The Conservative War Against Labor.

In the years following the Great Depression, labor unions were popular and thriving. The Wagner Act of 1935, also known as the National Labor Relations Act, guaranteed workers the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike. As a result, union workers, particularly those in mining and manufacturing, experienced dramatic gains in salaries and benefits, along with safer working conditions.

Corporations didn’t give up these things without a fight. But public sentiment was temporarily on the side of workers and World War II demanded unity between corporations and unions.

The end of World War II and the beginning of the Cold War gave corporations a new opportunity to undermine unions with the rise of Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) and his House Un-American Affairs Committee (HUAC). Likely emboldened by President Truman’s loyalty program intended to discredit Democratic rival Henry Wallace (former V.P. to FDR, nuclear disarmament advocate and pro-labor candidate) prior to the 1948 presidential election, McCarthy launched a witch hunt in search of communist sympathizers. News of the Soviet Union’s growing nuclear capability spawned a national paranoia that allowed McCarthy to portray labor unions as a communist front .

By the time McCarthy’s lies and un-Constitutional tactics were exposed, hundreds of Americans had been imprisoned, thousands more had lost their jobs and tens of thousands had been investigated. The victims included those who had supported Wallace, civil rights leaders, union leaders…even the unions’ rank and file.

The unraveling of the HUAC may have posed another setback for corporations and the wealthy, but McCarthy’s accusations left many suspicious of organized labor, even as labor unions continued to help build the middle class. Finally, in the 1980’s, anti-union forces suceeded in electing a president sympathetic to their cause – Ronald Reagan. When the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) went on strike, violating a law banning strikes by government workers, Reagan fired all 11,345 members who failed to return to work.

Reflecting on the event, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan commented, “His [Reagan’s] action gave weight to the legal right of private employers, previously not fully exercised, to use their own discretion to both hire and discharge workers.”

The war against unions resumed in earnest.

Corporations began sending jobs offshore in search of labor willing to work for low wages and without benefits such as health insurance, disability insurance and unemployment insurance. The export of jobs also eliminated the need for worker pensions. (In the years since Reagan’s election, more than 85,000 defined benefit pension funds have been eliminated.) Many of the jobs that can’t be exported, like those at Walmart and McDonald’s, now pay so little that their employees require public assistance. And with fewer workers eligible to pay dues, many labor unions have been weakened.

Meanwhile, management compensation has soared. The savings on labor costs has resulted in million dollar annual salaries and bonuses for executives.

With money comes influence allowing corporations and industries to successfully lobby Congress for subsidies, tax write-offs and lower tax rates. In addition, many corporations have been allowed to avoid taxes by creating Post Office box “headquarters” in off-shore tax havens. The resulting drop in tax revenue led to increased deficits and greater debt. But, rather than rewrite the corporate tax code and raise taxes on those who could afford it, conservatives have seized the opportunity to cut social programs. They not only cut food stamps. They have targeted Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, as well.

Not surprisingly, conservatives have also taken aim at the labor unions which represent government workers, such as teachers, firefighters and police. In particular, they want to eliminate government pensions. The argument is that, if private workers don’t have pensions and benefits, why should government workers? If successful, conservatives will have turned the clock back to the gilded age; the days prior to labor unions; the days of extreme wealth and extreme poverty.

Some say that we already have two Americas. I would argue three.

One is the America of the one percent; those who make lots of money and pay little to no income tax; those who can buy influence by donating to political campaigns and build new businesses with government subsidies financed with the taxes paid by others.

The second is the America of hard work, limited upward mobility and shrinking investments. In this America, you work ever longer hours in order to meet the corporate demands of increased productivity. Each year, you are forced to do more with less. For you, retirement may be little more than a dream. And for your children, college will become a financial burden they may never be able to repay.

The third America is one in which people work for so little money they can’t afford many of the necessities of life. According to the Working Poor Families Project, one in three American families are now among the working poor. One in six Americans and one in four children don’t know where the next meal is coming from, or even if there will be a next meal. In this America, more than 630,000 are chronically homeless and 3.5 million will experience homelessness in a given year. For many of these people, there is little hope that their circumstances will change. They not only lack political influence, many face new laws and obstacles intended to discourage them from voting.

Both President Obama and Pope Francis have recently called economic inequality the biggest problem we face. But President Obama can’t reduce inequality in America by himself. We will need a Congress that represents all Americans. We will need a sympathetic and unified citizenry. And we will need organized labor.

(As a footnote, I should make it clear that, having become part of middle management almost immediately following college graduation, I was ineligible for union membership. But, like most Americans, I was able to take advantage of the improved working conditions, salaries and benefits negotiated by labor unions.)

The Tao Of Politics.

I am not a Taoist. Nevertheless, I have learned that the philosophy of Taoism has much to offer. The Taoist concept of Yin and Yang holds that nothing is ever entirely black or white; hard or soft; good or bad. Taoism teaches that good people can do bad things. It also teaches that those we consider bad can, on occasion, do good things.

This is particularly true as it pertains to politics.

For example, I know many who are otherwise caring, loving people who would deny food, shelter, health care and other human necessities to the unfortunate simply because their Republican Party preaches personal responsibility. They have become convinced that the poor are merely taking advantage of those of us who have been successful. They want to believe that the majority of the poor are lazy. Such thinking allows them to look the other way when they see someone who is in desperate need of help.

They cannot conceive that someone can work hard and still struggle to feed their families because they are underpaid by large, greedy corporations. They falsely believe that minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs that are the first step up the economic ladder. In past times, that may have been true. But in today’s economy, with many of our high-paying jobs now shipped offshore, for many people, the economic ladder has been pushed aside by greedy corporate executives.

Many Republicans refuse to accept that the American Dream no longer exists for many people; that the US is not the land of opportunity it once was; that no amount of hard work can pull many of the unfortunate out of poverty; that the US now has less upward mobility than most of the rest of the industrialized world.

As a result, many good Republicans cheered when the federal government cut $5 billion from the annual budget of SNAP (food stamps) – an amount equal to all of the charitable organizations in the nation (501c4 “charities” such as American Crossroads and FreedomWorks, not included). The same people who would gladly give food and money to a family member or neighbor are still clamoring to cut another $4-40 billion from SNAP at a time when 1 in 6 Americans and 1 in 4 American children are dealing with hunger.

These grinches are not bad people. They are simply uninformed or misinformed.

These champions of personal responsibility and faith are convinced that social safety nets are not only unnecessary. They believe that social programs are creating a culture of dependence. They believe that the minimum wage, labor unions and government regulation are threats to our economy.

They believe that subsidies and giveaways to large corporations are good. But that subsidies and giveaways to people are bad. Why? If it’s true that corporations are people, shouldn’t they both be treated equally? If a half dozen banks are considered too big to fail, shouldn’t group consisting of millions of poor Americans also be considered too big to fail?

Taoism teaches that all things are part of a greater whole – the great Tao – and that if you harm another, in reality you harm yourself. Caring Republicans would be wise to keep that in mind.

If Corporations Are People…

In its Citizens United decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people – with all of the rights of individuals. The “justices” didn’t mention the responsibilities that go along with those rights. Like the responsibility to care for your neighbors.

But, just for a moment, let’s assume that those five old men in black robes who voted in the majority were right. If corporations really were like people, one-sixth, including their CEOs, would be unable to afford health insurance. One-sixth would not have enough food to eat. They would not be able to afford lobbyists. Few would have pension plans and large investment accounts. Most would not be able to retire when they became elderly. And most would not have enough money to contribute to political candidates.

If corporations were like people, they would not be able to negotiate a plea after committing illegal acts, then pay a small fine and deny any admission of guilt. They would go to prison.

If corporations were like people, they would receive no tax-free subsidies to acquire space and land. They would have to pay property taxes on their buildings. Other states and cities would not offer them millions in incentives to relocate. All but a tiny percent would have to pay their fair share of sales taxes and income taxes.

And what if the members of Congress were like the people they’re supposed to represent?

Instead of being paid $174,000 per year, representatives would be paid an average salary of $50,502. Half would make less than $27,000 and 16 percent would live in poverty. Some would be hungry and homeless. They would have no staff to do their work for them. They would actually have to read the bills before they vote.  And they wouldn’t begin fundraising and campaigning for the next election the day after they’re elected.

We’ve come a long way from the representative government our Founders envisioned. A lo-o-o-o-o-ng way!

Who Speaks For The Poor And The Hungry?

Not Republicans. They continue to vote to cut unemployment benefits, food stamps, Head Start, minimum wage, labor unions and public education. Indeed, last year’s standard bearer was caught on tape deriding the bottom 47 percent for paying “no taxes” and wanting “free stuff.” Certainly not the Tea Party parasites. They contemptuously refer to the working poor as “freeloaders.”

Even Democrats seem far more concerned with the middle class and labor unions than the poor.

Christian churches? Some actually care enough to try to help. But many of today’s mega-churches are mere social clubs, more interested in politics and social engineering than the poor and the hungry. They talk about “tough love” to “free” the poor from safety net programs that they claim create dependency.

As a result, many of the nation’s poor are left to survive any way they can in our cities’ ghettos and in small rural communities. One in six don’t know where their next meal will come from. Many of these people work, but are paid so little, they can’t afford to live. Many single parents make less at the available jobs than the cost of day care, so unless they have friends or family who can babysit, they can’t afford to work. Thousands of families are homeless despite working one or more jobs. (Imagine a family trying to make ends meet in a large city on $15,000-$20,000 a year.) And none have health insurance, so they can’t afford to seek help unless it’s an emergency.

Despite all of the stark, all too depressing evidence of poverty in the US, few in government are motivated to help. After all, the poor can’t afford to make campaign contributions. They have no lobbyists to finance political campaigns. They can’t afford to wine and dine elected officials on junkets to resorts and exotic places.

Even when the working poor do have a roof over their heads and a small budget for food (usually the result of food stamps), the food they can afford is loaded with more sugar and fat than nutrition. This not only affects their health. It contributes to our nation’s obesity problem and rising health care costs.

And for the children of the poor, good luck with school. It’s hard to concentrate on assignments with your stomach growling. Not surprisingly, most schools in impoverished areas are underfunded and overpopulated. With few resources and large class sizes, teachers do what they can before they pass the struggling children along to the next grade. Moreover, because of their work schedules, many parents have little time to help their children with homework…homework they, themselves, may have failed. This all but ensures that the family economic problems continue generation after generation.

How can we change things?

To begin, we can raise the minimum wage. (No one who works a full-time job should be paid a wage that leaves them below the poverty line.) We can fully fund programs such as food stamps, instead of cutting them as Teapublicans demand. We can fund Head Start, unemployment benefits and welfare (welfare for the poor, not corporations). We can create safe and affordable day care programs for low income families. We can make certain that all schools are adequately funded and we can create after-school programs for children who want to put in the extra work to succeed. We can make sure that every American has access to health care…especially preventative care. We can drop the farm subsidies for big corporations and redirect them to small independent growers who make fresh and healthy food available to poor neighborhoods.

If you think our nation can’t afford to fund such common-sense humane programs, think again. We need only take a fraction of the money from our bloated war industry (In a country that has spent all but a few years of its history engaged in war, calling it a defense department is a misnomer.).

It’s long past time that our nation invested in people not corporations…humanity not war.

GOP’s Age Warfare.

Teapublicans always whine about what they refer to as “class warfare” whenever anyone wants to level the playing field between the wealthy and the middle class. But now they are waging a war on those 50 and older by trying to privatize Social Security and Medicare. To push their agenda of destroying “entitlements,” the Tea Party says these safety net programs are unfair to millennials who have to contribute to the programs.

Would the millennials rather contribute to their parents when the safety nets fail?

Would they rather take in their elderly parents and grandparents? Would they prefer to offer them transportation, feed them, clothe them, provide elder care, track their meds, and bathe them? Would they like to cover their health care costs?

There’s a reason that most civilized nations have safety nets, such as Social Security and Medicare. It’s because most compassionate people would rather not see the elderly broke, hungry, sick and homeless. The large corporate masters of the Republican Party and its Tea Party parasites, on the other hand, only care about their bottom lines. If increasing profits hurts some people, so what? Their overpaid and overstuffed executives won’t have to worry about retirement, and neither will their parents. In most cases, they can simply send a check to help out poor ol’ Mom and Dad.

Has it really come to this? Is the new GOP strategy to pit one generation against another? Has the GOP tired of taking money from the working poor and food stamps from children? Are the elderly the last people standing between them and the tax-free government they desire?

These words may seem cynical. But that’s far better than the cynical actions of today’s GOP.

Families In Deep Doo-Doo.

It seems that nearly every week, a new study is released that shows the growing income disparity in the United States. Recently, an Associated Press survey found that 80 percent of adults in the US face near-poverty and unemployment at some point in their lives. Another study by the International Human Rights Clinic at New York University’s School of Law found that 1 in 6 (50 million) Americans face food insecurity, including 17 million children.

Now, the medical journal Pediatrics has published a study measuring the psychological impact on mothers who are unable to afford diapers.

The study, “Diaper Need And Its Impact on Child Health,”  by a group of Yale researchers, found that 30 percent of mothers have struggled to pay for diapers and more than 8 percent of low-income mothers reuse soiled diapers! Not surprisingly, the researchers concluded that the lack of clean diapers “seriously affects maternal stress, child health, and child development.”

So, in the richest nation on Earth, a large percentage of our people can’t tend to the needs of either end of a baby!

We have millions who can’t afford the most basic necessities despite working full-time jobs. We have tens of thousands of homeless – many of them families and veterans. And, instead of passing laws to raise the minimum wage; instead of eliminating tax loopholes that encourage companies to ship manufacturing jobs overseas; instead of passing bills to help create jobs here at home; House Teapublicans plan to cut $40 billion from our food stamp programs over the next 10 years.

It will be difficult since the House has only 9 scheduled work days between now and the end of September, but I’m certain they’ll find a way.

Trial By Media.

For some Americans, this promises to be a big week…a very big week.  You see, this may be the week the media circus, also known as the Jodi Arias trial, reaches a climax…er, verdict.

For weeks on end, Americans have been glued to their TVs to make certain they wouldn’t miss a single salacious detail of the trial. They were riveted by testimony regarding the sexual relationship between Arias and her murder victim. They hung on every word of testimony from expert witnesses. They posted their theories on Facebook and Twitter. Many stood in line for hours in hopes they could grab a seat in the courtroom. A few even traveled to Phoenix so they could be near the event and, perhaps, catch a glimpse of some of the participants.

In short, the Arias trial was a media outlet’s dream, certain to increase ratings. The trial had it all…sex, bondage, betrayal, murder, intrigue…it was almost as if Fifty Shades of Grey had come to life.

Of course, murder trials take place daily in courts across the country. But only the most sensational garner such attention. The Arias trial is but the latest in a long line of sensational, made-for-TV trials, such as the OJ Simpson trial, Amanda Knox trial, and the Casey Anthony trial. Only the trials with the most famous celebrities, the most beautiful defendants, the cutest victims, or the most aberrant behavior draw such attention.

Whatever the verdict, such trials say far more about our society and our media than they do about the defendants.

Imagine if that kind of media attention was focused on real issues and problems. Imagine if the homeless and the hungry were covered relentlessly by news outlets. Imagine if the media spent as much time on public policy, politicians and corrupt officials. Imagine if network TV reporters covered the murders of innocent civilians caused by our lax gun laws as voraciously as they covered the murder of OJ’s wife.

Imagine if the public cared.

“We Can’t Afford That Anymore.”

We hear it all the time. There’s no money to improve our schools. There’s no money to rebuild our infrastructure. There’s no money to ensure that our citizens have access to food and medicine. There’s no money to care for the mentally ill and the homeless. There’s no money to give our veterans the care they deserve. There’s no money for pensions and retirement benefits.

The US is broke…at least that’s what Teapublicans want us to believe.

So what happened? How did we go from the richest, most powerful nation on Earth to a nation that can no longer afford the things that our citizens value most? For starters, our economic ills are the result of two costly wars, the unparalleled expansion of government immediately following 9/11, an expansion of Medicare drug benefits and the Great Recession that began as the result of unfettered gambling by the so-called “too big to fail” banks.

But none of those causes have been as devastating as runaway greed, the off-shoring of jobs and money (it’s estimated that wealthy Americans, including Mitt Romney, and US-based multinational corporations have stashed trillions in off-shore tax havens), subsidies for large corporations, and tax cuts intended to benefit the very wealthiest portion of our populace.

Following World War II, when we could afford to build things, our top individual tax rate was 91 percent for those making more than $200,000 per year. The capital gains tax was 25 percent. And the effective corporate tax rate was 50 percent.

Compare those rates with today’s: The top individual tax rate is now 39.6 percent for those making more than $400,000. The capital gains tax is 15 percent. And the effective corporate tax rate is 17 percent (that is, if large corporations pay any taxes at all). In fact, some large multinationals now have a negative tax rate!

See the problem?

For most working Americans, wages have stagnated over the past 40 years, while worker productivity has skyrocketed, along with incomes for the wealthy. Most Americans are working harder and earning proportionately less…if they’re lucky enough to have a job! And the only answer Congress (at least the Teapublican portion of Congress) has for these problems is to cut spending, to protect tax cuts for the wealthy, and to cut taxes for corporations.

Speaker Boehner, Minority Leader McConnell and the rest of the Teapublicans in office want to “starve the beast.” They consider investment and compromise dirty words. And they steadfastly refuse to agree to one more dollar of revenue.

To relate that to family finances as Teapublicans are so fond of doing: It’s as if parents, faced with growing credit card bills, decided to give up food for their children in order to cut their work hours!

Yes, we have to cut government waste and be efficient with our spending. But there isn’t enough fat in discretionary spending to eliminate the deficit and still meet the needs of our growing population. We already have seen that with the sequester cuts, and they’ve only just begun. If we want to reduce our nation’s debt without destroying our fragile economy, we must find new sources of revenue.

The Underworld Of Homelessness.

Out of sight, out of mind. That’s how most Americans deal with homelessness. So it’s not surprising that a few homeless people in Kansas City created an underground camp. They dug a series of tunnels which they ventilated with PVC pipe…a creative way to get out of the weather and out of sight of the good people who dislike seeing them huddling on the streets and dumpster-diving for food.

Of course, once the authorities discovered the tunnels, it was all over. The homeless were handed some materials about local services and sent packing. This is how we deal with the homeless today. “How horrible! We feel so sorry for you. But you can’t live here. Now, on your way!” This happens, not just in Kansas City, but in every city and town in America.

Homelessness is a serious and growing problem in our nation. It’s time we find serious solutions.

Tearing down the camps and handing the homeless flyers is no solution. Many of the homeless won’t live in shelters. They understand that the shelters offer no real security. They often don’t know if they’ll have a bed for more than a single night. Families are often separated. Many can’t stand to sleep in a large room full of snoring people. Many don’t like the religion that is pushed on them by the shelter owners. Many just want a quiet place to themselves.

So many of the homeless seek to take care of themselves. (Isn’t that what most Americans want to see…personal responsibility?) They find out of the way places for shelter; in camps, under bridges and overpasses, by railroad tracks, even in tunnels. When they’re discovered, the police usually tear apart their camp, destroy their meager possessions, hand them some literature about services and transport them to another suburb or town.

Out of sight. Out of mind…

When is America going to finally admit we have a problem? When are we going to realize that a single catastrophic event could put any of us out on the streets? When are we going to understand that the homeless are our neighbors? They are the chronically unemployed, the addicted and the mentally ill. Many are veterans who couldn’t adapt back into polite society after witnessing and participating in our far too frequent wars. Many are families displaced by greedy banks who foreclosed their homes.

Imagine the talent, wisdom and potential that are going to waste on our streets. It’s time to stop shoving these people aside; time to look them in the eyes and find ways to help them help themselves.

Tax Cuts For The Rich, Budget Cuts For The Poor.

Following are a few numbers that clearly show the results of more than 40 years of Republican economic policies:

1 percent of Americans now control more than 40 percent of the nation’s wealth, while the bottom 40 percent of Americans control 0.2 percent of the wealth.

46.2 million Americans are living in poverty. 3.9 million working Americans are paid at or below the minimum wage. 12 million Americans are unemployed. 650,000 Americans are homeless. 50 million Americans, including 17 million children, don’t know where their next meal is coming from. 48.6 million don’t have health insurance.

Naturally, Teapublicans in Congress want to protect these people from further harm. I’m referring, of course, to the 1 percent! Even though taxes for the wealthy are at historic lows, Teapublicans believe they’re overtaxed. They absolutely refuse to consider asking these people to pay one more cent of their enormous wealth.

Those other people, according to Teapublican leaders, are merely the freeloaders who rely on the federal government for assistance. 

Is it any wonder, then, that Congress is locked in a budget standoff with the president? The austerity cuts resulting from sequestration will cut 9 percent from unemployment checks and $175 million from energy assistance for the poor. Sequestration will cut rental assistance to 125,000 low-income families. It will put 100,000 previously homeless back on the streets. It will cut 70,000 kids from Head Start. And it’s projected to cost up to 750,000 jobs.

But these cuts are less cruel than the Teapublican demands to end sequestration. They want to cut SNAP food assistance for the poor. They want to cut Medicaid health assistance for children and low-income families. They want to cut Medicare, Social Security and more.

But don’t worry about the poor. They’ll get by. After all, they still own 0.2 percent of our nation’s wealth.