"I Feel Your Pain."

Do you? Do you really care?

Those were the words of President Clinton, who resided in luxury for which we paid. He lived, as do all our presidents now, in a residence cared for by numerous servants eager (and employed) to satisfy every whim.

According to The Hill, on President Obama's last Thanksgiving in the White House, the menu included, as the first course, "mini BLT's, chicken satay with pizza chili dip, mini crab cakes, pizza bites, fresh veggies and hummus and pigs in the blanket."

The second course featured "thyme-roasted turkey with garlic jus and cranberry-orange relish, a honey-baked ham with apricot-mustard glaze, prime rib and creamed horseradish with shallot marmalade, and fried chicken wings." I won't bore you with side dishes and desserts, but they were equally excessive in number and decadent in content.

How does someone eating like that, a meal prepared by an Executive Chef with 25 assistants, relate to a single mother who has no food to make for her children?

There is a disconnect between our leaders and us. I may not be poor, however I cannot help but see it. No rhetoric can cover it up, because the difference in life style between "the leader of the free world" and those whom he claims to represent (as well as the needy around the world), is flaunted and reported. It can't be denied by flowery and disingenuous words. We should prevent our leaders from using them.

Better. A way should be found to make the words true.

That's not so easy. People rarely go into politics with the aim of living like their constituents – of feeling their pain. Politics is the path upward, not downward – to power, not impotence. They don't want to feel that pain, however much they maintain that they do. They yearn for prime rib and creamed horseradish with shallot marmalade. They're not interested in starving. But they have to appear to relate to the suffering of the poor, so they issue pious declarations of their concern. People almost believe them. (President Truman said "Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not.") And they obediently vote for them.

That doesn't mean, however, that there aren't ways to deal with the disparity. I suspect there are other ways, but I'd like to suggest one. It's not guaranteed to bridge the gap, but it would be a start.

It would be useful if, at regular intervals (when no visiting dignitaries are expected), the president, and, for that matter, other politicians with significant input into the lives of our people, were required to live in settings similar to those of our most deprived citizens – to see how the other "half" lives and actually feel their pain. Allowance would have to be made for their responsibilities and for their safety, but it might make them more sympathetic to the genuine needs of the poor.

Perhaps it would mean the construction of an unheated and run-down shack in the rose garden. Perhaps the meals during the period of residence (perhaps a week at a time) would be spare or absent, but it would give them a taste of the lives of the lowest level of society – not the highest.

I'm not advocating the embarrassment of government officials, only a means or educating them to the real needs of our people. Foreign policy, and a variety of national needs require their attention but, at the moment, our own needy are getting little more than words – and words don't fill stomachs. I suspect that most of our leaders have never endured the deprivations of which they speak so knowledgeably, and don't relate to them at all – unless they are trying to gather votes. This would help them understand a little better what is the lot of so many Americans. And moreso the fate of so many around the world.

Requiring the rich – and all presidents are rich, no matter how they may deny it – to live, every now and then, the life of the poor may make them better understand the lives of the people around them, even it does not make them more sympathetic to their needs. And if, for no other reason than to improve the conditions for their next "sentence" to the life of the poor, they may consider measures that would help the needy. Really feeling the pain may sensitize them to their constituents' needs, in addition to their own.

June 13, 2017

Give 'Til It Hurts

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 percent^vi 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 others^viii 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.

iii      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States

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.

A Perfect World

                                                                                                   

“The poor will never cease to exist in the land ...”ⁱ So says the Bible.

But another authority has a different perspective. According to the BBC News Magazine,ⁱⁱ the average annual income of the 7 billion people alive at the time of publication was $10,000.ⁱⁱⁱ There are a lot of “fudge factors” built into that calculation, and there are many involved in its interpretation, but if everyone received $10,000 annually (that's $50,000 for a family of five) it would be necessary to rethink our definition of “poor.”

The problem, of course, is distribution. At present the money is, for the most part, hoarded by a minority. Thus there are the “rich” – the minority (or, at least, some of them) – and the “poor” – everyone else.

But, for the moment, let's forget the reality of maldistribution and imagine a world in which everyone received an equal share of the earnings each year. It certainly sounds good. The world would be a utopia, and we would all be equal.^iv We might fulfill the words of our own Declaration of Independence, “...all men^v are created equal...” As I said, it sounds good. It's the ideal for which we should all be striving.^vi After all, wouldn't that solve most of the world's problems? If we were all equal we wouldn't covet the possessions of others, and crime would no longer exist.

For the poor the answer is certainly “yes.” But Americans are not poor, and some of us might not be willing to cooperate in such a plan. Based on US census data (2010), our average household income is $69,821, and our highest average family size is in Utah, where it is 3.56 persons. The lowest family size is in Maine and it is 2.83. Thus the average per capita income in the US is somewhere between $19,613 and $24,672. The numbers suggest that the average American would be badly hurt by such a redistribution.

Such an attitude, however, is selfish. A more generous approach is an equal division of income, even if it is harmful to us. And it would also be reasonable to divide all the land mass equally^vii among the earth's people and to give them equal shares of corporate earnings as well as personal earnings. And equal shares of the corporations, as well. Indeed, all property, real and intellectual, should be everyone's. Add to that world citizenship and a single currency system,^viii and we've achieved our perfect world.^ix All needs would be met and we'd all contribute to that paradise. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”^x

Of course you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that there are a few kinks with which we might have to deal. Before we began with even the first step, we'd have to establish a bureaucracy to deal with the complex decisions and the steps necessary to implement the new system. We'd need a government. (In all likelihood, they would feel entitled to some extra compensation because of the difficulty and responsibility inherent in their tasks.) Having accomplished that, these new civil servants would have to formulate a method to redistribute the funds and to divide up the land and other property – as well as to get it to each citizen. Decisions would have to be made concerning the choice of land for each person,^xi since there are different levels of fertility and different climates. Perhaps a lottery would be the fairest way.^xii It would mean that friends and family might be divided, but that's an acceptable price to pay for paradise.

It's possible that the new economic system might have consequences which were not intended. How would the banks and stock market react to the breakup and sharing of corporate wealth, and to the equalization of funds around the world? Who would run the businesses that now exist? And what's in it for them – or, indeed, for those who work in those businesses? After all, if there is going to be an equalization each year, there's little to be gained by excessive effort or initiative. For that matter, there is little to be gained by any effort or initiative at all.^xiii

Who – if anyone – would buy what the factories produce? What would be the consumption pattens of the newly-rich and of those who may have lost most of their assets? Would there be any investment of new wealth? Would wealth (“resources” is probably a better word) be heritable or otherwise transmissible? Would parents be able to administer the “earnings” of minor children,^xiv or adult children of elderly and incompetent parents? It is assumed that the government would provide medical, legal, and other services for everyone.^xv And, of course, that government would decide on what music and art should be supported and available to everyone. That's more efficient than having differences based on folk themes or styles^xvi that differ around the world, and it will contribute to the uniformity that we all seek.

The trade-offs are doable. And the result is perfection. What right-thinking person^xvii would argue with that? And who would not be willing to accept the limitations of the new paradise?

I'll bet the world will look a lot better to the next generation.

Next episode: “Planned Parenthood” – Discouraging pregnancy.

i       Deuteronomy 15:11.

ii      March 29, 2012.

iii     The BBC got its numbers from the United Nations' International Labour [sic – that's the way the Brits spell it] Organization (ILO).

 

iv     In this case, those who favor such a utopia would probably be seeking an equality of outcome (or, more accurately, income) rather than one of opportunity. They're not the same. And neither could possibly believe that we can all be physically or intellectually equal. But what good is equal opportunity if everyone doesn't have it (and they don't) and if some make more of it than others and wind up with greater incomes?  So let's make it equality of income. It may not be better, but it sounds better.
v       In modern parlance, “men” would be replaced by “people.” (Parlance, not fact.)

vi      Individualism will, naturally, be discouraged since it only leads to inequality.

vii     Will they be equal in size, productivity, or value? What happens to the buildings already on the land?

viii    As well as a common religion, or atheism, for all.

ix     Management of paradise, and our own adjustment to it, will be aided by a population that all think, believe, and act the same.

x      That was Karl Marx's vision of equality as outlined in his “Critique of the Gotha Program” (1875). “Needs” are difficult to assess. Those accustomed to more (the rich) may “need” more.

xi      Would land have a cash value? Could it be inherited (indeed, the whole question of inheritance of money and other property would require evaluation) or would it be assigned to the newborns as people died? These are decisions that would be made by our government – our honorable co-citizens who surely have our best interests at heart – not their own.

xii     People would have to be transported to their new property, so there would have to be workers in the transportation industry.

xiii    Knowing that all our needs will be provided for will free us all up to do what we want. For some – the do-gooders among us – sitting still is not an option and they'll want to be productive irrespective of the need. For others, however, and I am one of them, would prefer to loll around or otherwise waste time rather than be productive.

xiv    Actually, sexual contact should be unlimited and open to all. Any children would be cared for by the state and not be a bother to their parents. That would limit both administration and inheritance problems.

xv    Rationing may be necessary but that's the subject of a different discussion. It brings us back, however, to the question of who governs us and who makes the decisions. Assuming a single world government with over seven billion citizens, individualized evaluations would be difficult.

xvi    Since people will be moved around following the land lottery, however, that should no longer be an issue. The prior countries will no longer exist, and their music and arts will disappear.

xvii  Or non-thinking person.