The Occupation

 

The “Arab Spring” is still upon us. There is an outpouring of frustration about the sad situation in which many peoples find themselves, and there is anger directed against the leaders of their existing governments. The rebellions – and there are many of them – are directed against tyrants who have, for so long, held power and used it for their own gain. As if in reaction to an old story – the continuation of treatment like that suffered in ancient times – news of the uprisings has been spread by modern means like the social media on the internet. Even if the results of their rebellions won't be significantly different from those of the past, new technology will be used to circulate information about it.

The “Occupy Wall Street” movement bears many similarities to the Arab Spring. Like the unrest in the Middle East there is frustration about the situation in which the protesters find themselves, and there is anger against the one percent of the population who, they feel, are the cause of their situation. Like the protests far away, the social media and the internet are being used to publicize both the movement and the way individuals can join it. The goals of the movement may be unclear, but the passion is not.

There is the impression, common among participants, that the executives of Wall Street firms, and all of those who earn large incomes, are responsible for the difficulties of the rest of the people. So those with debts for their education or homes, those either without jobs or unsatisfied with the ones they have, and people interested in social justice in general, feel the need to express their dissatisfaction, and they do that by establishing tent cities, by marching, and by getting themselves arrested. The movement has become widespread and it is garnering the publicity desired. It has become a national movement and a national obsession.

Lacking focused goals, however, there is no obvious end point. People who insist that the government have a strategy for getting out of a situation before embarking on it, seem to be without any strategy for ending their own protest. It will last “as long as it takes,” although what “it takes” means, remains undefined. The only thing clear – to others if not to them – is that increasing the tax on that “one percent” will not have much effect on the national debt or on their individual situations.ⁱ Perhaps they'll feel better, but it will be based on the suffering of the “rich” rather than on anything more substantive.

More to the point, though, is that the protesters don't – or won't – recognize that on a global scale they are among the rich. They live in a country that provides them with resources that most of the world envies. Indeed, most of the world's population have no access to the level of education of whose cost they complain; most of the world can't even think about the homes which the protesters find too expensive; and the cost of gasoline – a sore point with the owners of automobilesⁱⁱ – is actually lower in the United States than in most parts of the world. And those who demand free health care for all don't seem to recognize that our health care is among the best in the world – even for the poor and undocumented. If some countries provide “free” socialized medicine, it is only because taxes are higher in order to pay for it. Nothing is free. The cost must come from somewhere.ⁱⁱⁱ

It is sobering to consider the financial situation of America and her citizens. While those who are demonstrating express the idea that the “rich” should be taxed to pay for the standard of living to which they feel entitled, they do not think about the fact that they are far better off than most of the world's people. According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in 2009 the US GDP was more than 58 times that of Argentina, the lowest rated of the G20 nations. And the list doesn't include developing countries and the Third World. If we consider the global perspective, many of those who are unhappy with their status are actually themselves in the top one percent. What are their obligations to the rest of the world?

My intent is not to minimize the problems faced by those who protest, nor to belittle them, but rather to provide some perspective. Whatever their difficulties, they are vastly better off than most of the world, and complaining about the greed of others is not the answer to the problem. A recognition of our favored position and an adjustment of expectations would be far more realistic and practical than living in tents and communicating with each other over their computers. It's time to go home and deal with the problems. And to consider the problems of others as well as themselves.

As Pogo Possum said,^iv “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

i     According to the National Taxpayers Union (NTU), in 2008 the top one percent already paid 38.02 percent of all personal income tax.

ii    Which, of course, are unaffordable for much of the world's population and they don't have adequate roads for their operation anyway.

iii    The real question is who pays for what. The method of collecting the revenues to pay the bills will be determined based on that. If equality of income, health care, and housing are considered appropriate, income taxes will to be raised while consumption taxes will remain the same or be lowered. According to the NTU the top fifty percent of earners (with incomes greater than $33,048 in 2008) already paid over 97 percent of personal income taxes, but these would have to be raised.

iv    Actually it was Walt Kelly.