Tom Sawyer 2011

The regressives have largely succeeded in recruiting the wealthy to their ranks. They have now embarked on a campaign to convince the rest of us that we should accept a subservient rank in society and enroll ourselves in an underclass. They tell us that they should be able to bring the money they have been hiding overseas back into this country without paying any taxes on it, because that will enable them to create more jobs. They tell us that we should give them tax holidays and permanent low tax rates, so that they can create jobs. They tell us that if we give them everything they have and let them accumulate everything they want, they will let us work for them. Tom Sawyer couldn't have done better.

Who are the so-called “job creators” we keep hearing about? Certainly not the big corporations, which count the number of people they lay off the way a kid counts to ten in a game of hide-and-seek: one one thousand, two one thousand, three one thousand. It would take too long to count each individual who is laid off. And it might make them recognizable as individuals, rather than as just nameless hash marks.

A lot of politicians are telling us that small businesses create most new jobs. But these days, small businesses are mostly growing smaller, not larger. New businesses create some jobs temporarily. But the vast majority of new businesses fail in just a couple of years. The jobs they create aren't really created from an expansion in commerce. They are just a transfer of money out of people's home equity and savings, because small businesses can't borrow money without their owners putting up personal guarantees. When the cash is exhausted, the companies fail, the employees are out of work again, and the banks foreclose on the ruined “entrepreneurs.”

The truth is that these days, there are no job creators. But the truth isn't what is important to the people who are promoting the phrase “job creators.” What is important is that, in addition to the super-rich whom we read about, there are lots of less rich but still well-off people all across America who aren't creating jobs but who like the label. Doctors, raking in lots of money from Medicare and health insurance companies, are a prime example of people who would like to think of themselves as job creators, rather than just as folks making money off of other people's misfortune and sitting on big bunches of cash and investments. These are the donors the Republican party relies on to pad their campaign coffers. These are the people who make it seem like there is support for regressive politics not just on Wall Street, but in every city and small town where doctors have offices.

For years, doctors said they weren't the reason health care costs kept rising faster than any other part of the economy. They blamed insurance companies and hospitals and layers of administrators and bureaucrats. But when they had a chance to eliminate all those middle men who they accused of soaking up health care dollars by supporting national health care, the vast majority of them, and their associations, sided with the very people and institutions they said were the problem. Because, in fact, they knew they were all in on the scheme together. The drug companies and doctors and all the rest realized that the only way they could continue to amass their fortunes was if they stuck together.

A variety of rich folks who aren't doctors also like the idea that they are job creators. People who spend their lives watching over their inherited wealth enjoy the idea that they are doing something more important than just spending money on themselves. Hedge fund managers who sit counting their millions like gamblers at a poker table like to think they are doing something that is really productive, and not just taking advantage of special tax breaks that only they benefit from. The Republican party realized that these folks would rather join a party that told them they had a right to hoard all their money than join a political party that told them they should share their wealth for the good of the entire society. The Republicans realized that these folks would prefer the title “job creator” than the title “greedy, selfish tax-dodger.” And the Republican party recognized that these people would contribute to the party that showed it would support their privileged place in the economy.

The monied elite are not job-creators. They are modern day feudal lords, expecting their serfs to accept subsistence wages for the privilege of working for them. They are modern day Maharajahs, promoting a class system with extreme concentration of wealth. What they seek is a return to a time when wealth, not votes, conferred power and when power, not rights, guaranteed fair treatment. They aim to turn America into the type of society that America was created as a remedy to.

Shadowy Politics

No one is surprised that shadowy figures influence politics in Washington D.C. But few want to acknowledge such manipulation when it occurs at a more local level. Here in the northern suburbs, some very strange things have been happening. Established incumbents suddenly retiring. Fringe candidates getting mainstream support. Party leaders left in the dark. What's behind it?

To understand what is going on, you have to look at the history of the area. You have to know who has gotten used to having power, and who controls the money. You have to be willing to acknowledge that people who speak of very lofty goals may have very base objectives. You have to realize that some candidates are being promoted, and others are being used. You have to avoid becoming paranoid, but be prepared to see things as they really are.

There are patterns, and they have been emerging for a number of years. Republicans pretending to be independents. Conservatives pretending to be moderates. Democrats pretending to be progressive.

There are also players. A congressman. A senator. A mayor. And others – some from neighboring areas, some whose allegiance is far away from here.

A lot of very sincere people have been working very hard in this area for a number of years to bring about change. It looks like the decision has been made that this election is an opportunity to clear the boards of those people. Some Democrats thought that the redistricting would be their chance to consolidate power. Others see it differently. They are working very hard and very stealthily. They have vast resources and no scruples. And they have the advantage of surprise.

More On Consolidation

My previous post supported the idea of consolidating special governmental units. Now, let's take a look at what should be considered when deciding how to restructure government. We should have some overriding principles, beyond just saving money. Saving money is a valid goal, but if that is all that we were trying to achieve, in the process of cutting costs we would risk eliminating some of the desirable functions that are being carried out by the existing governmental units. That is the mistake that the Tea Party has been making by focusing just on money and not on consequences.

For me, one goal should be to restructure in a way that allows us not just to do the same things we have been doing, but to do more. For example, there is little benefit to consolidating school districts if we don't end up doing a better job of teaching our children. To just teach them as well as we have been, for less money, isn't worth putting much effort into.

How could we improve education through consolidation? One way would be to expand the scope of consolidation in a way that would give our children a broader range of educational experiences. Why just combine the four districts in our little suburb? Our districts, and others in the area, could draw their district boundaries differently, so that kids would have more interactions in the classroom with kids of different income levels, and ethnic, cultural, and racial identities. The segregation of housing in the Chicago area makes this difficult, but some improvement could be made for at least some of the kids without burdening anyone with a longer bus or carpool ride.

By consolidating school districts we could also even out school funding, so that more equal amounts of money would be available to teach children than is available under the present system, under which the quality of education a child receives relies on property values in the vicinity of the child's home.

There are also improvements which could be made while consolidating and eliminating other special districts. It doesn't make much sense to have a lot of little governmental units with different capabilities in charge of treating waste water, which is all being discharged into the same watershed and which we all end up drinking. Nor does it seem sensible to have streets in one town cleared quickly after a snowfall when, a few blocks down, the same streets become impassable as soon as you drive into the next town.

So, what prevents restructuring and consolidating in a way that would bring about better results for everyone? People who don't care about everyone. People who want their own kids to have the best education and are willing to ignore the inadequate education that other people's kids have. People who are satisfied if their libraries are well-stocked, even if the next town's library's shelves are bare.

The administrators who want to protect their own jobs and fiefdoms understand how people think. They know that all they have to do to prevent change is to encourage people to be concerned only with themselves. They know how to frighten people into thinking that they will lose control over their local schools and parks and streets if they expand jurisdictions so that other people will be served.

That is why any effort towards consolidation in the well-to-do suburbs like the one I live in must have goals that are broader than just saving money. Because as concerned as people are about money, they will quickly abandon the cause if it starts going in a direction that they perceive threatens their privileged position. It may seem odd, but the only way consolidation will gain any traction is if the people who want to consolidate districts in order to save money but who still want their kids educated, their water pure, and their streets plowed, realize that the only way they can achieve their goals is to spend some of their money on other people. At present, they are paying instead for the illusion that if they keep their money in their own little communities, served by a multitude of special taxing units, they can get everything they want. They are wasting a lot of money for this illusion.

Time To Reorganize

Illinois has thousands of units of local government – more than any other state. We have townships, park districts, mosquito districts, library districts, sewage districts, water districts, road districts, and who-knows-what-else districts. Each district is governed by some sort of board, mostly elected, and each spends money, mostly from property tax and other taxes.

My local township raises and spends a few million dollars each year. A large part of the money is spent on office staff. What do these people do? Almost nothing that some other unit of government either already does or easily could do. For example, you can apply for a passport at the township office. Or you can apply at any number of post offices. Or you can go to the passport office in downtown Chicago. If you apply at the township office, they don't actually issue the passport. They just mail it to the passport office.

What else does the township office staff do? They can tell you how to appeal your property taxes. Or you could get the same information at the county assessor's office a couple of miles away at the county courthouse in Skokie, where you can actually file your appeal. You can also get the information and file the appeal online. The township office doesn't decide the appeals. They just mail them for you to the county assessor if you want.

The township also plows a few miles of roads. That could also be done by the county, which plows a lot more roads in the area. The county's plow trucks drive right by the roads that the township plows. All they would have to do is lower their plows.

A well-meaning, diligent group of people are elected to run the township. They take their jobs seriously. But their jobs don't need to exist. They aren't the only ones we should be looking at. My town of less than 35,000 people has four elementary school districts and a high school district. Why? Historical happenstance, and now none of the administrators wants to give up their jobs, and few of the elected board members think anyone else could do as good a job as they do . As a result, one district is building new school buildings to accommodate a growing population within its boundaries while the district across the street has empty classrooms. One district has a budget surplus while the district across the street is having financial difficulties. If the districts were consolidated, these problems and disparities wouldn't exist.

Not only does having so many units of government create waste, it also creates confusion. Hardly any voters know what all these districts do, let alone who is running for them. That is part of the reason we have so many districts. They provide a lot of jobs that the political parties can dole out as rewards for their loyal supporters.

Having so many special districts also allows mayors and county officials to avoid responsibility for the things the other districts do. It's hard to blame the mayor if the library district raises taxes, even if the mayor appointed the library district board or had them slated. And a city's budget doesn't look as big as it would if it included all the things that have been shunted off onto the other districts. My village's spending would be twice as large if it included all the money the park district spends. Both the village and the park district serve and collect taxes from exactly the same people. When people complain that their property taxes are too high, both units of government can escape criticism by blaming the other.

Most of these special districts could be eliminated, and their work done better. The neighboring suburb of Highland Park, with about the same population as my town, consolidated several school districts a few years ago, and it has worked out fine.

It isn't easy to get rid of a governmental entity. The special district that was created to run a tuberculosis sanitarium in the suburbs wasn't dissolved until decades after it stopped being needed due to improvements in the medical treatment of TB patients.

You may wonder why I am writing about this issue. The answer is that just because some of us think we should stop making wars and should provide medical care for everyone and should preserve Social Security so that people will be able to live decently in old age and should educate all children and should do a lot of other things for the benefit of everyone doesn't mean we like to see our tax money wasted or our government poorly administered. But unlike the regressives in the Tea Party and Republican Party, we don't think that the only answer is to thoughtlessly eliminate government programs. A better solution is to implement changes that will create efficiencies without hurting people.

I don't claim that progressives thought up the idea of consolidation. It has come up now and then, and has been supported by people all over the political spectrum. Right now, it is an idea that I would like to see get broad support, and not just because of the improvements it would bring to the way our government runs. Maybe, if progressives and regressives worked on this issue together, we would learn that we have more in common than we sometimes think. Maybe we could even learn to get along a little better.

Nothing To Say

Georgia executed a man whose guilt was in doubt. Most of the witnesses against him had realized they might have been mistaken, and had recanted their testimony. The Supreme Court of the United States, to no one's surprise, gave the OK to the execution.

There is so much to say about this. So much controversy. So many moral, religious, political, sociological, economic, and racial issues. But it has all already been said, many, many times over the years.

There just isn't anything new to say. But does that mean that nothing should be said? Or should I and others who continue to be disturbed by killings like this just keep harping on the same old arguments, hoping that someone who is new to the issue will be influenced, or that someone whose mind is already made up will see things in a new way?

One of the many commandments in the Torah says that Thou Shalt Not Be Indifferent. Does it necessarily mean that on issues like the death penalty, about which there seems to be a permanent divergence of opinion within our country, Thou art destined to be frustrated and ineffective? Does it mean that Thou art supposed to be concerned, but not necessarily required to do anything? Does it mean that Thou art required to try, but you don't have to feel bad if you don't succeed?

Rabbis have been reading and commenting on the same Torah for a long time. Over the course of every year, they read through the whole scroll. Leaders in other religions also go over the same teachings of their faiths yearly, or every couple of years. Is the notion that there is always something new to learn from the same old passages? Is there a more practical consideration, that many people don't attend services every week, so they are likely to miss lessons unless the lessons are repeated regularly? If so, why go over the same story of The Binding of Isaac every Rosh Hashanah or the Birth of Jesus every Christmas at the one service that most people do attend annually? Do they really need to hear the same thing over and over, or would it be better for them to learn some of the other stuff?

Everyone talks about how it is necessary for people to compromise if we are going to reach agreement on issues. Maybe we could all agree that there would be just one person executed each year. That way, once a year, Georgia and other states would have the same opportunity that religious leaders do to teach us a lesson. We could have a national execution day, when all the news outlets could call attention to the killing so it would have maximum exposure and impact, just like Christmas. We wouldn't have to be so concerned about whether the person was guilty or not. We could skip all the appeals, and just choose the person to be executed by lottery among all those who have been sentenced to die. I bet a lot of the people on death row would sign on for the deal.

Some people, reading the preceding paragraph, might think it was a reasonable compromise. Others would reject the very notion of compromising when people's lives are at stake. They read their Bibles as containing absolute commandments, not suggestions to be used as the basis of compromise. And therein lies the problem that keeps us from reaching agreement on the death penalty and other issues. We are caught between conflicting religious and moral teachings that are phrased as absolutes and a pluralistic society that depends upon compromise. There is no solution. So we keep arguing. Which may be what we are supposed to do. So long as we are arguing, we are not indifferent.

Gays In Uniform

NOTE: If you were one of the people who had difficulty posting comments, please accept my apologies. I welcome comments, and have adjusted the settings to make commenting easier. Please try again.
- - - - - - - - -
Officially, gay men and women can now serve in the military without concealing their sexual orientation. Realistically, it is going to be a long time before they can openly express themselves without fear that there will be consequences. People's attitudes don't change that fast, and the military is probably among the slowest institutions to change. Heck, the military still thinks that killing people is the way to settle disagreements.

There are a lot of reasons the military will change slowly. Among the biggest impediments to change will be the homosexuals who hold high rank. Some of them will now be afraid that their partners will talk about their own sexuality. They will worry that people will put two and two together and figure out why a particular general and a particular lieutenant spent so much time together.

Military recruiters will also resist the change. Until now, they were able to promote the idea that joining the Army or Navy or Marines was a good way to make people believe that you were a manly man. It was a good ruse for gays who weren't ready to come out of the closet. Now they will need a new beard.

Straights will also resist the change. What guy on leave wants the ladies to think that he has spent months at a time with no one to kiss him goodnight except one of the other fellas in his unit?

There have been gays in the military for as long as there has been a military. Surprise! But what happens if, now that soldiers and sailors can tell the truth, we find out that the military is actually more gay than the rest of society? What may happen is that it becomes ever more gay, as gays flock to be part of an organization where they know they will find people who are like them. That happened a long time ago in some parts of the country. There are cities with famously large gay populations, and neighborhoods in other cities where gays have elected to reside, and professions where gays were not kept out.

The repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell does more than just rescind a policy that sought to prevent gays from being interrogated about their personal lives. The military is implementing the new policy as a right of military personnel to identify themselves as gay. This protection is not given to people who work for private employers in a large part of the country. Most employers are still allowed to discriminate against gays. They can refuse to hire gays and fire them just for being gay.

So, the U.S. military is now one of the most gay-friendly employers in the country, and it has better benefits than many other employers. There will be resistance to change, but big changes may very well come anyway. Or maybe there won't really be any change at all, just a little more honesty about what has been going on all along.

This Too Shall Pass

“This too shall pass.”

This phrase, recognizing that everything changes over time, is usually uttered by people who look forward to the end of their present unpleasant conditions. They can find comfort in the anticipation that some day they will have a better life, although the phrase also tells them that the better time would in turn be destined to give way to something else. But for those who see their present situation as unbearable, who think that things can only get better, there is solace in the hope for a better future.

Sometimes, however, it can seem that one's problems will never yield their grip. Hopelessness can replace the optimism that normally gets people through even the most difficult days. When that happens, people can act in all sorts of ways, many of them destructive to themselves and others.

It has been a challenge for a lot of people to understand why people of very modest means would support Republican politicians whose policies are intended to favor the very rich. It seems irrational, and it is. But to people who do not believe that a better day is to come, the irrationality of their view does not matter.

The middle class in the U.S. has taken a severe beating. Millions of workers have lost the sense of economic security they once had. They have gone back to school to learn new skills, only to find that the new jobs they were promised had been sent overseas while they were training for them. They have lost their savings and their homes. Their children have been priced out of the market for higher education. In so many ways, they have been beaten down, to the point that they no longer believe that a better day will come.

Years ago, when inner-city minorities burned the ghettos that they felt trapped in, some asked why they would destroy their own homes. Part of the answer was that they did not feel that the buildings were theirs. The rest of the answer was that they felt hopeless. Irrationality was not an unreasonable reaction.

Many of today's tea-partiers would be surprised to think that they were acting the same way that the arsonists of yesterday acted, and for the same reason. Tea-partiers, ever railing against entitlements and those who claim them, do not think they have much in common with a bunch of minorities who lived in the 1960s. But their economic condition, and their lack of hope for the future, make them the direct descendants of the rioters of a generation ago.

Politicians in both political parties have been accusing each other of fomenting class warfare. But we have not yet seen that struggle. All we have seen so far is the frustration and anger of the middle class as it sinks lower and lower into a growing underclass. We have not yet seen that anger directed towards the upper class, which holds the power and the money. We have not even seen much awareness among the tea-partiers that they have become part of the suffering-class. When and if the multitudes recognize the commonality of their condition, then class warfare may begin. The politicians won't have to tell us that a war is going on. We'll be able to see the smoke.