Billions, Anger and Inequality

Back when I taught in Florida, I was attempting to explain why progressive taxes made sense, when one resource-enhanced student exclaimed: "If the poor don't like being poor, then why don't they get rich!" My explanation was not as simple as the viral U-Tube of Elizabeth Warren, but I did say that everyone benefits from society, and the rich benefit more.

Progressive taxation means that if you get more from society, enabling you to become rich, then you should also pay more: you didn't do it alone. Furthermore, a good portion of government services, including police and our imperial military benefit the rich disproportionately.

But the United States is still cursed with its "pioneer" heritage, memorializing people like Daniel Boone, who went out into the wilderness and thrived. Of course, even the Daniel Boones depended on others to raise them, teach them to shoot a gun, even get dressed. Most had mothers and fathers, at least. Most were also aided by fellow pioneers, and, surprisingly, by indigenous people they encountered along the way: even they didn’t do it alone. However, that's the story we tell ourselves in these disUnited States.

That's why Herman Cain, and now Governor Perry, are proposing to replace our (very mildly) progressive income tax with a flat tax. A flat tax implies that everyone benefits equally from the present configuration of society. Lenin pointed out that the poor also benefit from bridges: they can sleep under them.

Cain's 9-9-9 proposal would not benefit everyone equally. The poor, the elderly and those on fixed income, would see their taxes rise considerably, most others would see their taxes rise, too, but the wealthy would see their taxes fall even more. There would be huge savings for the ultra-rich like the Koch brothers, even though they pay lower tax rates than most taxpayers pay already. Their main sources of wealth are capital gains and the hedge-fund traders' special loophole for their outrageous profits, and in both cases, since Bush W's tax "reforms," they are taxed at lower rates than work.

In fact, that's what the OWS movement is about: the unfair advantages of those who don't work, except with numbers: from hedge-fund heads, to bank honchos, to corporate CEO's, to speculators, to inherited wealth; these are the 1%. Thing is, it's been that way for years, and getting worse. While productivity has doubled since the '70's, wages have remained stagnant. Guess where all the extra money went.

The US today, has the most unequal income of all developed countries: we match Turkey! We've been on a trajectory towards a society like fifth century Rome, divided between all-powerful Senators holding all the wealth, a vanishing middle class, and the Senator's serfs. Cain and Perry know where they're headed. Thanks to OWS, a growing number of Americans are opening their eyes, even some Democratic politicians.

Let's hope corporate billions can't undo their anger.

Occupy Wall Street Goes New York City

This is beginning to look like the real thing, a movement that could undo, or begin to undo, the damage done in the last 30 to 40 years! It also begins to look like something that could energize the enervated Left, of which I am not proud to call myself a member.

There is no parallel to the occupy Wall Street movement in the Roman Empire. The closest goes all the way back to the Spartacist uprising in the late Republic, and that's not a very promising parallel at all. Spartacus and most of his fellow rebels were killed, committed suicide, or were captured and executed. The movement was crushed by the professional military.

Slaves--and serfs--never did mount a meaningful rebellion afterwards, let alone a revolution, until the French Revolution at the dead end of the feudal system, inspired by our own, more moderate American Revolution.

Feudalism evolved in the later Roman Empire, when slavery became less viable, but the super-wealthy Senators could enslave their tenants instead, making them slaves of the land (servae terrae) instead of personal property. Spartacus was not forgotten, however. The powers-that-be were so afraid of his return, that no slaves were recruited into Roman armies until nearly the end of the Empire and then, only because they were so desperate for anyone who could carry a weapon.

If you read the Occupy Wall Street statement, on the Occupy New York page I've just added, you'll see that their vision is broad, and consistent.

I was a Quaker for about 15 years, so I'm familiar with, and impressed by this movement's inclusive consensus process. They hit a long list of issues, but they're all expressive of this general statement: "all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies."

The declaration lists myriad corporate wrongs and my only caveats are:
The declaration uses the term "colonialism at home and abroad," and I'd argue that imperialism is a better term: imperialism denotes the international corporate system of mutual dependence between our military and the large, "defense-related" corporations, the non-defense-related trans-national corporations and the US's open pursuit of global control of oil, other resources, and markets.

My other caveat is when the declaration states: "They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas," it doesn't include the torture, and murder of prisoners here, in the US, especially in "private prisons." It happens, not infrequently, but Americans rarely hear about it: prisoners while dying in custody, of their beatings, or while "attempting to escape."

The big question is: what happens next?

One possibility: even local towns and cities are rocked by protests, like the one brewing in my conservative hometown, about the huge outlay for moving and "preserving" an historic building to use as town office space, with little public input, while at the same time laying off employees for "lack of money."

Town Democrats couldn’t even find candidates this year!

Military vs Police Action

People really do conspire to blow up other people, but the FBI is on the job.

The story, of an Iranian-American caught conspiring to use a hit-man from a Mexican drug cartel to blow up the Saudi ambassador in Washington--and anyone else in the vicinity--illustrates an important point.

It's government doing its job, which is protecting people from murder and mayhem. And it didn't do it with troops and aircraft carriers, but with good police work. Given the times, and the propensity to blow up people, whether they are Iranian or Mexican, Arab or Tamil (Tamils in Sri Lanka began the whole suicide bombing thing), we do apparently have to protect ourselves from would-be terrorists.

But it's police work, not the military, which was most effective here. Even with Osama bin Laden, while it was Navy Seals who carried out the assault, what made for success was undercover police/intelligence work, and the use of informers.

But informers can lead down a slippery slope. In the Roman Empire of the Fifth Century, spies were everywhere; they were the only effective policing tools available and everyone informed on everyone: not exactly a democratic or human rights outcome. Democracy had disappeared centuries before, anyway.

Fifth Century Rome was not like contemporary America in many ways, but it presents a picture of the direction in which we may be heading. We live in a dangerous world. Much of that danger has been caused by America, as in unnecessarily attacking Iraq and Afghanistan. American actions have also promoted violence, such as the CIA coup in Iran that brought in the Shah, the Mullahs, and ultimately our would-be bomber. Our meddling in Afghanistan in the 80's to undo the Soviet takeover, and in Guatemala, Chile, Vietnam and so on, each contributed to more violence. But, as I noted above, suicide bombing began in Sri Lanka independent of US intervention.

However, the creation of religion-based states first became legitimate among modern states with Israel (sponsored by the US) and Pakistan (supported by the UK), and then, in reaction, spawned many more, and with it a new, uncivil, international system.

I won't argue that religion-based states were the proximate cause of terrorism, but they did make it more likely: true believers are more absolutist in their thinking, and absolutists will stop at nothing to promote their beliefs. Religion-based states like Israel, Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia do appear to spawn terrorists, either in support--as in Pakistan and Iran--or in opposition--as in Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Would a more peaceful US deter terrorists? Possibly; between our military and our militarizing police, our response to terrorism doesn't really defeat it; it creates martyrs and sympathizers. One terrorist killed by drone--with "collateral damage--" ten inspired to fight back.

The Occupy Wall Street movement--if it has lasting effect--could enable less coercive policies; that might promote dialogue, instead of police repression or military adventure.

Romney, Wall Street Occupation and Obama

After three weeks of protests, or "occupation," the Wall Street movement (for want of a better term) has begun to pick up enough momentum that even Mitt Romney noticed: he griped it was "class warfare."

In Egypt, the demonstrations at Tahrir Square met with some police violence, just like the Wall Street protests, but they were largely peaceful and prevailed in the end. In Bahrain, the King called in the Saudi army to suppress the protesters. One hopes our military is more like the Egyptian than the Saudi; it's largely American, at least.

In some ways, the Wall Street grievances are not comparable to those of the Middle East. There, all the governments were openly corrupt dictatorships. The elite that has taken power in the US has used more subtlety.

First of all, there really was a counter-revolutionary coup, but in stages. It was first partly successful with Reagan, and the selfish class steadily gained power even with Clinton. The rate of takeover accelerated with the Supreme Court coup that put Bush II into the White House, and has hardly been retarded by Obama. Obama's capitulation to the corporate position on the environment (against science and his own EPA) and at least temporarily on taxes is symptomatic: the Obama "revolution" hasn't happened yet.

A friend of mine, more centrist than I am, was outraged when I remarked I wasn't going to donate or work for the Obama campaign the way I did in 2008. Then, I not only gave money, many times, I also volunteered to work in the campaign out of Poughkeepsie, NY and also in Pennsylvania. I'll still vote for him, probably, if I vote, unless there really is the possibility that a more liberal/anti-war, pro-New Deal third party could emerge. But, and this is a warning to others similarly inclined, the one time I did vote for a third party candidate, because I was disgusted with the Democrat, was the Reagan election against incumbent, Jimmy Carter.

Either Obama is much less progressive than he made himself out to be, or he was overawed by "the experts," professionals (both civilian and military), and by the selfish class elites. Obama is very bright, but he naturally seeks out compromise, even when the other side was considerably weaker (before 2010) and intransigent. To seek compromise under such conditions only ensures that radical conservative positions tend to become even more radical.

FDR's advantage was that he was Old Money, and couldn't care less if members of his class hated him. Obama is an arriviste; he's too impressed/overawed by the Lawrence Summers and Tim Geithners of this world.

That's why the Wall Street protests are on target, and why Mitt Romney's remark is an indication they are beginning to hit home. Maybe Obama will finally get it.

We still have a chance to escape the fate of Fifth Century Rome, but Obama needs to turn into another Truman, not another Carter.