Put Up or Shut Up

Amid the cacophony of “smaller government...less spending” the New York Times recently ran two articles dealing with who, in fact, receives any kind of assistance from the government. One dealt with financial demographics (lower, middle, and upper income brackets) while the other concentrated on a political breakdown. While I usually avoid going over ground already plowed, I’d like to take a closer look at who, politically-speaking, reaps rewards from so-called social programs.

Many opponents of federal assistance have united under the Tea Party banner. They appear regularly on the airwaves or in print and their message is consistent: get the government out of my life, let me take care of myself, and lower my taxes. We’re each afforded our opinion and this one has taken center-stage as the Republican Party seeks a nominee for the fall election.

Call me old fashioned, or naive perhaps, but it seems to me that anyone opposing these assistance programs would be the last one to sign up for any of them. After all, we know the difference between talking the talk and walking the walk. It turns out that many of these full throated “leave me alone” folks do, indeed, sip from the governmental trough while other same-minded folks gulp down every bit that might be available. Talk about mixed messages!

There are two possible explanations for such a dichotomy between philosophy and behavior. One is hypocrisy and the other is ignorance. I’m not crazy about hypocrites, but ignorance scares the hell out of me. Especially when applying it to the electorate.

I’ve written about folks who want to take someone else’s freebie away while protecting their own. It only makes sense, you know, because mine is important and I am deserving while yours is a waste and you’re a lay-about. And that’s why I’m supporting my candidates because they will take yours away while maintaining mine. How do I know? Because they promised to cut the waste and we all know that yours is wasteful and mine isn’t.

And that, I dare say, is about the most ignorant rationale I’ve come across. But guess what? It works! How do you think Tea Party activists were elected in the mid-terms of 2010? Somehow, they continue to hold sway in spite of the fact that, if given the chance, they’d cut all programs for everyone regardless of need.

It’s no secret that the Republican Party has evolved into a group looking for a social agenda with which to stoke the visceral fires of its base. Gay marriage, abortion, birth control, and the like seek to obscure the fact that the party is really aligned more with corporate America than those it pretends to represent: the God-fearing, family loving Joe and Jane Citizen living somewhere in the heartland. Sadly, Joe and Jane have eaten up this rhetoric despite the fact that they fall farther and farther behind. This is called voting against your own best interests and the right has capitalized upon this phenomenon to a far greater degree than the left.

Assistance programs are designed for those that require a helping hand, but many take advantage of the program simply because they qualify. Regardless of political affiliation, this is just plain wrong and everyone pays in one way or another for such behavior. Granted, some assistance is all or nothing. Perhaps some recipients don’t need the full amount, but I don’t recall hearing of anyone paying excess funds forward to a charity or another individual in need. No, anything extra goes toward discretionary purchases.

And for anyone railing against federal assistance programs: the only program you are required to participate in is Social Security. Should you take one more dime from any government agency for any other reason whatsoever you need to shut your pie-hole. You might be a hypocrite, you might be ignorant, you might be both. But you sure as hell have no business in claiming to loath a system in which you participate. You may well continue to vote against your own best interests, but at least the thinking voters will not have to listen to your drivel.

And for those of you practicing what you preach: good for you. At least you show some conviction. Keep in mind, though, that one’s fortunes can turn in a moment. With that in mind, a word of caution that is older than the original Tea Party: be careful what you wish for.

Red, White, or Blue?

As the debt ceiling crisis continues on towards the eleventh hour (and then some), I’m struck by the parallel between members of Congress and our national colors of red, white, and blue. I know, I’m struck alot, it seems, and rarely in normal ways.

Red: Many in Congress are red-faced as they see their colleagues giving away much of the store. “Store” being defined purely upon which side of the aisle one sits. Republicans see giving in way too much on spending cuts while Democrats cannot believe that reducing entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security is a possibility while ignoring the need for raising taxes. Both are enraged.

Blue: Others are holding their breath until they turn the aforementioned color unless they get their way. We know them as members of the Tea Party. No new taxes, a balanced budget amendment, and deep cost cutting. That’s it: simple and nonnegotiable. Would Democrats do the same thing when social programs are threatened. I’d say so, but it hasn’t gotten to that point (yet).

White: While Washington dithers about seeking to make political hay over what should be a routine no-brainer, the rest of us are ashen-faced as we see our already shaky economy threatened to further shrivel by the prospect of a national default.

Who would’ve thought that the good old red, white, and blue would come to this. Not one of us lives under a balanced budget if any kind of outstanding balance is carried on any instrument, be it a credit card or mortgage or equity line of credit or other loan of some sort. To expect the country to do so is foolhardy and short-sighted. Unless, of course, you won’t be seeking federal assistance for the next natural disaster that rolls through your neighborhood. Any unforeseen event would lack funding under a balanced budget. You don’t live that way nor do I. Demanding the government to abide under such limitations is naive. Ironically, some of the more inflexible House members have outstanding personal credit balances that would make most of us recoil in terror.

And one more thing: the “American people” did not have a say in who comprises the Congress other than their own district. So, when national polls show that a majority of the “American people” favor a balanced approach to handling our debt (tax increases and lower spending), no House member (that means you, Boehner,) can lay claim to doing what the “American people sent us here to do” by proposing a singular solution of budget cuts.

How about a little less red or blue in the face of our politicos and a little more middle ground? That could well return a bit of color to our cheeks, too. Campaigning is far different (and easier) than governing, to be sure. The time for governance is long past due.

Fault Lines

If we were somehow able to map out the differences that currently exist within our society I think it would closely resemble a depiction of California's seismic faults. Economic, religious, ethnic, and political differences have turned into divisions. What was once "us against them" is now "me against you" with "you" representing the rest of society. Our sense of community has devolved into a survival of the fittest mentality and that is bad for everyone.

While there's plenty of blame to go around, let's start with the individuals within our society. That's right: you and me. Regular readers know how I abhor labels as they tend to encourage us to draw premature conclusions. So, in lieu of Republican or Democrat, I'm going to use "left leaning" and "right leaning" (LL or RL). LL's tend to believe in a government, be it local, state or federal, providing a framework within which the public good is served. From law enforcement to infrastructure to programs that provide for the elderly, infirm, or needy, these entities rely on a tax structure so as to fund the various programs needed to carry out their respective missions. RL's, on the other hand, prefer to rely on their own wits, talent, and good fortune to make their own way in the world. Small government, low taxes, and few public assistance programs are their picture of a perfect world. And, as one moves from the middle of the political highway, the more strident and resistant to compromise they both become.

Economic standing, likewise creates division between the haves and have-nots. The haves are more often RL's as they are in little or no need of assistance from their government. They embrace the "if I made it, why can't you" ideology and use it to rationalize their reluctance to part with anything but the smallest possible portion of their accumulated wealth. LL's tend to be more sympathetic to those that have yet to find their way and accept the premise that blind luck sometimes plays a more important role than talent in eventual success. As such, they recognize society's need for a safety net.

Religious tenets add to the mix that serve only to divide us further. Christians, jews, muslims, or whatever: each promotes the notion that their way is the only way and others must be converted or treated as pariahs. No other cause has spilled as much blood throughout time and the world as religion. Yet, without it, we further lose sight of doing the right thing for all regardless of whether it is the right thing for us individually.

Much to divide us, wouldn't you say? So we look to our elected leaders to sort everything out and lead us to a tomorrow that is sunnier and more hopeful. Why? Our form of government is referred to as "representative". As such, our legislative bodies are but a reflection of the society as a whole. So, what with our deep divisions, how can we be surprised that our state and federal legislators are just as polarized? As if that wasn't enough, these folks seek a career out of their political aspirations and are pulled in diametrically opposed directions: doing what's best for the country may not be best for their constituents and that puts successful re-election at risk. Closing a military base, for instance, may be good for budget trimming, but closing the base in my district is terrible for my voters. Go close somebody else's base.

I think we can all agree that times are tough for most of us and perhaps that is why we, as a society, are seeking instant solutions from our political leaders. Polls show that popularity numbers for Congress and the President are all lower as well as our outlook for better days ahead. The problem, it seems to me, lies in this seismic fault line that refuses to budge. Movement, or compromise, in any direction seems out of the question until major forces build up to the point of crisis. The ensuing change is reckless and often cataclysmic in its unintended consequences. Is this a way for intelligent folks to go about solving problems? Apparently so, in light of recent gains by Tea Party politicos who take pride in their refusal to move from a position far on the political right. Combine a society of individuals concerned only about their personal needs and a government comprised of individuals seeking to please their voters by catering to those needs and we are left with a grid lock of seismic proportion.

The other type of fault line is that spoken by many of our elected officials who blame their opposites for the stale-mate. "It's not my fault, you know. If only my distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle would budge, we could all move forward." This fault-finding and finger-pointing only exacerbates an already untenable situation.

Should you have a question, I am a LL. While I believe that spending needs to be reined in, I also believe that a more equitable division of the tax burden is in order. But I don't believe the two must be addressed simultaneously. I believe that the tax structure is a priority today and the "readjustment" of social programs can wait until more of us are back on our feet. You don't take one crutch away from a cripple until the time comes when that cripple can manage with one. A slashing of established programs for the less fortunate at a time when they are most needed is inhumane, short-sighted, and caters to the visceral instincts that are all too common today. "Screw them...save me" should not be a goal we strive to attain.

Priorities

In perusing yesterday’s New York Times, I was struck by the number of times I thought to myself, “What are they trying to accomplish here?” It’s important to have priorities, but sometimes agendas collide and, when they do, the outcome is something less than noble. For instance:

A German diocese is under the bright lights for the mishandling of abuse while the current Pope was its archbishop. It seems that a priest was accused of molestation, entered therapy, and thereafter returned to his prior pastoral position. While Benedict admits to approving the therapy, a subordinate is taking full responsibility for the reassignment. I can’t help but wonder if someone is falling on his sword to protect higher-ups. This would be far from the first instance of such behavior, but the priority of protection seems misplaced with regard to truth and accountability.

The FCC is proposing a renewed commitment to providing high speed internet access to all areas of the country. There can be little argument that technology and the way we communicate is going in that direction and there can be little argument that we would all gain from the availability of DSL and the like. Nevertheless, companies entrenched in the business of providing computer, cable, television and telephone services are resisting this initiative. Why would they do such a thing? Perhaps they would be forced to upgrade their offerings or relax their grip on near-monopolistic enterprises. Money, in other words. (Or perhaps profits would be more appropriate.) It’s not that they’d make nothing, but only that they’d make less. With the overall gains that individuals and communities would realize, though, it seems that, once again, the priorities are bass-ackwards.

For the first time, South Africa (and Africa, in general) will host World Cup Soccer matches in June. Four games will be played in a new $137 million stadium near Nelspruit that is surrounded by some of the most deprived areas in the world. Mud houses and dirt roads are the norm. Once again, there is nothing new about splendid venues erected amid squalor, but yet again that nasty question about priorities rears up.

The Tea Party, it seems, is steering clear of divisive social issues such as gay marriage and abortion rights. Is it because these issues have no place in politics or because they’d just as soon get as many in their tent before turning to a more strident agenda? Bait and switch, in other words. And in a conservative-related story, the Texas Board of Education seemed to re-write history in establishing new text book guidelines that glorify Ronald Reagan while minimizing Thomas Jefferson. Historically, the Board held sway over the curricula in other states simply by virtue of the number of books Texas ordered. Now, with digital printing, one can only hope such partisanship can be kept within a state boundary. And in both cases, objectivity or honesty takes a lower priority to enrollment and the furthering of specific agendas.

Google seems to be at odds with China over censorship. The Chinese government seems bent on filtering the information available to its citizenry and Google, of course, specializes in all things informative. A no-brainer, right? Tell China to pound sand, pull out of the country, and trust in the creativity of the Chinese common-folk to establish avenues of unfettered access. Ouch! There’s that profit thing again. Oh well, what’s a little loss of freedom when compared to a boatload of yuan?

And finally, a soldier awarded the Silver Star for his meritorious actions during the battle of Wanat, Afghanistan is now subject to a reprimand for poor preparation in the days preceding the battle. WTF? Captain Matthew Meyer is the poor soul caught in this nightmare and, unlike the Catholic official taking one for the Pope, he is being scapegoated, pure and simple. Both scenarios obfuscate accountability, justice, and honor, but one is voluntary while the other is sacrificed in the name of expediency. While the volunteer may be seen as more “honorable”, I’d say we’re picking fly poop out of pepper because neither brings us closer to a responsible conclusion while producing innocent roadkill.

Pragmatism certainly seems to take a higher priority than more altruistic aims, doesn’t it? So should we all shrug and climb on board the “if I don’t do it, someone else will” train? I should hope not. If we lose our priorities and place right and wrong below more immediate and profitable agendas we serve only to hasten our descent into a world where “I” and “mine” are forever superior to “you”, “yours”, or “ours”.