Returning Democracy to the (Natural) People

Today marks the second anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which unleashed unlimited spending by corporate "persons" to influence our elections. We saw some of the effect of this in the 2010 mid-term elections, and we're seeing it already this year in the wildly expensive and nasty fight for the Republican nomination. But, while Citizens United expanded the concepts of corporations as legal persons and money as speech, it didn't start there.

It actually started about 125 years ago with the case of Southern Pacific Railroad v. Santa Clara County. In that decision, the court held that the railroad corporation was entitled to rights under the 14th Amendment. Many cases between Southern Pacific and Citizens United have further expanded the concept of corporate rights and personhood, often at the expense of human citizens.

But the humans have not given up hope, and have begun to fight back. Move to Amend is an organization trying to pass an Amendment to the Constitution that would clearly state that corporations are not people, and money is not speech. Yesterday, they held rallies across the country themed as "Occupy the Courts" aimed at overturning Citizens United and educating people on the need for a Constitutional amendment.

I attended in San Jose, where our rally took place in Saint James Park, across the street from the very courthouse where the Southern Pacific case began 125 years ago. There were a few speakers, including a city councilman and a woman who was fired from Walmart for being a whistle-blower, followed by a skit of "campaign speeches" from a robot representing different corporations. We then marched through town, past the Federal office building, and ending for second, smaller, rally in front of City Hall.

At its height, there were maybe a couple hundred of us. Not too large, but a good sized group for a rainy weekday. But where was the media? I saw only a couple of people who seemed to be taking notes or a few professional photos, but no TV crews. The Move to Amend folks are going to need to get much better at PR if this movement is to take off.

Passing a new amendment to the Constitution may be difficult, but is not impossible, and the stakes could not be higher. While there has always been an undue influence of money in our political process, Citizens United amplifies it hundreds of times over. Corporations are now able to give untraceable millions to SuperPACs that are not bound by any of the controls or limits that we've placed on candidates or individuals. They can say pretty much anything and will drown out the voice of We the People.

We have to make it clear to our leaders, and to the corporate interests that fund them, that democracy is for us human citizens only, and is no longer for sale to the highest bidder. One person, one voice, one vote.

Why 15% Should Matter to the 99%

This week Mitt Romney let slip the real reason why he's reluctant to divulge his tax returns. It's not how much money he earns that he's hiding - we're all aware that it's a considerable sum - it's the tax rate he pays on that income that is controversial.

Because Mitt's income is mostly from investment earnings, he pays the capital gains rate of 15% on his millions rather than the current top marginal rate for wages of 35%, or even the average middle-class top marginal rate of 25%. This has left his supporters to explain why this very wealthy man should pay a lower tax rate than most middle-class Americans.

Capital gains, we are told, are very special because of the risks involved. Not every investment pays off, after all. Very true. But, of course, that's why losing investments can be written off as business expenses and deducted from one's over-all income, reducing one's taxes. So, why, when an investment is successful should it be taxed differently than regular employment income?

Well, 15% of $1,000,000 is still more than 25% of $75,000! Kinda like how, if you buy in bulk at Costco, you get a lower price on food. That's fair, right? Well, in as far as that analogy does hold water, the tax code already has provisions for the "bulk buyer" (IE: additional children = additional deductions). In my case, my home (modest by CA standards, but expensive by national standards) gives me quite a mortgage interest deduction. Add that to my business and other expenses and I probably deduct as much from my income than a minimum wage worker earns in a year.

But on the taxable portion (after deductions), I gladly pay a rate that's somewhat higher than the minimum wage worker because of my relative success. And somebody who earns 10-20 times what I do should pay a little higher yet. Certainly no less a percentage. So, why so much lower?

Well, they say, the rich need an incentive to invest. Why bother if your earnings after taxes will barely keep up with inflation? When I hear this argument I always have to reply that I don't think the rich are as lazy as you think they are. I have faith in their entrepreneurial drive that they'd still invest, create, and build, even if capital gains were taxed as regular income. As long as the tax rate is below 100% any gains are still better than a mattress full of cash (and, no, I'm not suggesting a 100% tax).

If you buy that "incentive to beat inflation" argument, then people should be turning down C-level jobs that hit the 35% marginal rate, and even middle-management positions in the 25% range, and all the MBAs would be looking to work in mail rooms. It turns out, however, people prefer to have 65% of $500,000 over having 75% of $75,000. So, why does investment income require a tax rate so much lower than income from labor?

Gosh! You're just envious! After all, everybody has the opportunity to invest and get the tax benefits of capital gains! Well, perhaps we do have that opportunity, but not to the same extent. According to the Washington Post, "The 400 richest taxpayers in 2008 counted 60 percent of their income in the form of capital gains and 8 percent from salary and wages. The rest of the country reported 5 percent in capital gains and 72 percent in salary." When you defend 400 out of 312,877,450 with "everybody can do it," it's more than a bit of a stretch.

Here's the thing about all this in relation to Willard Mittens Romney: the millions he makes each year from capital gains are not even from investing his own money. There is no risk involved. Mitt's millions are part of his retirement agreement with Bain Capital. Every year he gets a nice slice of Bain's profits, even though he hasn't worked there in 13 years.

Of course, while most of his income comes from Bain and other capital gains, Mitt does work part-time as a public speaker. He describes his income from speaking fees as "not very much." It's actually $374,000/year. As a point of reference, $380,000 is the cut-off point for being in the top 1% of earners.

Capital gains have not always been taxed as low as 15%. This rate is the result of tax cuts (from both GW Bush and Clinton) that were supposed to inspire and encourage the wealthy to invest more, thus creating new jobs. As you can see, that plan didn't quite work out.

Many Republicans are now pushing for a new rate on capital gains: 0%. Romney, in his defense, is not one of them (although he does have other tax cuts in his plan). But if Newt Gingrich is elected, Mitt's tax bill will fall to nearly nothing.

So, please, remind me again, why are capital gains taxed so much lower than income from actually working for a living?

New eBook Availalbe

I've been playing around with the idea of publishing some ebooks of various material I've written over the years, and the first result of that experiment is now available for Nooks, iPads, Kindles, and most any other device you might have: A Bottomless Cup of Coffee (Short Stories).

I've self published before - several of the stories in A Bottomless Cup originally appeared in the print collection, Aaron’s Intifada and Other Short Stories (still available on Amazon.com), and my Introduction to Fund Development Planning continues to sell (available on Amazon.com as well) - but I've not done any eBook specific projects, which is odd considering how involved I've been with social media and online content creation.

Anyway, I'm now entering the eBook age, and hopefully this is just the first of many projects. If you want to check out the new eBook, it's yours for about two bucks at:

• Amazon.com (for Kindle)
• Apple iBookstore (iBooks on iPad/Pod/Phone)
• Barnes & Noble.com (for Nook)
• Lulu.com (ePub, various readers)

The Occupation is Over: Long Live the Occupation

News from Portland is that the parks have been cleared of all OWS protesters. Closer to home, efforts have been made in Oakland and Santa Cruz to end, or severely curtail, the extent of encampments and daily protests. In the online world it is in current fashion to write Occupy Obituaries, with a general theme of "enough is enough," repeating some popular myths about the movement, and be done with all this protesting nonsense before the holiday shopping season. So, here's my attempt at summing up a few points.

1 - "Enough Already" - Of course, the far right, tea party crowd never supported OWS, but this last week I've seen many posts from people who describe themselves as (at least somewhat) liberal echoing that they're bored of OWS, sick of seeing/hearing about the protesters, worried about conditions in the camps (see #5), and "most important", concerned about the cost to the taxpayers for law enforcement and park clean-up.

While I understand and appreciate each of those concerns, none of them rises to the level where a repeal of the Bill of Rights seems to be necessary. There's nothing in the First Amendment that limits "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" only to when it's convenient for commuters, good for business, in the budget, or when it's sunny outside.

I've not been very active in OWS, but I have spent some time at Occupy Santa Cruz (attended a couple of General Assemblies, took part in protesting, brought food and supplies to the campers). I am also a tax payer and I protest because I pay more in federal taxes than General Electric, PG&E, Dupont, Wells Fargo, and Verizon ... combined.

Is there a cost to the taxpayer (me!) for exercising our right to free speech? Yes. Of course there is. Just as there is a huge cost for elections, multiple branches of government, etc. Democracy and freedom are far more expensive than dictatorship, and generally worth the investment. Freedom is not cost effective, but I'll take it anyway.

And I really don't care if you preface your posting with "I supported them for a while, but..." Whether or not the protests are well organized, whether they have fifty million or only a single supporter, whether or not you've reached the end of you're limited attention span doesn't much matter. Either you support freedom of speech or you don't. You don't get to pick and choose the voice, the time, or the place.

2 - "Get a Job!" - Much of the criticism from the right, that the bench-warmers on the left now seem to have accepted is that the occupiers are all unemployed, on the public dole, and just looking for a hand-out. I can't speak for other cities, but in talking to people at Occupy Santa Cruz I've been surprised by how many of the key people are employed full-time. And not just among the day-time protesters, but even those camping out are packing up at 6 AM, running home for a quick shower, and then going to work before returning the camp in the evening.

The occupiers I've spoken with include lawyers, high-tech engineers, and other "respectable" sorts. Yes, there are people there who are victims of the economic downturn, who have lost their jobs, homes, health care, etc., but they are not the total occupy population.

3 - "Get a Message" - As much as people are repeating the mainstream media's contention that the OWS protesters have no message, I find it hard to believe that there's anybody outside of Fox News who doesn't know that this is about economic injustice, from the ponzi scheme that led to the foreclosure crisis, to the bailing out of the very banks that profited from that ponzi scheme, to Congress' inaction on any comprehensive jobs bill, to the Supreme Court's declaration that corporations are people.

Considering the lack of centralized leadership (see #4) or the engagement of a national PR firm, there's remarkable unity in this message across all the occupations, and coordination of imagery/branding. Yes, there's other complaints being voiced, but the overall theme of economic injustice has been clear.

Others admit that the message is clear, but follow up quickly with, "Complaining is easy, give us solutions." I agree, it's easy to say the outhouse stinks, but tearing it down before installing modern plumbing is a bad idea. Looking back at that First Amendment again, however, I don't see that the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances is limited to those who have ready solutions.

Meanwhile, looking at the signs of protesters I see that they are offering some ideas, whether required or not, including closing tax loopholes and ending corporate welfare, a Constitutional Amendment reversing the Citizens United decision, forgiveness of student loans, prosecution of those responsible for the foreclosure scandal, the passage of a comprehensive jobs bill, and much more.

(And, going back to #2 and the idea that the protesters are all just looking for something for nothing, the only one of the above demands that comes close to that is student loan forgiveness. Most of the protesters are willing to pay their fare share; they only want the same from the corporations and for their government to put people first.)

4 - "Get a Leader" - One of the most frustrating things for the mass media has been the lack of a single person, already in their contacts list, who they can call for comment. This "everybody's a leader" has been great in getting more people involved, amusing to watch the press attempt to navigate, as well as frustrating to those of us in General Assemblies who lack the patience to herd cats for even the most basic and simple decisions.

But beyond being a symbol of the desire for true democracy and consensus, the distributed leadership has been one of the messages of OWS. Distrust of leadership - any leadership - is such an inescapable symptom of our current global political crisis, that OWS protesters rejected any form of hierarchy, even when it would have benefited them.

The right also recognizes and feeds on this distrust of self-appointed leaders. The irony is that the Tea Party protests have been largely funded by the Koch Brothers, and that two of the largest Tea Party groups are suing each other over trademarks and (more vital and valuable) mailing lists. The right's answer to distrust of leaders has been pure astro-turf and deception.

As messy as some Occupy meetings have been, at least it was authentic. But, to move forward, the movement will have to develop some form of leadership, as distasteful as many may find that to be.

5 - "We're Concerned for their Health & Safety" - Yes, it's a concern when you have a few hundred people camping out with a couple of port-o-potties and no showers. But it's their choice. This "we have to clear them out for their own good" argument would have been more effective if the first several times I heard it wasn't from people who opposed health care reform and want to dismantle the EPA and OSHA.

There's much more to write about the Occupy movement, and I'm sure there will be ample opportunity to do so in the future. Yes, there have been problems with the way the occupations have been handled, some of which have kept me from becoming more personally involved, but on the whole I still believe they have been a good thing.

While many of the camps have been cleared for now, I don't believe this is over by a long shot. Lessons will be learned, leadership will be developed, and the people will not politely go inside and be quiet.

Verdict In: Football More Important than Child Abuse

By now you know the story: In 2002 a graduate student at Penn State witnessed an assistant coach sodomizing a young boy in the showers. He tried to report it to university authorities and was given the run-around. Now, nine years later, that assistant coach is finally facing charges of molesting several boys over a 15 year period. Also charged are a couple of the university officials who led the cover-up.

Two officials who were aware of the accusations and did nothing, but are not currently under arrest, include legendary football coach Joe Paterno and Penn State president Graham Spanier. Well, make that former coach Paterno and former president Spanier; the Board of Trustees canned them each last night for their failure to protect children from the sexual predator they knew was on their staff.

That should be the end of the story. Justice served. Far later than it should have been, but the right thing to do.

But no. In America we pretend to care about child abuse. But apparently we care about winning football games even more.

Shortly after the news of Peterno's firing was announced, riots broke out on the Penn State campus protesting the actions of the trustees. Preserving the legend of beloved "JoePa," it seems, is more important than any little boys who make have been robbed of their innocence and youth.

Paterno now says (in his prepared statement), "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more." Is that the hindsight that by protecting his former heir apparent many more children were abused, or the hindsight that it would end his career in disgrace? I fear it's only the second that motivated that minor bit of remorse.

The coaches and officials at Penn State are not alone in their quiet dismissal of societal condemnation of abusing and raping children. Another major story this last week was the release of a video showing a Texas judge brutally whipping his teenage daughter.

One would think that the judge would have no supporters, but up steps a former English Headmaster to reminisce about the good old days of beating children for a living. While he faults the judge for having acted out of anger, instead of calmly and dispassionately beating his child, this headmaster has no regrets and offers no apologies, "I was merely doing my job in upholding the discipline of the school."

Sure, protecting children is important. But not when it interferes with maintaining order or winning football games. We are Penn State. Go Team!

Ending Corporate Personhood

Way back in 2002, Congress passed the bi-partisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly referred to as McCain–Feingold in reference to its primary sponsors. One of the provisions of McCain–Feingold prohibited corporations (for-profit, nonprofit, unions, etc.) from broadcasting “electioneering communications” either for or against a particular candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary.

Last year (January 2010), the Supreme Court struck down that provision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission on the grounds that it violated their first amendment rights to free speech. While there have been many laws and court decisions over the years that have treated corporations like people or citizens, Citizens United was never-the-less a landmark in overtly saying that the protections of the Bill of the Rights are explicitly applied to corporations as well as people.

Justice Stevens, in his dissenting opinion, wrote:

At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding... It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense.

In the nearly two years since then, many have talked about the need to over-turn this decision. Part of that is the movement to amend the Constitution to be clear that corporations are not people, and are not entitled to the same rights and protections as persons, and that money is not speech!

To learn more about this movement, and add your name to the petition, see movetoamend.org

Occupying This Blog

I have been having many conversations with friends the last few weeks about the Occupy Wall Street Movement, and have been down to take part in Occupy Santa Cruz for a few hours at a time on a couple of occasions, so it seems fitting I should finally post something here as well.

Part of what I have found surprising is that some of the friends who I would have expected to be the most supportive of this movement have been the most skeptical of it, while I see support coming from a few unlikely quarters.

Some of my associates who have been with me through a few decades of protests, from the anti-nuclear movement to trying to prevent and/or end a few wars, are impatient with the "start-up phase" and distrustful of some of the younger leaders of the Occupations. But what gives me hope is the support from people who've never been a part of any mass movement, but who are now ready to take a stand.

I find myself frustrated with those who have bought the mainstream media line that "there's no message." Spend any amount of time at your local Occupation and it's quite clear that this is about economic justice. Within that theme, there are specifics around a fair tax code, re-regulation of the banks and bringing the crooks behind the foreclosure crisis to justice, and the end of corporate personhood.

But, even if it weren't that clear, what does anybody expect from a movement that's barely a month old? On top of that, a movement that's based on consensus and democracy, without clear pre-existing leadership? I'm actually pretty amazed at the success of the OWS movement so far, with over 1,000 local occupations in support of the original in NYC.

I feel the greatest success is simply that people are talking about the protests and economic justice. People have discovered that they are not alone; there are millions of us who are angry but are not represented by the tea partiers. And, they are willing to take to the streets to return democracy to the people.

The media would prefer that there be one spokesperson with whom they are already familiar and whose staff is already in their speed-dial. They don't like the messiness of consensus building among large groups. It takes time, and can be endlessly frustrating. But nobody promised that revolution would be easy or pretty.

Remember, it took the Continental Congress two years to get around to passing that Declaration of Independence. I'm willing to give the Occupy movement a few more months before being disappointed that they failed to change the world.

A couple of obligatory links:
* Who are "the 99%" who are protesting?
* Where can I find Occupy (My Town)?