Time To Grow Up, America

The level of political discourse in America has become increasingly juvenile. As our problems escalate, as people lose their benefits, their jobs, and their homes we call each other names and yell at each other. How is this working out?
New Jersey Star-Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine, a conservative and libertarian, wrote recently about what he would do if he were in charge. He would make sure that  "anyone who tries to be witty by using terms like "Dimmocraps" or "Repuglicans" or by calling the New York Times "The New York Slimes" or calling current president "Obummer" or "Nobama" or some variant thereof" would be publicly humiliated.
Those who make the following statements would also be publicly ridiculed:

• Any invocation of children. "We must do this for the sake of the children.The children are our future."
• Any promise to balance a budget by targeting "waste, fraud and abuse."
• A double-dunking for anyone who compares a political opponent to Hitler.

Let's be real for a few moments, if you would be so kind. Let's talk about pensions. When my dad retired as a university professor he was making a six-figure salary. His retirement income exceeds 50K a year. After attending seminary, if I had decided to work as a minister, I would have earned 25K.
Put aside that would be around one-fourth of the income my dad made. Think instead about the 50K pension. Who is going to pay for it? If I'm earning 25K, I'm probably not paying much in taxes.
When you add up the taxes all my brothers and sisters are paying, we're still not close to 50K. Again, who is going to pay for my dad's retirement?
Extrapolate this throughout the country where a lot of people who made decent bank during the 60s and 70s and are now retired are drawing decent pensions. Who is paying for this when their children aren't even making half of what their parents did? When tax rates have plummeted since the 1970s?

Putting aside political rhetoric, if you could see your way clear to, let's discuss possible solutions. One, we could cut pensions. Two, we could raise taxes. These are not the only options, however.

But given how juvenile our political discussion has become, this is all you hear in the media. Raising wages without raising taxes would bring in more revenue as people climb into higher tax brackets. Creating more jobs, lowering unemployment in conjunction with this would create even more revenue.
When the housing crisis hit, I wondered why the banks were the ones who were bailed out. It made more sense to me to bail out homeowners.
I thought owning a home was part of the American dream. Isn't it the government's job to help Americans achieve the American dream?
If the billions of dollars handed out to the banks were instead given to homeowners as mortgage subsidies, people could have made their payments and kept their homes. And guess what? The banks would have continued to receive mortgage payments. They wouldn't have failed and people could have kept their homes.
That this option wasn't even discussed by Democrats and Republicans confirmed that they don't care about working America or average Americans. They don't care at all. THEY DON'T CARE AT ALL!
The growing protest in Manhattan called 'Occupy Wall Street' is based upon this growing realization that neither political party cares about average Americans.
But turn on the telly and what do you hear? Political pundits calling the protesters names. It didn't take long for some commentators to bring out the Hitler and Nazi metaphors. Grow up, already. We are all adults here. Let's start acting like adults.

Voters Said 'No Thank You' to Millionaires

One interesting aspect of the recent election is that all of the high-profile millionaire candidates spending huge chunks of their fortunes lost their election bids. This usually doesn't happen, and should put the Tea Party and voter anger in a different light. Certainly different than what we've been hearing from the bobble-headed commentators on TV.

Last year in the New Jersey gubernatorial election between Chris Christie and Jon Corzine something similar happened. Corzine made his fortune on Wall Street and with no prior government experience, won election in 2000 to the US Senate, but didn't complete his term before winning the governor's office in 2005.

Corzine got his backside handed to him by Christie in 2009, as voters showed they weren't going to vote for someone who ran a company (Goldman-Sachs) responsible for much of the financial shenanigans that led to the crash.

In 2010, E-Bay CEO Meg Whitman, Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and Wrestling Magnate Linda McMahon spent hundreds of millions of dollars of their own money and were defeated. Whitman lost to Jerry Brown, the former Jesuit, former governor, Linda Ronstadt, former attorney general and son of former governor Pat Brown. A political hack if there ever was one - Linda Ronstadt - who will run for any office any time - Linda Ronstadt.

I like Linda Ronstadt a lot, and mentioning Jerry Brown gives me a chance to mention her. Linda Ronstadt.

Fiorina lost to Barbara Boxer, one of the most liberal members of the US Senate, EVER. But just so we don't think of the trend as applying to only California elections, Linda McMahon in Connecticut lost the senate race to a long-time elected official, attorney general Richard Blumenthal.

All three millionaire candidates this year that lost were Republicans. In New Jersey, the millionaire who lost was a Democrat. Keep an eye on Christie, his stock is sure to rise between now and 2012.

We learned last Tuesday that voter anger against incumbents must also be balanced with mistrust of the rich who are getting richer as everybody else gets poorer. Probably won't hear that in the mainstream media. But you heard it here. This is the Heretic, for November 7, 2010, Linda Ronstadt, over and out.

Tea Party Activism Exposes Myth of Good Living in the Suburbs as Seriously Flawed

Tea Party activists have a point. Property taxes are high. Especially in suburbs. There is a reason for this.

I call it the Santa Claus Myth. Conceptually, there is a big difference between the individual and the collective. In the west, we are all about the individual. At least since a period in history we label, perhaps not correctly, The Enlightenment.

Take the Santa Claus Myth. Someone in a sled driven by flying reindeer delivers presents every Christmas. On an individual level, the myth makes sense. But taken collectively, it starts to break down. At what point does the myth break down? Ten families? One hundred? One hundred thousand? A million?

When you do the logistics required for the Santa Claus Myth to work for a million families, it gets really, really absurd. Doesn't work. Not at all.

The myth of the Good Life Living in the Suburbs belongs in the same category. On an individual level, it makes sense. Taken collectively, it breaks down. Enter the Tea Party and similar movements, largely suburban based, upset over property taxes.

Here in New Jersey, property taxes in suburbs are high. There was an influx of people moving across the border to Pennsylvania where property taxes are lower.

Then collective reality hit home. No jobs in eastern Pennsylvania. Many of those who moved are still working jobs in urban New Jersey (or even New York City) and commuting 3-5 hours a day.

We live in Secaucus, five minutes from Manhattan and three minutes from Giants/Jets football stadium. Most of the town is industrial. UPS and US Mail have warehouses and distribution centers. Many large department stores have outlet stores and distribution centers. The New Jersey turnpike runs through the east part of town.

Big rigs rumble through town all day and night. At 9 a.m. in the morning the line of brown UPS trucks leaving the distribution center is a sight to behold. Why talk about this? Taxes, my friends. Taxes.

Unlike WalMart, these industries contribute to the tax base of Secaucus. The town has top notch schools and services. We put up with the noise and big rigs and traffic. The suburbs are quiet. Yes, they are. But without industry, where is the tax base?

People's homes, that's where. That's why suburban property taxes are so high. Who else is going to pay for the schools and fix the potholes? Suburban living, sold to people on an individual basis, breaks down in the collective.

My question to suburban voters is this - who is going to pay for your schools, roads, water and sewer? You live out in some rural area, probably on land once somebody's farm, and you're miles from any industry. Just like you wanted. All quiet and nice, away from all that urban noise, crime and diversity.

You can believe in Santa Claus if you want, but somebody still has to pay for all those presents. Welcome to collective reality. It's the place we need to go when our individual realities break down and don't work any more.

We've Seen This Before: White Voter Angst

Howard Jarvis led a movement in 1978 to reduce property taxes in California, called Proposition 13, that became a national movement. A hero to many, from my perspective, he was just another jolly (jowly?) white guy who didn't want to pay taxes.

I was going to a California state college in 1978. I had exchanged the bitter cold winters and sweltering summers of Minnesota for the perpetual sunshine of southern California. (It never rains in California, but boy don't they warn you)

In 1978, the census forecast for 1980 was that California would become the first state in the nation where whites would no longer be a majority. California in 1978 had significant Asian, African and Mexican minorities.

California had one of the best public university systems in the nation. The UC universities were designed to be primarily research institutions. UC-Los Angeles and UC-Berkeley being the most well known.

The Cal State universities were designed to be primarily teaching institutions, with the goal of providing low cost education to all Californians that desired it. I was attending Cal State Fullerton. After satisfying the state residency requirement, my tuition was under a thousand dollars a year.

The UC and Cal State systems were primarily funded by property taxes. My heretical theory is that when white voters realized that most of the young people going to college on their dime (their words) would not be white, they complained.

I would point out that most of these white voters did not complain previously, but rather had extolled the benefits of college education being available to everyone. I guess they meant every one who was white.

It may be a coincidence, and I understand there are people who explain the existence of patterns this way, but with census projections declaring that whites will no longer be a majority in the nation, it isn't surprising to see white people complaining again about property taxes (i.e. school funding)

Again, it needs to be pointed out that these angry white voters did not complain with the same vehemence before. It needs to be pointed out that most (what is it 90 percent?) of Tea Party activists are white.

The constitution was crafted by well-to-do white men to protect the interests of, yes, you got it, well-to-do white men. Brown men, black men, yellow men and ALL women were excluded from these protections. Any time any of these exclusive entitlements of these affluent white people are in danger of being reduced (I believe it's called sharing) there is a backlash.

This backlash has gone by different names in different times. The Tea Party is just the latest incarnation.

Let's face it, white folks aren't good at sharing. The White Anglo Saxon Protestant deity they worship has blessed their entitlements and they aren't giving them away to any Mexicans, Africans or Asians. No way, no how. Not without a fight!

Howard Jarvis and his cause are still being invoked in California elections this year. He is still a hero to many white people. I still think of him as a selfish white man who didn't want to share. But then, I'm a heretic. I don't mind sharing.