An Occupation Army or Defenders of the Constitution

The videos recording police actions in New York City, Oakland, Portland, Seattle and finally UC Davis have been very disturbing and run counter to everything I learned and practiced while working, teaching and studying in criminal justice.  The sorry point is that I mostly worked in corrections and I (we) never committed such brazen acts of cruelty and unprofessionalism in a prison, and we were out of sight and mind.  Oh sure, if there was a fight the officers often got in an and extra swing, but we all knew, inmates included, that disturbing the peace in prison can have unpleasant consequences.  Nobody whined about a broken tooth or a bloody nose.  However, the “victims” in the recent acts weren’t convicts or criminals, but largely non-violent protesters gathering in assembly as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution. 

 t seems as if the police have come full circle.  The riots in the inner cities of Watts, Detroit, New York, Rochester, NY, Washington DC and other cities were about large issues such as unemployment, lack of services, discrimination, and so on, but one large factor was that the police acted like an occupying army, seldom getting out of their car except to roust someone or to investigate an incident.  Otherwise, they were aloof and uninvolved.  Then in reaction scholars and practitioners came up with Problem Oriented Policing (POP), ethics training, academies, and community oriented policing (COPs). 

 Along the way, technology seems to have muddied the water.  By that I mean the use of “non-lethal” means of dealing with offenders.  I have no doubt that tasers, for example, have saved many lives, both police and offenders.  But the side effect has been that less attention has been given to human relations training so it seems that many officers have the attitude that “I don’t have to bother with talking with this creep, if he doesn’t do what I say, I’ll just zap him.”  That is not a good idea in my mind for it gives the officer a false sense of security and depreciates any social capital that has been built up by the department.  Therefore, the distance between officer and public widens just a little more.

Another factor, or factors, that play into this problem is what Jerome Skolnick calls “Justice without Trial.”  While a young Assistant Professor at Cal State Long Beach he did a study with the Lakewood Police Department inquiring into the police culture.  To make a long story short, he concluded that two factors create solidarity among police officers; danger and authority.  Needless to say that police officers daily face danger from those who don’t like them.  They also possess the authority make people do what they may not want to do.  Danger is a not stranger to soldiers for example, but they do not have the authority the police officer has.  Teachers have authority, but they do not face danger (usually anyway).  However, the two variables uniquely come together in the position of police officer thereby creating a press to look to one another for support and solidarity and seeing non-police officers as outsiders who do not understand. 

 Skolnick uncovered one other variable thus far unrevealed; the symbolic assailant.  The symbolic assailant need not ever have committed a violent act; he (or she) need only look like an assailant.  By this I am referring to dress, hair, demeanor, and so on.  It is perceptual shorthand developed by the officer to help him identify those who may be a threat and they act accordingly because the officer identifies with a fellow officer who has been harmed by someone who looks like the symbolic assailant.  This is a good lesson for gang bangers in that if they didn’t look like a gang banger they wouldn’t be bothered so often by the police, but they never seem to learn and that is a different post.

 As a consequence when one puts the concepts of danger, authority, and symbolic assailant together we can understand the over-the-top reactions by police when confronting the Occupy Protesters.  There is one more issue that needs to be address that may explain the reaction of police to the occupiers.  The conservative political leanings of most police.  Over the past forty years the conservative wing of the Republican Party has worked very hard to drive a wedge between “liberals” and the rest of society.  Many people don’t think things through and accept drivel as fact and some of the “drivel” is that protesters are unwashed, don’t want to work, hate America, are commies, and generally undeserving of respect.  We saw this with the civil rights protesters, the anti-war protesters of the 60s and 70s and usually anyone who went against the conservative common wisdom.  Thus, it isn’t much of a stretch to understand that many, not all, police officers see the occupiers as not only all of the above, but deserving of any punishment meted out by the guardians of the status quo.  I didn’t quite understand this concept until I had the time to look closely at the pepper spraying of the seated protesters at UC Davis.  It is apparent in the video that the lard-ass officer spraying the seated students experienced a profound sense of satisfaction from the act.

 But, we are forced to ask, “Isn’t the training received by police in how to deal with offenders supposed to teach then to use appropriate tactics and force?”  To my mind the answer is both yes and no.  I say yes because training regimes are supposed to teach that sort of stuff, including human relations training.  I say no because often the SWAT team is called out for  the response and they are trained in the use of force and to be sure that fellow officers and others nearby are not harmed.  There is a set protocol.  My assertion is that the SWAT team is unnecessary for this task.  In fact, is the level of response even necessary? 

 New York City, Seattle, Oakland, and Portland all used their SWAT teams to clear the crowd with no civilian official present, let alone in control. This is akin to letting the fox guard the hen house.  Aren’t elected officials supposed to be in charge of the police?  Absolutely, in each case the Mayor and at least a few of the city council members should have been present to monitor the level of response.  But, in no instance were they present, they were AWOL.  This leads to my usual suggestions

·         Leave the protesters alone.  They represent me and 99% of citizens who are fed up with corruption of Congress, want change for the better and want everyone to carry a fair share of the tax burden.

·         The Mayor should be present in any instance where a non-violent crowd is being dispersed.

·         Municipalities must devote more money to human relations training and not so much to purchase of hardware.

·         University Criminal justice programs must make political science classes a part of the core program.  If the recruit is not a college graduate, the state academy must offer six hours of instruction in history of protest and constitutional issues related to the First Amendment.

·         International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) must update accreditation requirements to include quarterly instruction in human relations.

 Needless to say I am outraged.  Outraged that there are so few expressions of outrage by ordinary citizenry, outraged that fellow criminal justice practitioners would act so cruelly to non-violent protesters, that elected officials would sanction such behavior, and finally there are no expressions of outrage from elected officials all the way from President Obama down to city councilmen.  As a nation we seem to have lost our way and in spite of my suggestions, I don’t really know how to find the way back.  We thought a college education would make better informed police officers, we thought that Problem Oriented Policing would do the trick, and we thought community policing would empower citizens and make officers more sensitive to the needs of the citizens.  None of that seems to have worked and it seems as if the police are acting more like an army of occupation than as guardians of the peace and the Constitution.

Further thoughts on Occupy Wall Street

I was inspired when I saw the video of Marine Sgt. Shamar Thomas chewing out the New York City Police present at the Occupy Wall Street demonstration. I have also viewed videos of other ex-military and active duty personnel participating in demonstration not only in NYC, but also in Oakland and San Francisco and who can forget the footage about Scott Olsen who was hit in the head apparently by a rubber bullet which fractured his skull. Why is it that our military men and women endure privation, danger and hardship only to come home to find that the police and elected officials are not the friends they thought they were? Because they have a refined sense of duty, honor and obligation to do what is right, they choose to get involved in a demonstration that is protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. My question is, how can the police use force so indiscriminately against peaceful citizens as we have seen in New York and Oakland?

When I enlisted in the U.S. Air Force in 1961 at the age of eighteen years old, I took an oath to defend the United States Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic. I still take that oath seriously and have used it as a guide to professional and sometimes personal behavior. I also had drilled into me by drill instructors the right I to disobey any order I felt was illegal. Twenty years of my professional life was spent working in prisons and in the community and I also used this as a guide for professional behavior. Fortunately, like nearly all individuals I worked with, I found no need to protest what I felt was an illegal order, but I think I would have. What I find puzzling is that all police officers seem to believe that any means to meet the goal of removing protesters is legal. Surely many police officers do not believe that orders to remove protesters can be accomplished by use of clubs, pepper spray, or whatever is legal. I know that most find the task distasteful. So why don’t they speak up? Fear of losing their job? What is a job compared to a loss of honor? There is an Indian proverb that states, “Every man is the guardian of his own honor.” There are no exceptions to that concept; we have seen how Wall Street executives sold their honor for thirty pieces of silver. We cannot allow men and women who work in the criminal justice system to sink to their level. Honor stays with our name forever. Now back to my orginal thoughts.

In my opinion, the mayors of New York City, Oakland, and others are using ordinances originally designed to keep the “undesirables” out of sight, that is, the homeless, drug addicts, and prostitutes. The OWS protesters hardly fit that description, although they are undesirable to greedy bankers, hedge fund managers, and others who think they can do anything to increase their wealth just because they are wealthy. In addition, the elected officials of any city really do not call the shots when it comes to economic decision making and take their cues from the informal power elite.

The Middletown Studies of 1924 and 1935 by Robert Stoughten Lynd and Helen Merrill Lynd revealed that the Republican business class made the economic decisions, in this case the Ball family of Muncie, Indiana. Floyd Hunter (1953) looked at the power structure of Atlanta and more or less validated the Lynd’s assertion that the power elite are the informal rulers of a city. M. Kent Jennings (1964) and Clarence Stone (1976) upheld the findings of his earlier colleagues. My point here is that the OWC protesters are getting too close to the real problem and the elite are afraid that they just might upset the economic and political apple cart, which of course, is what they hope to do.

Just as in an earlier post, I need to ask, “where are the intellectuals, where are the union members (although they seem to be waking up more and more), and where are the minorities who have been hit the hardest by the “Great Recession?” My hope is that everyone touched by the recession will in some way begin to take part in demonstrations. In those cities that have ordinances prohibiting singing, chanting, and so on (as does my home city of Grand Rapids, Michigan) attend city council meetings to protest the arbitrary use of the ordinances to prevent protest from occurring on the streets.

I have been away on a long planned trip coinciding with the birth of our new grandson and have been away for five weeks now. We plan to be home on November 7th and you can bet that we will be participating in planned activities that coincide with the Occupy Wall Street protests.

Thoughts on Occupy Wall Street/Main Street

I haven’t made any comment in regard to the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Needless to say, I am in full support of the efforts of the movement and wish I could be there. Since it started, I have been gone on an extended trip planned many months ago. So much for excuses. My wife and I did go to the Occupy San Francisco occupation site last Tuesday and I was underwhelmed, to say the least. We had planned to spend the day joining in the events, but there seemed to be more venders than activists.
From what I can gain from the mainstream (lame stream) media and the various feeds from MoveOn, the underlying principles are: more effort must be given to employment, accountability for the financial services sector, and a hodgepodge of issues that concern us all from homes being foreclosed on, the wasteful spending on at least one war (Iraq), trashing the environment, and in general greedy, destructive behavior and ethics on Wall Street. There isn’t a single issue that I have a problem with. But I do have a problem with the mild-mannered way in which the activists are going about the protest; insistence on not making demands and the belief that consuses can be achieved. In addition, I am very disappointed that important stakeholders have not come forward as a group to join in the protests.

To begin, where is the academic community? During the Vietnam War faculty at many colleges and universities held teach-ins, strikes, and marched shoulder to shoulder with protesters in cities around the nation. During the late 1960s and early 1970s faculty were in the front of the pack. Maybe they were there because there was a draft and some of them, or their children, were at risk of being drafted and being put in harm’s way. Thus it served their needs to protest. However, I am at a loss as to how anyone who claims to be a part of the middle class today can stand by and not participate in one way or another. We are all affected by recent financial events that began at least twenty years ago.

I’ll pick on another group. Having devoted nearly fifty years of my life to criminal justice as practitioner, student, and academic I am outraged at the thuggery of New York City Police supervisors (the ones in the white shirts) as they sprayed pepper spray on protesters for no apparent reason or beat the shit out them with their clubs. I know this happens every day in many cities around the nation as they deal with offenders, it's not right, but it does happen; I’ll skip the lecture on “dust and ashes of corruption” and get to the point that the police are supposed to uphold the law and take a dispassionate attitude towards their job. I also have a couple of incidents in my past that I am not proud of, but I don’t understand why in this day when police positions are at the mercy of citzenry that doesn't want to pay taxes for police protection. I just don't get it and neither do they. Do they not recognize that the protesters are out there for them? Do they not know that unfilled positions and furloughs endanger them and their comrades? Are they complacent about unemployment and jobs going overseas, thus resulting in less tax money to keep our communities safe? Are they not chagrined that criminals in suits go unpunished while the entire criminal justice system is brought to bear on a dysfunctional eighteen year old who commits a burglary?

Finally, my greatest scorn and disgust is saved for the legions of uninformed, under-educated, kneejerk, monkey brained idiots who call themselves “conservatives.” I’m talking about those who complain about the protesters and them as a “bunch of pseudo-middle class” delinquents, as communists, and not having an idea of what they are protesting. They assert they should get a job and stop getting in the way of working people. However, without specificity in the issues being protested, the activists fail to gain traction for any kind of sucess and it is easy for elected officials to dismiss their efforts. This is what I am getting at when I say that the protesters are too “mild-mannered.”

Here are my suggestions for making the movement more activist and more understandable to the average person:

Instead of having a list of vague issues, convert the issues into demands. Wording is important and politicians understant us when we use simple, plain language and when the demands are coupled with some sort of sanction that affects them directly, they start to act. For example, until the middle 1960s, drug use was thought to be something that could be ignored, something inner-city dwellers and jazz musicians did. But, when middle-class young people discovered drugs as a recretional outlet, they acted fast.

In my opinion there should be demands that there be a thorough investigation of the actions and behavior of Wall Street actors and CEOs. If there is enough evidence to try and convict high profile executives and hedge fund traders, then throw the book at them.

They should also demand that elections be funded by the government. No more should campaign funds be solicited from anyone, for as we know, the more money contributed, the more expected in return.

Once the demands are formulated, attach a sanction to those that are not met. I don’t mean a threat to burn down the cities or any kind of violence, but rather a sanction that can be delivered such as a swarm protest on K Street in Washington. Twitter will do the job for them.
Pull in academics, more involvement by unions; get the police to be more sympathetic. Everyone knows a cop. Bake a cake and take it over to his or her house and talk about the movement and what needs to be done. Not that the officer should defy supervisors, but I know there are nuances to enforcement. Get them over to “our side.”

Make a special appeal to black churches. Minority unemployment exceeds white unemployment with Hispanic unemployment at about 12.4% and African American unemployment about 16.1%. What are they waiting for? The Civil Rights Movement was built on the efforts of the churches. The same can be done with the occupy movement and success will directly, and positively, affect minorities.

I have abbreviated my list; I’m hoping to spark someone’s imagination. When it comes to any demands made by a movement such as Occupy conservatives will try to hide behind Constitutional issues. That will be easy to see through, but it will take Progressive Senators, Congressmen, and Legislators to speak up and do what is right for the American people. If not, I’m afraid the end is not in sight.

Out of Touch

p

I have an apology to make, I have not written a post since November 2010. After the election of last November I realized that I had gotten wound up over the debates, lies, half lies and damn lies, to quote Mark Twain, that I needed to step back and do something else and stop thinking about politics. I did so and really didn't believe I would make another post unless is was about something happy. But, here I am, beginning to get wound up again and feeling frustrated and angry that so many people are ignorent of governmental processes and history. Even if no one reads this blog except my daughter I at least feel better about putting my thoughts on paper. Read on and if you are moved just a little bit, get involved in progressive politics and make a difference.

The recent circus, or should I say the most recent circus, in Congress over the debt ceiling has caused me to think about whether or not members of Congress are really in touch with the conditions of the average American. Oh sure, they go home every weekend, and they have town hall meetings and so on, but how many really know what it is like to have too much month and too little money? Do they feel it rather than being intellectually aware of what people say? The unemployment rate for the United States currently stands at 9.2%, for Michigan it’s 10.5 and Nevada it’s 12.4% and these are the worst hit states, but it doesn’t get much better. These statistics are only illustrative because they do not reflect those who have quit looking for work, used up their benefits and work off the grid, or who are underemployed. So we are apparently in much worse shape than we think. This has caused a drop in revenue for state and federal governments and as a consequence, schools, safety net programs, infrastructure and a host of other programs and needs are unmet. Do our Representatives and Senators really know what is going on in the nation? I know they hear from constituents and read and listen to the news media, but do they understand, do they feel what is happening?

I can go on for a long time on this subject. Conservatives can go on ad nauseaum about abusive government and are quick to tell us that government does not create jobs. Civil service aside, it is a fact that, government does not create jobs that are a part of the export economy, but it does create an environment where jobs are created. For example, government is responsible for assuring the construction and repair of roads and highways to move goods from farm to market and product from factory to consumer, and government is responsible for assuring a level playing field so that all entrepreneurs and businessmen have an equal chance of success. Government also stimulates job growth by creating policies that stimulate parts of the economy, for example the housing industry is one area where government does, in effect, create jobs by allowing us to deduct the interest on our loan for the purchase of our home. It doesn’t matter how many houses you own, you can still deduct the interest. In some instances you can even take depreciation. This in effect, spurs home construction, spurring purchases, and then more home construction, all of which has a ripple effect throughout the economy. All the while stimulating job creation. This occurs not only in the construction industry, but in airlines, railroads, health care, and on and on. So don’t try to tell me that government doesn’t create jobs.

I don’t think many ordinary citizens who call themselves conservative really understand this and maybe it is expecting too much. What they do know is that they don’t have enough money or no money at all. They know the schools are cutting back, their son’s football team doesn’t have the money to travel for away games or their daughter’s dance team has been eliminated because they can’t afford a coach. They know they pay taxes, but they don’t know that corporations and billionaires pay fewer taxes than they do as a percentage of gross income. They know they have clean water from the tap, but don’t realize that it takes taxes to pay off the bond to construct the water treatment plant. So talk right wing radio and television has found fertile ground in which to sow dissent and anger and it is usually directed at a government that they feel doesn’t meet their needs and is “wasteful and inefficient.”

This is where the Tea Party comes in; a movement that gives direction and focus for the anger and despair that many people are feeling and they can direct it towards something; the government. There are an awful lot of unhappy people and they are willing to rally around the banner of good government, less taxes, and efficiency in government, who isn’t? But, it is the extremism of the radical right that gets me. Politicians hear the complaints of tea partiers and they form the opinion that they represent the majority of their constituents because they are able to yell the loudest. But I wonder sometimes if the majority of citizens in many of the Congressional districts are as conservative as we are led to believe. Nevertheless, they do elect conservative representatives and that is OK, but the conservative representative who adopts the tea party philosophy is a bit off their rocker. That is where I begin to wonder if they vote in their own interests rather than the interest of the nation. And what is in the interests of the individual Congressman or woman? Re-election, money, power! So what is the level of wealth of the professed members of the tea party in Congress? I did some digging and I think I found the answer to that question. You can make up your own mind about what influences their vote.

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 requires members of Congress to disclose information on their personal finances, including their assets, sources of income, transactions and debts. (However, lawmakers are not required to report everything they own, including the value of their personal residences, nor their related mortgages.) They report the value of their and their spouses’ assets, the amount of income – both earned and unearned – and the extent of indebtedness in broad ranges, making the forms a very inaccurate tool for measuring wealth. For example, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reported in 2007 that she and her husband have a net worth somewhere between $86 million and negative $9 million that is a very broad range. Whether the Speaker of the House is extremely wealthy or on the verge of declaring bankruptcy (or somewhere in between) cannot be determined from her financial disclosure form. Nevertheless, the reporting gives us a clue as to the real financial worth of our representatives in Congress.

The computations work something like this: lawmakers report the value of their assets, liabilities and their income in broad ranges – between 0 and $1,000, $1,001 and $15,000, $15,001 and $50,000 and so on, all the way up to the top two ranges of $25,000,001 to $50 million and more than $50 million. They are not required to list everything they own–their residences, including second homes, need not be disclosed. However, members must disclose stocks, bonds, mutual funds, money market funds, savings accounts, trusts and real estate held for investment; they must disclose the date and price range (again, these are wide ranges) when they sell or purchase assets; they must disclose income from interest, dividends, distributions from partnerships; they must disclose their debts over $10,000 with the exception of mortgages on residences or loans secured by cars or furniture. Like assets, debts are reported within the same wide ranges as assets and transactions. So take what follows with a very big grain of salt: It's all based on information from the seriously flawed disclosure system used by members of Congress. Nevertheless, Sunlight.com has calculated the average net worth for each member of Congress in 1995 (or their first year in Congress, for those individuals elected after 1995).
With the recent fuss and fighting over the debt ceiling in Congress which has been overtly fueled by members of the Tea Party, (yes, there is a Tea Party Caucus in Congress). I was curious what the net worth of the professed members of the Tea Party is. My thought is that if the listed members are somewhat wealthy, they cannot help but be in favor of bills that support their interest. I know, I know, we can insist that not all people would vote in favor of legislation that favor their personal interests over national interests , but that calls up the question of who is altruistic and who isn’t and I'm not willing to go there.

Judging from signs carried at Tea Party gatherings and statements of Tea Party talking heads on news outlets, it appears to me that the rank and file of the tea party is largely ignorant of the Constitution, the workings of the federal government, and negotiation processes. Assuming that is true (which I believe to be the case to a 75% level of accuracy) then when a Tea Party Representative says he or she represents his or her constituency, then I wonder what kind of patriots are those people. Could the Tea Party offer a good cover for him or her to advance their personal agenda in terms of building wealth?

So in the interest of public service, I present below the names and incomes of professed members of the Tea Party and their incomes as reported on their personal finance disclosure form as found on the Sunlight Foundation web site. My conclusion is that the majority of members probably don’t have a clue what real life is like for the average working class and many middle class Americans; the repossessed, the out of work, the new poor. We were faced with a choice, raise the debt ceiling or not. It wasn’t a matter which was the best choice, but rather which was the least objectionable choice. Take a look at the incomes noted below and draw your own conclusion as to whether or not the fight was necessary or was it a manufactured crisis to push the already alienated American further away from their government?
Tea Party Members

Robert Aderholt (AL-4) $781,511
Todd Akin (MO-2) 169,009
Rodney Alexander (LA-5) 0
Michele Bachmann (MN-6) 1,059,009
Joe Barton (TX-6) 113,502
Roscoe Bartlett (MD-6) 4,083,003
Gus Bilirakis (FL-9) 446,510
Rob Bishop (UT-1) 16,001
Michael Burgess (TX-26) 1,253,543
Paul Broun (GA-10) 299,999
Dan Burton (IN-5) 3,171,010
John Carter (TX-31) 2,749,999
Howard Coble (NC-6) 1,645848
Mike Coffman (CO-6) 854,992
Ander Crenshaw (FL-4) 4,311,008
John Culberson (TX-7) 337,501
John Fleming (LA-4) 14,643,936
Trent Franks (AZ-2) 6,175,001
Phil Gingrey (GA-11) 6,667,022
Louie Gohmert (TX-1) -250,001
Tom Graves (GA-9) 8,761,985
Ralph Hall (TX-4) 3,190,504
Gregg Harper (MS-3) 251,002
Wally Herger (CA-2) 12,230,122
Pete Hoekstra (MI-2) 383,510
Lynn Jenkins (KS-2) 594,974
Steve King (IA-5) 472,502
Doug Lamborn (CO-5) 58,001
Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-9) 6,566,103
Cynthia Lummis (WY) 18,652,971
Kenny Marchant (TX-24) 15,958,938
Tom McClintock (CA-4) 90,995
Gary Miller (CA-42) 28,244,520
Jerry Moran (KS-1) 595,982
Sue Myrick (NC-9) 510,510
Randy Neugebauer (TX-19) 10,715,072
Mike Pence (IN-6) 107,503
Ted Poe (TX-2) 11,502
Tom Price (GA-6) 11,642,175
Denny Rehberg (MT) 31,046,505
Phil Roe (TN-1) 4,919,990
Ed Royce (CA-40) 252,507
Steve Scalise (LA-1) -1000
Pete Sessions (TX-32) 3,935,024
John Shadegg (AZ-3) 2,500
Adrian Smith (NE-3) 205,504
Lamar Smith (TX-21) 4,038,504
Cliff Stearns (FL-6) 5,439,517
Todd Tiahrt (KS-4) 252,984
Zach Wamp (TN-3) 8,000
Lynn Westmoreland (GA-3) -201,500
Joe Wilson (SC-2) 609,003


The average income for members of the Tea Party is $6,965,726, but this is a more than imperfect calculation due to the fallibility of the net worth reporting statement and is only an average with a range from minus 201,500 to $31 million. In addition, it does understate everyone’s true wealth, as it does for all members who report their net worth. Still we get a peek at the life styles of many of the members and it is most doubtful that anyone lives in a doublewide in a working class part of town. There are 19 members with a net worth over $2 million dollars, 7 members with a net worth over $10 million and two with a net worth over $25 million.

What does it matter you ask? Are we not talking about the debt ceiling, surely a vote for or against will not affect working people that much? The ramifications of not raising the debt ceiling have been related to us constantly for almost a month, so let me put it this way. If you have been downsized or the factory closes and the brakes go out on your pickup truck you will pay the same amount to have the brakes replaced as the rich person whose limousine needs brakes. Now ask yourself who does the brake job hurt worse, the one who is out of work or the rich man? Thus, do the rich Congressmen and women really know how badly working people are hurting and would have been badly hurt even worse if a recession occurs again (if it ever really ended) by not raising the debt ceiling?

What it comes down to is the almost pathological need of the wing nuts in the Tea Party to jam up the legislative process, ignore the science of economics and political science and insist that matters will be their way or the highway. Compromise and negotiation seem not to be a part of their psychological and political makeup. If they continue to be successful and are able to hold the nation hostage again, we may well be on the highway, the highway to ruin.

Tax Increase for the Wealthy: The Importance of Symbolism

Congress is gearing up for a debate on whether or not to extend the Bush tax breaks that would revert back to what they were when President Clinton was in Office. It is shameful that this would even be debated in this time of national difficulties. We are fighting two wars costing billions of dollars a week, Congress just refused to approve the extension of unemployment benefits, our national infrastructure is deteriorating, and our educational institutions from kindergarten to university are in peril. All arguments in favor of continuing the tax breaks for the wealthiest minority of Americans are based on opinion, not fact.

Here is the problem. Anyone earning more than $250,000 per year most likely does not need the relatively few bucks they would realize from the tax breaks. But, I’m willing to allow that maybe the group between $250,000 and $1 million per year could use a few extra dollars. Not likely though. Think for just a minute about who the people are who earn over $1 million a year. The small business owner, the school teacher, the police officer? No on all accounts.

We are talking about a select few who are professional athletes and entertainers, corporate CEOs (not the individual who has incorporated but, those who are CEOs of large banks, corporations and so on), doctors and attorneys (again not the doctor in your clinic or the attorney who did up your will, but the elite few), marketing and sales professionals, investment brokers and speculators, and finally those who inherited a fortune from the family, “old money.” I don’t begrudge any of these people their money as I understand the randomness of being born into the “right” family or being blessed with outstanding athletic ability. It’s just a matter of fate. My problem is that I’m not sure they are all pulling their fair share of the weight. One would think that they would be glad to contribute to the general good. After all, they have been blessed to live in one of the few nations on earth where they are free to earn that much money, in a stable political environment, and have a government that assists them by providing a good infrastructure such as roads and other forms of subsidized transportation in order to move their goods from origin to market.

We should be compelled to ask, what is the distribution of income in the stratosphere? According the 2000 census there were 1,324,000 people with reported incomes over $250,000. By 2005 the Census reports that that figure had jumped to 2,023,000. I then asked myself how many millionaires are there in the United States. The answer is quite a few. As of 2009 there were over 7.8 households (not individuals) worth more than $1 million including more than 1000 billionaires. This is interesting in that the estimated 2005 population was 296,410,404 with a total non-farm employment of 120,604,265. The millionaire class comprises about 1% of the total population, but they control 38% of all wealth in the United States. That leaves 99% of the population scrapping over the other 62%.

We then come to the question, would a tax break for millionaires create jobs? My conclusion is, not likely. I don’t think extending the tax break, or not, will change behavior of this crowd. It’s unlikely they will hire another maid or gardener. That means they would have to clean their own bathroom or cut their own grass. Another question is will they buy more goods with the money? Again my conclusion is no.

I have no experience with being a millionaire, so I had to think quite a bit about what it is that millionaires buy. On the other hand, I don’t think most millionaires are all that ostentatious. For example, I understand that a local millionaire drives a Pries. But, he is known to be a big supporter of Democratic candidates and causes. Just as an exercise, I put pen to paper and jotted down a few things that I thought millionaires would buy that might create jobs, over and above what we all buy to sustain ourselves, whether we personally buy the stuff or our household staff make the purchase. I came up with cars and yachts. That is about it. However, after doing some research, I learned that when it comes to cars for millionaires there are some well known brands: Ferrari, Rolls-Royce, Lamborghini, Porsche and a couple of others. In thinking about yachts over thirty meters I came up with a few (this is an area with which I am totally unfamiliar): Sunrise Yachts (Turkey), Binetti (Italy), Blohm and Voss (Germany) and Christiansen Yachts (Vancouver, B.C.). Get the picture? Not one is an American firm which, if a purchase is made, would create or sustain jobs.

In the end I think that the political fight over the tax cuts for the wealthy is personal for most members of Congress. There are a total of 535 members in the House and Senate. Of that number 261 are millionaires, including: John Boehner ($6 million), Eric Cantor ($2-6 million), and Mitch McConnell ($3-13 million). And they voted to not extend unemployment benefits for those in need. I rest my case.

Education and Restoring the American Middle Class

On October 30, 2010 Fareed Zakaria hosted his first GPS Special on CNN. It was an excellent program and I’m sure a promise of things to come. Four prominent CEOs were featured, former IBM chairman and CEO Lou Gerstner, Google, Inc. chairman/CEO Eric Schmidt, Coca Cola Company chairman/CEO Muhtar Kent, and Alcoa, Inc. chairman/CEO Klaus Kleinfeld. Zakaria couldn’t have asked four more successful or insightful CEOs to be on his program.

The Title for the program bespeaks its theme: Restoring the American Dream. The American Dream is a concept that holds that if one only works hard enough he or she will overcome any obstacle and achieve material success. It also holds that all citizens have equal access to the means to achieve the American Dream. Needless to say that all citizens do not have equal access to the means to achieve the Dream as those opportunities are differentially distributed. The present recession, depression for some workers, has led to a sense of despair and impotence on the part of Americans, particularly those at the lower end of the economic scale. Technology and globalization have left the American worker in the lurch. Jobs have gone off shore and those lost jobs are not coming back. Zakaria asks how we can rectify this situation and restore the American middle class.

I think we can give Henry Ford credit for creating the American middle class. As strange as this may sound, he recognized that he would not be as successful as he wanted to be in building and selling automobiles if his workers could not afford to buy them. As a consequence, he paid his workers the unheard of sum of $5.00 per day. Thus, many of them could afford to buy his autos and the middle class was born. The American middle class did not reach its zenith until after WWII when the rest of the industrialized world was in ashes and our manufacturing capacity was intact. It took a few years, but when the change over from a war time manufacturing mode to a peacetime manufacturing mode was complete there was a job for nearly everyone. All it took was a high school education (often not even that) to be able to achieve the dream of a single family home, an auto, even a fishing boat and perhaps a cottage in the country to achieve a life of contentedness.

By the 1980s things began to change, the Interstate Highway system had reshaped American cities, technology had begun to replace some workers and manufacturing corporations in search of lower costs began to migrate to the sunbelt and then to off shore. By 2000 the change-over was complete, the upper Midwest was now the “rustbelt” and corporations did not suffer any sort of tax penalty for closing factories and moving off shore. The downward spiral to our present economic situation fueled by deregulation and greed was complete by 2010 and the great American middle class was devastated.

Zakaria covers all this well in his broadcast and most especially in his book, The Post American World. Two areas that are important for America to remain competitive are innovation and research and development (R&D). We used to be number one in both areas, but now we rank behind India, China, and South Korea. Innovation used to be as American as apple pie. Now, young, brilliant college graduates are going into finance so they can devise tools that contribute nothing to the GDP instead of engineering or science. The reason is obvious; they can make millions in finance and only a starting salary of $70,000 per year in engineering. Thus we all suffer from their choice. It is also important that the federal government step up its funding for R&D by funneling more research grants to universities and that corporations devote more money to R&D and product development instead of acquisitions and mergers.

One thing the four CEOs agreed upon was the exceedingly important role education plays in keeping America competitive. There are two facets to education: the transmission of knowledge that takes place in K-12 and colleges and universities from kindergarten to the Ph.D. level and continuing education and training by corporations and companies.

The term “collapse of the education system” was thrown about and I bristle somewhat at the term. I know there are public school teachers who can be rated as poor. Who knows why? Surely they entered the teaching force eager and motivated, but over a period of time they were beaten down by incompetent administrators and a system that failed to recognize excellence and a reality that required more attention to classroom discipline and less attention to education. Whatever the reason, most of us would have mentally or physically bailed out as well. So I do not recognize the term “broken education system” or whatever. What is broken is the family value of education as a worthwhile pursuit. I also recognize is that our teachers have been, by and large, let down by a society that does not value their contribution. They are underpaid and under recognized. The rightie politicians and sympathizers have a term that brings me to the point of wanting to punch someone; dedicated teachers. This is code for “don’t pay them much.” Well, you get what you pay for, but in spite of the lack of commitment by the community in the form of adequate compensation, we still have competent and committed teachers who are there in spite of the pay. It seems that we really do believe that it’s our money and we want to keep it in our pocket rather than pay for educating our children.

Higher education has been, or is, in the process of being gutted. Between 1987 and 2009 college tuition and fees increased a staggering 326% caused by declining state revenues. This is incredible in light of the fact that a more educated populace means a more affluent and content populace. Decreased state income due to lower taxes and increased spending on such budget lines as prisons has put America’s young people in debt for years to cover college costs. Let me explain. After I was discharged from the US Air Force in 1965 I started as a freshman at Indiana State University with tuition at $9.50 per credit hour. I did not need a loan and was able to pay the cost of twelve credit hours out of my paycheck from my part-time job. By the time I graduated in August 1968 tuition had been raised to about $12.00 per credit hour, still a good deal. I entered the workforce without debt and ready to take on the world. Twelve dollars a credit hour is a very fair price for a future that would pay me more per year than I would have earned as a driver for a wholesale milk distributor (my job after the Air Force was as a relief driver) and I paid more taxes. We seem to have lost sight of the value of an affordable education for high school graduates.

I don’t think any sane person would dispute the point that educating our young people is a good investment. But in fact, education for the past 25 years has been one of the few budgetary lines that can be and has been cut; the rest of the budget is legally designated and thus not to be cut. Sadly, the conservative revolution, begun in 1994, has had an unanticipated, but largely unrecognized, consequence. For years the state and federal governments have played a dangerous shell game and the chickens finally came home to roost. The states have been able to keep their income tax rates low and depend on federal largesse for funding of programs. The federal government kept its tax rate relatively high and then passed money back to the states. This game seemed to please everyone. However, starting in 1994 the U.S. House of Representatives went Republican and conservative and so did many states followed by others in subsequent elections. Money eventually slowed to a trickle from Washington and Republican legislatures were, and are, loath to raise taxes. Thus, earmarks are raided to pay for other areas of the budget. Usual budget areas that are discretionary for the Governor are: education, prisons, medic-aid, and state police. The rest of the budget is off limits and education suffers.

Why then has academic achievement scores of American students declined in recent years. In my experience over the 21 years I taught in higher education I came to the conclusion that our high schools are not demanding enough and, more importantly, parents are certainly not demanding enough. The majority of students did not take notes in class, too many did not read assigned material, many disputed earned grades, and nearly all expected not only passing grades, but excellent grades. I don’t know how many papers I read that were so weak and obviously under-researched or how many times I had a student come into my office and tearfully state that they needed a passing grade to continue to get student aid when they were failing. The shame is that I usually caved in.

Here’s why. I did not receive support from the Dean and Provost to take a tough stand. The line usually was that I obviously was not teaching properly. Sorry, I was a professor. I professed what I knew from research and reading, students were to listen and critically examine what I said and what they read and then we would discuss the material. But, when they did not do so and failed earn a score of more than 61 (I admit, way too low for passing) they failed the class. It did not take me long to learn that students have a hold on faculty if the administration does not support rigorous teaching standards. The dreaded student/faculty evaluations give power to students and the evaluations are wrongly used to determine whether or not a faculty member earns tenure or merit increases in pay. If a professor fails to receive good or even excellent student evaluations, then tenure and merit increases are out of the question. Young Assistant Professors soon learn that they need to knuckle under to the tyrannical eighteen year olds who don’t know a sonnet from a symphony, or in my case a prison from a jail. I, however, was a slow learner and suffered many wounds. Nevertheless, I came around and students pretended to study and I gave them a pretend grade. I must point out though that I had some excellent students who were motivated and I am still in contact with many of them. I love them and they are the ones who made my teaching years worthwhile.

I put the blame for the failure of students to value education over just getting by on parents. Most parents see education as a commodity, not as a means to improve oneself with the by-product that of getting a higher paying job. High schools fail to adequately prepare parents and students to rigorously pursue higher education and parents fail to insist on study to the point of inflicting punishment on their child for not studying or for earning poor grades. It is the university faculty that suffers when the mentally lame and unmotivated student appears in their classroom.

The second area of education that is ignored is that of in-service training by corporations and companies. This is not my area of expertise, but it seems to me that companies would come out ahead if they required continued upgrading of skills by everyone from the shop floor to the CEO. I have only minor experience in this area, but over the past twenty years I have teamed up with business and public administration faculty to develop training seminars on our own initiative in an area that we thought important. In my experience, both public and private organizations failed to take advantage of the opportunities. Granted, training is a very incestuous area and only those training companies with prominent names are able to survive, but locally, one would think that a training experience by faculty at a nearby university at a cost of $49 per attendee for a one day seminar would be thought valuable and affordable. I also helped develop a 40 hour executive training experience for executives delving into the areas of leadership, strategic planning, communication and so on for $399. We and the Chamber of Commerce also thought it a good deal.

I’ll give an example. A few years ago there were four shooting sprees in Virginia, Michigan and Georgia including the Virginia Tech episode. Two colleagues and I put together a one day seminar on workplace violence and working with the local Chamber of Commerce and another business association we advertised it at $49 per person. We did not receive one application. So much for training. If a disgruntled employee or unhappy spouse shot up an office, I can guarantee that only one lawsuit would break the company. I think $49 is a cheap investment. Likewise, up-to-date employees are happier, more productive, and more likely to contribute new ideas that improve production. So Messrs. Gerstner, Schmidt, Kent, and Kleinfeld put your money where your mouth is.

Clearly, education and training are exceedingly important if America is to reclaim the American Dream. Education also contributes to innovation. But contrary to conventional wisdom, our slump in the ratings, so to speak, is not largely the fault of teachers and professors. There is plenty of blame to go around, but I put the bulk of the blame on legislatures, Congress, parents and the American public. If we want excellence then we’ll have to pay a price.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=rationing_college_opportunity

Ad nauseaum: The United States Congress did not extend unemployment benefits this week. What a bunch of self-righteous, disengaged, elitist slugs. Not only are they cutting off perhaps the only means of income for 1.2 million Americans, they do so just before Christmas. Will God provide? Will their neighbors step in and pay the rent? This vote just points out the hypocrisy of our elected officials. It was their failure to provide adequate regulation of banking and financial interests that more or less caused the recession that has put so many Americans out of work. Now they are compounding the problem by tossing more than a million Americans under the bus, or train, or into the shredder. The extension would have cost money we don’t have, but when distributed the recipients would be buying things. Things they need, not stocks, or buying into a hedgefund, expensive jewels, and so on. Real stuff that supports our working men and women. Shame on them.

The 2010 Mid-term Election

I have not made any comments about the mid-term elections because I did not want to go off half cocked. Of course I was disappointed when the results were tabulated, but not surprised. I began to think about a year ago that the Democrats were not getting their message out nor where they being aggressive enough in countering some of the more insane, and wrong-headed, statements being made by the more extreme Republicans. As a result of their laziness or overestimation of the electorate, they lost the House and six seats in the Senate. In my opinion it is unlikely that common ground will be found to move the nation ahead on key issues such as the deficit, jobs, immigration, and war.

I have complained in earlier blogs about the working men and women voting against their best interests when they vote for Republican candidates who clearly have business interests ahead of the interests of working men and women. Fareed Zakaria is a brilliant and talented writer formerly for Newsweek and now Time Magazine, his books include The Post American World. He has recently remarked* that the Republicans have failed previously to deliver on promises to reduce the deficit and instead ran up the deficit. I rest my case.






*http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/fareed-zakaria-republicans-fool-me-on