservation. We cannot trust a Congress that is financed by any corporate influence, any large, moneyed special interest.
The Amendment, as it is currently written, is less of a solution and more of an impediment to true political equality.
I implore you, please reconsider the nature of your proposal. Take the time to realize that the potential harm far outweighs the potential benefits.
Sincerely,
The Constitutionally Concerned
While many of us applaud your efforts to tackle the issue of campaign finance reform, your recent proposal for an Amendment to the Constitution is a proverbial slap in the face. One would almost assume you attempted to take the temperature of public sentiment, primarily in regards to the Occupy movement, and, perhaps, were unable to correctly read the thermometer or, in fact, used the wrong tool.
Let's look at your solution to the current problems provide by the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizen' United vs. FEC.
SECTION 1. Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on— ‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidate for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and ‘‘(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidatesIf I read that correctly, your proposal would be to allow Congress to have full control over the field of campaign finance legislation and reform. That's exactly what it would be, for the record: Congress, alone, would have the power to create legislation designed to alter current campaign financing laws. Certainly, the President could veto any proposed legislation; however, a strong, single-party controlled Congress could easily counter any veto with the requisite two-thirds majority. The Amendment simply seems, in principle, to be designed to eliminate the Supreme Court's own ability to rule on any campaign financing related cases.
It doesn't do anything else. More importantly, it doesn't provide any protection from the corporate or private interest sector influencing our political system.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Amendment passes and is accepted as part of the Constitution.
Let's then continue with assumption. A congressperson proposes a bill that would severely limit the ability of corporate donations to campaign funds. For the sake of this hypothetical situation, let's allow for this being the first such proposed legislation following the passage of the Amendment. Given the desire of career politicians and incumbents to maintain their position, corporations supporting the incumbents threaten to refuse all campaign donations, special favors (such as bringing jobs into an incumbents region... those types of favors), etc. They threaten to put all their power into removing the incumbents from office in the available time before the proposed bill is even signed into law.
We know how this goes. The incumbents and those politicians with aspirations of a career will fall in line, just as they have always done. This is not corruption of a true variety, mind you... it's simply human nature. Humans are generally good, but will often act in their own interests and in the interest of their own preservation. They will vote down the proposed legislation and, perhaps, might even propose bills increasing the limits of contributions and expenditures, allowing the corporations greater power.
With the Amendment, our system of checks and balances would be next to useless. All the Amendment accomplishes is allowing career politicians to regulate their own campaign financial laws, which is like... what's the old adage, letting the fox run the hen house? A President would be unable to prevent a corporate-backed majority in the House and Senate from overturning a veto. The Supreme Court could only shrug their collective shoulders and uphold the new laws as "constitutional" under the new Amendment.
Certainly, I see the potential for good in the Amendment. I would like to believe it would be used for the betterment of the people, to reduce the imbalance in the strength of individual voices. No longer would volume be measured by money. However, I must sadly admit that I do not have that much faith in human nature to ascend beyond the need for self-preservation. We cannot trust a Congress that is financed by any corporate influence, any large, moneyed special interest.
The Amendment, as it is currently written, is less of a solution and more of an impediment to true political equality.
I implore you, please reconsider the nature of your proposal. Take the time to realize that the potential harm far outweighs the potential benefits.
Sincerely,
The Constitutionally Concerned
An Open Letter to Benevolent Association President Ed Mullins
(Originally posted to Facebook October 28, 2011)
Mr. Mullins,
In a recent interview with the New York Post, you stated the following:
“In light of the growing violence attendant to the 'Occupy' movements across the country, particularly as evidenced by the recent events in Oakland, I am compelled to place these so-called 'occupiers' on notice that physical assaults on police officers will not be tolerated."
The growing violence attendant to the Occupy movements, if I could just point this out, started with the law enforcement officers and not with the protesters. I have watched video after video and, even from conservative and anti-OWS sites, have not yet found one that shows protesters starting the violence.
I'm sure we can both admit that Oakland was a travesty, an example of a chain of poor decisions and even worse judgments. I'm sure we can both agree, from watching the multitude of video footage, that Scott Olsen did nothing by standing there and, certainly, nothing while lying prone on the ground, to deserve a crowd-controlling explosive device to be thrown almost upon his body, not withstanding the rubber bullet or tear gas canister that dropped him in the first place.
I do not blame or fault the law enforcement officers for doing the job they were told to do, though I cannot say some of them did not step beyond the boundaries of common sense.
As such (and I hope you can understand), I am compelled to place all law enforcement personnel assigned to Occupy sites on notice that physical assaults and military-like raids against peaceful protesters will not be tolerated. Local law does not, in fact, trump Federal law in cases where the Constitution applies. Under no circumstances will you employ violent measures, no matter how less-than-lethal they may be, against those individuals and groups exercising their First Amendment rights.
There is no tolerance for police escalation that forces people to defend themselves. Scott Olsen's experience has shown us that once the police have escalated, they will continue to escalate the violence of the situation, regardless as to whether or not the protesters themselves have even begun to relinquish their hold on peace.
"I am deeply concerned that protesters will be emboldened by the recent rash of violent acts against police officers in other cities. New York’s police officers are working around the clock as the already overburdened economy in New York is being drained by 'occupiers' who intentionally and maliciously instigate needless and violent confrontations with the police."
I, too, am deeply concerned. I am concerned that the law enforcement in Nashville, New York and San Francisco will escalate their levels of interaction with the protesters based on the events in Oakland. I am concerned that the level of police interaction, including the frivolous use of crowd-dispersing technologies, will increase the burden on the economies of all the localities involved. I am concerned that the law enforcement officials will cross the line without proper consideration and instigate needless and violent confrontations in order to force a fight.
Justifying police aggression by saying, "Well, the protesters fought back" will not be tolerated as an excuse.
Do not misjudge my concerns. I believe in our law enforcement personnel. As a military veteran, I respect anyone who volunteers for a service that places their lives on the line. I do not believe they can be held accountable for the actions they take while under orders.
I will, however, hold their leadership accountable. I will hold local government and elected officials accountable.
This is my notice to you and the other leadership that your obfuscations of the truth will not be tolerated.
Sincerely,
The Rage Against the Misuse of Police Forces
In a recent interview with the New York Post, you stated the following:
“In light of the growing violence attendant to the 'Occupy' movements across the country, particularly as evidenced by the recent events in Oakland, I am compelled to place these so-called 'occupiers' on notice that physical assaults on police officers will not be tolerated."
The growing violence attendant to the Occupy movements, if I could just point this out, started with the law enforcement officers and not with the protesters. I have watched video after video and, even from conservative and anti-OWS sites, have not yet found one that shows protesters starting the violence.
I'm sure we can both admit that Oakland was a travesty, an example of a chain of poor decisions and even worse judgments. I'm sure we can both agree, from watching the multitude of video footage, that Scott Olsen did nothing by standing there and, certainly, nothing while lying prone on the ground, to deserve a crowd-controlling explosive device to be thrown almost upon his body, not withstanding the rubber bullet or tear gas canister that dropped him in the first place.
I do not blame or fault the law enforcement officers for doing the job they were told to do, though I cannot say some of them did not step beyond the boundaries of common sense.
As such (and I hope you can understand), I am compelled to place all law enforcement personnel assigned to Occupy sites on notice that physical assaults and military-like raids against peaceful protesters will not be tolerated. Local law does not, in fact, trump Federal law in cases where the Constitution applies. Under no circumstances will you employ violent measures, no matter how less-than-lethal they may be, against those individuals and groups exercising their First Amendment rights.
There is no tolerance for police escalation that forces people to defend themselves. Scott Olsen's experience has shown us that once the police have escalated, they will continue to escalate the violence of the situation, regardless as to whether or not the protesters themselves have even begun to relinquish their hold on peace.
"I am deeply concerned that protesters will be emboldened by the recent rash of violent acts against police officers in other cities. New York’s police officers are working around the clock as the already overburdened economy in New York is being drained by 'occupiers' who intentionally and maliciously instigate needless and violent confrontations with the police."
I, too, am deeply concerned. I am concerned that the law enforcement in Nashville, New York and San Francisco will escalate their levels of interaction with the protesters based on the events in Oakland. I am concerned that the level of police interaction, including the frivolous use of crowd-dispersing technologies, will increase the burden on the economies of all the localities involved. I am concerned that the law enforcement officials will cross the line without proper consideration and instigate needless and violent confrontations in order to force a fight.
Justifying police aggression by saying, "Well, the protesters fought back" will not be tolerated as an excuse.
Do not misjudge my concerns. I believe in our law enforcement personnel. As a military veteran, I respect anyone who volunteers for a service that places their lives on the line. I do not believe they can be held accountable for the actions they take while under orders.
I will, however, hold their leadership accountable. I will hold local government and elected officials accountable.
This is my notice to you and the other leadership that your obfuscations of the truth will not be tolerated.
Sincerely,
The Rage Against the Misuse of Police Forces
An Open Letter to "Wake Up"
(Originally posted to Facebook October 27, 2011)
Dear Everyone,
Yes, everyone. The Blues, the Reds, the in-betweens, the teeming masses of humanity, the card carrying members of the human race.
The excrement has, indeed, hit the proverbial fan.
We are a nation divided, a fractured empire, a fermenting republic.
In Oakland the elected leadership chose to employ police measures and it backfired. Was it due to some of the protesters, some overly enthusiastic police officers, some turbulence of violence roiling beneath the surface of the combined waters? Was it Mayor Quan and her senior leadership? Was it sheer coincidence and bad luck? The blame, likely, rests in quite a few places... that perfect mixture of opposing emotions and beliefs, the keg of powder laid too close to the torch.
In Cleveland, we have the opposite. A Federal judge reinforcing the rights of the protesters to assemble in the face of local government trying to deny them their assembly.
We have people being arrested all over the country for exercising their First Amendment rights, we have police caught between doing the jobs they are told to do and their own personal moral codes... we have the first serious casualty of the growing unrest, Scott Olsen, an Iraq War veteran who, at the time of this letter, is in critical, but stable, condition with a fractured skull, likely from a tear gas canister.
We have the 53s, the 99s, the 1s, the assortment of statistical variants and those who do not wish to be identified with any of them. We have the "haves" and the "have nots", the "cares" and the "care nots", we have cross-ideological movements across the board, breaking down the partisan divide amongst the populace, it not amongst the politicians.
These movements are alive. They are evolving. The circumstances aligned to provoke a continued series of reactions to reactions that have catalyzed a new mixture of ideologies. The growing crisis in our broken system gave birth to the 99%, who in turn brought forth the conception of the 53%... both of whom have instilled further passion in those outliers and extremists not fathered by either movement.
"May you live in interesting times" certainly covers it, though we should consider it less an old Asian curse and more of a sign that a change is coming, hopefully one for the betterment of all.
And this is why people need to start reading every news story, start thinking for themselves instead of along party lines. We are at a fulcrum in our nation's story, a climax in this current chapter.
Talk to your representatives, talk to your protesters, your anti-protesters, your barista, your barber, your city council members. Read the news from multiple papers. Watch Fox, CNN, the Christian News Network, then hit balancedpolitics.org and factcheck.org.
Educate yourself. Don't let someone else do it for you. Don't let the pundits from both sides insult your intelligence.
It's time to wake up, America. It's time to stop being led by your own preconceived notions and ideals. It's time to stand for yourself, wherever that leads you.
You want to Occupy something? For a moment, forget your city, your state, your country... all those will come in time. There's something more important that you must first do.
Occupy yourself. Occupy your own intellect, your sense of purpose. Occupy the rights we have all been given as individuals, as human beings.
Occupy your voice, shout, be heard, be recognized.
Let's face it. This new trial in which we find our nation isn't about handouts, accountability, corporations, the government, the right, the left.
It's about the ambivalent. The individuals who have yet to take a stand or have taken a stand through the pressure of their peers.
It's about everyone exercising their rights, without the compulsion from others to choose where they stand. It's about reclaiming a nation for the people, for the individual, for the need to have your voice heard, no matter who opposes it.
Wake the hell up.
Then go do something about it.
Sincerely,
The Voices Not Yet Heard
Dear Everyone,
Yes, everyone. The Blues, the Reds, the in-betweens, the teeming masses of humanity, the card carrying members of the human race.
The excrement has, indeed, hit the proverbial fan.
We are a nation divided, a fractured empire, a fermenting republic.
In Oakland the elected leadership chose to employ police measures and it backfired. Was it due to some of the protesters, some overly enthusiastic police officers, some turbulence of violence roiling beneath the surface of the combined waters? Was it Mayor Quan and her senior leadership? Was it sheer coincidence and bad luck? The blame, likely, rests in quite a few places... that perfect mixture of opposing emotions and beliefs, the keg of powder laid too close to the torch.
In Cleveland, we have the opposite. A Federal judge reinforcing the rights of the protesters to assemble in the face of local government trying to deny them their assembly.
We have people being arrested all over the country for exercising their First Amendment rights, we have police caught between doing the jobs they are told to do and their own personal moral codes... we have the first serious casualty of the growing unrest, Scott Olsen, an Iraq War veteran who, at the time of this letter, is in critical, but stable, condition with a fractured skull, likely from a tear gas canister.
We have the 53s, the 99s, the 1s, the assortment of statistical variants and those who do not wish to be identified with any of them. We have the "haves" and the "have nots", the "cares" and the "care nots", we have cross-ideological movements across the board, breaking down the partisan divide amongst the populace, it not amongst the politicians.
These movements are alive. They are evolving. The circumstances aligned to provoke a continued series of reactions to reactions that have catalyzed a new mixture of ideologies. The growing crisis in our broken system gave birth to the 99%, who in turn brought forth the conception of the 53%... both of whom have instilled further passion in those outliers and extremists not fathered by either movement.
"May you live in interesting times" certainly covers it, though we should consider it less an old Asian curse and more of a sign that a change is coming, hopefully one for the betterment of all.
And this is why people need to start reading every news story, start thinking for themselves instead of along party lines. We are at a fulcrum in our nation's story, a climax in this current chapter.
Talk to your representatives, talk to your protesters, your anti-protesters, your barista, your barber, your city council members. Read the news from multiple papers. Watch Fox, CNN, the Christian News Network, then hit balancedpolitics.org and factcheck.org.
Educate yourself. Don't let someone else do it for you. Don't let the pundits from both sides insult your intelligence.
It's time to wake up, America. It's time to stop being led by your own preconceived notions and ideals. It's time to stand for yourself, wherever that leads you.
You want to Occupy something? For a moment, forget your city, your state, your country... all those will come in time. There's something more important that you must first do.
Occupy yourself. Occupy your own intellect, your sense of purpose. Occupy the rights we have all been given as individuals, as human beings.
Occupy your voice, shout, be heard, be recognized.
Let's face it. This new trial in which we find our nation isn't about handouts, accountability, corporations, the government, the right, the left.
It's about the ambivalent. The individuals who have yet to take a stand or have taken a stand through the pressure of their peers.
It's about everyone exercising their rights, without the compulsion from others to choose where they stand. It's about reclaiming a nation for the people, for the individual, for the need to have your voice heard, no matter who opposes it.
Wake the hell up.
Then go do something about it.
Sincerely,
The Voices Not Yet Heard
An Open Letter to the "Entitlement" Crowd
(Originally posted to Facebook October 26, 2011)
Dear Taxpayers,
Quite like my "Open Letter to the 53%", this letter goes out to all of those individuals who end the year with a net loss on their taxes (i.e., no refund and, possibly, paying additional taxes beyond what was taken from their paychecks). The "You Don't Deserve My Money" crowd or, perhaps, the "My Taxes Aren't Your Entitlement" posse. You rant and rail against the "handouts" given to those not paying their "fair" share of taxes in a state of unbridled hypocrisy, while ignoring the greatest "entitlement" threat out of either blatant, possibly feigned, ignorance or, perhaps, allowing your own common sense to become so constipated by your partisan ideals that your eventual intellectual defecation is so saturated with red, even your family practitioner won't touch it (and we, the concerned, consider that to be a "Bad Thing").
Feeling insulted? A bit offended? Perhaps your dander is, as they say, up?
Good. Then you're paying attention.
Allow me to start with an example that will likely raise your dander further.
This year, after filing all the requisite information, my final tax responsibility left me with a net profit of approximately $600 (i.e. my return was that much over what I had paid on my income tax, social security tax, medicare tax, etc. combined during 2010). My applicable deductions and credits allowed me to receive $600 of the taxes paid by others.
"Great Scott! You're freeloading on my dime," you might exclaim. Certainly, you would be well within your rights, minus your poor impersonation of Christopher Lloyd's "Doc Brown" character. I pay no taxes... a negative income tax, so to speak. To the "Entitlementers", as I shall now address you, I am amongst the worst sort of scum there is, an individual tax payer who profits from the system.
Now, where is the hypocrisy, you might ask? Obviously, I've just proven your point that the NIT is the bane of your hard-earned, taxable dollars.
Well, let's look at the next facet of your belief system. All of these whiners, these 99 Percenters, these dead beat protesters are attacking your capitalist system, your corporations, your corn-fed American Heroes of Industry. You champion the corporate system... I mean, hell, it isn't the fault of the "Too Big To Fails" for investing in AIG's mortgages nor is it the fault of other TBTF's for making poor decisions in managing their companies. If Joe Protester hadn't taken on that hefty mortgage (gambling on the same outcome of the system as the TBTF's), they wouldn't be in the position they were in now, burdening the government by stealing the taxes you earned the right to pay.
I mean, those companies wouldn't dare do anything to demand some sort of "entitlement" to your share of the taxes. They make billions of dollars, so they're obviously paying even more of a share than you, right?
Remember where I may have possibly insulted your collective intelligence in my opening paragraph? When I cited your hypocrisy in how your beliefs in the system work?
Yeah, you remember. You remember and you've read this far so you can find some way to counter, to turn the tables, to score that game winning point.
And now you've reached the point where I start telling you about your Great American Heroes and how the Cobra Agents of Entitlement actually seem a good bit less evil and more like a reasonably disgruntled citizen base.
Over the the last few years (and, yes, I'm only going back that far... let's say you wouldn't want me to fuel up my Delorian and fire up a decade or two ago), multiple corporations have paid far less than the statutory 35% in taxes and have had years in which they had a NIT... a net profit on their total taxes (i.e., a tax return, for a corporation).
Over that last three tax years (2008-2010), let's look at some of the corporations tax liabilities:
General Electric had a liability of negative 4.7 billion dollars. That's a total of 4.7 billion credited to the company... actually paid to them. They haven't paid any net taxes at all on nearly 7.7 billion dollars of profit.
American Electric Power had a negative liability of about 550 million on a three year profit of 5.8 billion. This is the parent company of Appalachian Power that we in Virginia have watched demand price increases from the State Congress to offset a loss of profit. Seriously. Let *that* soak in for a moment, eh?
Wells Fargo is at the lower end... "only" 680 million of negative liability on a nearly 49 billion profit. Still, take a moment to consider that the banking industry is now adding additional fees to cover a loss of profits expected from recent legislation limiting ATM and other fees. They've had a net profit on their taxes over the last three years, but that isn't enough?
That's just three out of dozens, with the top dozen corporations taking in a whopping combined 171 billion dollars of tax *profit* over the last three years.
The reason for this? Refundable, or Non-Wastable, Tax Credits. These are credits that are payable to the corporations, even if their net liability drops below zero. We owe this beauty of the system to the Non-Refundable, or Wastable, Tax Credits, which will only drop liability to zero, but not below. However, combine the two and you have corporations using Non-Refundable credits to lower their liability to a point where the Refundable credits will almost guarantee a profit.
A profit... from your tax dollars. The tax dollars you say aren't entitled to anyone, no matter how poor. Everyone should pay their fair share, right? It's American, damn it! Tax the freeloaders for freeloading and get'em away from my dime! God Bless the Corporations!
Seriously?
Let's not even get into the assorted bail outs that both the TBTF banks and corporations have used to give themselves additional bonuses, apparently for doing a bang up job on the economy. We caught them in the act of gang-banging the economy and they're taking royalties like some sort of executive Ron Jeremy.
Both the tax credits and the bail outs were designed as incentives to help fix the system: more money for the financial institutions to loan in order to build small businesses (i.e. create more jobs), funds for growth (i.e. to create more jobs), backing stockholder investments to increase confidence and investing (i.e. yeah, you know), money to keep some corporations and banks from crashing completely and taking the country with them (i.e. damage control to prevent the loss of, fuck it, you know which word I'm going to use). As far as credits go, we're talking using more environmentally friendly technologies, researching low to no profit (but beneficial) technologies, paying taxes for overseas commerce, etc.
Those are you tax dollars going to these companies. Does your entitlement mentality raise any alarms at this? Because it should. The very corporations you defend are the greatest burden on the tax system. Many of them pay less than half of the statutory 35% corporate tax... many more actually receive tax returns. Neither of those seems to be a "fair" share, do they?
This is why I felt a need to insult your collective intelligence. You needed the proverbial slap in the face, the challenge to your honor, the kick in your balls. I did not do it because I felt an overwhelming desire to just insult on principle (though, that has happened); rather, I did it because it would raise your dander enough to read the rest... and, thereby, raise your awareness.
An ambush of the intellect, so to speak.
Your entitlement concerns are valid, I give you that. But you are villianizing the wrong people or, at best, ignorant of the greatest threats. You are the shepherds searching for mites on one sheep while wolves devour the rest of your flock.
I agree the system should be fair. I agree that your much vaunted entitlements are a threat and a burden to the system.
I also agree that you should be fully informed and aware of where the guilt actually rests.
All I ask... it's simple... look to your Corporate Heroes and see what really resides within those profit-infused hearts of theirs.
Sincerely,
The Belief in a Better System
Dear Taxpayers,
Quite like my "Open Letter to the 53%", this letter goes out to all of those individuals who end the year with a net loss on their taxes (i.e., no refund and, possibly, paying additional taxes beyond what was taken from their paychecks). The "You Don't Deserve My Money" crowd or, perhaps, the "My Taxes Aren't Your Entitlement" posse. You rant and rail against the "handouts" given to those not paying their "fair" share of taxes in a state of unbridled hypocrisy, while ignoring the greatest "entitlement" threat out of either blatant, possibly feigned, ignorance or, perhaps, allowing your own common sense to become so constipated by your partisan ideals that your eventual intellectual defecation is so saturated with red, even your family practitioner won't touch it (and we, the concerned, consider that to be a "Bad Thing").
Feeling insulted? A bit offended? Perhaps your dander is, as they say, up?
Good. Then you're paying attention.
Allow me to start with an example that will likely raise your dander further.
This year, after filing all the requisite information, my final tax responsibility left me with a net profit of approximately $600 (i.e. my return was that much over what I had paid on my income tax, social security tax, medicare tax, etc. combined during 2010). My applicable deductions and credits allowed me to receive $600 of the taxes paid by others.
"Great Scott! You're freeloading on my dime," you might exclaim. Certainly, you would be well within your rights, minus your poor impersonation of Christopher Lloyd's "Doc Brown" character. I pay no taxes... a negative income tax, so to speak. To the "Entitlementers", as I shall now address you, I am amongst the worst sort of scum there is, an individual tax payer who profits from the system.
Now, where is the hypocrisy, you might ask? Obviously, I've just proven your point that the NIT is the bane of your hard-earned, taxable dollars.
Well, let's look at the next facet of your belief system. All of these whiners, these 99 Percenters, these dead beat protesters are attacking your capitalist system, your corporations, your corn-fed American Heroes of Industry. You champion the corporate system... I mean, hell, it isn't the fault of the "Too Big To Fails" for investing in AIG's mortgages nor is it the fault of other TBTF's for making poor decisions in managing their companies. If Joe Protester hadn't taken on that hefty mortgage (gambling on the same outcome of the system as the TBTF's), they wouldn't be in the position they were in now, burdening the government by stealing the taxes you earned the right to pay.
I mean, those companies wouldn't dare do anything to demand some sort of "entitlement" to your share of the taxes. They make billions of dollars, so they're obviously paying even more of a share than you, right?
Remember where I may have possibly insulted your collective intelligence in my opening paragraph? When I cited your hypocrisy in how your beliefs in the system work?
Yeah, you remember. You remember and you've read this far so you can find some way to counter, to turn the tables, to score that game winning point.
And now you've reached the point where I start telling you about your Great American Heroes and how the Cobra Agents of Entitlement actually seem a good bit less evil and more like a reasonably disgruntled citizen base.
Over the the last few years (and, yes, I'm only going back that far... let's say you wouldn't want me to fuel up my Delorian and fire up a decade or two ago), multiple corporations have paid far less than the statutory 35% in taxes and have had years in which they had a NIT... a net profit on their total taxes (i.e., a tax return, for a corporation).
Over that last three tax years (2008-2010), let's look at some of the corporations tax liabilities:
General Electric had a liability of negative 4.7 billion dollars. That's a total of 4.7 billion credited to the company... actually paid to them. They haven't paid any net taxes at all on nearly 7.7 billion dollars of profit.
American Electric Power had a negative liability of about 550 million on a three year profit of 5.8 billion. This is the parent company of Appalachian Power that we in Virginia have watched demand price increases from the State Congress to offset a loss of profit. Seriously. Let *that* soak in for a moment, eh?
Wells Fargo is at the lower end... "only" 680 million of negative liability on a nearly 49 billion profit. Still, take a moment to consider that the banking industry is now adding additional fees to cover a loss of profits expected from recent legislation limiting ATM and other fees. They've had a net profit on their taxes over the last three years, but that isn't enough?
That's just three out of dozens, with the top dozen corporations taking in a whopping combined 171 billion dollars of tax *profit* over the last three years.
The reason for this? Refundable, or Non-Wastable, Tax Credits. These are credits that are payable to the corporations, even if their net liability drops below zero. We owe this beauty of the system to the Non-Refundable, or Wastable, Tax Credits, which will only drop liability to zero, but not below. However, combine the two and you have corporations using Non-Refundable credits to lower their liability to a point where the Refundable credits will almost guarantee a profit.
A profit... from your tax dollars. The tax dollars you say aren't entitled to anyone, no matter how poor. Everyone should pay their fair share, right? It's American, damn it! Tax the freeloaders for freeloading and get'em away from my dime! God Bless the Corporations!
Seriously?
Let's not even get into the assorted bail outs that both the TBTF banks and corporations have used to give themselves additional bonuses, apparently for doing a bang up job on the economy. We caught them in the act of gang-banging the economy and they're taking royalties like some sort of executive Ron Jeremy.
Both the tax credits and the bail outs were designed as incentives to help fix the system: more money for the financial institutions to loan in order to build small businesses (i.e. create more jobs), funds for growth (i.e. to create more jobs), backing stockholder investments to increase confidence and investing (i.e. yeah, you know), money to keep some corporations and banks from crashing completely and taking the country with them (i.e. damage control to prevent the loss of, fuck it, you know which word I'm going to use). As far as credits go, we're talking using more environmentally friendly technologies, researching low to no profit (but beneficial) technologies, paying taxes for overseas commerce, etc.
Those are you tax dollars going to these companies. Does your entitlement mentality raise any alarms at this? Because it should. The very corporations you defend are the greatest burden on the tax system. Many of them pay less than half of the statutory 35% corporate tax... many more actually receive tax returns. Neither of those seems to be a "fair" share, do they?
This is why I felt a need to insult your collective intelligence. You needed the proverbial slap in the face, the challenge to your honor, the kick in your balls. I did not do it because I felt an overwhelming desire to just insult on principle (though, that has happened); rather, I did it because it would raise your dander enough to read the rest... and, thereby, raise your awareness.
An ambush of the intellect, so to speak.
Your entitlement concerns are valid, I give you that. But you are villianizing the wrong people or, at best, ignorant of the greatest threats. You are the shepherds searching for mites on one sheep while wolves devour the rest of your flock.
I agree the system should be fair. I agree that your much vaunted entitlements are a threat and a burden to the system.
I also agree that you should be fully informed and aware of where the guilt actually rests.
All I ask... it's simple... look to your Corporate Heroes and see what really resides within those profit-infused hearts of theirs.
Sincerely,
The Belief in a Better System
An Open Letter the the 53%
(Originally posted to Facebook October 17, 2011)
Dear "Taxpayers" of America,
I regret that I must use the title or term of your design loosely, but many of those posting letters and pictures of how they are in the percentage of Americans that pay taxes do not, in fact, actually pay those taxes, as from the letters I have read, most of those individuals appear to qualify for rather exceptional tax returns in excess of what they would have paid during the course of the year. I felt I needed to explain the quotations surrounding the term before proceeding further into the heart of the letter.
Perhaps we have different views of that cultural icon known as "The American Dream". Perhaps we are not, as modern colloquialism would say, "Not in sync." You, the 53s, seem to feel that the dream is still quite alive, though it requires holding between two and four jobs, living below one's means, denying one's self any real enjoyment in life in the hopes that your sacrifices will one day pay off with incredible success. I, however, still believe in the mid-20th century application of the Dream, the "Leave it to Beaver"-esque model of how life should be. Certainly, we should not have life reflect television, but the appropriate analogy is there. The American Dream, where a family not just survives, but thrives, on the income of a single individual. The proverbial breadwinner of the family has a job with benefits: health insurance, sick days, paid vacations, retirement plan, etc. Their wages/salary allow them to purchase a car, buy a modest house suitable for their family, put something into savings for both their children's education and their own retirement. There are difficult times, certainly, but they are rarities that do not permanently impact the healthiness and happiness of the family or the individuals therein.
That is the Dream... that goal to which we would all strive. We're not looking to be wealthy beyond measure; however, we would like all of our years of hard work to show something more than the blisters and callouses of regret and sacrifice. I was a professional for some years, first in the military and later in retail management. I scraped by, I managed to live from paycheck to paycheck, a task made more daunting when children were added into the mix. I spent over ten years trying to balance debts and the necessities for survival.
Should I have to choose between the Dream and spending time with my kids? Should I have to choose between having a decent house/apartment and owning a vehicle? Should I have to eat simple and bland foods in order to afford private insurance? Should any of us have to do any of these and more?
Do not mistake my the intent of my message. I believe hard work should be involved; however, I do not believe life should be work and no play... I do not believe we should sacrifice everything in order to work for the future potential of a chance at the Dream. Just a chance, not a guarantee that we're going to get it.
I empathize with the letters from the 53%. I understand and respect your perspective. But let me state something rather important, a major flaw in your argument:
You are, in fact, still part of the 99%, regardless of whether or not you believe that you are. If you're working sixty-plus hours per week, balancing your debts with your basic survival needs, never taking a vacation, never being able to enjoy life for more than a few moments, then you are the 99%. It is not about your ideology, your personal beliefs, your work ethic, your ethnicity, your service... it is about the growing divide between the classes, the continuing decline of what was once a strong middle-class. The 99% is about not being part of the 1% that controls a vast percentage of the wealth in our nation. Hell, we could even extend it to say, "We are the 95%", and counting the 5% that controls approximately 70% of the wealth as the adversary in this "class war".
Let's understand this. It is not about freedom or patriotism. It isn't about extremist political agendas. It's not about lazy, unwashed masses looking for handouts.
It's about Democracy. God-damned, capital fucking "D", Democracy.
It's about our nation's version of it, the idea that the government serves at the will of the people and should, respectively, serve the interests of the people. It's about our system being damaged, broken, in a state of disrepair in that it no longer allows equality of voice. It's about money and promises of power shaping the political landscape... and I'm talking all sides of the ideological spectrum, from one extreme to the other.
We haven't had a division between the classes this large since the late 19th/early 20th centuries... and that gap was brought about due to corruption within the system. Powerful figures with exceptional amounts of money and a desire to exploit their fellow men pushing the system to do what they wanted it to do. We fixed that with child labor laws, with the application of the 40-hour work week, with sufferage... you name it. The system was changed and people, for the most part, went on to find their portion of the Dream.
Now, we have corporate entities, recognized as individuals, who perform the same function as the old rail and industrial barons. We have lobbyists and interest groups poking and prodding at federal regulations in order to maximize their profits.
Now, I don't begrudge the desire to make profits. We are a capitalist nation, after all... and capitalism works better than other economic systems. But, we must decide if we want our version of capitalism to be exploitative or if we would prefer for it to offer a measure of fairness to all involved. Do we want to keep hearing the variations of "pull yourself up by the bootstraps", only to find that no matter how hard we work, no matter how hard we try, the heights to which we aspire will continue to move just out of our reach?
I don't. I want better than that. I want it for myself, for my fiancee, for my children, for my family, for my friends, for the strangers across the nation who find themselves in the same predicament. I want better for everyone who gives it more than a try or two. We shouldn't have to kill ourselves to survive... that's counter-intuitive and at cross purposes.
I want better for the 53%. I want better for the 99%. Hell, I even want better for the 1%.
That's what the 99% implies. We want our nation to be better, as it has been in the past. We want the system to change, to repair itself. We want America for all Americans and not just some of them. We want all voices heard, we want the majority represented as equally as the more powerful minority. We want the system to work the way it was designed to.
And I'm sure the 53% would agree. We're not asking for handouts; rather, we're asking for acknowledgment that our hard work will provide reward instead of a seemingly endless sacrifice of our lives at the grindstone.
Deny it if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that we are all the 99%. We are the muted voices of the nation, the metal shaped between the hammer of the powered interests and the anvil of the governments.
You are the 99%. I am the 99%. We are in this together, whether we like it or not.
Sincerely,
The Belief in 100%
Dear "Taxpayers" of America,
I regret that I must use the title or term of your design loosely, but many of those posting letters and pictures of how they are in the percentage of Americans that pay taxes do not, in fact, actually pay those taxes, as from the letters I have read, most of those individuals appear to qualify for rather exceptional tax returns in excess of what they would have paid during the course of the year. I felt I needed to explain the quotations surrounding the term before proceeding further into the heart of the letter.
Perhaps we have different views of that cultural icon known as "The American Dream". Perhaps we are not, as modern colloquialism would say, "Not in sync." You, the 53s, seem to feel that the dream is still quite alive, though it requires holding between two and four jobs, living below one's means, denying one's self any real enjoyment in life in the hopes that your sacrifices will one day pay off with incredible success. I, however, still believe in the mid-20th century application of the Dream, the "Leave it to Beaver"-esque model of how life should be. Certainly, we should not have life reflect television, but the appropriate analogy is there. The American Dream, where a family not just survives, but thrives, on the income of a single individual. The proverbial breadwinner of the family has a job with benefits: health insurance, sick days, paid vacations, retirement plan, etc. Their wages/salary allow them to purchase a car, buy a modest house suitable for their family, put something into savings for both their children's education and their own retirement. There are difficult times, certainly, but they are rarities that do not permanently impact the healthiness and happiness of the family or the individuals therein.
That is the Dream... that goal to which we would all strive. We're not looking to be wealthy beyond measure; however, we would like all of our years of hard work to show something more than the blisters and callouses of regret and sacrifice. I was a professional for some years, first in the military and later in retail management. I scraped by, I managed to live from paycheck to paycheck, a task made more daunting when children were added into the mix. I spent over ten years trying to balance debts and the necessities for survival.
Should I have to choose between the Dream and spending time with my kids? Should I have to choose between having a decent house/apartment and owning a vehicle? Should I have to eat simple and bland foods in order to afford private insurance? Should any of us have to do any of these and more?
Do not mistake my the intent of my message. I believe hard work should be involved; however, I do not believe life should be work and no play... I do not believe we should sacrifice everything in order to work for the future potential of a chance at the Dream. Just a chance, not a guarantee that we're going to get it.
I empathize with the letters from the 53%. I understand and respect your perspective. But let me state something rather important, a major flaw in your argument:
You are, in fact, still part of the 99%, regardless of whether or not you believe that you are. If you're working sixty-plus hours per week, balancing your debts with your basic survival needs, never taking a vacation, never being able to enjoy life for more than a few moments, then you are the 99%. It is not about your ideology, your personal beliefs, your work ethic, your ethnicity, your service... it is about the growing divide between the classes, the continuing decline of what was once a strong middle-class. The 99% is about not being part of the 1% that controls a vast percentage of the wealth in our nation. Hell, we could even extend it to say, "We are the 95%", and counting the 5% that controls approximately 70% of the wealth as the adversary in this "class war".
Let's understand this. It is not about freedom or patriotism. It isn't about extremist political agendas. It's not about lazy, unwashed masses looking for handouts.
It's about Democracy. God-damned, capital fucking "D", Democracy.
It's about our nation's version of it, the idea that the government serves at the will of the people and should, respectively, serve the interests of the people. It's about our system being damaged, broken, in a state of disrepair in that it no longer allows equality of voice. It's about money and promises of power shaping the political landscape... and I'm talking all sides of the ideological spectrum, from one extreme to the other.
We haven't had a division between the classes this large since the late 19th/early 20th centuries... and that gap was brought about due to corruption within the system. Powerful figures with exceptional amounts of money and a desire to exploit their fellow men pushing the system to do what they wanted it to do. We fixed that with child labor laws, with the application of the 40-hour work week, with sufferage... you name it. The system was changed and people, for the most part, went on to find their portion of the Dream.
Now, we have corporate entities, recognized as individuals, who perform the same function as the old rail and industrial barons. We have lobbyists and interest groups poking and prodding at federal regulations in order to maximize their profits.
Now, I don't begrudge the desire to make profits. We are a capitalist nation, after all... and capitalism works better than other economic systems. But, we must decide if we want our version of capitalism to be exploitative or if we would prefer for it to offer a measure of fairness to all involved. Do we want to keep hearing the variations of "pull yourself up by the bootstraps", only to find that no matter how hard we work, no matter how hard we try, the heights to which we aspire will continue to move just out of our reach?
I don't. I want better than that. I want it for myself, for my fiancee, for my children, for my family, for my friends, for the strangers across the nation who find themselves in the same predicament. I want better for everyone who gives it more than a try or two. We shouldn't have to kill ourselves to survive... that's counter-intuitive and at cross purposes.
I want better for the 53%. I want better for the 99%. Hell, I even want better for the 1%.
That's what the 99% implies. We want our nation to be better, as it has been in the past. We want the system to change, to repair itself. We want America for all Americans and not just some of them. We want all voices heard, we want the majority represented as equally as the more powerful minority. We want the system to work the way it was designed to.
And I'm sure the 53% would agree. We're not asking for handouts; rather, we're asking for acknowledgment that our hard work will provide reward instead of a seemingly endless sacrifice of our lives at the grindstone.
Deny it if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that we are all the 99%. We are the muted voices of the nation, the metal shaped between the hammer of the powered interests and the anvil of the governments.
You are the 99%. I am the 99%. We are in this together, whether we like it or not.
Sincerely,
The Belief in 100%
Occupy Blogging?
I'm not a blogger.
I have certainly tried in the past, but I lack the technical ability to make a truly outstanding blog. Of course, I'll settle for mediocrity in the blogosphere.
The first few posts are taken from Facebook notes, specifically a series of "open letters" I wrote over the course of a few weeks.
After transferring those to the blog, I will endeavor to maintain a weekly open letter, rant, suggestion, etc.
So ends the most (or least, depending on your perspective) boring entry.
I have certainly tried in the past, but I lack the technical ability to make a truly outstanding blog. Of course, I'll settle for mediocrity in the blogosphere.
The first few posts are taken from Facebook notes, specifically a series of "open letters" I wrote over the course of a few weeks.
After transferring those to the blog, I will endeavor to maintain a weekly open letter, rant, suggestion, etc.
So ends the most (or least, depending on your perspective) boring entry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)