Leadership Needed

Recently, I have made an effort to get more involved in political activities. This is a hard thing for me to do for a couple of reasons. First off, I am not an overtly social person in that I enjoy good conversation and the free exchange of ideas but have no interest in being bombarded with media minute facts from people who have already decided what they want to believe and are simply trying to find facts to justify it. Experience has shown me that it takes a great deal of patience to talk to someone like this and slowly but surely point out that they are missing some of the key points necessary to make informed decisions. In the instances where an actual discussion takes place I find this is almost always the outcome. In instances where someone is more interested in talking than listening it is not. As my dad used to say, some people are permanently stuck on Transmit and have no receiving function.

Second, what I value more than anything else is an open mind. In other words, every ideological bent that is deeply ingrained is more of a hindrance to understanding than a help. For this reason I believe that political parties are universally populated by people with less than an open mind to start with. I would also suggest that the more entrenched or active one becomes in a political party the more narrow and set in stone their views tend to become. While I realize this is not a universal truism it is a good gage with which to start basically knowing what to expect.
As anyone who has read my blog probably already knows, I am not a conservative by any stretch of anyone’s imagination. The readily apparent Republican bias for large corporate interests and right wing social issues is enough to make me sure I am not a Republican. My dilemma seems to be that I am equally unsure that I am a Democrat. The adage that you are “either with us, or against us” make work well when describing sporting events but it is a remarkably useless tool when trying to convince someone that they should adapt your views. Through my recent blogs and contacts that I have made in local political circles I have started to receive more and more email from Democratic Party sources. I suppose that anyone who reads my views on my blog or in fact talks to me in person can soon realize that I am opposed to most of the Republican Party platform as it exists now. However, it does not necessarily follow that I am in favor of that of the Democratic Party.


As a student of American history I am well aware of the vagaries of political parties and the platforms they have periodically put forth to support their position. The problem as I see it right now is that there is only one party in power. I would describe that party as the Corporate Interest party and from what I can tell it is holding all the cards right now which is exactly why we have swung so far to the right in this country. This party, which I believe started with Ronald Reagan, has steadily gained control over most of our political institutions in the last 30 years. It is rather ingenious that this party which actually only represents the wealthiest Americans in this country has also managed to convince much of the voting populace for the last 30 years that they have THEIR best interests in mind when they actually have done everything possible adopt legislation that effectively destroys the middle class. It is a classic bait and switch operation whereby they bring out the old standards of social programs that are perceived as thorns in the side of the working class every election without actually even addressing these programs once they are elected. A good example is the Tea Party which in my view is a bunch of well meaning middle class Americans who are mislead, misinformed, citizens who equate their home budget with the budget of the largest and most complicated economic system the world has ever seen. They are also absolutely convinced of their correctness; to the point of being zealously opposed to hearing facts that tend to point out their error. These people are actually being used by some of the wealthiest people in this country to get in office so that they can further advance their own narrow economic goals which can best be defined as “give me more money”.

Unfortunately, this Corporate Interest Party is also heavily invested in the Democratic Party as well. After all it was a Clinton led program that de-regulated the banking interests in this country and opened the floodgates to the recent economic disaster. Many of the top Democrats in Congress right now were a party to that particularly unfortunate piece of legislation, both in its formulation and adoption. It also seems that this is the most effective branch of the Democratic Party if one looks at the actual programs that get through Congress even in recent years when the Democratic Party has controlled Congress.


I believe there is a good reason for this. Outside of the Corporate Interest branch of the Democratic Party there presently is no core constituency that supports anything. A large segment of the Democratic Party today is composed of lots of special interest groups that have one main agenda that necessarily conflicts with those of the Republican Party. The problem is that all of these fringe groups have no common ground that they can agree amongst themselves to support. Effectively the Democratic Party has devolved into a combination of the same Corporate Interest groups that dominate the Republican Party and an array of special interest groups who only have in common their dislike of the Republican Party’s platform. This makes it impossible for them to govern effectively if they do happen to get into office because they immediately start arguing amongst themselves about issues that they didn’t agree on to start with. This leaves the only really effective arm of the Democratic Party the Corporate Interest branch of the party. In essence Corporate Interest wins no matter which party wins an election in this country.


In recent discussions with people within the Democratic Party it seems that the matter of raising money for the party is the main focus of much of their activity. While I realize this is one key to effectively combating Republican efforts along the same vein I am unconvinced that this is the issue Democrats should be focusing on. In my view, the Democratic Party needs new leadership. Running in opposition to Republican actions is not enough. Reacting to Republican actions is not enough. The Democratic Party needs a plan of action that is both detailed and comprehensive as to how to address the problems we have in this country. Unemployment, a stagnant economy, rising health care costs, and the deficit issue are all interrelated and we need to figure out how to deal with these issues. Effective leadership would propose solutions. The American public is starting to realize we have problems but they do not have leadership as to how to deal with them because most of these problems have been caused by a government that is bought and paid for by the Corporate Interests that are causing the problems and that group is deeply imbedded in both parties.


We need to restructure the tax codes to incentivize investment in industries that create jobs. As long as financial markets are the most lucrative way to make money that is where the wealth of this country will be invested whether it creates jobs or not. Republicans like to talk about “job creators” as a euphemism for the wealthiest Americans when the present reality is that profit maximization is most effective in markets that do not create jobs. Why not make them put their money where their mouth is and base the tax rate on employment opportunity? In other words, if you create jobs you get a break on your taxes. If you ship jobs overseas you pay a higher tax rate. The reality of the situation we find ourselves in is that most of America’s large corporations are making record profits while at the same time reducing jobs. The reason is simple. Under present conditions and existing tax codes investment in financial markets that do not create jobs is the most effective means of making more money. Until we change that fact the economy is not going to get better because we need to put people to work to get the economy going.


Instead of falling back on the idea of simply taxing the rich to increase revenue why aren’t Democrats explaining what they are going to do with the revenue. Americans know we need to change the way we do business in this country; they are simply waiting on someone to explain a viable way to do it. The basic flaw in the Reagan revolution was the destruction of our manufacturing base in favor of a service economy. Without the support of a good base of manufacturing jobs service industries are impossible to operate because they depend on people having money to spend to be profitable.


The next thing we have to do is to balance our trade deficit situation with China. China has been subsidizing their manufacturing industry for years by manipulating and artificially holding the value of their currency down and constructing trade barriers to our products. The source of our inability to effectively counter these policies can be traced to the fact that the same Corporate Interests who are controlling all facets of our government depend on money from China to invest in the same financial markets that caused the latest collapse to begin with. Not only do these interests refuse to allow government regulation of these markets they do not want to in any way upset the people who are helping finance the whole thing; the Chinese. If the main goal of American business is to maximize profits then we should just continue along the path we are on. However, we must take note of where that path leads; to ever higher unemployment in this country which means more widespread suffering amongst the middle class AND the inevitable increase of our deficit. Let no one fool you, the only way to cut social programs in this country presently is to quit paying the medical costs of the unemployed and cut back on programs that presently allow them to survive on the lower rungs of subsistence.


These are the kind of ideas that are needed to get us out of the situation we find ourselves in presently. Electing more representatives of the Corporate Interests in this country will not do anything to solve the problems and I am unwilling to invest time or money in ANY party that is devoid of actual solutions to the problem. We cannot logically expect the portion of the population who are profiting the most from the present situation to be the ones to change it. The fact is that it is not in business leader’s interest to change a situation wherein they are seeing record profits every year. There is a very disturbing tendency in both parties to insist upon electing business leaders as our government representatives. Conventional wisdom suggests these are the people best suited to bring us out of our current situation. I can think of no more erroneous and fundamentally flawed assumption than this. Business leaders who run Corporate Interests have been controlling our government since Reagan and we are now seeing the fruits of their labor; an ever growing destruction of the middle class combined with the redistribution of wealth into the pockets of these same leaders and their allies who are the wealthiest 1% of the nation. This is a truism that we once understood in this country. After the Great Depression there was a backlash against these same people for the destruction they had caused by their greed. This backlash led directly to policies that saw the great economic boom that put our country in the lead in the world economy. Allow me to quote from Adam Smith and his “Wealth of Nations” that is widely considered the first complete description of Capitalist theory as he describes this same Corporate Interest:


Merchants and master manufacturers are, in this order, the two classes of people who commonly employ the largest capitals, and who by their wealth draw to themselves the greatest share of public consideration. As during their whole lives they are engaged in plans and projects, they have frequently more acuteness of understanding than the greater part of country gentlemen. As their thoughts, however, are commonly exercised rather about the interest of their own particular branch of business, than about that of society, their judgment, even when given the greatest candor (which it has not been upon every occasion) is much more to be depended upon with regard to the former of those two objects than with regard to the latter. Their superiority over the country gentlemen is not so much in the knowledge of the public interest, as in their better knowledge of their own interest than he has of his. It is by superior knowledge of their own interest that they have frequently imposed upon his generosity, and persuaded him to give up both his own interest of that of the public, from a very simple but honest conviction that their interest, and not his, was the interest of the public. The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.


Try and keep that in mind the next time you hear a Republican or a Democrat describing their fitness for public office by boasting about their business background.

Tax Philosophy in America; a Brief History

The United States has been blessed with an abundance of natural resources unlike most any other nation in the world from the very beginning of our nation. Plentiful rich land for expansion, an abundance of coal, oil, natural gas, and a mostly congenial and mild climate combined to make this a haven for those willing to work hard and have an independent spirit for the better part of three centuries now. Combine this with rich soil, and almost limitless supplies of fresh water and wild game and you begin to get a feel for how uniquely rich this country has been since its inception. It is hard to overstate the fact that much of the rich character of our nation is directly attributable to the vast bounty in natural resources that our part of the continent of North America contained when the first settlers from Western Europe set foot here. We as Americans are fond of bragging about the individualism and entrepreneurial spirit that made us the greatest economic and military power in the world today without giving due credit to the vast richness the land held when we came here.

At the outset of the experiment that the United States government is we were almost overwhelmingly an agricultural nation. What made this country unique from so many of the nations of Western Europe where so many of the original immigrants came from was the heretofore unimaginable amount of land available for the taking. This is the only nation of the western world where for centuries there was more land available than people to work it. This led to low prices on land and high prices on labor; both uniquely and vastly different from what the rest of the western world knew as normal. It was this great abundance of land that financed much of our government expense for most of the first two centuries of our existence as a nation. Money from the public sale of these lands along with moderate tariffs on imports from overseas provided the great majority of revenues that our government needed to survive. While much of Western Europe struggled with high taxes and all manner of attempts to raise enough revenue to cover expenditures Americans were for the most part completely unconcerned with such problems.

Indeed the American Revolution by which we as a country gained our independence from Great Britain was largely fought over Americans refusal to pay taxes to the British government. Great Britain believed that since she had provided the military that fought two wars against foreign powers and Native American allies to these powers, the colonies should share in the high taxes these expenditures had levied on her citizens in Great Britain and other colonies of the crown. American colonial leaders disagreed. It is worth noting here that even at that time the preponderance of this tax burden fell upon the first wealthy class that had sprung up in this nation. These taxes that American colonial leaders found so objectionable were not levied on the average American small farmer they were taxes on the merchant and planter class; the wealthiest Americans.

As Adam Smith in his "Wealth of Nations" notes; it is the division of wealth that is in many ways the root cause of government expense to begin with. If all nations are equal in wealth there is little motive for one nation to attack another. If all citizens within a country are equal in wealth there is little reason for the expensive protections government provides in the form of justice systems, police, and standing armies. It is the division of wealth, furthermore the unequal division of wealth that makes stronger central governments necessary. Central governments from the very beginning of civilization have been necessary to support property rights. John Locke, the enlightened thinker from whom Jefferson borrowed the immortal "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" in the opening of the Declaration of Independence, stated the function of all government more clearly as the protection of "Life, Liberty, and Property". While both Jefferson and Locke agree that all true governments receive their power from the consent of the governed Locke was much more honest about the three basic rights governments have the duty to protect. In other words, justice systems, courts, police, and to a great extent national armies are necessitated by the need to protect property rights. In largely agrarian societies with equal wealth smaller, less expensive governments have always sufficed. An axiom that Smith well recognized is that the larger the division of wealth within a nation, the more complex and expensive the government system that is needed to support it.

Smith spends a great deal of time in his book explaining this theory. It is the basis for his justification for taxing the populace in proportion to their wealth. After all, if they are the reason why a larger more expensive government is necessary, they should be willing to pay for it in proportion to their need. This is an important point and one that we seem to have lost sight of in this country in the recent past. Much of our governmental effort goes into protecting the business interests of our wealthiest citizens. Our nation's foreign policy since the beginning of the 20th century has been overwhelmingly slanted towards protection of the largest business interests in the country. When we were an isolationist nation with little business interests outside of our borders we had little need of a huge military or a large and expensive state department. As corporate giants began to dominate the market place both here and abroad our government grew to protect and support their interests.

When the bulk of this nation was agrarian we had little need of a large central government. For much of the first 120 years of our history as a nation this held true. However, with the growth of corporations, manufacturing interests and international trade interests at the end of the nineteenth century this began to change. This change was manifested in our growing involvement in international affairs on a national basis. We didn’t become intimately involved in international affairs through a national referendum; we became involved because of the growing influence of a wealthy class of Americans whose financial interest necessitated a strong military and diplomatic international presence to support their interests. Anyone who takes the time to read the writings of our founding fathers will find them almost unanimous in their disdain for a strong central government supported by large standing armies. This is because as an agrarian nation, we had no need of such exigencies, but as an economic leader in world financial centers this is no longer the case. I don’t think anyone would sensibly argue we don’t need a standing army today or an international diplomatic corp. Aside from those who believe we should revert to being an agrarian nation, everyone understands this is simply a necessity in today’s world.

It was our nation’s rise as an industrial nation that necessitated the growth of our government. In other words, the growth of wealth in this country led to our becoming a leader in the world and this wealth also has costs associated with it that we pay in the form of a larger, more expensive government. You simply cannot have one without the other. Therefore, since it is the wealthiest among us who profit the most from this system they should pay the largest share of the expense in maintaining it. This has been the basis for a fair system of taxation from the very beginnings of organized governments. To quote from Smith again;

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation.

The growth of corporate power in this country is another reality that we seem to not understand very well as a voting public. Corporations have gained legal status that allows them to have many of the same rights as individuals without the requisite liability of an individual. Just for example, the Supreme Court recently ruled that corporations have the same right of free speech as individuals so they should not be limited as to how they contribute to campaigns of their favorite candidates. While this may seem plausible on its surface it covers up the fact that as an individual you and I are responsible for all of our actions to the very limits of our financial ability to cover them while corporate leaders are only liable as far as their corporate finances while their individual finances are beyond the ability of a court to reach. This is just one example of how the vast capabilities of large corporation’s wealth don’t match their culpability in our legal system. There are many others that favor corporations which is exactly why their success has been tied so closely with the growth of our nation’s power and the growing division between the wealthiest 1% of Americans and the rest of us. I don’t believe corporations are evil entities but they are favored entities under the legal system of this country which is exactly why they have so much wealth and requisite power in our government today.

It is in their best interests that many of the foreign policy decisions that the rest of us pay for are routinely made. Receiving the great abundance of favor that such decisions afford them, one would think that they would happily pay the heaviest share of the expenses put forth to gain them but that is not what is going on in this country today. Since the Reagan revolution we have seen a steady increase in corporate profits along with a steady decrease of the amount of revenue the government receives from them. It is true that the Corporate Tax Rates in this country are high compared to most other industrialized nations (close to 35%). However, what is also true is that tax loopholes that have progressively been extended throughout the last 30 years have reduced the actual tax liability of corporations to all time lows. In 1978 the percentage of total tax revenue raised in this country off of tax revenue on corporations was 15% as opposed to some 47% in individual income taxes at the same time that corporations took in some 40% of the total profits realized. In 2009 the percentage of revenue gathered from corporations was 6% as opposed to 46% in individual income taxes. In other words, corporations which took in some 70% of the total profits made in this country paid 6% of the taxes collected. Looked at another way if corporations earn 70% of the profits and pay 6% of the revenue they are paying a vastly smaller percentage of the cost of the government that makes their profit margin possible while at the same time capitalizing on the protection government affords them. Taking into account the recent rulings on campaign contributions by corporations it is easy to see how this vast increase in profit margins will allow them to continue to consolidate control over the election process in the near future.

Beyond the unlevel playing field of corporate America is another level of unequal taxation the Reagan revolution ushered in that is just as devastating to the deficit. The highest tax brackets in this country have historically paid some 70-90% in income taxes. Again, this is the group of Americans who profit the most from the business environment that our large government creates through subsidies, government research and development grants, and foreign policy decisions built around protecting the financial interests of this same group of people. This same group of people today typically pays some 15% on their income taxes by the time all the loopholes available to them through tax attorneys and favorable legislation are assessed while the average upper middle class citizen pays close to 30% on their income taxes in direct payroll deductions. This is exactly why the upper 1% of the wealthiest Americans now own 45% of the wealth of this country as opposed to the 18% they owned when Reagan came into office.

Without a doubt we as a country have some serious problems as far as our financial situation. We are continually spending more than we take in which is obviously unsustainable. The question is what do we do about it? Do we continue to slash government programs until we can subsist on the lower revenues our present tax codes provide or do we believe that it is both necessary and proper for the government to provide basic services and increase our revenues through higher taxation on corporate profit? The ugly truth we seem to be ignoring is that our government which has steadily grown more and more to be controlled by corporate interests in the financial interests of the wealthiest Americans has at the same time continuously reduced their responsibility for paying the bills. The good news is that we are approaching a point to where these questions will have to be answered. The bad news is that we don’t seem to realize why or how we got into this situation. Corporate interests of the wealthiest Americans continue to gain more control of our government while at the same time increasing their profit margins by cutting the amount of taxes they pay while pointing to the poorest among us as the financial drain on the economy. The choice is ours to make. We can either institute a taxation system based upon the timeless values of equal taxation espoused by Adam Smith above or we can continue our present system of unequal taxation and see the eventual financial collapse of our government as we now know it. What we cannot do is expect to continue on the path we are presently on without facing up to where it is leading us.