In Book Two of The Lord of the Rings, Theoden King of Rohan wastes away on his throne as evil threatens to destroy his kingdom. At his right hand, a bent and scrawny man referred to as Wormtongue whispers directions in his ear. Bewitched, Theoden and his country flounder and begin to fail.
In the U.S. and Iowa, we have our own corporate version of Wormtongue whispering in our state politicians’ ears. It’s called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
As I learned when I was a school board director, even in the statehouse, schools were battling larger organizational interests – some corporate and some ideological. I also learned these groups often twisted the information they provided legislators, stretching or altering reality (if not outright lying) to serve their own interests.
It was later I heard about ALEC. According to the Center for Media and Democracy’s ALEC Exposed web site (www.alecexposed.org), ALEC is a consortium of wealthy corporate directors and legislators who meet to craft legislation in secret. Most of this legislation is written by corporate attorneys to benefit these same corporations. Then it is introduced to member legislators via conferences at luxury resorts. Records show 98% of ALEC’s funding comes from corporations, corporate foundations and corporate trade groups. And while organized as a non-partisan, non-profit entity, it currently lists only one Democrat out of 104 legislators in leadership positions.
Founded in 1973 by Conservative political strategist Paul Weyrich, ALEC has introduced hundreds of corporate-written bills in statehouses across the nation. A recent episode of Moyers and Company noted Weyrich’s plan to focus on building an entrenched network of corporate, conservative state legislators.
And the plan has worked. Moyers’ program highlighted a couple of ALEC model bills that have been passed in several states. One is the Virtual Schools Act, written by lobbyists for K12 Inc. and Connections Academy, the two leading national corporations developing online schools. Not coincidentally, these two companies operate Iowa’s two pilot online academies in conjunction with local school districts.
I say not coincidentally because the ALEC Exposed web site lists our governor
as “involved in its formative years.” It also lists a number of current and former legislators as members of the organization. Additionally, Progress Iowa released an updated list of Iowa politicians earlier this year.
As two state legislators from Wisconsin and Arizona noted on Moyers’ program, while corporations have every right to advocate for their interests, they should not do it in secret under a tax status that specifically prohibits lobbying. Both legislators have been working to shed sunlight on ALEC’s work in their states. Meanwhile, ALEC not only claims it does not engage in lobbying, the group declares outright that it is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
So who represents our interests? Do Iowans want their laws written in secret by corporate lobbyists from who knows where? Because ALEC will continue to work behind the scenes, whispering in our representatives’ ears unless we raise our voices and votes to focus government on the common good -- instead of the corporate good.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Friday, June 21, 2013
Workforce, government: Who sets our priorities?
One week ago yesterday, I was exiting the parking ramp at 7th and Grand Ave. in Des Moines at 7 a.m. Having parked free all weekend, I wanted to get out before I raked up any parking fees. As I approached the exit, I noticed the gate down and the attendant booth empty.
As I pulled to a stop, I scanned the messages and buttons across the self-serve terminal. Nothing fit except the “Press for assistance” button. So I did.
I immediately heard a dial tone and dialing. Moments later, I was talking to a nameless voice in an office who knows where. I explained my situation and he replied, “OK, I’ll let you out.” After listening to keys punching, I saw the arm rise and exited. Last time I’d used this parking ramp, an attendant had been present to answer my questions and let me through the gate.
This incident brought to mind a response I received to my column about living wages for workers. The reader stated wages reflect the value of the work and claimed the minimum wage drove small businesses to close their doors. His example was the loss of full service gas stations.
I found it a strange coincidence that when I shared this reader’s views the next day with a friend from Clarinda, she retorted, “It wasn’t the minimum wage. It was Casey’s. People decided they wanted soda and cigarettes instead of service.”
She came to her conclusion via the experience of her father and grandfather who owned several service stations in southwest Iowa during the period we went from full to self service gas stations.
Which leads me to ask, who sets our priorities? Did we really decide we wanted to pump our own gas or did someone else decide there was more profit in selling soda and cigarettes? Did the parking company decide they could increase profits with fewer employees? Because I know from my days as a corporate manager and school board director, people (employees) are usually one of the biggest expenses.
But I think maybe we are hitting the law of diminishing returns. If we don’t employ people to work, people will not have money to purchase goods and services.
Unfortunately, Americans have come to see business as the economy, rather than as one sector. Healthy economies also have healthy government, military, non-profit and religious sectors. But we’ve been led to believe business drives everything.
Likewise, we’ve been taught to believe government has a spending problem; in fact, that government IS our problem. But as a recent Facebook infographic of the lastest collapsed bridge notes, “We DON’T have a spending problem. We DO have a priorities problem.”
So maybe we should ask who is setting those priorities. Are we citizens demanding fair wages and government policies to benefit people? Or are we allowing someone else to call the shots? Because as my husband once said to me, “Cherie, I can’t read your mind.”
What we do matters. We can choose to shop locally at stores that employ people to bag our groceries and at farmers markets with products from local growers. We can read news from many sources instead of listening to or watching only our favorite talking heads. We can vote. We can contact our government representatives – local, state and federal – about matters that concern us. If our church and other organizations are important to us, we can support them with our time and money. If we believe workers should be treated fairly, we can join a union.
Simply put, we can act. So, what are you doing to help set our priorities?
As I pulled to a stop, I scanned the messages and buttons across the self-serve terminal. Nothing fit except the “Press for assistance” button. So I did.
I immediately heard a dial tone and dialing. Moments later, I was talking to a nameless voice in an office who knows where. I explained my situation and he replied, “OK, I’ll let you out.” After listening to keys punching, I saw the arm rise and exited. Last time I’d used this parking ramp, an attendant had been present to answer my questions and let me through the gate.
This incident brought to mind a response I received to my column about living wages for workers. The reader stated wages reflect the value of the work and claimed the minimum wage drove small businesses to close their doors. His example was the loss of full service gas stations.
I found it a strange coincidence that when I shared this reader’s views the next day with a friend from Clarinda, she retorted, “It wasn’t the minimum wage. It was Casey’s. People decided they wanted soda and cigarettes instead of service.”
She came to her conclusion via the experience of her father and grandfather who owned several service stations in southwest Iowa during the period we went from full to self service gas stations.
Which leads me to ask, who sets our priorities? Did we really decide we wanted to pump our own gas or did someone else decide there was more profit in selling soda and cigarettes? Did the parking company decide they could increase profits with fewer employees? Because I know from my days as a corporate manager and school board director, people (employees) are usually one of the biggest expenses.
But I think maybe we are hitting the law of diminishing returns. If we don’t employ people to work, people will not have money to purchase goods and services.
Unfortunately, Americans have come to see business as the economy, rather than as one sector. Healthy economies also have healthy government, military, non-profit and religious sectors. But we’ve been led to believe business drives everything.
Likewise, we’ve been taught to believe government has a spending problem; in fact, that government IS our problem. But as a recent Facebook infographic of the lastest collapsed bridge notes, “We DON’T have a spending problem. We DO have a priorities problem.”
So maybe we should ask who is setting those priorities. Are we citizens demanding fair wages and government policies to benefit people? Or are we allowing someone else to call the shots? Because as my husband once said to me, “Cherie, I can’t read your mind.”
What we do matters. We can choose to shop locally at stores that employ people to bag our groceries and at farmers markets with products from local growers. We can read news from many sources instead of listening to or watching only our favorite talking heads. We can vote. We can contact our government representatives – local, state and federal – about matters that concern us. If our church and other organizations are important to us, we can support them with our time and money. If we believe workers should be treated fairly, we can join a union.
Simply put, we can act. So, what are you doing to help set our priorities?
Thursday, June 13, 2013
IRS: More than Boy Who Cried Wolf?
Amidst all the end-of-school and family activity we’ve had this past month, I’ve been following the IRS “scandal” with interest. I can’t help thinking Tea Party conservatives are a lot like the boy who cried wolf.
“Why?” you may ask if you’re outraged the Internal Revenue Service would investigate new conservative non-profit social welfare agencies.
Call me skeptical, but knowing how often groups and individuals massage their tax reporting to minimize payments, I suspect some of these groups have overstepped the boundaries.
Second, and more importantly, IRS staff was wrestling with new, unclear regulations for social welfare non-profits in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling without enough guidance. This ruling allowed corporations and organizations, including non-profits, to engage in electioneering communications. Unfortunately, cuts to the IRS, like other federal agencies, have made proper management and enforcement difficult. (This is part of our current “all cuts, no spending” Congress. I can only chuckle at the irony of our government officials cutting the one agency responsible for bringing revenue into the government. But I digress . . .)
Conservative groups brought the Citizens United lawsuit, so we shouldn’t be surprised that most of the groups under IRS scrutiny were conservative. Robert Maguire on OpenSecrets.org writes: “Of the 21 organizations that received rulings from the IRS after January 1, 2010, and filed FEC reports in 2010 or 2012, 13 were conservative. They outspent the liberal groups in that category by a factor of nearly 34-to-1, the Center for Responsive Politics analysis shows.” I think the media, as they often do, jumped the gun on this story and missed that fact.
So in an update to the story, the New York Times reported on May 26: “But a close examination of these groups and others reveals an array of election activities that tax experts and former I.R.S. officials said would provide a legitimate basis for flagging them for closer review.
“Money is not the only thing that matters,” said Donald B. Tobin, a former lawyer with the Justice Department’s tax division who is a law professor at Ohio State University. “While some of the I.R.S. questions may have been overbroad, you can look at some of these groups and understand why these questions were being asked.”
And in another irony noted by Salon Magazine Editor at Large Joan Walsh, “We knew from the beginning of the IRS mess that the only group actually denied tax-exempt status was the Maine chapter of a Democratic women’s group, Emerge America.”
As Walsh concluded: “The IRS mess is coming to look more like the Benghazi ‘scandal’: a diversion from the genuine policy questions at issue, concocted to embarrass the president.”
I suspect if enough scrutiny is placed on the conservative groups crying wolf about IRS overreach, we may come to find out they are actually the ones breaking the law. And like the boy who cried wolf, they may have outsmarted themselves.
“Why?” you may ask if you’re outraged the Internal Revenue Service would investigate new conservative non-profit social welfare agencies.
Call me skeptical, but knowing how often groups and individuals massage their tax reporting to minimize payments, I suspect some of these groups have overstepped the boundaries.
Second, and more importantly, IRS staff was wrestling with new, unclear regulations for social welfare non-profits in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling without enough guidance. This ruling allowed corporations and organizations, including non-profits, to engage in electioneering communications. Unfortunately, cuts to the IRS, like other federal agencies, have made proper management and enforcement difficult. (This is part of our current “all cuts, no spending” Congress. I can only chuckle at the irony of our government officials cutting the one agency responsible for bringing revenue into the government. But I digress . . .)
Conservative groups brought the Citizens United lawsuit, so we shouldn’t be surprised that most of the groups under IRS scrutiny were conservative. Robert Maguire on OpenSecrets.org writes: “Of the 21 organizations that received rulings from the IRS after January 1, 2010, and filed FEC reports in 2010 or 2012, 13 were conservative. They outspent the liberal groups in that category by a factor of nearly 34-to-1, the Center for Responsive Politics analysis shows.” I think the media, as they often do, jumped the gun on this story and missed that fact.
So in an update to the story, the New York Times reported on May 26: “But a close examination of these groups and others reveals an array of election activities that tax experts and former I.R.S. officials said would provide a legitimate basis for flagging them for closer review.
“Money is not the only thing that matters,” said Donald B. Tobin, a former lawyer with the Justice Department’s tax division who is a law professor at Ohio State University. “While some of the I.R.S. questions may have been overbroad, you can look at some of these groups and understand why these questions were being asked.”
And in another irony noted by Salon Magazine Editor at Large Joan Walsh, “We knew from the beginning of the IRS mess that the only group actually denied tax-exempt status was the Maine chapter of a Democratic women’s group, Emerge America.”
As Walsh concluded: “The IRS mess is coming to look more like the Benghazi ‘scandal’: a diversion from the genuine policy questions at issue, concocted to embarrass the president.”
I suspect if enough scrutiny is placed on the conservative groups crying wolf about IRS overreach, we may come to find out they are actually the ones breaking the law. And like the boy who cried wolf, they may have outsmarted themselves.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Does pay reflect merit?
Although news events like workers’ walk-offs at fast food restaurants in major cities already had me asking this question, personal events in the past week really brought it home.
Late on Mother’s Day, my father-in-law finally succumbed to a rare neurological condition called progressive supernuclear palsy (PSP). Thanks to the love of his wife and kids, a solid medical team and home healthcare workers, he was able to die peacefully, without much pain, at home.
Two days afterwards, as we made plans to join the family in Illinois, my mother-in-law related over the phone an item on her memorial planning to-do list that brought this question back. She was taking a thank-you card and monetary gift to their home health aide, a young woman with a child. Every weekday morning, she came to help my mother-in-law prepare Dean for the day. And in her efforts to care for the caregiver, she frequently shooed Shirley out of the house to take a break.
But as Shirley pointed out, the pay was minimal. “She relied on us for her income,” Shirley said about her errand. She wanted to be sure Addie was taken care of, too.
Why does the pay of home and other health care workers not reflect the importance of caring for our loved ones? Does that work not merit a living wage?
I experienced this vital work 14 years ago here in Montgomery County with my own parents. Hospice workers helped my siblings and I care for our parents at home, allowing them the dignity and peace of dying in the place they loved.
And I know people in care centers and those who work to care for them. It’s vital work. Yet these workers struggle to pay their bills. Why doesn’t their pay reflect the critical importance of what they do?
In one of my son’s many organizing jobs (part of a continuing search for stable full-time employment after college), he spent several weeks helping the Service Employees International Union contact home healthcare workers in the Twin Cities. The goal was to organize these workers to bargain for better pay and benefits. Shouldn’t the work merit better pay?
Coincidentally, a Facebook infographic popped up last week highlighting the pay of state employees. It noted the highest paid state employees were likely college sport coaches. Iowa reflects this trend, as outlined by the Cedar Rapids Gazette’s post on the Iowa State Employee Salary Database. “Iowa Football Coach Kirk Ferentz remained the state’s highest paid employee last year . . . ”
Do we really value sports more than care of each other? What about other types of work?
For example, financial executives at some of the Wall Street firms bailed out by our government have continued paying executive bonuses and bloated salaries. In any other industry, they’d be out of jobs.
If worker pay is to reflect merit (and our values), shouldn’t we demand a living wage for all workers?
Late on Mother’s Day, my father-in-law finally succumbed to a rare neurological condition called progressive supernuclear palsy (PSP). Thanks to the love of his wife and kids, a solid medical team and home healthcare workers, he was able to die peacefully, without much pain, at home.
Two days afterwards, as we made plans to join the family in Illinois, my mother-in-law related over the phone an item on her memorial planning to-do list that brought this question back. She was taking a thank-you card and monetary gift to their home health aide, a young woman with a child. Every weekday morning, she came to help my mother-in-law prepare Dean for the day. And in her efforts to care for the caregiver, she frequently shooed Shirley out of the house to take a break.
But as Shirley pointed out, the pay was minimal. “She relied on us for her income,” Shirley said about her errand. She wanted to be sure Addie was taken care of, too.
Why does the pay of home and other health care workers not reflect the importance of caring for our loved ones? Does that work not merit a living wage?
I experienced this vital work 14 years ago here in Montgomery County with my own parents. Hospice workers helped my siblings and I care for our parents at home, allowing them the dignity and peace of dying in the place they loved.
And I know people in care centers and those who work to care for them. It’s vital work. Yet these workers struggle to pay their bills. Why doesn’t their pay reflect the critical importance of what they do?
In one of my son’s many organizing jobs (part of a continuing search for stable full-time employment after college), he spent several weeks helping the Service Employees International Union contact home healthcare workers in the Twin Cities. The goal was to organize these workers to bargain for better pay and benefits. Shouldn’t the work merit better pay?
Coincidentally, a Facebook infographic popped up last week highlighting the pay of state employees. It noted the highest paid state employees were likely college sport coaches. Iowa reflects this trend, as outlined by the Cedar Rapids Gazette’s post on the Iowa State Employee Salary Database. “Iowa Football Coach Kirk Ferentz remained the state’s highest paid employee last year . . . ”
Do we really value sports more than care of each other? What about other types of work?
For example, financial executives at some of the Wall Street firms bailed out by our government have continued paying executive bonuses and bloated salaries. In any other industry, they’d be out of jobs.
If worker pay is to reflect merit (and our values), shouldn’t we demand a living wage for all workers?
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Have you thanked a teacher today?
Did you know today is National Teacher Day? It’s always Tuesday of the first full week in May.
Being married to a teacher, I am reminded of this observance via the annual arrival of graduation announcements from Curt’s former students. Some of the kids were in his classroom; some of them ran on his cross country team. And they may not know it, but their invitations give my husband great joy as he celebrates their accomplishments and the time they shared.
It also reminds me of the teachers in my life who’ve helped shape my course. On my mind as I write this column are two: my 8th grade social studies teacher and the college professor who taught expository and persuasive writing. They are a study in contrasts.
Some of you may know my Social Studies teacher, Lila Hoogeveen, as she’s still active here in southwest Iowa. A creative dynamo, Mrs. Hoogeveen developed a marvel of integrated learning: the Convention of the Continental Congress.
This activity included a homework assignment to make a powdered wig to wear while the Congress was in session; a reenactment of the Congress’ agenda to create a Constitution for the United States; and ongoing personal journals, written in the voice of our assigned characters. The entire process modeled democracy in a way which still resonates with me.
The hours we delegates spent arguing our positions demonstrated powerfully the difficulty of our founding fathers’ work. It was uncomfortable, messy and slow, much like real governing. And that picture of our democratic process has stuck with me and given me patience during my own work as an engaged citizen.
In contrast, my college professor, whose name I cannot even remember, drilled into me strong skills without much appreciation or awareness from me. A creative writer, I wasn’t excited about the class, but it fit my schedule and fulfilled a credit. So I hunkered down and did the work for the desired grade.
It was a work-intensive course, with assignments for nearly every class. And my instructor marked each assignment with constructive criticism. We also had assigned reading to develop our understanding of logic and persuasion.
While this professor’s low key kill-and-drill style didn’t inspire excitement and admiration at the time, I credit her with my ability to tap out this column every other week without much difficulty.
Of course, these two teachers aren’t alone in my teacher Hall of Fame. I could tell you stories (and probably will) about other influential teachers in my life. I owe them all a debt and honor them for their work.
So today, I’d ask you to thank a teacher in your life. Copious research highlights that learning is anchored in strong teacher-student relationships. That gets lost in all the talk about test scores, accountability and reform.
Because no number can measure the skills, values and understanding teachers like Mrs. Hoogeveen and my writing professor develop when they give students their time, effort and attention. We need to remember that whenever we hear calls for education reform.
Being married to a teacher, I am reminded of this observance via the annual arrival of graduation announcements from Curt’s former students. Some of the kids were in his classroom; some of them ran on his cross country team. And they may not know it, but their invitations give my husband great joy as he celebrates their accomplishments and the time they shared.
It also reminds me of the teachers in my life who’ve helped shape my course. On my mind as I write this column are two: my 8th grade social studies teacher and the college professor who taught expository and persuasive writing. They are a study in contrasts.
Some of you may know my Social Studies teacher, Lila Hoogeveen, as she’s still active here in southwest Iowa. A creative dynamo, Mrs. Hoogeveen developed a marvel of integrated learning: the Convention of the Continental Congress.
This activity included a homework assignment to make a powdered wig to wear while the Congress was in session; a reenactment of the Congress’ agenda to create a Constitution for the United States; and ongoing personal journals, written in the voice of our assigned characters. The entire process modeled democracy in a way which still resonates with me.
The hours we delegates spent arguing our positions demonstrated powerfully the difficulty of our founding fathers’ work. It was uncomfortable, messy and slow, much like real governing. And that picture of our democratic process has stuck with me and given me patience during my own work as an engaged citizen.
In contrast, my college professor, whose name I cannot even remember, drilled into me strong skills without much appreciation or awareness from me. A creative writer, I wasn’t excited about the class, but it fit my schedule and fulfilled a credit. So I hunkered down and did the work for the desired grade.
It was a work-intensive course, with assignments for nearly every class. And my instructor marked each assignment with constructive criticism. We also had assigned reading to develop our understanding of logic and persuasion.
While this professor’s low key kill-and-drill style didn’t inspire excitement and admiration at the time, I credit her with my ability to tap out this column every other week without much difficulty.
Of course, these two teachers aren’t alone in my teacher Hall of Fame. I could tell you stories (and probably will) about other influential teachers in my life. I owe them all a debt and honor them for their work.
So today, I’d ask you to thank a teacher in your life. Copious research highlights that learning is anchored in strong teacher-student relationships. That gets lost in all the talk about test scores, accountability and reform.
Because no number can measure the skills, values and understanding teachers like Mrs. Hoogeveen and my writing professor develop when they give students their time, effort and attention. We need to remember that whenever we hear calls for education reform.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
How did gun sales trump public safety?
“My friends know that I’m a pretty strong constitutional conservative,” wrote one of my Facebook friends last Wednesday afternoon, “But I’m not sure how a law that would have strictly forbidden a national gun registry is supposed to lead to a national gun registry. Feeling lost,” he concluded with a sad-faced emoticon.
He was referring to the fact that despite 90 percent of Americans supporting legislation to institute criminal background checks for all gun purchases, including online and at gun shows, the U.S. Senate was unable to pass it.
How did this happen?
Well for one thing, gun lobbying groups and right-wing pundits smeared the proposed legislation. To manipulate individual gun owners, and more importantly Congress, to protect all gun sales, they misrepresented the bill as mandating a national gun registry.
As the New York Times reported: “The National Rifle Association mobilized members to blanket the Senate with phone calls, e-mails and letters.”
On Fox News, Eric Bolling argued the legislation mandated a national gun registry, even though it specifically strengthened an existing law outlawing such a registry. And on his April 10 program, right wing radio announcer Mark Levin implied the law would create a database of gun owners and perhaps even lead to genocide. Another Fox News contributor, Erick Erickson, tweeted liberal doctors might one day diagnose Christians as “too crazy for gun ownership.”
Where do they get this stuff? They make it up to get credulous voters to advocate for their point of view. And apparently it works on Congress people, too.
As The New York Times article noted, our Senator Charles E. Grassley contributed nothing more to the debate than the tired old saw: “Criminals do not submit to background checks now. They will not submit to expanded background checks.”
Yet a recent NBC news report noted: “The numbers show that background checks do keep guns out of the hands of at least some people who are not supposed to have them. Nearly 1.8 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were denied between the passage of the [Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act] law in March 1994 and December 2008, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The FBI and state law enforcement denied firearm purchases to 153,000 people in 2010 alone, the most recent year for which data is available.”
And another recent New York Times story, titled “Seeking Gun or Selling One, Web is Land of Few Rules,” reported: “A 2011 undercover investigation by the City of New York examined private party gun sellers on a range of Web sites, including Armslist, to see if they would sell guns to someone who said that they probably could not pass a background check. (Federal law bars sales to any person the seller has reason to believe is prohibited from purchasing firearms). Investigators found seventy-seven of 125 online sellers agreed to sell the weapons anyway.”
Ultimately, those sellers chose the money from the sale over the safety of the public. Profit before people.
If that’s what we value, we really are lost.
He was referring to the fact that despite 90 percent of Americans supporting legislation to institute criminal background checks for all gun purchases, including online and at gun shows, the U.S. Senate was unable to pass it.
How did this happen?
Well for one thing, gun lobbying groups and right-wing pundits smeared the proposed legislation. To manipulate individual gun owners, and more importantly Congress, to protect all gun sales, they misrepresented the bill as mandating a national gun registry.
As the New York Times reported: “The National Rifle Association mobilized members to blanket the Senate with phone calls, e-mails and letters.”
On Fox News, Eric Bolling argued the legislation mandated a national gun registry, even though it specifically strengthened an existing law outlawing such a registry. And on his April 10 program, right wing radio announcer Mark Levin implied the law would create a database of gun owners and perhaps even lead to genocide. Another Fox News contributor, Erick Erickson, tweeted liberal doctors might one day diagnose Christians as “too crazy for gun ownership.”
Where do they get this stuff? They make it up to get credulous voters to advocate for their point of view. And apparently it works on Congress people, too.
As The New York Times article noted, our Senator Charles E. Grassley contributed nothing more to the debate than the tired old saw: “Criminals do not submit to background checks now. They will not submit to expanded background checks.”
Yet a recent NBC news report noted: “The numbers show that background checks do keep guns out of the hands of at least some people who are not supposed to have them. Nearly 1.8 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were denied between the passage of the [Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act] law in March 1994 and December 2008, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The FBI and state law enforcement denied firearm purchases to 153,000 people in 2010 alone, the most recent year for which data is available.”
And another recent New York Times story, titled “Seeking Gun or Selling One, Web is Land of Few Rules,” reported: “A 2011 undercover investigation by the City of New York examined private party gun sellers on a range of Web sites, including Armslist, to see if they would sell guns to someone who said that they probably could not pass a background check. (Federal law bars sales to any person the seller has reason to believe is prohibited from purchasing firearms). Investigators found seventy-seven of 125 online sellers agreed to sell the weapons anyway.”
Ultimately, those sellers chose the money from the sale over the safety of the public. Profit before people.
If that’s what we value, we really are lost.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
What do we owe each other?
This question was penned recently by a high school student in Austin, Texas and shared by a friend on Facebook.
Deb’s students come from varied ethnic and economic backgrounds, many with numerous challenges to overcome, and she works diligently with love to give them a safe place to learn, grow and become themselves. She often posts about her classroom encounters.
But this question really stopped me. It echoed a question that popped out of my husband’s mouth during a discussion one evening: “Are we all in this alone?”
Well, are we?
Citizens, we know via polling, want to preserve social insurance programs like Social Security, Medicare and unemployment. But to hear politicians, pundits and even some of these same citizens, talk about these programs, they only serve deadbeat freeloaders.
In addition, plenty of citizens complain about income taxes without recognizing they pay for vital government services. Too many don’t understand our progressive tax system was designed to prevent income inequality because rates rise incrementally according to each level’s ability to pay.
Yet our progressive tax system has been systematically eroded over the last 40 years to benefit the wealthy. So today, we hear proposals for flat taxes as a way to “simplify” the tax code. (It’s a trap, people!)
And to get back to the original question, what’s wrong with paying taxes to help build our national, state or local community? Do we really all go it alone?
Did you build the road you drive to work on? Do you put out your own fires? Do you have your own hospital and school? Do you check your own food supply and develop your own vaccines? Or do you take advantage of all these services via your government?
Generally speaking, we all do better when we ALL do better, including, as they are called in the Good Book, the least among us. In fact, most major faiths call for hospitality or care of others.
How does America do by this standard? According to an article by Paul Buchhelt titled, “Five Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America,” out of 141 countries, we have the 4th highest degree of wealth inequality, ranking behind only Russia, Ukraine and Lebanon.
And a recent YouTube Video titled “Wealth Inequality in America,” laid bare the difference between our beliefs about wealth distribution and the reality. As the video notes, the top 1 percent owns 40 percent of the nation’s wealth; the bottom 80 percent only has 7 percent between them.
So to answer “What do we owe each other?” I think we, first, have to acknowledge our common life. We are connected.
In a recent blog post titled, “On God’s Side: For the Common Good,” Rev. Jim Wallis writes: “That old but always new ethic simply says we must care for more than just ourselves or our own group. We must care for our neighbor as well, and for the health of the life we share with one another. It echoes a very basic tenet of Christianity and other faiths — love your neighbor as yourself — still the most transformational ethic in history.”
Because as Wallis concludes, “Our life together can be better.”
Deb’s students come from varied ethnic and economic backgrounds, many with numerous challenges to overcome, and she works diligently with love to give them a safe place to learn, grow and become themselves. She often posts about her classroom encounters.
But this question really stopped me. It echoed a question that popped out of my husband’s mouth during a discussion one evening: “Are we all in this alone?”
Well, are we?
Citizens, we know via polling, want to preserve social insurance programs like Social Security, Medicare and unemployment. But to hear politicians, pundits and even some of these same citizens, talk about these programs, they only serve deadbeat freeloaders.
In addition, plenty of citizens complain about income taxes without recognizing they pay for vital government services. Too many don’t understand our progressive tax system was designed to prevent income inequality because rates rise incrementally according to each level’s ability to pay.
Yet our progressive tax system has been systematically eroded over the last 40 years to benefit the wealthy. So today, we hear proposals for flat taxes as a way to “simplify” the tax code. (It’s a trap, people!)
And to get back to the original question, what’s wrong with paying taxes to help build our national, state or local community? Do we really all go it alone?
Did you build the road you drive to work on? Do you put out your own fires? Do you have your own hospital and school? Do you check your own food supply and develop your own vaccines? Or do you take advantage of all these services via your government?
Generally speaking, we all do better when we ALL do better, including, as they are called in the Good Book, the least among us. In fact, most major faiths call for hospitality or care of others.
How does America do by this standard? According to an article by Paul Buchhelt titled, “Five Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America,” out of 141 countries, we have the 4th highest degree of wealth inequality, ranking behind only Russia, Ukraine and Lebanon.
And a recent YouTube Video titled “Wealth Inequality in America,” laid bare the difference between our beliefs about wealth distribution and the reality. As the video notes, the top 1 percent owns 40 percent of the nation’s wealth; the bottom 80 percent only has 7 percent between them.
So to answer “What do we owe each other?” I think we, first, have to acknowledge our common life. We are connected.
In a recent blog post titled, “On God’s Side: For the Common Good,” Rev. Jim Wallis writes: “That old but always new ethic simply says we must care for more than just ourselves or our own group. We must care for our neighbor as well, and for the health of the life we share with one another. It echoes a very basic tenet of Christianity and other faiths — love your neighbor as yourself — still the most transformational ethic in history.”
Because as Wallis concludes, “Our life together can be better.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
