What is the Occupy movement all about?

The right to assemble peaceably is guaranteed by the first amendment.  This must have been important to the Founding Fathers since it IS the first of the Bill of Rights, which means that they thought about it, discussed it, perhaps had protests in favor (or not) of it, and decided to include it.  This was first differentiated from the right to petition in 1875 by the Supreme Court as part of “United States v. Cruikshank”, which states, “…the right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or duties of the National Government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States.”

Clearly the OWS movement is within its rights to peaceably assemble, and I would think that they do have grievances worth petitioning the government for.  Read this Wiki article for history and descriptions of earlier protests, and here is the Wiki article specifically about OWS.  Also, take note of my earlier advice about Wiki articles.

Some of the lengths that these protesters go to, to continue their agenda, are quite inventive.  One example is that since the movement does not have a permit to use amplified PA systems, they are using human repeaters to help disseminate the speaker’s words.  After the NYFD removed the gas-powered generators citing a fire hazard, the protesters turned to bicycle-powered ones to provide for their electronic needs.  They also constructed their own greywater system to recycle dishwater for use in the park.  If only Wall Street could find a use for this creativity and innovation (of course only the 1% would likely profit from this).

All that said, I think that they could probably spend their time and effort in better ways.  For instance, if the main complaint is about the wealthy owners of various corporations, how about organizing a boycott of their products and/or services (in the specific case of banks, this should work well).  If the need is for government officials to take their concerns more seriously, have sub-groups maintain a 24/7 picket outside their houses?  That should get their attention.

Here’s another idea: pick out the worst 25 or so perceived offenders and the get retailers and service people to refuse them service.  No more taxi rides, lost reservations, no more best seats in the best restaurants; they wouldn’t be able to buy things in stores or online.  I think that this would send the message that no one can live comfortably without the workers who make business possible.

I dearly hope that this can be resolved peacefully, before more drastic measures are taken by the protesters.  Revolutions have started because of similar grievances before.  Isn’t the Tea Party movement homage to the original namesake?

As I have frequently found, the Founding Fathers had comments that are surprisingly apropos, so I leave you with their thoughts.

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our selection between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat in our drink, in our necessities and comforts, in our labors and in our amusements, for our callings and our creeds...our people.. must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live..  We have not time to think, no means of calling the mis-managers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow suffers.  Our landholders, too...retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must...be contented with penury, obscurity and exile.. private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance."

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.  Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

--- Thomas Jefferson

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."

"Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions."

"[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few."

--- John Adams

"But the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest, is but too often drowned, before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain."

"If individuals be not influenced by moral principles; it is in vain to look for public virtue; it is, therefore, the duty of legislators to enforce, both by precept and example, the utility, as well as the necessity of a strict adherence to the rules of distributive justice."

"If it be asked what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer, the genius of the whole system, the nature of just and constitutional laws, and above all the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it."

--- James Madison

And, although not strictly one of the FF, also an important man in early American politics.

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed."

--- Abraham Lincoln

What happens to the people in the middle?

I don’t consider myself to be either a republican or a democrat because both of these parties have become radical in their own ways.  You can’t be conservative and think that some social programs have merit, nor can you be liberal and think that the US needs a strong military.  If you believe that humans have had an effect on the environment, you are a pariah to the loot/pillage/rape party.  You can either want to explore alternate energy options, or you can believe that oil will last forever.  You either have to be hard right or left; there is no middle ground anymore.

Even though everyone knows that there are only two political parties in the US, on paper there are a surprising number – approximately 48 are registered in some way.  Here is the best list I could find.

Now, some of these are just completely whacko, but you be the judge:

• World Socialist Party of the USA – based on utopian Marxism
• Revolutionary Communist Party USA – based on the teachings of Chairman Mao
• Pansexual Peace Party – based on Wiccanism
• Canary Party – based on healthcare reform
• Prohibition Party – based on ultra-conservative Christianity
• Objectivist Party – based on Ayn Rand’s philosophy
• American Nazi Party – based on, well you know, Naziism

Of the current 112^th congress, out of the 100 senators 51 are Dems, 47 are Reps, and 2 are Independent (that’s 2% for the math challenged).  In the house, of the 435 seats 242 are R, 192 are D, and one seat is vacant which means there are zero other parties (0%, keep up!).

So what is a middle-of-the-roader to do?  You can believe, if you want, that your (hopefully) moderate representative will vote moderately, but it usually doesn’t work that way.  If they want to get reelected they have to stay in good standing with the party, and the only way to do that is to vote the party line.  I can’t believe that everyone in the country is divided along the party lines.  Where are those of you that are in the middle?

I, personally, am against having only two significant parties.  At the very least there should be some way of breaking a tie, other than having the Speaker or President-pro-tem cast a vote.  If only there was a reasonable third party that could keep both sides honest, or as honest as possible, or at least not criminal.

Have there always been problems with American political parties?  I suspect so as shown by this quote from George, Washington not Bush (either of them).

Much indeed to be regretted, party disputes are now carried to such a length, and truth is so enveloped in mist and false representation, that it is extremely difficult to know through what channel to seek it. This difficulty to one, who is of no party, and whose sole wish is to pursue with undeviating steps a path which would lead this country to respectability, wealth, and happiness, is exceedingly to be lamented. But such, for wise purposes, it is presumed, is the turbulence of human passions in party disputes, when victory more than truth is the palm contended for.

--- George Washington, letter to Timothy Pickering, Jul. 27, 1795

There are other alternatives to our two-party, representative democratic system.  Some, like anarchism, are no-starters – who would want to live in complete anarchy?  Others, socialism is one example, have been tried before and shown not to work.  This site has some information on the alternatives. 

Since it seems unlikely that we will suddenly change our form of government, it behooves us, we the people of the United States, to be as informed as possible on how our chosen government works and how we can work within its rules.  As always, Wikipedia is a good place to start becoming educated.  Read about the history of, and description about democracy here. 

[Note:  Wikipedia articles are written by anyone who feels like writing one.  They are checked by others, but there is no formal method to ensure accuracy.  The best articles will have notes and external links describing the sources used.  Check these sources to see if: A) they are real sites; and B) the information there DOES support the Wiki article.  It is also useful to Google the subject and any associated terms to find other related information.  To sum up this paragraph, and to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, trust Wiki, but verify.]

You might note that I have a fondness for quoting the Founding Fathers, not strictly the signers of the Declaration and Constitution, but all of those early government thinkers.  Some of those men were not only good, critical thinkers, but were also eloquent writers.  Below are some quotes from some of them on the subject of government.  Ponder these quotes remembering that nothing is new under the sun.

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."

--- Patrick Henry

"If the present (Continental) Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise, in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour?"

--- Thomas Jefferson – 1821

If men of wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honour of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth; if men possessed of these other excellent qualities are chosen to fill the seats of government, we may expect that our affairs will rest on a solid and permanent foundation.

--- Samuel Adams, letter to Elbridge Gerry, November 27, 1780

Nothing so strongly impels a man to regard the interest of his constituents, as the certainty of returning to the general mass of the people, from whence he was taken, where he must participate in their burdens.

--- George Mason, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778

Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them.

--- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

[The President] is the dignified, but accountable magistrate of a free and great people. The tenure of his office, it is true, is not hereditary; nor is it for life: but still it is a tenure of the noblest kind: by being the man of the people, he is invested; by continuing to be the man of the people, his investiture will be voluntarily, and cheerfully, and honourably renewed.

--- James Wilson, Lectures on Law, 1791

I think that one of the reasons so few people vote is that they feel that the choices don’t represent what they want.  OK, some of it is laziness or apathy, but feeling disenfranchised has to be a part of it.

What can we do about Social Security?

This will be, for now, my last piece on cutting the federal budget.  I may come back to it if things change, or if there is new news.

The last, large piece of the federal pie, that can reasonably be cut, is Social Security.  It was first enacted by president Roosevelt in 1935 as part of his “new deal”, a series of social programs designed to relieve, reform, and recover the US economy after the great depression.  As part of the Social Security Act, Title II provides for Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (this is that FICA guy on your pay check).  This Wiki article has a good background on how the program was started and implemented.

Social Security History

The biggest single problem with SSI is that as the country continues to age, the ratio of people depositing money into the program to the number receiving benefits continues to go down.  In the 1940s the ration was 160:1 with more than 35,000 covered workers (putting money in) and only 222 beneficiaries (taking money out).  This has continued to go down until in 2010 the ratio was 2.9:1 (156,000 in – 53,000 out) and it is expected to continue in this direction.

Table of these ratios

My personal complaint is that the benefit age continues to increase and at this point I won’t be eligible until 3 years after I have died.  Realistically, one of the options for maximizing the fund availability is to continue to increase the minimum benefit age.  The republicans are talking about increasing the age to 70 in the near future, which doesn’t bother them, being the wealthiest party.

There are only two reasonable ways to increase the ratio: increasing payments into the system, although it’s not popular to increase taxes of ANY kind; or continue to increase the eligibility age, not popular either.

Another of the problems I see is the maximum taxable earnings, which is currently capped at $106,800.  Although it is expected to increase to $110,100 in the near future, this still seems like a low number.  It seems reasonable to make this a higher number since there is a large portion of the population that makes substantially more than this amount.  To me, this is another example of people not paying their fair share.  One can argue that these people in the highest earning bracket(s) might not have to rely on SSI to augment their retirement income.  I disagree that this is a fact because even if those people don’t make use of the benefits (but let’s be real, they will expect that too), their descendents may need to make use of them.  The understanding is that current workers are paying for their parents’ generations benefits, which should be true for the upper income brackets as well.  For those in the lower income brackets there will be no change, since you are taxed as a percentage of what you earn.

Now, I have been contributing into a variety of retirement plans for all of my working life, including several IRAs and 401k plans at all of my jobs.  I am in favor of allowing people to take over this last portion of the retirement scheme, but of course, I can’t do that since I’m paying for my mom’s retirement income (wait, my dad has passed on, so can I get credit for him?).  But, over the long term this seems to be a reasonable choice – let people make their own arrangements. 

Some solution suggestions

Another of the significant problems with the SSI system, much like that of the insurance business is fraud – sometime co-located with horrible crimes.  Here is an example of someone defrauding the SSI system by taking advantage of several disabled people.

Linda Ann Weston

Other fraud crimes are about a person’s eligibility – surprisingly, you can’t receive benefits if you are in prison.  Here a man received over $60,000 in benefits while serving time for sexual child abuse.

The fraud does not always involve serious crime, like in the two examples above, but it is still a crime to collect benefits for dead people, as seen in this article.

Of course, in some cases it’s the bureaucracy that makes the mistakes, like in this article about a woman that SSI claims is dead.  She would beg to differ, as I’m sure most of us would.

How can we fix the problems?  There are a lot of suggestions on this but I think the best plans will have individuals making more investments for themselves.  Sock as much as possible into IRAs, since this is a pretax deduction it also helps on your taxes. Wait, I am for everyone paying their fair share (I should just make this an acronym TFS) and this reduces the amount of tax you pay, so that can’t work.  OK, put as much as you can into 401k plans.

• More solutions
• Some SSI Myths
• Informative FAQ
• Collection of Time articles on SSI

As with most government programs, the problem lies more with managing and administering the programs, and less with the stated aims and goals of the program itself.  Much like with the healthcare problems that I wrote about earlier, if we could reduce the waste, remove the fraud, and streamline the processes we could save an enormous amount of the budgeted dollars.

I think that everyone should be as informed as possible about all of the government programs that our dollars are funding.  Here I disagree with Mr. Cain; everyone should read as much as possible.

Why does war cost so much?

I thought that it be a simple matter to breakdown the defense budget and easily pick out some spurious costs (OK, not really, there must be 10,000 people poring over those numbers).  Before I get flamed, I want to reiterate that I am pro-military and I served in the US Navy in the ‘80s.  But the defense portion of the federal pie still represents an attractive location for cuts.

We KNOW that we have to make cuts somewhere in the budget, or we will default on our loans.  This is something that most Americans have faced in their own domestic budgets: pay the rent or buy food; pay for the needed medications or pay the car note; buy the children clothes or pay the phone bill.  With times being even tougher now, these decisions are being made more often.  Why can’t the government understand and make similar decisions: cut social programs or defense spending; protect the borders or keep social security; provide for Medicare or…I think that everyone gets the idea.  I know that this is not a simple decision, but when the average American is faced with this they don’t have months or years to come up with an answer.  They don’t have super committees, analysts, aides, or any of the roughly 24,000 member staff that the house of reps has.  And if they saw it coming years ahead of time, wouldn’t they have done something about it before now?  Apparently not.

On to questions about war.  We are currently fighting two major wars: the war on terror, mostly in Iraq and Afghanistan; and the war on drugs, being fought mostly in the US and on its borders.  Just to simplify some of the points that I want to make, I’m going to talk about the War on Terror as just being in Afghanistan.  Some argument can be made that the fighting in Iraq had other reasons than just terrorism.  Now, I believe that had we not taken the war to the terrorists, there would have been more attacks like 9/11, and I also believe that Saddam had to fall, so I’m leaving Iraq out of the discussion.

The War on Terror, in Afghanistan, has lasted longer than Vietnam (10 years in June, 2011), cost to date about $474 billion, there have been just over 1,800 American military deaths (as best I can determine), and an unconfirmed Afghan civilian toll of more than 14,000.  Below are some interesting data and articles about this war.

• One analysis of war costs
• War costs and death toll
• More interesting war facts

By contrast, the War on Drugs has lasted 40 years, by my rough estimation has cost the US approximately $435 billion (federal dollars, and more in border state budgets), and the cost in lives is probably uncountable.  Below are some articles and a collection of data about the war on drugs.

• Mexican drug deaths
• 34,000 Mexicans and 111 Americans in first half of 2011
• War on drugs
• Drug fact charts

I don’t want to reargue the legalization of drugs here; that has been done to death by people that have researched it for years.  There ARE strong arguments FOR legalization, but all I want to say here is that what we are doing is clearly not working.  As Albert Einstein said, “Insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results.”  Based just on this thought, shouldn’t we at least try something different?

Now it occurs to me that we are fighting one of these wars using the wrong methods.  In Afghanistan we have thousands of boots on the ground, hundreds of Air Force and Navy planes, and most of the Predator and Reaper fleet loitering overhead.  We killed thousands of natives, combatants or not; imprisoned and questioned thousands (not going to touch methods); and spent a trillion dollars.  The War on Drugs has people, planes, boats, helicopters, blimps, a few Reapers of their own, and many less feet on the ground.  But we've never treated the drug fight like the WAR that it is called.  Bring out the heavy artillery, tanks, ships, and do whatever it takes to WIN!

Since we are backing off on the terror war, maybe we should use the troops in the other war.  When we decided that we had to fight the terrorist threat, although no particular nation could be blamed, we still took the fight into other countries.  Why can’t we do the same for the War on Drugs?

We won’t be attacking Mexico – we will be going after narco-terrorists.  Likewise, we are not invading Columbia, just going after the cartels.  Et cetera and so on.  In this war we would have the additional benefit of recovering billions of dollars that could help fund the fighting, and by some estimates of the amount of money in cartel hands, help pay down the deficit.

At the same time we should make every effort to destroy as much of the drug infrastructure as possible, which mostly means destroying crops.  Not with the aerial-sprayed defoliants used in Columbia in the early 2000s, but by the troops on the ground.  We should also treat the growers, refiners, transporters, and sellers of these drugs exactly like we treat the terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan.  With one possible exception this time, let’s house them in their own country.  We have enough prisoners, both American and foreign, in our prisons.

If we can finish up both of these wars (WW II finish, not Vietnam) then we can begin some rational discussions on how to balance the budget and pay off the deficit.

Are American corporations too greedy?

I got side-tracked today while reading an article about raising the taxes for the wealthy.  For the record, I am firmly in favor of a flat tax and closing the loopholes that allow people to cheat on their taxes – everyone should pay their fair share.

I haven’t forgotten about the government spending, but I’m hung up on the defense budget.  I’m pro-military and believe that America is what it is in part, because of our strength-in-arms.  But, I also think that there is a lot of fat that can be cut, some horrible inefficiency in implementation, and probably quite a bit of corruption.

America was founded, in part, on the belief that a person could make a living, raise a family, and that the government would help them do this.  Remember, “…life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, or how about “…promote the general welfare, and provide blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”?

One thing to note is that our country, its people, the society as a whole made it possible for companies, corporations, and people to become wealthy.  We live in a place where businesses are not nationalized or their profits stolen by dictators (nor by the IRS), where you are free to start, sell, or run into the ground your very own company.  But, if we allow our economy, our government, or these very businesses to waste this opportunity, then these things will no longer be possible.

[This next paragraph is for the executives, leaders, owners, and shareholders of America’s corporations, so if that’s not you, then scroll down some.]  When you have reductions-in-force or layoffs, so that you can increase profits, most of those people are going to receive unemployment benefits.  That is not money from heaven, it ultimately comes from taxes (I know that both the employer and the employee contribute, but that doesn’t and can’t cover all of it).  This is an inefficient method of saving money since it costs to administer both the unemployment and the taxes.  It is much more efficient to accept lower profits, keep people working, and them paying taxes not spending them.

So are corporations greedy?  I say yes, they are.  It’s not just the profits, or the stupidly huge salaries and bonuses for the executives; they also cheat on their taxes.  For example last year Wal-Mart made ~$22.1 billion in profits and paid out $5.3 billion in taxes – which at ~24% is less than the mandated 35% but there are deductions and credits and so on.  Exxon Mobil made about $30.4 billion and paid $156 million in US federal taxes – which is something like 0.5%.  Now, I understand that there are reasons for this and that it probably follows IRS rules (unless there were some pay-offs), but it is curious.  Here are two articles about corporate profits and taxes.  Check it out and see if it makes sense to you.

So what about the huge bonuses?  We have seen this over and over on the news, where some company that seems to be in trouble and losing money, gives the CEO and/or the top executives a ridiculous bonus.  What gives?

Can you imagine how the conversation went?

[CEO]  So, I managed to make you some indecently large profits this year, even though we lost money and laid people off, and I think I deserve a bonus.

[Board of Directors]  Ok, how about the same amount as your yearly salary?

[CEO]  That’s only like a million dollars.  You do want there to be similar profits next year, right?

[BoD]  Well, yes I do.

[CEO]  Then I think you should up my bonus significantly.

[BoD]  Well, let’s see.  The average worker here got a $650 bonus this year, so how about 20,000 times that much?  That would be…$13.5 million.  Is that doable?

[CEO]  Great, but let’s cut out that worker bonus and we’ll have even higher profits next year.

[BoD]  I like how you think.  Let’s take the corporate jet to Paris for lunch.

Does that sound unrealistic?  Here is an article talking about exactly that.

None of the executives at these corporations built those businesses by themselves; they were built on the backs of the workers.  What could a CEO possibly do that is worth 20,000 times what a worker does: be he a mailroom clerk or an engineer, or a machinist?  He likely didn’t design, manufacture, test, repair, market, sell, or procure material for the widgets.  Did he personally rally the troops and lead the workers to a revolutionary new widget?  Did ANY of them turn down a bonus in order to keep a loyal employee?  Go here for an article about corporate “internalequity”.

It isn’t just the bonuses either, the salaries for top corporate execs are just as crazy.  Here is an article on the top 20 for 2010.

This is starting to sound a bit socialist, and I don’t mean for it to, but clearly I have touched a sore place on myself.  Does any of this make sense to anyone?

A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more, otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation.

No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged.

--- Adam Smith, “The Wealth of Nations”

In the opening paragraph I said that everyone should pay their fair share.  If every individual and corporation did, would the deficit be so high?  Would there be more money available for those thin slices of the federal pie, like education and basic scientific research?  Since I have been paying into social security for about 30 years, I would like for there to be something available for me when I need it.

I haven’t been banking $13 million bonuses.