Taxing And Voting

“The more things change …”

I think I've said that before. Not that it was original in the first place, but I think I'm repeating myself.ⁱ

The same is true of the subjects I choose to think about and to discuss. And one I can't get out of my mind, because the media talk about it every day, is the “Occupy Wall Street” protest in Zuccotti Park.ⁱⁱ In the past I've focused on its apparent lack of goals with the single exception of “Tax the rich,” which seems to have become their mantra. It's not clear whom they consider rich, although it seems to be everyone other than themselves. The rich are the “one percent” who, according to their ideology, are making out like bandits by stealing from the rest of us – the “ninety-nine percent.” They're not paying their fair share which is why we cannot pay our credit card bills, mortgage loans, health care costs, student loans, food costs, and the like.

I've noted in the past that raising the taxes on the “rich” wouldn't really solve our problem, and would not only attack the jackals we loathe, but those whom we love and lionizeⁱⁱⁱ (even if we do envy them a little). As a matter of fact, though I can't prove it, I suspect there are more people we love than those we hate on the one percent list. Most, of course, we've never heard of.^iv

But the real issue is us, not them, even though we focus on the others. It's easy to hate people we don't know – people whose names aren't even familiar. What we want is “equality” and they are depriving us of it. We're very different from our ancestors and, to a degree, we lack self-respect. If there is something wrong, someone else is to blame. We are being acted upon by forces greater than ourselves. We are impotent. If (read “when”) we don't succeed it's because of “them.”

But that is merely cover for our own greed, laziness, and failures. Thomas Edison is quoted as saying, “None of my inventions came by accident. I see a worthwhile need to be met and I make trial after trial until it comes. What it boils down to is one per cent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent perspiration.”^v,vi That was then. Now we purchase lottery tickets in the hope that we can cut out the perspiration. We don't really expect to win, but hey, you never know. What we're really looking for is a handout. We call it an “entitlement” since we are all entitled to whatever we need. We shouldn't have debts no matter what we want. (If we cheat on our income taxes it's because everyone else does it, and besides, the “rich” should be paying them for all of us.) What we need is socialism.^vii We shouldn't lack anything, and the others should be no better off than we – even if they work harder.^viii The “Bell Curve” should be replaced by a golden spike: instead of a range of incomes, everyone should have the same earnings. That would obviate the need for tax differentials since we'd all be getting, and paying in taxes, the same amount. Differentials based on accomplishment, or for any other reason, encourage competition, and we all know how harmful that can be.

But putting aside the specifics – or the lack of specifics – what is happening is a mass movement, much like the civil rights movements of the late 1950's and early 1960's, the movement for educational “relevance” of the early 1960's, and the anti-Viet Nam movement later in that decade. And the participants are the current version of the “Moral Majority.” The mantra may be different, but the psychology is the same. It's the psychology discussed by Eric Hoffer in the early 1950's in his book, “The True Believer.” Belonging to a movement along with others validates our own views – indeed, it validates us. We are part of something bigger than ourselves, even if we don't fully understand what it is or what are its implications. And if we have no goals of our own – if we feel isolated – we can immerse ourselves in meaning.

Unfortunately, the result is protest for its own sake. We become part of a fellowship of protesters who may not be any more enlightened about the goals of protest than we. In fact the message of the movement is not especially important except insofar as it serves as the current battle cry. To a degree, the messages of the various movements are interchangeable. It is the process that is important – the chance to be part of something important. It is a rebellion against authority.^ix It is anarchy,^x and we can get away with it because there are so many others.

Who are those others? Who participates in these protests? It seems to be the same group irrespective of the stated aim. That group consists of white,^xi middle and upper-middle class Americans^xii who see injustice wherever they look. That is not to say that, in the great battle of Good against Evil, there is not such injustice. But looking at the call of the protesters may not be the best way to understand why the demonstration is occurring.

It is more interesting to note what Americans do about their disgruntlement. If the goal is to change America in a particular way, it would seem that the best approach would be to choose representatives who would institute the policies they demand – whatever they are. But that does not seem to be the goal, and the logical solution is not one that, by and large, they're willing to undertake. In 1962, when the entire House of Representatives stood for election, as well as one third of the Senate, 47.3% of the voting age population turned out.^xiii,xiv In 2010, with the same positions up for election, we were down to 37.8%. In presidential years the trend has been in the same direction: in 1960 the turnout was 63.1% while in 2008 it was 56.8%.^xv While I can't get national figures for 2011, I know that about 16% of the citizens in my town (“city”) voted for mayor this year. Even if we allow for those below voting age, it is a disappointing, but telling, percentage.

I don't know if the protests will still be going on a few weeks from now when this is published, but I suspect they will – at least in some of the locations where they're now taking place. Even if they have no interest in putting in the effort to solve the problems about which they complain, people enjoy the camaraderie which accompanies mass protests. And they'll rejoice in doing so even if the neighborhood in which they hold their event is trashed, and its economy destroyed.

Next episode: “Edison Was Wrong” -- Wherein I take exception with myself – well, sort of.

i     That's what happens as you get older.

ii    The movement has spread elsewhere as well. It is said to have originated based on the protests which have formed a large part of the “Arab Spring.” In those protests the participants were prepared to risk their lives for their goals.

iii    For example, entertainment stars like Oprah Winfrey and sports stars like C. C. Sabathia. And lots of others in the public eye who earn large salaries but are admired for it. (According to the web site of the Major League Baseball Players Association, the minimum salary for the 2011 season is $414,000. TV and movie stars often get more for each performance. And a percentage, which, in keeping with their rich status, is closer to one percent than ninety-nine.)

iv    Less than half of the group are CEO's and Wall Street financiers and bankers according to a study by Indiana University economists cited in the (Mount Vernon, New York) Journal News, November 14, 2001. The majority are medical professionals, lawyers, computer workers, mathematicians, engineers, technical workers, salesmen, workers in “blue-collar and miscellaneous service jobs,” people in real estate, business operations workers, entrepreneurs, professors, scientists and, of course, media and sports professionals. It's a diverse group with only their incomes as a common link.

v     According to Wikiquote, it is a “statement in a press conference (1929), as quoted in Uncommon Friends: Life with Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Harvey Firestone, Alexis Carrel & Charles Lindbergh (1987) by James D. Newton, p. 24.”

vi    “One percent” and “ninety-nine percent.” That sounds familiar. Almost as if those who lack inspiration, whose livelihood, as it says in the Bible, depends on “the sweat of [their] brow[s]” – those whose wages depend on the work they do, are being treated unfairly.

vii    Of course we can't call it that. “Socialism” is a dirty word.

viii    And they'd be fools to work harder in a society that addresses all their needs irrespective of their effort.

ix     And especially our bosses. Perhaps also our parents and religion?

x     A poll by Penn, Schoen and Berland, in addition to demonstrating that more than half had participated in prior efforts at political action, states that 98% would support civil disobedience and 31% violence to achieve their goals.

xi    Baruch College researchers, business analyst Harrison Schultz and professor Hector R. Cordero-Guzman, state “Occupy Wall Street would qualify as stuff white people like. The sample of non-white people, ..., is too small to even analyze.”

xii     It's interesting that the poor – those with the most to gain by raising the taxes of the “rich” and increasing entitlements for themselves – are underrepresented. 13% were unemployed and 13% earned over $75,000 (information from the cited members of the faculty of Baruch College School of Public Affairs). Put differently, 87% are employed. The hard-core unemployed and the poor are not, for whatever reasons, the main participants in this cry for equity.

xiii   Infoplease.com. The source they cite is the Federal Election Commission.

xiv    I'll have a little more to say about voting in a future essay. And, possibly, more about taxes.

xv    Actually that was an improvement over 1996 when President William Clinton ran for reelection. The turnout was 49.1% and President Clinton received less than half of their votes.

The Council Of Wise Folks

The Council Of Wise Folks

(and the counsel of wise folksⁱ)

The President's Cabinet, consisting of the heads of the various agencies, is designed as a group of authorities for him, to advise him on areas about which he might not be as knowledgeable as he would like. Its members, however, are often chosen for political reasons, or because of the contributions they have already made to his election, or for future help they may offer. Expertise in the area for which they are chosen, necessary as it might be, is a less important consideration. They will follow his lead politically, or they will lose their positions.ⁱⁱ He may also have a separate group of unofficial advisors, however they, too, are aligned with him politically and their advice parallels his instincts, though it may be better informed.ⁱⁱⁱ

Some countries follow this model but others don't. In some cases – and this is often the situation when there is a plethora of political parties catering to a variety of interests – the advising council will consist of representatives of all the parties that participate in the government, since it would be impossible for any single party to gain a majority. The smörgåsbord of proposals that such a body provides is all but useless to the head of government. Each of its members is likely to pander to his own constituency, and unity is impossible. Policies may be cobbled in order to keep the government standing until the next election, but logic and consistency are often lacking.

To deal with this situation, therefore, as an addition to the presidential cabinet,^iv there could be a non-elected Council that would offer analyses and recommendations on a small number of subjects for dissemination to the public and politicians for guidance. The Council would have only moral authority, but it could set the tone for other organizations such as government panels and bureaucratic boards. ^v

Let me begin the discussion with the following highly arbitrary suggestions:

1. The Council should report to the President and to the American People.
2. It should consist of 101 members – the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, a representative of the opposing major party (ie opposing that of the Speaker), and 98 other members (7 X 14),
3. The members should represent seven Working Groups^vi (listed below) and each Group should discuss issues that fall in its purview:^vii perhaps the court system, and the death penalty would be subjects for discussion by the Law working Group, defense by Security, minority rights by Citizen needs, etc.

                                                                          a. Law

                                                                          b. Science

                                                                          c. Economics

                                                                          d. Citizen needs

                                                                          e. Security

                                                                          f. Foreign affairs

                                                                          g. Domestic affairs

4. Some issues might be raised by several different Groups (eg jobs might be discussed by the Economics Group, by Citizen needs, and by the Group on Domestic affairs – either simultaneously or at different times), and each might consider a different aspect of the problem. Unless there is a good reason to do so, however, there should be a waiting period before an issue can be re-discussed since the initial airing might result in legislation and that legislation should have a chance to take effect before it is challenged or changed.
5. The working Groups and the Council could call whatever additional experts they needed to clarify issues about which individual members were unclear.
6. The individual working Groups having met separately to discuss issues of importance to them, should then report, with majority and minority reports, to the entire Council which could then discuss the issue and prepare reports and suggestions.
7. Council suggestions should be timely and straightforward, and not require myriad regulations to effectuate them. The suggestions should be understandable to the public and, if any regulations are needed, their nature should be explained to the voters. Ideally the Council would, at a later date, report to the public the nature of subsequent legislation and regulation so that citizens would have the chance to decide if their wishes were being honored.

One of the more difficult aspects of the system would relate to the formation of the Groups and Council. How would members be chosen? It would probably be best if experts in particular areas were chosen by their peers. Examples might be the choice of members of the Law Working Group by the boards of the three largest legal associations,^viii or the decision on membership on the Science Working Group by members of the boards of the various science associations.^ix

The membership of Working Groups that dealt primarily with political issues (like Foreign affairs or Domestic affairs) would be chosen, in equal numbers, by political conservatives and liberals, each choosing from a panel offered by the opposing side. Because the membership would be limited, it would be difficult to select a Group that was representative of the entire population in terms of race, religion, sex, socio-economic groupings, etc. So be it. However, those individuals or groups who wanted their voices heard could submit documents and “Friend of the Council” briefs (with a maximum length and possibly with a copy of its mission statement so voters would understand any biases of the group) which would be published along with the decisions. Since the Working Groups would have no authority, and since all reports would be public, an even number of members (in this instance fourteen) is reasonable, and since each would choose the other's representatives a relatively middle-of-the-road Group would result, making decisions easier. The membership periods would be overlapping^x and for a single fixed term (eg fourteen years), to allow for changing views while members would not be forced to decide based on political pressures. Ideally, the members would not be in politics and would have no constituencies. The chair would rotate.

Agenda would perforce be limited, like that of the Supreme Court, and would have to be decided on by the individual Groups, although the Council could develop a procedure for referring specific issues to Groups for discussion. Perhaps there would be subgroups to review easier issues, as Jethro suggested to Moses.^xi A report (a listing including the sponsor) on private bills and pork-barrel projects should be issued regularly. It would not require discussion or debate, only disclosure. Publicizing the issue should be all that is necessary.^xii Voters would probably consider that useful. Other reports, those requiring discussion, would, ideally, be by consensus, since the Group would be relatively knowledgeable, middle-of-the-road, and free of political and constituent pressures. Nonetheless, minority reports could be issued as well. Transparency would be important and the public should have access to discussions as well as decisions. (Perhaps the public should even be made aware of its ability to amend the constitution outside of Article 5 which only presents one permissible way but doesn't exclude others. This, however, would probably frighten public officials, and cause them to nix the whole idea.)

What might be achieved? Congressional committees hold interminable hearings. Council discussions would be briefer and less political. There might be money savings resulting from the outside pressure and the opportunity of shorten or eliminate Congressional hearings. Legislation would probably be quicker. Lobbying may decrease – at least that which results in pork barrel projects which are expensive but not valuable to the public at large. Moreover, the Council, by publicizing those parts of legislative actions which seem to be intended to benefit small numbers at the expense of many – or at least bringing them to light – might have a positive effect on corruption.

It is virtually certain that such a Group (or subgroups if there are lower-level panels) will be viewed as increasing governmental cost and bureaucracy. It is similarly certain that their reports will be “spun” by those with an interest in doing so. That's the way democracy works. It is to be hoped that the general public will see through such criticisms and attempts to distort the reports. The low esteem of politicians would probably mean that the Council reports would have greater credibility than any political distortions of them. They certainly can't be worse than what we have now – either in Congress or in the President's Cabinet.

[NB: This is the first of a series of undetermined length and of irregular publication, that will deal with American Democracy and with the way our government runs. However wise and virtuous the Founding Fathers may have been, times change, and not all situations were considered by them. Nor was there a recognition that our size and status in the world might affect our choices. They left room for amending the Constitution, however, and it may be useful to discuss some of the changes that have taken place since the eighteenth century with an “eye” on modernizing our system of government.]

Next episode: “Taxing And Voting” – What could be more taxing?

i     Not wise guys nor biblical wise men.

ii    The President will praise the individual and laud the great job he's done, bemoaning the resignation, which was necessary, of course, “for personal reasons.” Those reasons, however, are related to the fact that the President would otherwise have fired the person now “resigning.”

iii    Although these individuals lack formal official standing, they usually have more influence on government decisions than the Cabinet members.

iv     Cabinet secretaries will still be necessary as administrative heads of the various departments, and for interaction with foreign officials having similar mandates.

v     The Council would not replace, but would supplement the Cabinet. It would have no legal standing, but would report quickly, and its reports would be known to be apolitical. Thus they would influence voters and, secondarily, those who wanted to be (re)elected.

vi    There is nothing sacred about the number seven or the total of about 101. Nor about the nature of the particular working Groups. The only purpose of presenting the list and numbers is to start the discussion.

vii    Issues might be brought to a working Group's attention by a small number, perhaps three of the fourteen, with discussion initiated by a larger number, say five, and then, after discussion, taken to the Council for further discussion by those interested in the topic but not in the working Group. The Council would then issue prompt reports on the subject. Issues would not be linked to legislation, although legislation might follow. They would simply require a large enough number of individuals who would want to discuss them.

viii   Which might change from time to time.

ix    This is left in an ambiguous state because it serves no purpose to prescribe the organizations that would pick Group and Council members at this time. The decision regarding the method of choice would be left to a committee of board members of scientific societies (or economic societies or whatever) designated by the Chief Justice, House Speaker, and minority party representative. Any committee would understand that if it could not choose members by a date certain – a week, for example – the three of them would choose the members.

x     For example there might be two appointed every two years. See the United States Constitution for an example of the method (see the second paragraph of Article 1, Section 3, ignoring references to resignations and replacements.)

xi    Exodus, Chapter 18, verses 19-22. Obviously there would be changes relating to size, and to the fact that the Council would be dealing with secular, not religious, issues.

xii    One way of achieving this goal would be to list all the organizations – including Congress – that are exceptions to whatever law is passed, and to list all local projects and their costs for the voters to see.

Dina

 

It's counterintuitive to think that members of one religion might write the rules for another, but that's just what happens in Judaism. Not that Jews write laws for non-Jews,ⁱ but they obey those formulated by others – invariably non-Jews. And it's been going on for a long time. Some semblance of the law probably dates back to the time of Samuel,ⁱⁱ and it has become common practice to pray for the nation and government under which the the Jewish community lives, and to accept the law of the land.

The basic principle is dina d'malchuta dina, “the law of the land is the law.”ⁱⁱⁱ And whether the source is halakha^iv or minhag,^v we are bound by it. According to Nehemiah,^vi “Thou has set [foreign kings] over us because of our sins; … they have power over our bodies, and over our cattle, at their pleasure.” This is considered support for the view that, from a halakhic perspective, we must obey the laws of our rulers when we live under a foreign government, and we must support it. More to that point, however, are the words of Jeremiah,^vii “Seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captive, and pray unto the Lord for it; for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace.”

The key word, for me, is “captive.” There is an assumption that we will continue in a subservient position – one in which others have power over us. It is certainly our assumption. We envy our captors and try to be like them. Our psychology is that of the Stockholm Syndrome, and we identify with the society in which we live, attempting to assimilate into it. But, as the German-Jews learned, that strategy doesn't always work. Nor is it effective where there is a theocracy and the conversions of Jews are either not permitted, or viewed with suspicion. The Conversos^viii found that out in fifteenth century Spain.

So we have adopted other coping strategies which, to one degree or another, are intended to help us survive. One of the more revealing – indicating our feelings of inferiority and vulnerability in the societies in which we live – has been the impulse to seek invisibility and silence when we are faced with situations about which we may actually have passionate feelings. We don't advertise them. After all, “What will the goyim think? It's not so much that we care what they think. We know what that is. Antisemitism has been around for two thousand years so the message isn't particularly secret. But our main goal is that they don't think about us at all. So we try not to be noticed.^ix

In fact, we have developed the principle of maris ayin, “the view of the eye,”^x and we avoid whatever someone else may consider a negative action. We have even indulged in self-censorship so that we will not leave evidence of some idea that might be used against us – statements, for example, of what we view as the superiority of Judaism over other religions. In centuries past, our literature was scrutinized for such statements by non-Jews^xi and we were forced to remove those statements. So we often prepared our texts for such investigation by “cleaning them up” ourselves.

When we do get adventuresome, when we raise our heads a little, it is to build alliances. We espouse the goals of others and fight on their behalf. We are liberals and we are ready to take up any cause that will help someone else.^xii We are all too often more concerned about others than ourselves.^xiii And to solidify our liberalism and, in the United States, to prove our dedication to preserving the rights of all who may be the victims of prejudice, we lead the fight for social justice, for the ACLU, and for a high wall of separation between church and state, while fighting any attacks on our rights^xiv and principles such as those in the Patriot Act, tax breaks for the rich and, unfortunately, Israel. The last of these efforts – our refutation of Israel – not only disproves the idea of dual loyalty, but demonstrates our dedication to the underprivileged – in this case the oppressed Palestinians.^xv The Jews of Germany were more German than their countrymen, and we are more liberal and understanding than anyone else. So we wind up too often the leaders of efforts which result in the strengthening of terrorists, and of actions to ban attempts to provide improved security – all in the name of liberalism and justice.^xvi

The zeal to end particularism and promote “equality” and “universality,” however, is, in effect, a zeal to put an end to Judaism. What might have been one of the world's largest religions is among the smallest. Indeed, we view ourselves – and are viewed by others – as a small minority.^xvii That paradox is one of the factors that has kept Judaism alive for millennia. (Some see theological explanations as specious, so they will be omitted at this time.) The remnant who remained were passionate about maintaining the faith or their ancestors – if only to spite the non-Jews. They had been promised they would be as unmerous as the stars in the heavens, but like the stars in the heavens, the vast majority could not be seen – especially in the light of day. 

But that is not the end of the story, and it is we cannot let our successes blind us to the dangers around us. After Haman was hanged his edict remained. There was a possibility that he would achieve his end even after death. Similarly Hitler may triumph posthumously if assimilation completes the Holocaust's work. So despite internal forces aimed at keeping Judaism alive, there are extensive pressures to eliminate Israel and to take the religion out of Jewishness. Jews are tolerable only as a nation, no better than anyone else. For as a nation they can be eliminated without any taint of religious persecution.

Hillel said, “If I am only for myself, what am I?” And that is the Judaism of most Jews, as well as the byword of most non-Jews. It's fine if the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob devote themselves to concern for others as long as they are not deluded into thinking that Judaism and Israel have any inherent value. So the thinking goes.

But before that, Hillel said “If I am not for myself, who will be?” And after that, “If not now, when?” It is incumbent on us to make sure that the assimilationists and the universalists don't triumph. According to the Bible, Judaism is to be “a light to the nations.” We must not let the nations extinguish that light.

Never again. We can write our own rules.

Next episode: “The Council Of Wise Folks” – No. I didn't say wise guys.

i     Although Jews talk about the Noachide laws – laws which we maintain non-Jews are obligated to follow – it is our belief that these were instituted by Hashem (G-D), not by the Jews themselves.

ii     About 3500 years ago.

iii    There are exceptions, however, for situations in which secular law is in direct conflict with religious law and in some other instances, but since most secular laws like the payment of taxes, or injunctions against jaywalking and speeding for example, don't involve such issues, we are obliged to follow them. Not that everyone does.

iv     Jewish religious law.

v     Custom.

vi     Translation in Soncino Press edition. Nehemiah 9:37.

vii    Also Soncino translation. Jeremiah, 29:7.

viii    “Conversos” (“the converted”) is preferable to “Marranos,” but the latter is more more frequently seen. It means “swine.” Anusim, “the coerced,” is also sometimes used.

ix     Interestingly, the view that “silence is golden” is sometimes carried to extremes. And very well. The two most famous mimes of the twentieth century, Marcel Marceau and Harpo Marx, were both Jewish.

x     That's what it means literally, but it refers to what is seen – even if it is completely permissible in Jewish or secular law – that might be misinterpreted by someone else (even someone Jewish) to our detriment. Consequently we are to avoid any action that may be misunderstood.

xi      Often former Jews seeking to justify their own apostasy.

xii     It cannot be denied, of course, that when we stand up for someone else we are also standing up for ourselves. Our defense of the rights of other minorities can be translated into a defense of our own people. As can our concern for a separation of church and state. It may be expressed as advocacy of Seventh Day Adventists, or Jehovah's Witnesses, or Mormons, but it is also self-justification and protection. Sadly, many will not do for their fellow Jews what they do for others. Their view is that if there were a G-D, He would help those who help others.

xiii    The basic assumption is that they're right and we're wrong.

xiv    “Profiling,” which is such a powerful and useful tool for self-protection, especially in Israel, is viewed as discriminatory and rejected. It's better to be sorry than safe.

xv      We ignore the oppression of the Palestinians by their own people and blame all their problems on the Israelis.

xvi     Sadly, some of the most vicious antisemites are Jewish. Their determination to help others is accompanied by a similar determination to denigrate their fellow Jews.

xvii   The Jewish concepts of definition of “Jewishness” by the religion of the mother, and of the permanence of that Jewishness, irrespective of the practices of the mother, mean that since Abraham's time the number of Jews has increased geometrically. Most converted either voluntarily or involuntarily and very few, today, identify themselves as Jews even though there must be a very large number of people who fulfill the definition set by religious law.

Write If You Get Work

 

There's a not very old saying: “To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a computer.”ⁱ As a human I'm proud to say that we've progressed. We don'tⁱⁱ need machines to do things very badly. There's a movement around the world to achieve justice, and that's our current plan to solve the world's problems. It began with the “Arab Spring” and a drive to gain political justice. From there it progressed to social justice and equality. With the economic downturn around the world this was inevitable. The movement is unfocused and a way of blowing off steam. It's full of sound and fury. But what is the aim? “Tax the rich!” That'll do it. There is no recognition that even if the “rich” have benefited from the current economic meltdown, they didn't cause it, and taxing them won't solve it.

“There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.”^iii,iv As I pointed out last week, the top tenth of the American population pay more than two thirds of all income taxes collected, while nearly half of our population doesn't pay any. And the hole most people are in has nothing to do with the “rich.” People are greedy – even the average citizen – and consume things they don't need, believing that they can deal with the costs later. That's what happened with credit card debt, mortgages, education, etc. They believed the day of reckoning would never come. And they believed that they were entitled to what everyone else had. They were keeping up with the Joneses, in a big way.

There were expectations^v which, if not met, demonstrated the greed of others. Nothing was their own fault. The “one percent” were responsible for the plight of the ninety-nine. So now they're venting. Not that it will help, but they want justice and retribution against those not as badly off as they consider themselves.^vi These are presumably the people who caused natural disasters like Katrina, the economic failures in our country and in Europe, hunger in Africa, and like that. The “rich” did it.^vii The solution is a simplistic one and one that won't work – both because of its nature and because of the severity of the problem. It may feel good but it isn't practical. Let me offer some solutions for the US. Perhaps the world will follow them, too.

Our real problem – the one requiring protesters to take to the barricades – is that there is no social justice. There are rich and poor, and since we're not rich we must be poor – at least by that standard. There aren't enough jobs and there are needy and hungry all around. There is no question that the distribution of resources is not equal^viii and equality doesn't exist. Not here and certainly not around the world. But “life is unfair”^ix and we have to “play the hand [we're] dealt.”^x Even socialism has its winners and losers. So here are some sample guidelines as to how to improve the situation of those protesting. (Problems will be presented afterwards.)

1. Require those receiving supplementation from the government to be gainfully employed. That's hardly an original suggestion, and it's been tried before, but there were always objections to it. Admittedly it's not a perfect solution to the problem of entitlements,^xi however it's a good starting point. In the past there have been many who complained that the jobs were menial^xii and the salaries too low, but, from a public policy perspective, as well as one of self-image, it is better to work for a meager salary than to receive charity. It's better because it changes the perspective of those who are now working from that of dependence, to independence. Perhaps some would prefer to live off the dole, but this should not be an option.
2. Salaries should be higher than welfare payments, even after taxes and health insurance are removed. That should encourage people to take jobs. And despite the apparent lack of positions, “make-work” projects, like those under the Roosevelt administration, can be established.  

3. Since there are many who are homeless, one of the projects might be the establishment of new towns on government land with the building of homes and other needed structures. Perhaps if an individual has a stake in a property,^xiii he (or she) will maintain it. Individuals might also be taught (subsistence) farming which would lower their food costs. Such towns should have health care facilities, as well as stores and local government buildings. Training in the construction trades would be needed by many, but the skills would be useful later on. Child care facilities should be part of the town and could serve the dual purpose of allowing parents to work, and providing jobs for them.

4. The “military” should be enlarged rather than curtailed. The Army Corps of Engineers could provide training for many and jobs for others while rebuilding infrastructure. In addition, the training for which the military is justly praised can be used to teach trades to other of our citizens. Indeed, the services could take over the manufacture and provision of many of the materials which we now obtain from private vendors. It could also offer ministrations and facilities for which the taxpayer now contracts out.

5. The “military” could also provide centrally some of the services now provided by the states and local municipalities. These include, among many others, policing, jails and penitentiaries, printing, judicial services (to a point), and health care services. The multiple administrations around the country now required are costly and inefficient.

6. It will still be necessary to provide some supplements and food stamps, as well as universal health care, but the cost for these programs should be reduced by the taxes collected and the fact that those earning a living will have lesser needs.

7. Those who are unable to work because of health or psychological issues should be given whatever care is necessary to return to work. They should be offered group housing rather than forced to live on the streets.

8. Those refusing jobs and the services offered should have to seek whatever charitable assistance was available privately. It should not come at taxpayer expense.                        
9. Institute a national lottery. The states are making out like bandits.
10. Link corporate taxes to job and salary production. The more new jobs a firm creates in the United States, and the higher their salaries, the better their tax benefits. The new employees will both increase income taxes and purchases. And they'll lower the unemployment rate.
11. Link tax brackets to the value of the dollar. If people's taxes aren't going up their spending will.

It is anticipated that many problems would arise, both involving the participants and those whose jobs might be affected by the work performed by those now receiving welfare. Those who are working will resent others if they are making as much money (a situation that will have to be avoided), or, as is inevitable, if they displace them, and those whose private firms are no longer needed to supply the government will lose their business. It would be up to the rest of us to help out. If we truly believe that equality is appropriate,^xiv we should be prepared to pay for it in the form of increased taxes. There is no way that increases limited to the few are going to solve the problem. So the rest of us should be ready and eager to share our resources. Those resources will both support those who need help in the form of employment and the projects that are undertaken. It may make our lives a little more difficult, but there will be a fairer sharing of the burden as we all help to carry it.

For without considering the many, taxing the few is futile. It is an act of envy and vengeance. It may yield some increase in receipts, but that will be small in comparison to the needs. Until we're ready to tax the many – to tax ourselves – we're not likely to make much progress; until we're ready to cut down our spending we won't make a dent in our debt. In fact, it will increase as we increase social programs. And there will be people other than the poor who will benefit from those increases because they find legal ways to do so. They may provide the services that are mandated by the increased entitlements. They may find ways of exporting the provision of necessary services abroad^xv to achieve higher profits at the cost of jobs in the United States. That's contrary to our current problem of job shortages, but providing jobs is not their priority.

Will the system I am proposing work? Of course not. Mencken would tell us that immediately. But it will keep us busy for a while, and out of the way of those who are really solving whatever economic problems don't correct themselves.

[Please note:  There are some formatting errors which I was unable to eliminate.  Sorry about that.]

Next episode: “Dina” – Not the one in the kitchen.

i     The Farmer's Almanac, 1978

ii    Actually, we never did.

iii    H. L. Mencken, “The Divine Afflatus,” in the New York Evening Mail, November 16, 1917

iv    In order to get something right, you need several thousand pages of regulations. They're certainly not neat and plausible. Or understandable. They must be right.

v     Nothing is worse than raising expectations. If you don't expect much you'll settle for less. Once your expectations are high, what is needed to meet those expectations increases.

vi    It would be interesting to know how much the average “poor” protester spends a month for his/her hand-held electronic devices, the monthly communication charges for telephones, texting, Tweeting, and the like, “apps,” newspaper and magazine subscriptions, cable or satellite service, health clubs (including those that promote zumba and Pilates), running shoes, exercise gear, high-end coffee, yoga, lottery tickets and casino gambling, meals out and the expensive diets to deal with their results, useless dietary supplements, overpriced movie tickets, travel, and other similar bare necessities.

vii    In reality, it was the congressmen who did it. They should be watched carefully and be taxed for the extra perks they receive from the government and for the benefits they get from lobbyists, and punished for putting in special legislation to aid the lobbyists' clients. And they should have to live by the same laws as the rest of us. One of our goals should be to take the perk out of pork.

viii    Globally there is also a maldistribution of resources but no major protests exist that suggest that we should send ours around the world. Would the world reciprocate? I doubt it, so we'll just redistribute among our own citizens. (This brings up the issue of illegal aliens, but it's better not to raise that issue at this time.)

ix    President John F. Kennedy, news conference, March 21, 1962. There are many variations of this view, but the real issue relates to why that is the case. Who makes the decisions that are unfair for others? Do they relate to national policies, natural disasters, a nation's lack of resources and industry? All play a part – greater or lesser – depending on the particular example of “unfairness.”

x     Jawaharlal Nehru.

xi    There is no perfect solution or complete solution. But if we wait for one we'll never do anything.

xii    Many of those who are sensitive to the menial nature of the jobs offered are socially conscious individuals who, despite their own virtue, would probably bristle if the unskilled and poor were offered positions paying more than their salaries. Or if the people for whom they were protesting became their supervisors. That wouldn't be menial for the others, but it might make their own activities menial.

xiii    And maybe forty acres and a mule.

xiv    Some might call that socialism, but such a label would be rejected even by some of the more liberal of the protesters.

xv    Eg medical jobs like teleradiology, the production and manufacture of food products, other manufacturing positions, telephone jobs, etc. Even if we encourage job creation in the United States, there will still be money to be made by exporting some jobs. We have to find a way to tax that.