The War At Home

If you were wondering, the United States is at war. It is not the war of declared intent and fixed enemies that we have fought over the centuries; it is an amorphous, shape-shifting war, in which the enemy can be anywhere, at any time, doing things we do not see until they raise themselves up into the light. It is the ultimate war of fear, where noncombatants -- read "civilians" -- are the avowed target of the enemy, and military combat is a sideline. It is a war that defies the use of conventional weapons and tactics. It is a war that may never, ever end.

As such, some in the United States have seen fit to codify and enshrine this war in the very fabric of the nation. Places like Guantanamo Bay, legislation like The Patriot Act, and processes like military tribunals are all being given extended value, becoming permanent fixtures in a the American landscape, rather than temporary expedients. This new type of war has given those who have sought an extension of American power an excuse to use the potential for enemy attack in many insidious ways on our nation the leverage to place into law the removal of restrictions on government's ability to infiltrate the life of law-abiding citizens, in the name of "national security."

Now How Much Will You Pay?

Putting aside the fact that Wall Street does not represent the entirety of the U.S. economy, and that economy has been a wretched mess for several years now, and that troubles in Europe seem never-ending, can we really be shocked by the follies that have taken place of late in our country and the world? A botched attempt at maintaining our country's credit rating is a trifle compared to hunger in Somalia, political revolution in Syria and Libya, and lawlessness and poverty in Tottenham and elsewhere in Great Britain. Even so...

The hew-and-cry has always been that we need to focus on the problems we have at home. Assuming we could wall ourselves off from the rest of the world, the problems of the globe are not only our problems, too, they reflect the same problems that still plague our nation as deeply, if not as forcefully. So, yes, let us focus on the problems at home, large and small, and let's see where they originate. The answer may surprise you, though it shouldn't.

The problem is us.

Shots Unheard Around The Nation

In what can only be considered ironic, news from around the world about the uprisings in Middle Eastern and African nations, normally relegated to obscurity, are front page news. Normally, the American attraction to news from overseas is tepid; if it is not happening in our back yard, we scarcely think it matters what happens to people thousands of miles away. Of course, the easiest explanation for the wealth of coverage is that these uprisings affect the one thing that Americans cannot live without: oil. So the health and stability and democratic leanings of oil-rich nations are, for once, in our best interests.

The shame is that these events are overshadowing far more momentous events right here in our own nation, for a different kind of revolution is under way, a revolution that once more finds Americans throwing off the long arms of tyranny, and rebelling against forces that would take what matters most from them, without giving them anything in return. The current epicenter of this revolution is Madison, Wisconsin, and the people there have banded together to parry the thrusts of big money, and to wrest their lives from its selfish and self-serving grip. They have fired the first volley, and like their compatriots from two hundred thirty-six years ago, their defiance of ruling power stands to change the course of our history for a long time to come.

The Entitlement Problem

Some amongst us, in this time of economic crisis, refuse to play fair. They stand firm in their refusal to do what is best for the rest of us. They whine about the inequity and unfairness of being asked to make sacrifices, and ask why they should be asked to part with even more of their money. They flex their muscles, wielding the only power they have, trying to stave off the rising tide of ill sentiment toward them from some corners of the nation. The conspire to bring government to a halt, rather than be placed in the position of having to give more than their fair share.

I speak, of course, of the ultra-wealthy conservatives in America.

Wages Of Sin

The negotiation that took place earlier this week, which President Obama attended in good faith, and agreed to in principle, a sign of the possible rebirth of bipartisanship, has turned out to be ruse, a ploy designed to force the issue of reinstating the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Good as their word, despite the President's assurances, with sand running through the hourglass, the Republicans will not relent, stifling and snuffing out any bill that is not the tax cut provision.

The Republicans have collected their 30 pieces of silver. The high priests command that none shall have their bread until the priests have collected their due, and have sent their faithful servants out to ensure it.

There's A Party Going On And On And On...

During the most recent election, you know the one that was a "mandate" from the people, the Republicans rolled out their "Pledge to America," which read suspiciously like every talking point they've used since 1994, and was short on actual details and long on partisan bluster. They promised to go to Washington, D.C. and turn things around, fighting for deficit reduction, smaller government, and the repeal of the Health Care Law, among other things. They were going to work for the people, because the people had spoken, and they didn't like the direction the country is going in. Strangely, they neglected to mention that it was a Republican administration that had put the country on this course in the first place, and that captain had rowed away, leaving the current one with a ship with a mighty gash in the side, taking on water. In the end, some Americans, spoke, and because of the apathy of other Americans, the Republicans got half a loaf and turned it into a feast... sort of.

You see, the party of fiscal conservatism, that stood on the rock and howled at stimulus spending, big bailouts, and health care reform, has been selling America a rotten bill of goods. You see, they are determined not to spend another penny of Federal money -- unless it happens to be going to their friends in Corporate America or those who feed off it for their riches. Rather than ensuring that everyone making two hundred fifty thousand dollars a year or less gets to keep their tax cut handed them by President Bush, they are insisting that their rich friends get their fair share, too. Of course, there's the several hundred billion dollar hole in the budget that will create, but hey, that's just a trivial annoyance.

What Must Come Next

It would be very easy to see the current conditions in Washington, D.C. as symptomatic of a general combativeness between Americans of different political persuasions. If you walk down any street, however, you would generally be hard-pressed to look at any number of people and determine that they are in conflict. People walk together, commute together, work together, recreate together, and in almost all cases, whatever political leanings they have are their business and no one else's, and besides the occasional T-shirt or bumper sticker or yard sign, we do not know where any American we choose stands on the issues of the day. We have various levels in every dimension imaginable, and it is hard to pigeon-hole an individual person as “that.”

The Richness Found In Enriching The Rich Richly Enriches Us

I am delusional. I was told so by someone who does not like the idea of being taxed, and is aghast at the idea of the rich paying a greater percentage in taxes. After all, they take greater risks, create jobs, and run the economy -- why shouldn't they, like anyone, get to keep what they make? The idea of the "redistribution" of wealth makes their stomach turn.

It is such hyperbole in the name of wealth preservation that is enough to give one an ulcer.

It is safe to say that, given proper financial planning, those with millions and billions of dollars at their disposal are beyond the ordinary vagaries of normal existence. Short of blowing it all on gambling, drugs, alcohol, or risky investments, they are insulated from the vagaries of the world to a great extent. They will continue to wheel and deal and pile up their monies, secure in the knowledge that they need not travel in the normal circles of human society, but fly in the rarefied air of the ultra-wealthy. In their exclusive club, they vie for the position of top dog, for he (or she) who has the most toys and the biggest Swiss bank accounts, wins.

True, they invest, and move money around, placing it here and there, but rarely does that money have much more impact than buoying the profits of the companies they invest in, companies headed by wealthy compatriots, who are busy trying to pad their portfolios and offshore accounts with the profits of their companies, even as their workers are suffering. A recent report shows that CEOs at the fifty companies that have fired the most workers since the economic downturn began, are making forty-two percent more in compensation than the rest of their S&P 500 brethren.

While big business continues to ride a wave of profits, small business cannot catch a break. In Washington, D.C., Congress continues to fight over restoring the Bush-era tax cuts, which would benefit the wealthiest Americans, while unable to pass comprehensive reform to help small businesses create jobs. Given small business is often the greatest creator of jobs, this explains the lagging job numbers, and the slow pace of recovery. Still, profits continue to soar on Wall Street, and no one at a Fortune 500 company seems too eager to hire back any of the workers they so recently divested themselves of.

Couple that with reports that most companies that do business in the United States pay little or no taxes, and we are left to wonder whose side Congress is on. Looming budget deficits and proper funding of the government could be solved, in part, with the revenue that large corporations and their subsidiaries would pay in taxes, to support the country that allows them to operate and the citizens who provide them the skilled labor that runs their business here. Rich corporations make the rich richer, and in the process, do it by bankrupting the very people whose blood and sweat make those riches possible.

No one can begrudge those who have made vast fortunes their due, for it takes shrewd investment and some level of acumen to accumulate wealth. But if the only end to the accumulation of wealth is the final number you end up with at the end of the day, then what of it? What makes all the extra dollars and cents worth it, if to make them requires the reduction of the very people who performed the work to a life of abject poverty and suffering? No human, outside of a professional athlete, makes millions by their own toil and sweat; it is more often the result of the toil and sweat of others. Is life so cheap, people so disposable, that they can simply be used as chattel, chained to jobs they would rather not do, simply so they and their families can survive?

The rich should be taxed at a greater rate, for the simple reason that their riches flow not from a secret spring, but from the work of others. They should be willing to do right by those who make them rich, to encourage them to continue to do so, to ensure they are capable of doing so, and to provide the nation in which they operate to provide them with the educated and trained workforce needed. Philanthropy is good, but it is a narrow window; it is important for the Federal government to fulfill its mandate of seeing to the general welfare, and for that it needs tax revenue. All must pay their share, and those who make more, must pay a little more.

It is not so much about redistribution of wealth, as redistribution of misery. Our human duty is to help our fellow humans up, to provide them safety, and to be sure they can work as productive members of society. If fairness is the issue, then is it fair for those who can barely make due to pay a larger proportion of their income, though it add up to less money to support their country? Proportion is the key, because those with more, are using more resources and people to gain their wealth. In essence, they must pay the proper price, not the price they choose to set. Until a day comes when humanity can look at each other, realize our connectedness, and provide for others simply out of the goodness of being human, we must continue to ensure an equitable balance is struck.

We The People, Incorporated

The Supreme Court of the United States is the last line of defense against laws which may violate the sovereignty of the country and infringe on the rights of its citizens. Though certainly not perfect, it remains the backstop, against which the misses of the Legislative and Executive branches must come to rest. It has a very narrow set of rules to work from -- the Constitution of the United States. It's only job is to ensure that no local, state, or Federal law violates those rules.

Now, the rules are subject to interpretation. The Founding Fathers worded each Amendment carefully, so as to make the intent of them clear, but leave room for subjectivity. They also ensured that the Constitution was amendable, where clarification or expansion was required. They made a clear hierarchy in the system of checks and balances, upon which the whole framework of American government was supposed to rest; the Legislative branch makes the laws, the Executive branch enables the laws, and the Supreme Court rejects those laws that violate the Constitution.

It has always been assumed that the Justices of the Supreme Court were impartial enough to look at the law for its essence and its legality, not for its political potential. Of course, where the business of humanity is concerned, to expect any individual to be completely impartial is to ask too much. Upbringing, education, happenstance, personal belief, religion -- all these things will have subtle influences on any person, and while a person can claim impartiality, they are betrayed by their humanity. Still, where codes and laws are concerned, the wisdom of Solomon is not required to hear the evidence and distill the essence of it and compare it to the law, and then determine if it is a violation of the Constitution.

Therefore, it is a bit perplexing that the Supreme Court decided in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, to imbue corporations with the same rights to free speech as actual, living, breathing American citizens. In essence, the court has give the OK to corporations, both domestic and foreign, to meddle in the election of public officials. Though it stops short of giving them an actual vote, the decision means that a corporation is free to spend any amount of money attempting to support an incumbent politician or a rival to an incumbent, in order to tip the balance in Congress in favor of their corporate interests. A Sword of Damocles can now be hung over legislators, who cannot possibly raise enough money to oppose the concerted efforts of their corporate foes, forcing them to either toe the line, or resign.

One wonders just what predisposed the majority Justices to vote the way they did. Could they be so weak-kneed, as to feel the pull of corporate greed? Could they be so contemptuous of the average American citizen, that they feel that it is necessary to allow corporations to their thinking for them? Are they unaware that by granting these rights, they leave the door open to foreign entities that have majority stakes in American corporations? Were they oblivious to the havoc that several major corporations caused, with their poor business practices, which plunged this nation (and the world) into a global financial crisis?

The Founding Fathers certainly did not anticipate the extent to which companies would expand to become global corporations, with influence far beyond their borders. They most assuredly did not intend for companies to gain the rights of American citizens -- to have freedom of speech or even to vote. Companies and corporations are ephemeral entities, composed of many individuals, with no separate existence of their own. They were not the product of love, borne into the world via the pain of birth, to be nurtured by caring parents. Their function is to provide products or services for the consumption of the citizenry, to generate profits for their owners and/or shareholders.

It is obvious, given this decision, that there are two facts that cannot be in dispute: 1) the Supreme Court of the United States no longer functions as intended by the Founders, and 2) corporations have gained too much power over the government of the United States. This decision means that Congress will have a hard time passing meaningful campaign finance reform, if the Supreme Court will simply dismiss it as restricting freedom of speech for anyone, which leaves Congress paralyzed. Given the lifetime appointments of Supreme Court Justices, it is possible that such gridlock on campaign finance reform may remain for decades, until the majority justices from this decision have been replaced.

So it is becoming increasingly clear, that just as our ancestors felt the need to throw off the yoke of British oppression, we must rise up and throw off the yolk of corporate oppression. This is not a thing that can be accomplished using the current system; it will require that we, the citizens of America, use our Constitutionally guaranteed power, and call a Constitutional Convention, to alter the playing field, redefining the rights of citizens as belonging to citizens only, and to tackle the inertia represented on the Supreme Court by imposing limits on the tenure of Justices. Only by doing so, can we short-circuit the undue influence of business in politics, and ensure that the Justices of the Supreme Court have a clearer vision of modern society, rather than dragging along the influences of the past.