President
Obama will give his State of the Union address later today, but he's
been advertising its themes on social media and in speeches for
several days. He will propose a variety of programs and benefits
aimed at propping up the middle-class and the poor. The purpose of
his proposals, we are told, is to set his agenda for the coming years
and to initiate action so that we will know it, as will Congress,
with which, he asserts, he is ready to work.
For
the first time in many years both houses of Congress are Republican.
The likelihood of passage of these measures is minimal – especially
since his plan for funding them is to increase taxes on the “rich.”
Remembering the Occupy Wall Street movement, as well as the demands
of large parts of our population for more benefits and entitlements,
and the threats of action by unions around the country, it cannot be
denied that there is a pervasive feeling that American society is
divided between the few who are rich and the many who are struggling
at best, or flat out poor. The number of voters who feel put-upon is
huge.
As
far as cooperation with Congress, he has already threatened to veto
several measures which as yet aren't even on the table. His vow to
work with the Republicans, therefore, is one which many people
question. The agenda he is proposing seems to be both the beginnings
of a platform for 2016 and a populist heritage which the President
would like to leave for the history books. It seems likely that he
has neither the possibility nor the anticipation of accomplishing
what he states to be his agenda, and that of the Democratic Party,
but it appears to be aimed at getting votes in the next election.
Raising
the stakes is Oxfam, which announced yesterday that the “Richest
1 Percent [around the world] Will Dominate Wealth Next Year.”i
The problem of income inequity is international. Not only are we
concerned about the one percent and the ninety-nine percent in the
United States, but it is a problem everywhere.
In
the article announcing the sitution, it was noted that “More than a
billion people live on less than $1.25 a day.” That's $456.25 per
year. In addition to other amenities which the President receives,ii
both during and following his service, he gets a $400,000 annual
salary, along with a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000
nontaxable travel account, and $19,000 for entertainment.iii,iv
In terms of the global one percent with which Oxfam is concerned,
the President is certainly a member.v
And
so are all those in Congress, for their base salary is $174,000
annually. Add in all the sports and entertainment personalities who
earn far more than the rest of us.
But
speaking of “the rest of us,” it's worth mention that the
majority of all Americans are members of the international one
percentvi
so, in Oxfam's view, we're part of the problem. And if the “rich”
of America should be taxed to pay for support of our own poor, it is
reasonable to wonder to what degree the United States is responsible
for ameliorating the world's poverty. Should the programs which we
seek for ourselves be offered on an equal basis to all the people on
earth? Should that be part of our
heritage?
But there is more. There is an important, if undiscussed aspect of this situation which should be considered before we fund our own programs and spread our resources around the world. What will it accomplish? Can we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and provide housing for the homeless, or is all we're doing punishing those who have more than we do? Might we anticipate other negative effects of such policies: whether the impoverishment of our own people – the poor as well as the rich – or the removal of the stimulus to succeed? Some – Conservatives of course – question whether taxing the rich will solve America's problems. Even if they're wrong, having only five percent of the world's population, it doesn't seem probable that our resources can solve everyone's problems. But we are the one percent. And if we are responsible to our own citizens, we have a similar obligation to all who share the world with us. If I have the right to decide that anyone with more than I is rich and should help me out, don't others have that right as well?
The
problem is clear. There isn't enough to go around in a would of over
7.2 billion people. The solution is not obvious. As I pointed out,
if we can decide that those who have more than we should share what
they have with us, aren't others entitled to call upon us and our
resources to support them? According to the Bible,vii
“For destitute people will not cease to exist within the Land;
therefore I command you, saying 'You shall surely open your hand to
your brother, to the poor, and to your destitute in your Land.'”
Charity. It's not a very good solution since there are many who
don't believe (and never will) that they have enough for themselves.
But it's a solution in which each of us retains the right to decide
for himself – not to have othersviii
decide for him. Once people lose this right and once everyone has
the “right” to decide what he needs and who will pay for it, we
face the anarchy of competing demands.
It
is a sad reality that short of relocating billions of people from
areas in which weather conditions make them vulnerable, increasing
food production, and providing sufficient industry to guarantee jobs
for all – goals that are, at least for now, unattainable – we are
left to rely on the hope that charity can provide some of the needs
of the poor. Or we can allow others – who have their own agendas –
to make all the decisions about reallocating the resources of those
whom they accuse of responsibility for the world's ills.
As
I noted, the solution isn't obvious. But I'm not convinced that the
best way of dealing with the problem is to pander to populism.
I ©
Copyright 2015 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved.
ii Lodging,
food, health care, transportation, pension, security, etc.
iv Whether
this level of compensation is justified is not for me to judge. The
point is to put matters in perspective.
v Indeed,
his salary and benefits put him in the top one percent of American
earners as well.
vi Even
our poverty-level income is more than eighty-seven percent of the
world's population makes. See
http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/09/the-top-1-percent-of-the-world/
Admittedly the article comes from a Conservative publication and
the numbers may be off a little. But the problem cannot be denied.
vii Deuteronomy
15:11. The translation is from the Artscroll edition.
viii All
too often a faceless bureaucracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.