Be-Think [Please visit BeThink.org]

I Have a Dream

Obama's Hopeful Economic Speech

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org I have a dream.  I dream of a day when Americans will separate themselves from a difficult past.  I dream of a time when partisan politics will not divide us.  In my dream, I see a nation united; one in which Black children, white, Brown, yellow, and red offspring, people of any race, color, or creed will rise above their own imagined limits.  It is more than my hope, it is my vision that together, we as a nation can give birth to what others think unbelievable.  I have faith that my fellow man and I can give birth to what was not thought possible.   We can restore what was once good, and build what will be better.  Old habits need not challenge us.  These can be the catalyst for deep and authentic change.  We need only begin.

I have a dream.  We will come together to construct the country our forefathers conceived of.  The time for internal strife has passed.  We must join as one to create a culture that cares.  

In a twenty-first century, we must not repeat the errors of the past.  We must recognize there are jobs to expand, an infrastructure to install and strengthen, a fiscal system to fix, a health care structure to heal, and most importantly children to teach well.  

I have a dream.  If we employ thoughtful policies, we will all be empowered.

I aspire to be one among many in a community respectful of our environment.  I yearn to green our homes, and clean our streets.  I trust, if we invest in our infrastructure, stable careers will come.  Jobs will continue into perpetuity if we do as we desire.

I have a dream.  Collectively, we can ensure that we will thrive on a planet, safe and sane.  We can grow enough crops to feed our people, preserve an abundant water supply.  We need not rape the land as we have, and eliminate species carelessly as we do.  We can survive if we come together with intent to do no harm; that is my dream.  Indeed, our physical, emotional and homeland security, depend on what we do now.

I have a dream, that in a country, one known for the best, we can be the best.  We need not remain mired in our differences.  These distinctions can bury us in unnecessary documentation or debate.  Disputes will assure our shared doom.  Diversity, indeed, can bring us together if we choose to unite as one people with one mission, to be strong.

We, as a country, as a people, as individuals, are more alike than dissimilar.  Each of us yearns for economic stability and success, separately, and for all.  Inside us, we understand, if my brother is hungry, I too will suffer.  We need only act on that veracity.

If you doubt this as your truth, please ponder what we have lived in recent years.  We have seen the evidence of our connectedness in the foreclosure crisis.  Most of us have come to acknowledge that my monetary value is dependent on my neighbors.

The fossil fuel predicament furthered the understanding of this truth.  My fellow citizen's pain is mine, even at the pump.

The health care crisis also offers an apt analogy, and we, as Americans must take this to heart.  If any of us think only of ourselves, and act in accordance, then we will adopt principles that ultimately, bring us down, slowly, one at a time, until the system crumbles.  Thus, is the tale of two cities, the Wall Street and Main Street debacle.  It is time for a shift.  There is a fierce urgency to now.

I have a dream.  One day, we will recognize that the millions without adequate health care deplete our resources.  The persons whose education is inadequate hinder our own state of affairs.

I envision a world in which my brethren believe we are all connected and act as though we are.   I have a dream, that we as a country, will ponder and produce a prophecy once thought impossible.

Our President-Elect.  Barack Obama, also dreams.  He aspires, inspires, and gives us much to contemplate.

Please peruse, the Transcript of the Speech on the Economy delivered today, January 8, 2009.  Share your thoughts for a future fulfilled. 

January 8, 2009 
Obama's Speech on the Economy

The following is a transcript of President-Elect Barack Obama's speech on the economy, as prepared by Federal News Service.

President-Elect Barack Obama: (Cheers, applause.)  Thank you. Everybody be seated. Thank you very much. (Applause continues.) Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause continues.) Thank you very much. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Please be seated. Thank you so much.

Let me begin by thanking George Mason University for their extraordinary hospitality and to thank all the great friends, the governors, the mayors, who are in attendance here today.

Throughout America's history, there have been some years that simply rolled into the next without much notice or fanfare, and then there are the years that come along once in a generation, the kind that mark a clean break from a troubled past and set a new course for our nation. This is one of those years.

We start 2009 in the midst of a crisis unlike any we have seen in our lifetime, a crisis that has only deepened over the last few weeks. Nearly 2 million jobs have been now lost, and on Friday we're likely to learn that we lost more jobs last year than at any time since World War II. Just in the past year, another 2.8 million Americans who want and need full-time work have had to settle for part-time jobs. Manufacturing has hit a 28-year low. Many businesses cannot borrow or make payroll. Many families cannot pay their bills or their mortgage. Many workers are watching their life savings disappear. And many, many Americans are both anxious and uncertain of what the future will hold.

Now, I don't believe it's too late to change course, but it will be if we don't take dramatic action as soon as possible. If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years. The unemployment rate could reach double digits. Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity, which translates into more than $12,000 in lost income for a family of four. We could lose a generation of potential and promise, as more young Americans are forced to forgo dreams of college or the chance to train for the jobs of the future. And our nation could lose the competitive edge that has served as a foundation for our strength and our standing in the world.

In short, a bad situation could become dramatically worse.

This crisis did not happen solely by some accident of history or normal turn of the business cycle, and we won't get out of it by simply waiting for a better day to come or relying on the worn-out dogmas of the past. We arrived at this point due to an era of profound irresponsibility that stretched from corporate boardrooms to the halls of power in Washington, D.C.

For years, too many Wall Street executives made imprudent and dangerous decisions, seeking profits with too little regard for risk, too little regulatory scrutiny, and too little accountability. Banks made loans without concern for whether borrowers could repay them, and some borrowers took advantage of cheap credit to take on debt they couldn't afford. Politicians spent taxpayer money without wisdom or discipline and too often focused on scoring political points instead of problems they were sent here to solve. The result has been a devastating loss of trust and confidence in our economy, our financial markets and our government.

Now, the very fact that this crisis is largely of our own making means that it's not beyond our ability to solve. Our problems are rooted in past mistakes, not our capacity for future greatness. It will take time, perhaps many years, but we can rebuild that lost trust and confidence. We can restore opportunity and prosperity.

We should never forget that our workers are still more productive than any on Earth. Our universities are still the envy of the world. We are still home to the most brilliant minds, the most creative entrepreneurs and the most advanced technology and innovation that history has ever known. And we are still the nation that has overcome great fears and improbable odds.

If we act with the urgency and seriousness that this moment requires, I know that we can do it again. That is why I have moved quickly to work with my economic team and leaders of both parties on an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that will immediately jump- start job creation and long-term growth. It's a plan that represents not just new policy, but a whole new approach to meeting our most urgent challenges. For if we hope to end this crisis, we must end the culture of "anything goes" that helped create it. And this change must begin in Washington. It's time to trade old habits for a new spirit of responsibility. It is time to finally change the ways of Washington so that we can set a new and better course for America.

There is no doubt that the cost of this plan will be considerable. It will certainly add to the budget deficit in the short term. But equally certain are the consequences of doing too little or nothing at all, for that will lead to an even greater deficit of jobs, incomes and confidence in our economy.

It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe.

Only government can break the cycle that are crippling our economy -- where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending; where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit.

That's why we need to act boldly and act now to reverse these cycles. That's why we need to put money in the pockets of the American people, create new jobs, and invest in our future. That's why we need to restart the flow of credit and restore the rules of the road that will ensure a crisis like this never happens again.

And this plan begins with -- this plan must begin today, a plan I am confident will save or create at least 3 million jobs over the next few years. It is not just another public-works program; it's a plan that recognizes both the paradox and the promise of this moment -- the fact that there are millions of Americans trying to find work even as, all around the country, there's so much work to be done. And that's why we'll invest in priorities like energy and education; health care and a new infrastructure that are necessary to keep us strong and competitive in the 21st century. That's why the overwhelming majority of the jobs created will be in the private sector, while our plan will save the public sector jobs of teachers, police officers, firefighters and others who provide vital services.

To finally spark the creation of a clean-energy economy, we will double the production of alternative energy in the next three years. We will modernize more than 75 percent of federal buildings and improve the energy efficiency of 2 million American homes, saving consumers and taxpayers billions on our energy bills. In the process, we will put Americans to work in new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced -- jobs building solar panels and wind turbines, constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings, and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to even more jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain.

To improve the quality of our health care while lowering its cost, we will make the immediate investments necessary to ensure that within five years all of America's medical records are computerized. This will cut waste, eliminate red tape, and reduce the need to repeat expensive medical tests. But it just won't save billions of dollars and thousands of jobs, it will save lives by reducing the deadly but preventable medical errors that pervade our health care system.

To give our children the chance to live out their dreams in a world that's never been more competitive, we will equip tens of thousands of schools, community colleges and public universities with 21st-century classrooms, labs and libraries. We'll provide new computers, new technology, and new training for teachers so that students in Chicago and Boston can compete with kids in Beijing for the high-tech, high-wage jobs of the future.

To build an economy that can lead this future, we will begin to rebuild America. Yes, we'll put people to work repairing crumbling roads, bridges and schools by eliminating the backlog of well-planned, worthy and needed infrastructure projects, but we'll also do more to retrofit America for a global economy. That means updating the way we get our electricity by starting to build a new smart grid that will save us money, protect our power sources from blackout or attack, and deliver clean, alternative forms of energy to every corner of our nation. It means expanding broadband lines across America so that a small business in a rural town can connect and compete with their counterparts anywhere in the world. And it means investing in the science, research and technology that will lead to new medical breakthroughs, new discoveries, and entire new industries.

And finally, this recovery and reinvestment plan will provide immediate relief to states, workers and families who are bearing the brunt of this recession. To get people spending again, 95 percent of working families will receive a thousand-dollar tax cut, the first stage of a middle-class tax cut that I promised during the campaign and will include in our next budget. To help Americans who have lost their jobs and can't find new ones, we'll continue the bipartisan extension of unemployment insurance and health-care coverage to help them through this crisis. Government at every level will have to tighten its belt, but we'll help struggling states avoid harmful budget cuts, as long as they take responsibility and use the money to maintain essential services like police, fire, education and health care.

Now, I understand that some might be skeptical of this plan. Our government has already spent a good deal of money, but we haven't yet seen that translate into more jobs or higher incomes or renewed confidence in our economy. And that's why the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan won't just throw money at our problems; we'll invest in what works. The true test of the policies we'll pursue won't be whether they're Democratic or Republican ideas, whether they're conservative or liberal ideas, but whether they create jobs, grow our economy, and put the American Dream within reach of the American people.

Instead of politicians doling out money behind a veil of secrecy, decisions about where we invest will be made transparently, and informed by independent experts wherever possible. Every American will be able to hold Washington accountable for these decisions by going online to see how and where their taxpayer dollars are being spent. And as I announced yesterday, we will launch an unprecedented effort to eliminate unwise and unnecessary spending that has never been more unaffordable for our nation and our children's future than it is right now.

We have to make tough choices and smart investments today so that as the economy recovers, the deficits start coming down. We cannot have a solid recovery if our people and our businesses don't have confidence that we're getting our fiscal house in order. And that's why our goal is not to create a slew of new government programs, but a foundation for long-term economic growth.

That also means an economic recovery plan that is free from earmarks and pet projects. I understand that every member of Congress has ideas about how to spend money, and many of these projects are worthy. They benefit local communities. But this emergency legislation must not be the vehicle for those aspirations. This must be a time when leaders in both parties put the urgent needs of our nation above our own narrow interests.

Now, this recovery plan alone will not solve all the problems that led us into this crisis. We must also work with the same sense of urgency to stabilize and repair the financial system we all depend on. That means using our full arsenal of tools to get credit flowing again to families and business, while restoring confidence in our markets. It means launching a sweeping effort to address the foreclosure crisis so that we can keep responsible families in their homes.

It means preventing the catastrophic failure of financial institutions whose collapse could endanger the entire economy, but only with maximum protections for taxpayers and a clear understanding that government support for any company is an extraordinary action that must come with significant restrictions on the firms that receive support. And it means reforming a weak and outdated regulatory system so that we can better withstand financial shocks and better protect consumers, investors and businesses from the reckless greed and risk- taking that must never endanger our prosperity again.

No longer can we allow Wall Street wrongdoers to slip through regulatory cracks. No longer can we allow special interests to put their thumbs on the economic scales. No longer can we allow the unscrupulous lending and borrowing that leads only to destructive cycles of bubble and bust.

It is time to set a new course for this economy, and that change must begin now. We should have an open and honest discussion about this recovery plan in the days ahead, but I urge Congress to move as quickly as possible on behalf of the American people. For every day we wait or point fingers or drag our feet, more Americans will lose their jobs; more families will lose their savings; more dreams will be deferred and denied; and our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

That is not the country I know. It is not a future I accept as president of the United States. A world that depends on the strength of our economy is now watching and waiting for America to lead once more, and that is what we will do.

It will not come easy or happen overnight, and it is altogether likely that things may get worse before they get better. But that is all the more reason for Congress to act without delay. I know the scale of this plan is unprecedented, but so is the severity of our situation. We have already tried the wait-and-see approach to our problems, and it is the same approach that helped lead us to this day of reckoning.

And that is why the time has come to build a 21st-century economy in which hard work and responsibility are once again rewarded. That's why I'm asking Congress to work with me and my team day and night, on weekends if necessary, to get the plan passed in the next few weeks. That's why I'm calling on all Americans -- Democrats and Republicans and independents -- to put -- to put good ideas ahead of the old ideological battles, a sense of common purpose above the same narrow partisanship, and insist that the first question each of us asks isn't "What's good for me?" but "What's good for the country my children will inherit?"

More than any program or policy, it is this spirit that will enable us to confront these challenges with the same spirit that has led previous generations to face down war and depression and fear itself. And if we do -- if we are able to summon that spirit again; if are able to look out for one another and listen to one another, and do our part for our nation and for posterity -- then I have no doubt that, years from now, we will look back on 2009 as one of those years that marked another new and hopeful beginning for the United States of America.

Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) Thank you. (Applause.) 

Reference a referendum on change we can believe in . . . 

• Transcript; Obama's Speech on the Economy.  The New York Times. January 08, 2009
• Transcript; Obama's Speech on the Economy.  The New York Times. January 08, 2009
• pdf Transcript; Obama's Speech on the Economy.  The New York Times. January 08, 2009
• Analysis: Global warming killing some species.  Associated Press.  MSNBC. November 21, 2006
• Why Obama's green jobs plan might work, Some states -- including Michigan -- already see renewable energy as their future: It's the only sector that appears to be making room for more employees despite the recession.  By Marla Dickerson.  The Los Angeles Times. January 4, 2009
• Is Education the Cure for Poverty? By Jared Bernstein.  The American Prospect. April 22, 2007
• The Uninsured.  Public Broadcasting Services.
• Strip Mining for Oil in Endangered Forests.  Natural Resources Defense Council.
• "Greening" Homes to Stimulate the Economy.  The Progressive Policy Institute'. December 12, 2008
• The New York City Department of Small Business Services Launches NYC Clean Streets.  The City of New York. February 21, 2008
• Global Food Crisis=Global Hunger Crisis.  The Alliance to End Hunger. 2008
• Wall Street Turmoil Continues To Ripple Through Main Street, By Michael A. Fletcher.  Washington Post.  Saturday, September 20, 2008; D02

Ma Bell; She's Back. Net Neutrality in Jeopardy ©

The Federal Communications Commission authorizes the buyout of BellSouth. AT&T Corporation will purchase the fledgling company for $86 billion dollars. Which aspect of this story is more significant? The famous or infamous Ma Bell, depending on your point of view, may be returning or Net Neutrality is safe for another two years.

In March 2006, American Telephone and Telegraph offered to buy BellSouth for $67 billion. At the time, there was much concern. Should the two tie the knot, it would appear to reverse a decision made twenty-two years earlier, the breakup of the Ma Bell monopoly.

However, in this era of Bush Cheney corporate favors, conglomerate are considered wise and wonderful.

The new AT&T will be the local phone company in a 22-state territory, and will be a behemoth in wireless, long-haul voice and Internet traffic, and phone directories.

All those services will operate under the AT&T brand, which SBC took over with its acquisition of AT&T Corp. in November. The company hopes to save billions in advertising costs simply by consolidating AT&T, BellSouth and Cingular marketing under one brand.

The merged companies will use the name AT&T; it is familiar and a friendly reminder of the past for many Baby Boomers. The moniker is expected to increase market share and oh, what a share of the market this "new" firm will have. Certainly, the association with Ma Bell will not be merely a memory.

Oh, I am among those with fond memories; however, what I loved about Ma Bell will not return. I recall indestructible telephones. When I think of the old Ma Bell, recollections of equipment that does not fail comes to mind. In the 1970s, my family went house hunting. In one glorious, home we discovered a telephone cubbyhole built into the stairwell wall. Within the hole was a study black rotary telephone, circa 1930. It still worked. For me, that was among the deciding factors. I wanted to live in that dwelling and chatter away on that phone.

I also embrace the days when the telephone company was efficient. Repairmen and wiremen came to the home if there were problems with the equipment or the line. The only need for repairs that I recall was weather related. Ma did not insist on an additional charge for house calls. All was included in a nominal bill.

Operators, oh, I loved the operators. I still do on the rare occasions I speak with one. Not only am I too frugal to call for assistance, if or when I do, I am reminded a human voice is only available during very limited hours . I crave that former human connection.

As a child, when I was learning to speak, my Mom would call the ever-running weather recording and I would chat with the mechanical woman. To assist me in acquiring manners, my parents would have me make information calls. Do you remember when telephoning information was not a toll call and you could chat with a delightful human being? Those were the days. Though the monopoly Ma Bell is returning, none of these lovely features will be forthcoming!

If there is any similarity between the past and the present it is that, this business will be bulging; it will be all-powerful, formidable, so much so it may be out of control. The current Federal Communications Commission was barely able to manage it in these recent negotiations.

The newer AT&T will be much like its mother

With roots stretching to 1885, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company was split by the government in 1984 into eight regional Bell companies and a long-distance and equipment company that retained the AT&T name.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 partly deregulated the industry, enabling a rapid re-consolidation.

Southwestern Bell, later SBC, proved to be the most aggressive of the Baby Bells. Under Chief Executive Ed Whitacre Jr., it quickly snapped up its siblings Pacific Telesis and Ameritech, in addition to Southern New England Telecommunications.

There was even talk in 1997 of SBC buying AT&T, but that idea was shot down by the Federal Communications Commission as soon as it was mentioned in the media.

AT&T was at the time flailing somewhat for direction. In its main business, long distance, it was facing nascent competition from the Baby Bells, which were allowed entry into that domain by the Telecommunications Act — as long as they opened their local business to competition.

But it was much harder for AT&T to break into the local business than it was for the Baby Bells to sign customers up for long-distance. To get its own lines to homes, AT&T began buying up cable systems, but the massive debt it took later forced it to sell them off at a loss.

Since SBC was already too large to pass antitrust muster as a buyer of AT&T under the regulatory principles of the time, it fell to BellSouth to come to rescue the old head of the family. The companies were in advanced merger talks in 2001, but media leaks apparently gave BellSouth cold feet, and the deal was called off.

With progressively looser regulation, more options opened up for the Bells, and last year, SBC finally did acquire AT&T.

Although there was some concern and two Democratic Commissioners opposed the amalgamation, ultimately a compromise was reached.

On Thursday, December 28, 2006, details were released and the Federal Communications Commission approved the buyout.

Among the conditions offered by AT&T is a promise to observe ''network neutrality'' principles, an offer of $19.95 per month stand-alone digital subscriber line service and a vow to divest some wireless spectrum.

The FCC's approval was the last major regulatory hurdle for the proposed deal, which is the largest telecommunications merger in U.S. history.

AT&T offered the concessions after a little more than a week of marathon negotiations with lawyers who work for the two Democrats on the commission, Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein.

Adelstein said Friday he was pleased with the agreement.

''We got substantial concessions that are going to mitigate a lot of the harms that would otherwise have resulted from this merger,'' he said.

The reaction from Commission Chairman Kevin Martin, however, was decidedly negative. The chairman found some conditions to be ''unnecessary'' and said that some ''impose burdens that have nothing to do with the transaction, are discriminatory, and run contrary to commission policy and precedent.''

Copps was cautiously optimistic, saying that the approval was ''not a triumph for huge corporate mergers but a modest victory for American consumers.'' He added that he was not entirely satisfied with the compromise but believed it is ''a genuine step forward'' in several areas.

Perhaps, I am less so. There are aspects of the compromise that I favor, somewhat. If I had a choice, greater provisions would have to be met before the buyout was approved. However, the Justice Department and the FCC never asked me what I thought.

The Justice Department approved the merger on Oct. 11, but it attached no conditions, a move that prompted outrage among many Democrats.

In an effort to gain the support of Copps and Adelstein, AT&T submitted a set of concessions on Oct. 13, but they were rejected.

In AT&T's letter committing to the new conditions, the company's senior vice president in charge of regulatory affairs, Robert W. Quinn Jr., noted that the new concessions were ''significantly more extensive than those submitted on Oct. 13.''

The new offer extends the lifespan of many conditions from 30 months under the old deal to 42 months or longer in some cases.

Among the promises made by the company:
--An offer of stand-alone, DSL Internet service to customers in its service area for $19.95 per month for 30 months. The ''naked DSL (digital subscriber line)'' offer would allow those who live in AT&T and BellSouth's service areas to sign up for fast Internet access without being required to buy a package of other services.

--To cap rates for ''special access'' customers, usually competitors and large businesses that pay to connect directly to a regional phone company's central office via a dedicated fiber optic line, for 48 months.

--To divest all of the 2.5 GHZ spectrum currently licensed to BellSouth within one year of the merger closing date.

--To ''repatriate'' 3,000 jobs that were outsourced by BellSouth outside the U.S. by Dec. 31, 2008, with at least 200 of those jobs to be located in New Orleans.

I am thankful for extended restraints. I am grateful for the two Democrats at the door. I think they did a fine job considering. Nevertheless, there is still much to fear. Among the items most worrisome, is the temporary status of net neutrality! Please allow me to define net neutrality for those unfamiliar with the concept.

Network neutrality is a principle analogous to the Bill of Rights. If the Internet is open, as it currently is, we are all, equally free to speak. Our access is not based on income, status, or the company we keep. If the Internet remains neutral, it favors no one, while favoring everyone. A neutral net is an unbiased avenue for information. A impartial Internet does not provide privileges for businesses or governments, while restricting rights for the average Jane or John. We, the people on the worldwide web are all created equal in a neutral cyberspace community. "Today, the neutrality of the Internet is at stake as the broadband carriers want Congress's permission to determine what content gets to you first and fastest. Put simply, this would fundamentally alter the openness of the Internet."

Scary; given the opportunity companies and, or Congress can take away our rights to communicate, to access information; they can decrease the speed at which we travel and restrict the hours. Currently, the people govern the Internet; many want this to change.

AT&T had clearly drawn a line in the sand on the issue, and was not prepared to offer any promises that would not affect the telecommunications industry as a whole.

The company's position has been receiving generally positive reaction from proponents of the concept, but some skepticism from others, who are concerned with the wording of AT&T's commitment.

AT&T says it will ''maintain a neutral network and neutral routing in its wireline broadband Internet access service'' for two years and that it would not sell services to Internet content providers that ''privileges, degrades or prioritizes'' traffic over its wireline broadband service.

Two short years; how quickly these will pass. In some respects, the security of the services has already been compromised.

But it [AT&T]makes an exception to the company's Internet Protocol television service.

Martin is unconvinced the network neutrality provisions are necessary.

''The conditions regarding net neutrality have very little to do with the merger at hand and very well may cause greater problems than the speculative problems they seek to address,'' he wrote. ''These conditions are simply not warranted by current market conditions and may deter facilities investment.''

Meanwhile, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., incoming chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, indicated his displeasure in a statement that said the process followed by the FCC may be '''suitable for committee review.''

Earl Comstock, president and CEO of Comptel, a group that represents competitors of AT&T, said he would have preferred to see more conditions from AT&T, and questioned why the compromise came so quickly.

''Compared to where it was in the fall, there was definite progress,'' he said of the deal. ''But given the negotiating position (of the Democrats) it could be better.''

So much could be better. Imagine a world where large corporations do not gobble smaller businesses up. Ponder a planet where we work together, where the Internet was a tool to connect us in cyberspace, and not a mechanism to bleed us dry. Ma Bell, please have mercy. This "new deal" will bring in $117 billion annually. Is that not enough to satisfy your insatiable appetite?

Please sign Net Neutrality petition. . .

Make Net Neutrality the Law. Free Press Action Fund

The Bell is Tolling . . .

BellSouth deal goes long way to reversing breakup of old monopoly. Associated Press. MSNBC News. March 5, 2006

AT&T Wins Approval for Buyout of BellSouth. Associated Press. New York Times. December 29, 2006

pdf AT&T Wins Approval for Buyout of BellSouth. Associated Press.  New York Times. December 29, 2006

A Guide to Net Neutrality for Google Users. Google

Save the Internet.

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on December 29, 2006 at 10:35 PM in Abundance and Scarcity, AT&T, Verizon, BellSouth , Business, Communities and Communication , Consumers Rights, Corporate Profits, Economics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thanksgiving. Will Our Past, Our Present Be Prologue? ©

As the celebration continues and the cynicism mounts, a delivery was made to me. I thank William S. Burroughs for his Thanksgiving Prayer. I am grateful to bzbb of My Left Wing fame. S/he shared the text and resource with me.

After reading my Thanksgiving story of genocide, some decided that they knew I loathe the holiday; I do not. I do have disdain for humans that knowingly hurt other humans. I am disquieted when I realize that man, woman, or child intentionally commits crimes against nature.

When people speak against "evil" and then act in ways that I think they might deem "sinful" I am confused. While, I personally do not believe in either concept, I wonder why those that do think these constructs are valid behave in ways that could be defined as wicked.

As I listen to William Burroughs and read the text of his musings, I am miffed. What are we giving thanks for on this the fourth Thursday in November? What do we welcome in the days that follow? I offer the Burroughs prayer so that we all might ponder.

Thanksgiving Prayer
By William S Burroughs [1914 to 1997]
American Novelist, Essayist, and Social Critic

Thanks for the wild turkey and the passenger pigeons,
Destined to be shit out through wholesome American guts.
Thanks for a continent to despoil and poison.
Thanks for Indians to provide a modicum of challenge and danger.
Thanks for vast herds of bison to kill and skin leaving the carcasses to rot.
Thanks for bounties on wolves and coyotes.
Thanks for the American dream,

To vulgarize and to falsify until the bare lies shine through.
Thanks for the KKK.
For n****r-killin' lawmen feelin' their notches.
For decent church-goin' women, with their mean, pinched, bitter, evil faces.
Thanks for "Kill a Queer for
 Christ" stickers.
Thanks for laboratory AIDS.
Thanks for Prohibition and the 
war against drugs.
Thanks for a country where nobody's allowed to mind the own business.
Thanks for a nation of finks.
Yes, thanks for all the memories-- all right let's see your arms!
You always were a headache and you always were a bore.
Thanks for the last and greatest betrayal of the last and greatest of human dreams.

I cannot thank William Seward Burroughs II enough. My mind would never travel in the places his did. However, perchance, you dear reader might relate.

If nothing else, I think this performance might provoke a deeper pondering. I invite each of us to reflect, to meditate, and contemplate, what does Thanksgiving Day mean to us. What does the holiday season connote?

How might our past relate to our present and what will our future be.

"Those who forget the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them."
~ George Santanya

"What’s past is prologue."
~ William Shakespeare

Consider Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and Korea. Is there talk of occupation or might we overthrow regime after regime?

Contemplate racial profiling. Does the Patriot Act make this legal.

Look within your local cities. Are there slums, ghettos, gangs, and girls walking the streets to make a decent wage? Perhaps, workingwomen are not the only ones looking for work. There are those that lost their employ so long ago they are no longer counted by government tallies. They dropped off the rolls, and have since dropped out of sight. In actuality, these persons are still visible; look out your window. There they are, on the avenue.

Are Blacks treated as whites; are the rich revered, are the poor?

What of women; what of immigrants?

Might we recall the Native Americans and the wilderness that welcomed our forefathers? What became of these?

What occurs in your home or that of your neighbors? Is communication prevalent in your abode, or in that of those living adjacent to you? Is care evident and flourishing or is this concept one you and others crave, but only dream of. I wonder.

What did you give thanks for yesterday and what will you be grateful for tomorrow?

Thanksgiving. The Past, Present, and Pondering

Burroughs By bzbb. My Left Wing. Friday, November 24, 2006

William S. Burroughs - Thanksgiving Prayer. YouTube.com

Practice to Deceive Chaos in the Middle East is not the Bush hawks' nightmare scenario--it's their plan. By Joshua Micah Marshall. Washington Monthly April 2003

US Patriot Act. American Civil Liberties Union. November 14, 2003

Streetgangs. Streetgangs.com

Ghettos: The Changing Consequences of Ethnic Isolation, By Ed Glaeser. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. Spring 1997

Living Wage, Facts at a Glance. The Economic Policy Institute. 2006

Jobs Picture, November 2006. The Economic Policy Institute. 2006

The Two Nations of Black America. Frontline. Public Broadcasting Services

The Rich Get Richer. The Washington Post. Tuesday, April 12, 2005

Income Inequity. The Real Reason the Rich Get Richer. © By Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

Women's History in America.
Presented By Women's International Center

Poverty in America, One Nation Pulling Apart. Poverty in America Project

The World Confronts Its E-waste Nightmare By Tam Harbert. Natural Resources Defense Council Fall 2006

Talking Turkey, Eating Shit and Taking the Heat, By starkravinglunaticradical. Booman Tribune November 24, 2005

Immigrants' Rights. American Civil Liberties Union

The Natural History of Neighborhood Violence, By Jeffrey Fagan, Columbia University and Garth Davies, Simon Fraser University. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, SAGE Publications Vol. 20, No. 2, 127-147. 2004

Communication. By Stefanie Cox, Larry Graber, Gregory Olson, Peacemakers. Better Endings, New Beginnings

Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High. By Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan and Al Switzler. McGraw-Hill Trade June 2002

Give Thanks for Genocide. Thanksgiving, National Day of Mourning © By Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on November 25, 2006 at 12:09 AM in Abundance and Scarcity, American Dream, American Family, American Jobs, American Patriotism, Black History, Past/Present, Communities, Communities and Communication , Compassion, Conflict, Complex, Current Affairs, Dreams Live and Die , Economics, Looking at Life, Politics, Profound , Society, Success. Failure., “When is Enough, Enough?” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Income Inequity. The Real Reason the Rich Get Richer. ©

Income inequity has been in the news of late; disparity is increasing. Jared Bernstein, of the Economic Policy Institute, wrote of this in, “The Catch-Up Economy.” Paul Krugman, a writer-economist for the New York Times shared his views in “Left Behind Economics.” Economics Professor J. Bradford DeLong comments on the subject. However, it seems to me that the views of these learned economists are limited. While assessing the statistics, I think experts miss the substance, what lies behind simple “economic” causes and effects.

For years, scholars have discussed whether the situation has changed or remained the same. They discuss cause and effects. Intellectuals say the middle class is shrinking. The prosperous are not growing capital as expected. The “super-rich” are becoming wealthier. Academicians and regular Americans alike wonder, what are we to do?

Welfare is reformed and the results are devastating. Proposals are submitted to increase the minimum wage. Yet, this solution was too little too late. It was also tied to amendments that would ravage federal revenues and thankfully, or not, the measure did not pass. People ponder the discrepancy between rich and poor as though it were unusual; however, for me, this subject is not a novel one.

It has been on my mind for as long as I can remember. I was born into a household of means; however, the family that cared for me, the people I felt closest to lived the inner city. I spent much time traveling from one neighborhood to the other. The disparity was striking. As a child, I began to theorize, what caused such a discrepancy. Why were the rich so prosperous and the poor so impoverished? Why did they not intermingle freely?

Being intimately a part of two very different worlds simultaneously, my mind was stimulated; questions flooded my reality. Fortunately, I was encouraged to think about my concerns and ask of these. My earliest memory was of the streets, which ones were used when and by whom. I was well aware that freeways were the preferred passageways for the affluent. Expressways allowed for a free-flow of traffic. There were few if any visual distractions. The highways were walled off from the city. Slums were not seen; nor were those living there heard from. As the affluent passed through town, all was a blur.

Those with lower incomes were more likely found on the slower urban streets. I often heard how dangerous the metropolitan thoroughfares were. Yet, I played on those avenues when with my second family. I lived there for days at a time. People were always pleasant to me. There was a sense of community in these ghetto boulevards. Still, the well-off avoided these roadways. I concluded the rich did not wish to see the poor. They did not want to be reminded of what they had created and allowed to flourish.

The moneyed preferred to believe that all were thriving, just as they were; thus, they created a world that allowed them their beliefs. However, in truth a large portion of society was barely able to survive. In fact, I think the affluent knew this, and purposely, conveniently chose to ignore it. They knew that they had imposed their reality on the poorer public in order to prosper.

The rich understood they needed the poor to serve them. A less-well-informed, undereducated, underprivileged population could and would meet the needs of the affluent. Those born with silver spoons in their mouths trusted that they would associate with the proper people. They would be groomed, breed, and grow greater. The rich would learn how to build empires and indeed, they have.

It is my contention that the most affluent among us centuries ago established a system that they knew was flawed; nevertheless, it endured. I think, the idea of scarcity, supply and demand breeds a world divided. This economic theory presumes there is only so much to go around; resources are limited. Therefore, those that have, horde, and those without, want. All are dissatisfied, thinking there is never enough, though in truth, there is.

Man creates deficits and depletes resources; nature replenishes continually.

For the most part, the poor have been unwittingly satisfied to just pass. In earlier eons, the poor and middle class were not punished so severely for their station. There was a time when those of lesser means still had hope and some were able to do well and move out of poverty, though their numbers were always kept in check.

A modicum of security, with the potential for limited growth quelled the masses. As a consequence of the freight experienced during the Great Depression Americans embraced the approach of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Even the wealthy were willing to accept the initiation of Public Work programs. More people were able to have a scrap of safety. After all, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

As revealed by Journalist Teresa Tritch in The Rise of the Super-Rich,

In post-World War II America, between 1947 and the early 1970’s, all income groups shared in the nation’s economic growth. Poor families actually had a higher growth in real annual income than other groups.

Still, they remained humble and subservient. Most felt well taken care of. Businesses offered benefits, and the government was a supposed friend, or so it seemed. Employees were loyal to those that served them, not realizing, in truth, they, the laborers were servicing the master. For without a working force there was no wealth for the entrepreneur.

In those post-World War II years, labor and productivity increased. Workers produced more materials. Corporations were generous with their profits. The economy grew and entrepreneurs were willing to share. Actually, the government demanded this.

Government policies worked to ensure that productivity gains translated into more pay for Americans at all levels, including regular increases in the minimum wage and greater investment in the social safety net . . . Full employment was also a government priority.

Fair wages, generous salaries, and reasonable benefits were given to employees. Laborers were recognized for their worth. A happy worker is and was a good worker. A satisfied staff would serve the customers well. The businessmen and women would benefit; corporate owners would reap the greatest rewards.

In those years, unions were a driving force. Workers had bargaining power. Of course, that was before the Reagan reign, and prior to his presidential dictums, those that promoted union busting.

Then beginning in the

mid-1970’s until 1995, the trend reversed. The gap between the rich and poor widened at a rapid clip. The upper echelons — generally the top 20 percent of American households — experienced steady gains, while families in the bottom 40 percent were faced with declining or stagnating incomes.

Once again the planets were aligned, or at least an ancient economic theory was.

For centuries, there was a well-known belief that twenty percent of the population owned eighty percent of the wealth. In 1906 one man, Italian Economist Vilfredo Pareto created a mathematical formula to describe the unequal distribution of dollars that he observed within his own country. Later that code would be named the Pareto's Principle. This principle presupposed that there was only a given amount of assets. These limited treasures must be divided among the masses. However, because the supply was small and the rich already retained much of the wealth that was, there was little leftover for those of lesser means. As the population increased the prosperous became more so; they understood the rule of 72.

This canon is evident in recent reports.

Rich people are also being made richer, recent government data shows, by strong returns on investment income. In 2003, the latest year for which figures are available, the top 1 percent of households owned 57.5 percent of corporate wealth, generally [realized as] dividends, and capital gains, up from 53.4 percent a year earlier.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington think tank, compared the latest data from Mr. Piketty and Mr. Saez to comprehensive reports on income trends from the Congressional Budget Office. Every way it sliced the data, it found a striking share of total income concentrated at the top of the income ladder as of 2004.
• The top 10 percent of households had 46 percent of the nation’s income, their biggest share in all but two of the last 70 years.
• The top 1 percent of households had 19.5 percent (see graph).
• The top one-tenth of 1 percent of households actually received nearly half of the increased share going to the top 1 percent.

Whether we speak of centuries past or the present, the poor continue to pound the pavement. They were, and are, searching for their lump of salt.

In America, the Puritan work ethic feed and feeds the folly of scarcity, sacrifice, and service well. The standard suggests

a Calvinist value emphasizing the necessity of constant labor in one's calling as a sign of personal salvation. Protestants beginning with Martin Luther had re-conceptualized work as a duty in the world for the benefit of the individual and society as a whole. The Catholic idea of good "works" was transformed into an obligation to work diligently as a sign of grace.

However, few noticed that the most well-off worked little. They had and have servants, slaves, and subordinates. For many of the moneyed, wealth was and is handed down. The truly well-to-do worked and labor little; yet it was believed and thought true today, they are superior and certainly would be well received at the Pearly Gates.

It was and is the majority population, the masses that labor diligently. The poor and the middle class hope to get ahead. At least they yearn to stay solvent. The middle and lower classes sweat, they slave, they survive, and looked forward to salvation. They do this while the wealthiest continue to reap greater gains from their toil [capital gains.]

It seems obvious that the populace has adopted a misleading notion, that there is only so much to go around, or they believe that they must pay their dues before they can prosper. It seems to me that people, for the most part accept their station, and expect others to recognize theirs.

Those of color, minority races, ethnicities, or creeds rarely are given opportunities to excel; nor do they truly and deeply believe they will be able to do so in a society such as ours. Individuals in the middle, as few as there are nowadays, are gratified when they have enough. They expect little more than meets their needs. They have been taught not to crave more than creature comforts. They learned their lessons well. The wealthiest among us are the masses mentors.

In 1906, Italy, and in America today, I think poverty is imposed. Scarcity is supported; the idea of abundance for all is avoided, intentionally.

I have actually heard many prosperous persons speak of their need and desire to keep the poor, poor. Thus, I present my personal theory for your “consumption.” I think until we truly address the issue of attitudes, and more importantly, the perception of scarcity, nothing will change.

I believe this myth was originated within the world to preserve opulence for the few. The fable has long been maintained by “superior” beings. The blue-bloods believe they are deserving. Thus, they deem it just. The poor and impoverished must sacrifice their souls while working in meaningless jobs; they must spill their blood while the rich wage war and they do.

I proclaim the legend is not true. There is abundance for all. Let us look at nature.

If we enter the ocean and exit with a bucket full of water, we will leave no hole. The space we made will be filled instantly. If we scoop up a pail of sand, no void will be visible. Within minutes the wind, the water, and Mother Nature herself will replenish what we took away. Granted we can strip the land naked. Nevertheless, we cannot kill it, though human beings certainly try.

A polluted pond will produce algae in abundance. Life grows. A concrete highway will not seal away the weeds. Look between the cracks. Consider the bugs, the vermin, and viruses. Man tries to kill these; yet, they never truly die. More emerge where others once existed.

You may question my thinking and suggest our limited supply of oil. I offer this. Were it not for man’s spoils, his need to accelerate the depletion/reproduction cycle within his surroundings, the Earth would be replenishing the petroleum supply. Actually, it is. We simply steal from the source before it can create greater resources.

The super rich have created the illusion of scarcity and we all believe it. They have sold society this package of goods and we buy it. Those that live lavishly have created a civilization of consumerism. They need us and we want to be them.

However, contrary to popular belief, I think a world of disparity devastates our social order. I have little complaint for the rich getting richer. I struggle with the poor getting poorer, and the comfortable middle becoming less so. Again, I contend there is abundance for us all.

I invite you to explore. Please take some time to assess life, the real world of plenty, and the artificial world of scarcity. Observe it from an alternative perspective. I ask you to be cogent; are you accepting and expecting less because you were taught, “you should.”

Please witness nature and absorb the wisdom. Watch the plants, the animals, the insects, the water, the sand, and see for yourself. Ponder the prospect. Were it not for the influence of man would resources be in balance, reproducing and reducing only to ensure stability and beauty? I think they would. Oh, what we do and have done. Then we wonder why is there income inequity. We continually create it.

~ You may enjoy discussions on the New York Times article, Real Wages Fail to Match a Rise in Productivity, By Steven Greenhouse and David Leonhardt. August 28, 2006.
• Brad DeLong offers, Greenhouse and Leonhardt on Real Wages and Productivity
• Max Sawicky presents The Poverty of Pedantry
• Mark Thoma tenders Paul Krugman: Wages, Wealth and Politics

Plunge into Poverty, Pass into a Life of Simple Pleasures, or Seek the Land of Plenty . . .
• The Catch-Up Economy, By Jared Bernstein. The Economic Policy Institute. August 22, 2006
• Left Behind Economics; [Op-Ed], ByPaul Krugman. New York Times. July 14, 2006
• Jared Bernstein, Economic Policy Institute.
• The Official Paul Krugman Web Page
• J. Bradford DeLong
• Pulling Apart, A State-by-State Analysis of Income Trends. By Jared Bernstein, Elizabeth McNichol, Karen Lyons. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and The Economic Policy Institute. January 2006
• Driving Forces Behind Rising Income Inequality: Tracking the Internet Debate, By Brad DeLong, Economist. August 20, 2006
• Welfare Deform -- A Sad Anniversary, By Robert Reich, Former Secretary of Labor. August 23, 2006
• Real Wages Fail to Match a Rise in Productivity, By Steven Greenhouse and David Leonhardt. New York Times. August 28, 2006
• The Rise of the Super-Rich, By Teresa Tritch. New York Times.July 19, 2006
• Wages, Wealth And Politics; [Op-Ed], ByPaul Krugman. New York Times. August 18, 2006
• Paul Krugman: Wages, Wealth and Politics, By Mark Thoma. Economist's View. August 18, 2006
• Rural Oregon Town Feels Pinch of Poverty, By Erik Eckholm. New York Times. August 20, 2006
• As rich-poor gap widens in U.S., class mobility stalls,By David Wessel, The Wall Street Journal. Friday, May 13, 2005
• Protestant Work Ethic. Wikipedia.
• Scarcity. Wikipedia.
• Dividend and Capital Gains Tax Cuts Unlikely to Yield Touted Economic Gains, By Joel Friedman. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Revised October 7, 2005
• Pareto's Principle - The 80-20 Rule. About.
• The Rule of 72, By Joshua Kennon. About.
• Supply and Demand. Internet Center for Management and Business Administration, Incorporated.
• Economics Basics: Demand and Supply Investopedia Incorporated.
• "The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More",The 98 Percent Rule. By Chris Anderson. USA Today. July 11, 2006
• Richest Are Leaving Even the Rich Far Behind, By David Cay Johnston. New York Times. June 5, 2005

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on August 30, 2006 at 11:00 AM in Abundance and Scarcity, Brad DeLong, Economist, Consumption and Content, Democracy or Monopoly, Discussion, Economics, Humans, Self-Destructive, Income Inequity, Inequality in America, Jared Bernstein, Economist, Mark Thoma, Economist’s View, Nature, Nature or Nurture, Paul Krugman, Economist, Philosophy, Poverty , Poverty in America, Profound , Protestant Work Ethic, Question Everything, Raise Minimum Wage, Reality or Perception, Social Order Teaches , Society | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Death Tax Keeps The Wealthy Rich. With Increased Wages, Poor Lose ©

Update: The Bill did not pass. Nevertheless, the games are expected to resume soon.
I recently read an article in the New York Times titled, “The Rise of the Super-Rich.” Journalist Teresa Tritich reports, under the auspices of a Compassionately Conservative Administration even the affluent are not doing well. She states that the axiom, “The rich are getting richer, while the poor are getting poorer,” is no longer completely accurate. Currently, the super-rich, the upper crust is profiting; all others are left behind.

As I read this information, I was reminded of a two-pronged topic that I think needs discussing, “Abundance and Scarcity.” Apparently, there is a belief amongst Americans, that there is only so much wealth to go around. We must divide what there is. Some will prosper and the others must suffer. I think this notion contrary, as does the natural world.

Mother nature does not deplete her resources; she regularly replenishes these. On occasion, there are circumstances that seem contrary. Droughts, a horde of locust, or a spontaneous fire might reduce the wealth within the ecosystem temporarily. However, these occurrences serve to protect nature. They restore the environment. Nature returns to its balance. Only man makes long-term deficits, imbalances. While shortage need not be, man continues to actively create these. Please consider the passage of a convoluted Bill that boosts the minimum wage while leaving low-wage workers with less.

This weekend in the still of night or was it early morn, man again chose to design a shortfall. Congress concluded it would be best to create a greater disparity between the rich and the poor. They were intent on doing this. House Republicans, prompted by their fears for the fall election decided to do something benevolent. They skillfully shaped a bill that they had been reluctant to pass. After ten years of refusing to raise the minimum wage, these House members at 1:30 AM on Saturday morning, voted to increase the disgraceful hourly minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25.

The change will not occur all at once; it will evolve incrementally. Over the next three years, three distinct intervals will be implemented. Wages will gradually grow. This, on the surface, sounds wonderful, well, maybe not wonderful, but good. However, think again. Attached to this initiative is an extremely generous estate tax cut for the super rich. The middle class will not receives a reduction in levies, nor will those that have less than the median does, reap more. Even the wealthy will not reap a greater reward. No, only those living extremely lavish lives will benefit.

In the decade that passed since Congress last increased the minimum wage, senators and congressional representatives improved their station. In vote after vote, members of the Legislative branch have raised their own salaries by a “slight” $31,000. Members of Congress may not be among the enormously affluent; nevertheless, they have connections. They have power and benefits, more than most. Therefore, they work well with the wealthiest among us.

Many among the most affluent believe that in order for there to be rich, there must be poor. An individual with an abundance of dollars said to me with impunity ‘The poor are necessary, for there must be poor people to serve the rich.’ At the time I thought, ‘How odd.’ I had not realized that much of what is was part of a well-calculated, thought-out scheme. It was my understanding that we were all here to serve and support each other. Unlike this mega-multi-millionaire, I believe in the greater good. I always have and I thought everyone did. Imagine my surprise when I learned I was so very wrong. However, I digress.

In today’s American, the "super-rich," which comprise one percent of population, are earning wealth that exceeds their needs. They are extremely well off, while others are suffering.

From 2003 to 2004, the latest year for which there is data, the richest Americans pulled far ahead of everyone else. In the space of that one-year, real average income for the top 1 percent of households — those making more than $315,000 in 2004 — grew by nearly 17 percent. For the remaining 99 percent, the average gain was less than 3 percent, and that probably makes things look better than they really are, since other data, most notably from the Census Bureau, indicate that the average is bolstered by large gains among the top 20 percent of households. In all, the top 1 percent of households enjoyed 36 percent of all income gains in 2004, on top of an already stunning 30 percent in 2003.

There is less than a three percent gain among ninety-nine percent of the population; yet, traditionally, and conservatively speaking, the cost of living increases by an estimated annual rate of three percent. Thus, the “gain” is a loss or at best, a wash for most of America.

With the possible passage of this newer “Rich Plan, Poor Plan,” the losses will be greater. The estate tax will be virtually eliminated. This will result in an overall government income loss of $753 billion in the first 10 years. According to Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, new research released by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has concluded the estate tax reduction would force “lower spending for Medicaid, food stamps, and unemployment insurance, all of which assist low-wage workers.”

This drastic loss in federal income and hence the reduction in federal assistance programs make the minimum wage increase a moot point. Once again, the silver spoon sponsors are going away with the gold. That is fine for the exercise was never meant to be benevolent; it was for these in the Grand Old Party a battle of wits, a gimmick. The purpose of this plan was to coerce and influence; while appearing to be generous and giving. The Repugnant Republicans wanted to find a way to abolish the estate tax with Democratic support.

Thus, we had midnight orations in favor of raising the wage given by those that rather not do so. Still, their true tenor was revealed. Tennessee Representative Zach Wamp could not resist telling the reason for the Bill. This rancorous, revengeful lollygag could not restrain himself. He said to the House Democrats, "You have seen us really outfox you on this issue tonight." However, I ask, who is outfoxing whom.

Journalist, Bob Herbert of the New York Times asks the same. He offers,

As the Economic Policy Institute and the Center on Budget pointed out in their study: ''Each year that Congress fails to raise the wage floor, its purchasing power erodes. The fact that the minimum wage has remained the same for nearly nine years means that its real value has declined considerably over that period. As inflation has accelerated recently due to higher energy costs, the real value of the minimum wage has fallen faster.''

If purchasing power is reduced for the masses, the super-rich, the “classy chic” may suffer. In truth, they will.

Poorly paid workers, while available to “serve” the mega-moneyed bring all of society down. In truth, if one suffers, we all do. Susan Mayer, of the Joint Center for Poverty Research Director explains,

Social scientists do not understand all the potential effects of poverty on either children or adults. We do know that children who grow up in poor families are much more likely to fair worse than children who grow up in more affluent families on just about everything that social scientists measure. They are more likely to have poor health and to do worse in school. They are more likely to drop out of high school, have a baby as a teenager, and to be poor themselves once they grow up.

In part, the impoverished are often without hope. Their race, color, or creed may hinder their capacity to dream. Children realize at an early age, discrimination is rampant. It is evident, even on the playground. Young persons from families with few resources, have fewer opportunities. Often their parents are unavailable or unable to teach them prior to formal schooling. By the time the progeny of the poor reach school age, they are far behind their peers. They fall farther behind because of conditions at home.

In “The Future of Children; Children and Poverty,” researchers Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Greg J. Duncan write of “The Effects of Poverty on Children.” They state

it is through inadequate nutrition; fewer learning experiences; instability of residence; lower quality of schools; exposure to environmental toxins, family violence, and homelessness; dangerous streets; or less access to friends, services, and, for adolescents, jobs.

These impact society as a whole. Young persons without hope or dreams do not fare well. They stagnant and barely survive.

One of the social issues facing children of poverty is emotional trauma. The emotional climate can often be very stressful and emotionally depriving. The lack of emotional nurturing can lead to feelings of alienation, inadequacy, depression, and anxiety. Aggressive or impulsive behavior and social withdrawal can also result. Emotional security and self-esteem are often lacking. There is a craving for attention and a need to belong (Ciaccio, 2000; Brophy, 2000). The characteristics that are lacking in the poverty environment are those that help foster effective learning and academic success. Emotional draining and negative self-status can literally zap the motivation to learn out of children.

Likely, young persons born to such circumstances become “a burden on the community as a whole.”

As they age, the consequences of scarcity worsen. All is amplified. Stress sets in. Without an adequate education, people are left feeling powerless. In fact they are. This too takes a toll. Many become ill. People with little capital and in need, turn to those with more for help. At times the impoverished do not ask for assistance they take it. Crime increases as the number of poor rise.

The underprivileged resent the rich. They rise up against those that keep them down. Throughout history, this has been so. Dr. Tom O'Connor and and Dr. Paula Baker discuss this phenomenon. They profess,

Theoretically, the relationship between inequality and crime is believed to operate through a person's individual assessment of the equity of a particular distribution of economic resources. Their assessment is partially shaped by the sociocultural environment, but there is no isomorphic (one-to-one) relationship between aggregate (national statistic) measures and psychological factors; this is called making the ecological fallacy.

If inequity is perceived, there must be some interpretive or intervening mechanism that channels or diffuses the effect in different directions. In criminology, that intervening mechanism is referred to as relative deprivation, and some individuals respond by resorting to property crime to address their grievances, and other people develop a deep anger which can be manifested in violent ways. Relative deprivation is illustrated in the following quotation:
Karl Marx once said: "A house can be large or small; as long as the surrounding houses are equally small it satisfies all social demands. But if a palace rises beside the little house, the little house shrinks into a hut."

Not all people who perceive wage inequality resort to crime. Some become entrepreneurs, others get involved in political action, and still others direct the feelings of anger and frustration toward themselves. The type of crime traditionally associated with economic inequality is property crime, but this may be simply an "opportunity" explanation (since when poor people live side by side with rich people, there's more opportunity).

In recent years, however, the "deep anger" explanation has become more popular, and many criminologists now associate economic inequality with violent crime. Perhaps the most common association is with "conventional" or street crime. For example, when unemployment goes up 1%, there's a 4% increase in homicides, a 6% increase in robberies, a 2% increase in burglaries, and measurable effects on rape and other crimes.

Nevertheless, the super-rich, Congress, and the neoconservative multi-millionaires and billionaire Bush Bunch choose to ignore this well researched information. They prefer to know what they know, prosperity and the good old boy and girl network. They rather ignore inequity in favor of the super-rich becoming richer. Therefore, they tell average Americans that they will benefit if the Estate Tax is eliminated. The super-rich title the bill a “death tax,” and convince the public that if they inherit a dime, they will have to pay for such a privilege.

It is not true.

The bill would exempt from taxation all estates worth up to $5 million -- or $10 million for a married couple -- and apply a 15 percent tax rate to inheritances above that threshold to as much as $25 million. Estate values exceeding $25 million would be taxed at 30 percent.

In fact, the rich will not benefit from the reduction in estate taxes, only the ultra-exclusive will.

However, to garner greater support, the “super-rich” is indulging their friends. Majority Leader Bill Frist, Republican from Tennessee and an extremely wealthy entrepreneur himself is doling out rewards to Democrats that wish to assist him in eradicating the “death tax.”

The bill is sprinkled with incentives drafted with particular lawmakers in mind. A rural bonds provision is aimed at Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.). A tax break for timber interests is a possible lure for Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.). A provision benefiting coalmines is targeted at Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.).

The Bill is expected to pass. Imbalance will be preserved.

Throughout the world, and particularly in the United States there are the very well-to-do and the poor that provide for them. It is fascinating to me that the poor give to the rich. One would think in a benevolent, “compassionate” and civilized society, one that harbors a “thousand points of light,” the prosperous, those that have much more than they could possibly need, would be willing and wanting to help the less well-off. A thinking person might recognize that if there are impoverished amongst the populace problems will result, inevitably! Yet, that is not the case. The “super-rich” seem to think that they can control the universe or at least their slice of the world.

They believe that the poor can be deprived, weakened into submission, and all will be well. Those born with a silver spoon in their mouths believe that they can create circumstances that leave the destitute with little strength or the courage to revolt. While wallowing in their creature comforts, the profoundly prosperous think they can ignore those that serve them. They cannot. Trouble will brew among those in need and it will directly affect the affluent. It does.

Uneducated or undereducated people do not care for themselves well; they cannot truly. Taking care of these person’s costs the community dearly. We all must pay for the medical care, or eventual burial of those that are without. We will pay for the children they bare.

The ultra-wealthy can wish for the death of the underprivileged, the broke, and pitiful. They can hope that once used, these persons will just lie down, die, and decompose. That will not happen, besides the rich need those that serve them or so they believe. They ignore principles of abundance that guide nature. The super-rich are stuck. They only think of their own plethora of plenty and they want more.

Some saw the super-rich is an inspiration. Numerous believed in this land of opportunity thought if they worked hard, that they might one day be among the exclusive and opulent. Now studies show the chances of being luxuriantly wealthy are poor. Those with dollars, though less, are not faring well under this administration. Therefore, we must consider the circumstances.

The well-to-do often pass on their treasure. Children and charities are the recipients. They, their progeny, and peer associates continually have access to opportunities; they are able to expand their means. The billionaires and mega-multi-millionaires receive the best of educations; they make the best of connections. These societal darlings partner with the finest. They know and are among the elite. If you, dear reader, are not among them now, you will not likely be among them later. Bush and his rich Republican right-winged wranglers are making sure of that.

• Please review the following, House-passed minimum wage bill cuts wages for tipped employees in seven states by as much as $5.50 per hour, By EPI Vice President & Policy Director Ross Eisenbrey.

Max B. Sawicky offers a discussion of this topic in “Stiffed.” “In most cases, the tipped employees would be subject to the federal minimum wage law, which allows employers to pay as little as $2.13 an hour and to rely on customers’ tips to make up the rest of the $5.15 minimum wage. This is known as a “tip credit.” Thus, in Washington, tipped employees would see their minimum wage cut from its current $7.63 an hour (plus tips) to $5.15 an hour (including tips).”

This article affirms Republicans wish to create inequity. Apparently, in their minds, servers need not survive. “Abundance for all” is a notion alien to this group of Compassionate Conservatives. House Representatives cater to the top one percent of the population, nothing more. Let them eat cake and servers eat scrapes.

Peruse the possibilities. The Rich Reach Heights and the Poor Plunge Further into Poverty.
• The Rise of the Super-Rich, By Teresa Tritch. New York Times.July 19, 2006
• Low-wage Workers Ready for Congress to Act, By Tony Pugh. Mercury News. August 2, 2006
• Why The Rich Need The Poor, By Stephen Simac. The Coastal Post. May, 1997
• Working For a Pittance; [Op-Ed], Bob Herbert. New York Times. July 3, 2006
• Minimum Wage. The Economic Policy Institute August 2006
• Social expenditures and child poverty—the U.S. is a noticeable outlier. Economic Policy Institute.June 23, 2004
• Inequality, By Edward L. Glaeser. Harvard University. June 21, 2005
• Minimum Wage, Maximum Gall, By Harold Meyerson. Washington Post. Wednesday, August 2, 2006
• Drama in the Senate: Rich Plan, Poor Plan, By Charles Babington. Washington Post. Tuesday, August 1, 2006
• New Unnoticed CBO Data Shows Capital Income Has Become Much More Concentrated at the Top, By Isaac Shapiro and Joel Friedman. Center on Budget Policy and Priorities. January 29, 2006
• House Estate Tax Proposal Has Essentially The Same Large Long-Term Cost as Earlier Version, Phase-Ins Mask Costs, But Underlying Policy Remains Unchanged, By Joel Friedman and Aviva Aron-Dine. Center on Budget Policy and Priorities. July 28, 2006
• Joint Center for Poverty Research Questioning Poverty Response, from Susan Mayer, Director. Joint Center for Poverty Research.
• The Effects of Poverty on Children, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Greg J. Duncan. The Future of Children. Summer/Fall 1997
• Challenge: Diversity, The Effects of Poverty on Teaching and Learning. Teachnology Incorporated.
• Challenge: The Achievement Gap, The Effects of Poverty on Teaching and Learning. Teachnology Incorporated.
• Robbing Peter, Estate tax cut tied to minimum wage is too costly for all but the rich. Houston Chronicle. August 2, 2006
• Poverty, Inequality, and Crime, By Dr. Tom O'Connor and and Dr. Paula Baker. North Carolina Wesleyan College. 2006
• Poverty and Health. Washington Post. Tuesday, August 31, 2004
• The Bad Doctor, Bill Frist’s long record of corporate vices. LA Weekly. Thursday, January 9, 2003
• Graduates Versus Oligarchs; [Op-Ed], Paul Krugman. New York Times. February 27, 2006
• Why Oh Why is Income Inequality Increasing? By Mark Thoma. Economist's View. July 21, 2006
• For Further Discussion of Inequality Links By Mark Thoma. Economist's View. July 19, 2006

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on August 3, 2006 at 03:00 PM in "Death Tax", Abundance and Scarcity, Current Affairs, Economics, Effects of Poverty , Estate Tax , Money Does Not Buy Knowledge, Policy, Poverty , Poverty in America, Rise of the Super-Rich, Wages and Salaries, “Rich Plan, Poor Plan” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack