For The 99% -- An Action Proposal

So far the Occupy movement has wisely chosen to simply express its dissatisfaction with the present system, without prematurely rushing into any concrete action. Here's a proposal for several individual or small-group actions which might be first steps toward changing the system.

Picketing:
1) Identify any corporate offices in your community where CEOs who are paid more than a million dollars have their offices. Picket entrances where these officers (and others) enter and exit. Picket especially during hours when CEOs and others are entering and leaving -- say 7 to 9 in the morning, 11-2 midday, and 4-7 in the evening. Do not interrupt, do not block traffic, do not confront, but do carry signs. Remember to notify the press.
2) Don't bother lower-level (retail) stores and offices. These are of course staffed by fellow 99%ers.

Legislative:
1) Either individually or as a member of a small local group (neighbors, co-workers, whatever), announce that you will support only candidates (for local, state, or national office) who promise to support legislation to tax the wealthy. Tell the press.
2) Propose to any club or organization you belong to that they adopt a similar policy.
3) Consider opposing candidates who are themselves multi-millionaires.

Corporate:
1) Identify corporations that pay executives more than a million dollars a year.
2) Buy one or two shares of one or more of these.
3) Attend annual stockholder meetings of these corporations.
4) Introduce a motion to limit total compensation (salary, deferred compensation, stock options, other percs, etc.) to $1-million per year. Tell the press your plans in advance.
5) If you are employed, you may be contributing to a pension plan. Check with your pernsion plan to determine where it invests its money (your money!). If -- as is likely -- it invests in stock of large corporations, encourage your fellow employees to urge the pension fund to vote its shares to limit executive compensation (as in 4 above).
6) If your alma mater has an endowment fund -- as it surely does -- find where the money is invested. Encourage your school to vote its shares to pressure the corporations it invests in to adopt a policy of limiting executive compensation.
7) Look around for other organizations which invest their cash reserves in stock of corporations. Urge them to take similar action.
8) Urge that corporations restructure their cash-flow: after allowing for reasonable reserves (to cover growth, market downturns, etc.) and fair dividends to investors, additional cash should be distributed in a balance of the following ways: a) reduced retail prices for the company's products, b) increased wages for the lowest-paid employees, and 3) charitable contributions to good causes: education and scholarships, medical research and hospitals, the arts, etc.

Somalia, here we come!

The big buzz-word in American legislative circles these days is "deficit reduction." Let's reduce the size of government, reduce government interference in business, eliminate waste, and by doing all these things restore individual freedoms.
Like pretty much everyone, I favor eliminating government waste -- though we might have some difficulty in defining waste, once we get beyond a few glaring examples.
Let's look first at the society we might end up with if all the cost-cutters were to get their way. (I'll mention a number of proposals at both state and federal levels, because they will all -- from whichever level -- impact how we live, and because they are all expressions of the same mind-set.)
The two major categories of cuts may be in services and in regulation.
Services: States are vigorously cutting funds to education. In North Carolina, funding to universities, to community colleges, and to public schools is being cut. Admissions are being limited, tuitions are being raised (in spite of a North Carolina constitutional requirement that university tuition be essentially free), academic programs are being shrunk or eliminated, teachers are being laid off, class sizes are being increased. Cuts are being considered for many court programs that have been successful at keeping people out of prison (though experts point out that eliminating these programs will actually cost more). Various counseling programs and other programs to help young people stay in school or families stay together are being cut. Cuts are likely or are being considered in services to a wide variety of needy people -- the poor, the sick, the unemployed, the elderly. I could go on and on. Even if not all of these cuts become reality, we are looking at a future in which the well-to-do are surrounded with legions of needy, desperate people, people who cannot afford the medical treatment they need, cannot get trained for good jobs, cannot afford decent housing, and are left to their own devices in their ignorant interactions with the law. Sounds a bit like Somalia to me.
Regulations: Of course we oppose government regulation, particularly of struggling businesses. Or do we? I oppose petty bureaucratic regulation. But is that all there is? There have been innumerable newspaper accounts of tainted meat (because it was not properly produced or inspected), of farm workers harmed by pesticides (because no one was inspecting to be sure the employer did not have his workers use chemicals in a dangerous way), of imported sheet-rock that emitted formaldehyde or other noxious chemicals (again because no inspectors stopped the import or sale, of prescription drugs recalled when people began dying (because the government didn't have the manpower to check these drugs adequately before they were put on the market). The extreme example of lack of government regulation might, again, be Somalia.
So what is appropriate regulation? For me, it's this: I want to be sure that any product or food or medicine I buy is very unlikely to harm me if I use it according to directions. And I want to know that anything I buy is what it says it is -- that I can trust the label (and the advertising) to tell me the truth. And since the goal of any business is to make a profit, and since some businesses will do this by any means they can get away with, we need government regulation to ensure that all businesses play by the rules, selling safe and honest products.
Before we get too busy with our axes, let's give some thought to the kind of society we want to live in. I've given you an idea of the kind of society I want to live in. As I've said, I want a society with enough government regulation to ensure that products and foods and medicines are honest and safe.
And I want responsive government services sufficient to maintain a population that is healthy, well-educated, well-housed, employed. I want my neighbor's kids in good schools, I want any sick or injured person to get good medical care, I want both good roads and good public transit so I and my neighbors can travel where we need to go, safely, conveniently, and economically. I want services available so that abused or neglected kids get counseling or support or protection or whatever they need so that they have an opportunity to grow up to be happy, productive adults.
What kind of society do you want to live in? How much government will it take to provide that? If you want zero government, do you think you might be happier in Somalia?

Why Are You Struggling?

Long ago, on a Roman galley, the captain tried an experiment. He let everyone on board -- oarsmen and aristocratic passengers -- vote on whether to change to a democratic system, where everyone would take turns, alternately rowing and lounging in the luxurious passenger quarters. Of course the aristocrats voted to retain the existing system. But then, to his surprise, so too did the galley oarsmen.

There is a simple explanation for why you are having a hard time financially, why you are in danger of losing your job or your health or your home, why you don’t have access to the luxuries that more privileged members of society are enjoying.
Why haven’t you realized the truth? In case you are too dumb to figure it out, here it is: It’s because you deserve what you are getting. And because deep down inside, you know this. That’s why you keep making choices that maintain the status quo, that keep you down and struggling.
You don’t believe it? Consider this:
Our legislators obviously believe what I’ve just said. They maintain a tax structure and an economic structure that does what it should do -- it rewards the deserving and punishes the undeserving. In other words, some people get rich, the rich keep getting richer, and the rest struggle to stay where they are, and sometimes, no matter how hard they struggle, they slip downward into poverty.
Look at the statistics -- they’re all around you. You’ve seen them. The top 2% make as much money as the bottom 50%. CEOs get paid on average 400 times as much as their lowest-paid employees. When failing businesses are sold out, the top managers (who ran their companies into the ground) walk away with “golden parachutes” worth millions of dollars.
And at the other end of the scale, 10% of our workforce is unemployed. This country has some 40 million uninsured people. The middle class is getting smaller. More people are in poverty than ever. Millions go to bed hungry every night. Hundreds of thousands of homes are being foreclosed, leaving ever more people homeless.
And how are our governments, local, state, and federal, coping with all this? They are reducing services to those most in need. Thousands of state employees are being laid off, hurting not just them but also all those that they were providing services for. Universities are cutting faculty and course offerings; students must pay higher tuition for fewer and more crowded classes. Public schools are laying off teachers and aides and increasing class sizes. Mental health programs, already appallingly inadequate, are being cut further, leaving the mentally ill in crisis and unable to receive treatment that might save their lives.
Clearly the decision-makers who have brought all this about are acting out of a morality that says that the deserving will be rewarded and the undeserving punished.
And who chose these decision-makers? You did. You have chosen to elect representatives who will carry out your moral values, who will punish you for all your flaws and shortcomings. And as long as you coninue to believe that you deserve the worst, you will keep on electing representatives who will make sure you get it.

Is Obama a Socialist?

Before we get mired down in arguments about what is or isn't "socialist," let's look at a basic difference in how people look at the relationship of individuals to society and vice-versa.
One basic principle, not a bad one in its intention, is that we should earn everything we get. If we find ourselves helpless, broke, sick, homeless, it's because we didn't plan well enough or work hard enough. The moral implication is that if society is properly structured, virtue -- hard work -- will be rewarded, and vice -- waste, laziness -- will be punished. Who can quarrel with that?
And in normal situations this is a good way to run things. If you work harder, you should earn more. And if you choose to be lazy or to squander your money on gambling or liquor or worse things, it's only fair that you should eventually be poor and miserable.
But what about disasters that we did not bring upon ourselves? What about droughts and famines and forest fires and floods? What about cancer and other devastating diseases not caused by our own stupidity? What about steady workers suddenly thrown out of work?
If you agree that such things happen, then you have to acknowledge that almost all of us could at some time find ourselves in a difficult situation which we did not cause and which we cannot fix by ourselves.
Here is where, for most of us, another principle applies: As a society, we all have a responsibility to care for others, and we all have a right to expect the help of others when disasters strike. Or, as the Bible says, "Do unto others," and "Inasmuch as you have done it unto the least of these, you have done it unto Me."
Unfortunately what I seem to be hearing from some politicians (and others) is a rejection of this second principle. "Cut welfare, cut Social Security, cut food stamps, eliminate Medicaid, reduce unemployment benefits," the litany goes on and on. The usual justification for this position is an unwillingness to support lazy bums who don't want to work.
But I think even most bleeding-heart liberals share that unwillingness. And we know that there are abuses of every system that doles out money -- there are always people (and not just poor people) who look for ways to con the system. So let's agree: Every money-spending system needs screening, controls, checks and balances, audits, investigations, and ultimately prosecutions of violators.
That being said, there are needy people, generally people who have worked hard and paid into the system all their lives (or people with legitimate disabilities that have prevented them from doing so). And we as a society, recognizing that "there but for the grace of God go I," have a responsibility (which in the long run may turn out to be enlightened self-interest) to help those in need.
So is this "socialism"? Perhaps. But Obama did not invent it. He has simply seen -- and seeks to enlarge -- this principle of helping the needy as a guiding principle of our caring society, manifested over the past seventy years as Social Security and the more recent Medicare and Medicaid

Sarah Tucker, a Remarkable Woman -- In Memoriam

Kay and I drove on Thursday from our home in Durham to a funeral in Charlotte, the funeral of an amazing woman I had known for forty-five years (though I didn't realize fully how amazing she was until I heard the testimonials at the funeral).

Here's how I got to know Sarah Tucker:

In the mid-sixties I spent four years as the program director for an ambitious project in a low-income school in Charlotte. The mandate of the program was to select the most promising seventh-graders in six successive classes, work with them in a variety of ways, and prepare them for college. (I've written in more detail about this elsewhere.)

Carlene was one of that first group, and I soon got to know her mother, Sarah. I learned that Sarah was young (just six years older than I) and had been widowed for several years. She had seven small children and no job skills, not even a high school diploma. She was working as a domestic. Realizing that she could not earn enough to provide adequately for her children, she completed her GED and took a secretarial course, which prepared her for a higher-paying job. Then, a couple of years later, having somehow discovered what she really wanted to do, she went back to school again for nursing training, and got into the field she worked in for the rest of her working career. And of course she had to get all this schooling evenings and whenever she wasn't out earning a living.

This was potentially a recipe for disaster for her children -- seven kids at home, no adult supervision, all kinds of attractive trouble outside the home.
But it didn't happen. In a community where half the kids dropped out of school and many got in trouble with the law, every one of her children graduated. Why? She was both loving and firm. She let her kids know that she loved them and had confidence in their worth and their ability. And she laid down the law: "You will go to school every day. You will do your best in school. And you will graduate from high school." I'm not sure if she ever spelled out what she would do if any of the kids broke any of these rules, but I'm sure none of them ever wanted to find out.

So all seven graduated. Most went to college. Two became ministers. One completed a doctorate and became a clinical psychologist. And in later years -- as I learned at the funeral -- when several grandchildren were in danger of getting themselves into serious trouble and ruining their futures, they at various times came to stay with Grandma for a number of months. And they responded to her mix of praise ande support and confidence-boosting, and they turned their lives around -- as they emphatically and emotionally told the two hundred mourners at the funeral.

Bill O'Reilly -- Secrets of Success

I've just read most of a new book, "A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity," by right-wing commentator Bill O'Reilly (I hope that's the right way to characterize him). The book was given to me by my very right-wing father-in-law, perhaps with the hope that it would help to straighten out my thinking.

Interestingly, I agreed with many of Bill's beliefs -- in justice and fair play, for instance.

But as I read on (and on and on), I realized what Bill's blind spot was. His implicit (and sometimes explicit) argument throughout this childhood-memoir-as-polemic is: "I didn't start out with any advantages, and I made it, so anyone can." He often compares himself with his classmates at various educational levels, classmates who came from wealthy and socially prominent families. He harps on the fact that he had none of their advantages going for him.

Ergo, he's saying, any kid from the slums, any kid from a broken family, any abused child of alcoholic or drug-using parents, has no excuse for not striving and becoming a success.

So where's the blind spot? Right here: Again and again, Bill tells of his somewhat cold and unsympathetic father, who, when Bill came crying to him about some mistreatment at the hands of other kids, would tell him, "Don't come crying to me. Get out there and fix it yourself." And he talks about the nuns at the parochial schools where he got his early education -- they were tough, and their educational and disciplinary techniques may have been questionable, but they set tough standards and demanded that kids live up to them.

(It's a little ironic that as Bill talks about his first teaching job in Florida, he criticizes most of his fellow teachers for failing to set up the sorts of expectations he sets up for his students; he feels that most of the faculty disliked him as much as he disliked them, because he was willing to be tough and they weren't. But he fails to recognize that the majority of students have missed out on something he had and which he as a teacher was trying to instill.)

So Bill, even if he lacked material advantages, had the indispensable advantages of self-reliance, self-confidence, discipline, and high standards. And, though he can claim credit for retaining and using these characteristics, he cannot claim to have invented or discovered them on his own. In his life were some powerful influences -- without which he would almost certainly have amounted to nothing.

The moral: It's not, as Bill accuses liberals of, to coddle criminals and bums because they didn't have the advantages. It's not to overlook criminality and laziness. No. But our moral obligation is to do everything in our power -- as individuals and and as a society -- to create learning environments (and to improve parenting) so that every young person acquires values -- and motivation -- similar to that which inspired Bill O'Reilly to strive, to compete, and to succeed in life.

The other day I bemoaned the fact that the Raleigh News and Observer rarely published any of my letters, so today they published one. The background is that a prisoner with a life sentence filed to be released. Seems that a life sentence had been defined as 80 years, but for a brief spell -- when this and some 19 other prisoners were sentenced -- a life sentence had been re-defined as forty years. And these prisoners had all served their forty years. And the state suddenly realized why these prisoners had received life sentences: for heinous murders and rapes. The newspaper headlines screamed: "Murderers and rapists to be freed!" Here's my response:

"Given that the convicts expected to be released are all in their 50s and 60s, many having been incarcerated since they were teenagers, I can't help wondering: Haven't some of them perhaps turned their lives around? I realize you wanted to get the headlines out on the street quickly, but don't you have an obligation to tell more of the story? I for one would like to think that prison can transform people -- otherwise why not execute them and be done with it? But even if the crime was horrific, forgiveness must be an option -- as long as there is reason to believe the prisoner will no longer be a threat to society."

The first thing I need to emphasize -- in case it's not clear enough from the necessarily very brief letter to the editor -- is that I'm not urging that these prisoners be automatically released. (It appears that the technicalities of the applicable laws might require that they be released, but authorities are looking for other charges on which they could be convicted and re-sentenced, and the legislature is being urged to pass some sort of law to keep them in prison as well.) But I am urging that those who have in some sense been rehabilitated, those who do not appear to pose any threat to the public, should be released.

Please realize that my question -- "why not execute them and be done with it?" -- is rhetorical. Though I don't believe in the death penalty, I'd be willing to countenance it IF the crime was particularly violent and IF we could be ABSOLUTELY sure that the person was guilty. But, idealist that I am, I'd like to see prison function as a place of rehabilitation, with the goal that just about every prisoner could eventually be released to become a productive citizen. (Yes, I know that's a dream -- we're miles from anything like that now.)

Further, I'd like to see society transformed so that few if any young people become criminals, particularly violent criminals. (Violent crime seems to be largely committed by young men -- few women and few older men.) Look at the background of anyone arrested for a violent crime. It's depressingly monotonous: an emotionally and often sexually abused, unloved child, no effective intervention by schools or social services, a trail of minor but increasingly serious crimes, leading to the big one(s) resulting in that life sentence. (There's one other less frequent but recurrent pattern: the quiet, model child who suddenly explodes and commits multiple violent acts -- think Columbine.) I'd like to see a system that enables us to spot these developing crises and intervene before they erupt.

What we have now is like a sinister version of a Monopoly game, in which some of the players are given a "Go to jail -- go directly to jail" card, and once there, they can't get out. If you are that player, you are destined to be a loser, and there is only a negligible chance you will somehow escape that fate. It'd like to see a system in which we offer a chance for the losers to change their lives and maybe become winners -- losing should not be guaranteed permanent.

Newark -- Laugh or Cry?

In this morning’s N&O was a column by New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, talking about late-night host Conan O”Brien’s mock-feud with Newark (NJ) mayor Cory Booker. O’Brien talks about Newark’s health-care program, which, he says, consists of a bus ticket out of Newark. Jokes like that.

Comedians always need something -- some place -- to joke about. Philadelphia used to be the butt of the jokes. Did you hear about the contest where the second prize was a trip to Philadelphia? And the first prize was you didn’t have to go.

I’m always interested to read about Newark. I was born there, and I spent my childhood in Belleville, an adjacent town, where we were just a half-hour bus-ride from downtown Newark. My pals and I used to ride the bus to Newark to go to Saturday-morning programs at the Newark Public Library and sometimes to a movie, with occasional side-trips to places like Bamberger’s Department Store (where we once -- unbeknownst to our parents -- got into trouble trying to run up the down-escalator). Newark in those days was safe enough that our parents had no worry in letting us go downtown unaccompanied.

As I’ve delved, more resently, into family history and genealogy, I’ve discovered that some of my ancestors were among the founders and first settlers of Newark. When I was growing up, the best-known hotel in Newark was the Robert Treat Hotel, which I now know was named for the early Connecticut governor who led the first expedition to Newark (though he stayed in Newark only long enough to get it established, and then returned home to Connecticut six years later). Newark (like other Newarks in Delaware and Ohio) was named -- depending on which account you want to believe -- either as the “New Ark” or the “New Work.” In any case, it was a Puritan religious settlement, intended (like so many early New England settlements) to return to the purity and virtue which the founders thought were being lost in the older settlements they came from.

But all that’s a long time ago, and Newark has undergone several cultural transformations since.

And what has happened to inner cities isn’t a laughing matter. Herbert goes on to express the hope that all the joking will result in some serious focus on the real problems of Newark and other cities -- he talks about Camden and Chicago, and we know the same problems confront other cities as well. Problems of poverty, unemployment, poor schools, high drop-out rates, high crime rates, and high incarceration rates.

He juxtaposes two ironically similar numbers: the proposed 40,000 increase in the troops sent to Afghanistan, and the 40,000 teachers laid off in the past year -- what does that say about our priorities? If we can afford to fight multi-billion dollar wars abroad and not worry about the cost, then cost should be a minor consideration when we contemplate the wrong we do to our most needy citizens and the damage we do to the country by ignoring these desperate needs.