Raise Your Hand!

by Ruth A. Sheets

Raise your hand if you are sick of old, rich, White folks pontificating about poverty.  If you’re like me, you don’t want to hear one more complaint that: 

if the minimum wage is raised, poor people will be disincentivised to work;
 
if Medicaid is available for the poor, there will be no reason for them to seek a job. Besides, they’ll end up wasting tax dollars on their medical care since they won’t bother taking care of themselves anyway;
 
if Food Stamps are available for poor folks, they won’t go to get help from their local religious and service organizations where the help should really come from in the first place;
 
if decent housing is provided for the poor, they will only destroy it anyway;
if unemployment is extended, folks will just be lying around not looking for work at all;
 
why should anyone worry about poor people voting; they don’t contribute anything of value to society.
 
Statements like these regularly come from those old, rich, white folks, even those in public office. And they profess to believe it all.
 
What’s happening here? The people in power, the wealthiest among us choose to keep Americans believing that poor people are poor because of their own actions. The poor are lazy, unmotivated, greedy, God-forsaken moochers, the “takers.”

And, the inverse must therefore be true; the rich and powerful are that way because of their own hard work, superior intellect, cleverness, and favored position in God’s sight, the “makers.” If poor folks worked hard enough they could have it all too.

The privileged can’t imagine, let alone acknowledge that their parents’ money, their skin color, the schools they attended, their better health care, the networks they were able to tap into, and just plain luck had anything to do with their current situation. It would totally rock their world.
 
That might mean people who are poor don’t choose poverty and don’t employ less effort than the more fortunate.

My goodness! That might mean the pontificators have no right to look down on those who are poor. What shall they do? Blaming the poor and struggling folks is all these morally bankrupt “makers” have.

Hand Out, Hand In

by Ruth A. Sheets

It seems that again, it is in fashion to malign people who receive unemployment.  I guess conservatives did not get enough traction when they went after people on food stamps and seniors on Medicare.  Folks like Rush Limbaugh accuse those who receive unemployment of collecting instead of working, being a drain on society.  His rant went on and on about these freeloaders who could be out there working if only they tried a LITTLE harder.

It seems that Rush and his cronies consider unemployment a handout to the lazy.  According to him, this handout should be cut off.  America would be stronger and our deficit would be lowered.

I find it interesting that people who have jobs, even jobs that are of nominal value like Rush’s have no qualms berating those who no longer have the jobs they counted on for a living.  They claim that recipients of unemployment are sucking America dry.  Are they really?

I recently read that Mitt Romney got a tax break of $77,000 for his horse.  Why does Romney need such a tax break?  Because it’s there?  Why isn’t Rush bent out of shape over that and other equally ridiculous government assistance? 

My brother-in-law has a theory that I really like.  He says it’s probably because in the case of unemployment, money is being given directly to a person, who has to have their hand out.  In Romney’s case, he just gets to keep his money.  His hand stays in his pocket along with the money.  The former is overt while the latter is more covert and not as public.

So, as long as people are getting tax breaks, even for things as frivolous as horses, they are not a drain on society, but if a check is cut to enable a person/family to survive, society is being tapped.

Does anyone else recognize the hyhpocrisy here?  The addiction of the wealthy to their money requires them to make the “have nots” feel like losers and inferior people.  Rush’s rants are designed to make the non-thinkers among us believe that wealth is just around the corner for them and that the unemployed are keeping them from their dream of riches.  This is nonsense of course.

The sad part is that Rush’s audience is being used by the wealthy who care nothing about their lack of  jobs or the unemployment among their neighbors.  Give the downtrodden another group of Americans to hate.  It takes the pressure off the wealthy and their enablers.

The 7-Figure Donor

by Ruth A. Sheets

This morning I heard a story that, had it not been NPR, I would have thought I was listening to a “Saturday Night Live” sketch.  A seven-figure donor to a super PAC complained about the level of criticism he has received since his check was written.  He was startled that folks might object to his contribution.

One can’t help but wonder where Mr. Vandersloot has been.  He intends to help to buy an election and he worries people will find out and that some might not be pleased.  He claims he has lost business and has even received some death threats. 

I certainly think the death threats, if he has received them, are appalling and wrong in every way.  Losing business, though, that is fair.  Mr. V. is clearly using his profits to get politically involved.  It seems to me that an effective way for citizens to object to a particular donation is to stop using the product or service of the donor.

The wealthy, the 1%, have been accused of being “out of touch.”  Yes, Mr. V. is out of touch.  I can’t help but wonder at his naivete.  Does he really believe his money entitles him to do whatever he wants to do, and that no one will respond?  Of course he does. 

With the “Citizens United” ruling by the Supreme Court calling money speech, how can the wealthy not try to make their opinion more weighty than that of the average citizen?  Isn’t more money more speech?

In their attempt to be “fair,” NPR actually found people to support Mr. V.’s position that no one should have to know about his donation.  The Koch brothers were sympathetically cited as people maligned for making large contributions.  Those Koch brothers used their funds to spread lies and half-truths against Democrats in Wisconsin and other states.  Of course, not under their own name, but through a Super PAC that is not to be held accountable for whatever they put out there.

It is obscene that anyone should feel entitled to contribute millions of dollars to influence elections, with or without their names being attached to the donation.  Such large money contributions, speech or not, shouldn’t be able to buy candidates.

When people contribute to Super PACs or any other political influence machine, they are buying a service, and the PACs should then be taxed as a service provider.  I am thinking of oh, 40% or so.  That’s higher than the wealthy are paying now in taxes, so I think it is a way to help the deficit and to limit huge donations.  Oh wait, Congress would never pass such a law since they have been bought by the very Super PACs that would be taxed.  Darn!

THE PLAN

by Ruth A. Sheets

Today my students and I viewed a documentary by some film students from a small liberal arts college.  The film students had heard of the plight of my school district because one of our teachers had been invited to sit with Ms. Obama for the State of the Union Address and then was a guest on “the Ellen Show.”

The issue, our impoverished school district had run out of money, but teachers had agreed to work even without a salary as long as we could manage it. 

The college students came to town to interview our city’s teachers, students, support staff, and community residents.  They filmed around the city and in the schools.  To begin their documentary, they prepared a montage of images of places around town, mostly blighted spots. 

Their first montage was turned down by their instructor because there were some smiling people in the pictures.  The documentary makers were informed that smiling people won’t get their message across.  People should look downtrodden, miserable if possible. 

Of course people don’t smile in the face of adversity.  Think about the advertisements for organizations helping poor and struggling people around the world.  How many smiling faces have you seen?   If one is truly poor and in need of assistance, how can one possibly be smiling?  If one shows any signs of pleasure, it must mean that the situation in which one lives can’t be too bad.

So, I have figured it out.  The one percent can defend their place in society by showing scenes of poverty, but with smiling people, particularly children.  See it’s really not so bad!  Don’t forget the upbeat music. 

Then, they can show their mansions with the rich folks looking sad and put-upon with a slow, depressing musical background.  They will garner the sympathy they need to continue business as usual.  What a plan!

The Wealth Factor

by Ruth A. Sheets

The “New York Times” columnist David Brooks’ piece published on January 20, 2012 is entitled “Wealth Issue.”  In it he contends that “money didn’t make Mitt Romney.”  He asks if Romney’s character was formed by his wealth.  He answers the question with a no and says that thinking money has spoiled or in any way corrupted him is “preposterous.”

Mr. Brooks then proceeds to say that Mitt Romney has been an exceedingly hard worker “all his life.”  He earned two degrees at Harvard and built a business.  The implication is that if a wealthy person works hard and earns degrees at a prestigious university that his wealth didn’t shape his character in any meaningful way.

Readers are informed that families have a story and that one’s character is actually shaped by the family’s story.  Romney’s story is a series of advancements and setbacks over time by his grandfather and great grandfather, often dramatic changes of fortune, but always with the good fortune winning out.

I find Romney’s story fascinating and I suspect that one can’t help but be influenced by losing everything, then getting it all back again several times as Mr. Romney’s forebearers did, .  However, I suspect that the “money” factor is at least as important in Mitt Romney’s life.  Even Romney’s great grandfather came from money.

I work in one of the poorest communities in Pennsylvania.   I teach “Mentally Gifted” students.  I know that I have students at least as bright as Mr. Romney with as much potential as he had, but my students will not be earning any degrees at Harvard.  The chance that they will get the opportunity to build a business is quite small.  My terrific students didn’t go to the prominent school that leads directly to Harvard because they would never be able to afford either institution.  Their families will not have the funds to help them get set up in business and to help cover their expenses while the going is a bit rough.

My students will have to be concerned about being hired and fired and as most of them are African-American or Hispanic, or a combination of the two, they will not be judged by the content of their character but by the preconceptions of those who might hire them or back their enterprises.

Their family stories are as intriguing and inspiring as Mr. Romney’s yet theirs will not even be recognized because wealth and its acquisition are not part of any of them, and in our society, wealth is what counts.  Wealth determines who is worthy of our homage.  It leads to power and more wealth. 

To be poor means that you have not worked hard enough or taken advantage of the crumbs that have slipped from the table of the wealthy.  Poverty is your fault and if you weren’t so lazy, you’d be rich too.  Anyone who is not a “have” is a “soon to have” if they have the right stuff. ”

Does wealth automatically corrupt those who have it?  Possibly not, but it does mean that the wealthy have the cards stacked in the favor.  They receive its advantages from birth, probably even before birth. 

I can’t help but wonder if Mitt Romney’s arrogance, disconnectedness, expedience would have served him as well had his family been poor or even, middle class. 

Everyone who has succeeded likes to think they did it all by themselves, but that’s not how it works.  Wealth allows its beneficiaries  to start off near the top of the heap, and unless they are really foolish or have other problems, they will not sink below that point. 

The wealthy have every incentive to work hard and strive because they know that even the smallest effort will provide security and yield a level of power that most people, no matter how motivated, will never attain.  Those who are in poverty can only hope that their family story will inspire succeeding generations who, with a lot of luck and support, may be able to rise.

WHAT’S IN A WORD?

by Ruth Sheets
 

Have you noticed that in the past few years, twisting language to fit one’s own agenda has become very popular?  “Experts” are hired to say things in just the right way.  It is a form of deception that often happens without people even realizing that they are being manipulated.  It will be extremely difficult to drive the new language from their minds because of the power of the words used.  Here are some examples:

In the past decade, elected leaders have determined that the wealthiest Americans need protection.  For generations, states and the Federal Government have collected “estate taxes” to help limit family dynasties and to help the haves contribute to the general good.  When tax cuts were being considered for the well off, during the early 2000s, estate taxes were targeted as unfair.  Most Americans approve of such taxes, so they had to be renamed.  Estate taxes became “death taxes.” 

What is the image you get of a death tax?  To start with, it is not a pleasant thought. Our natural fear of death includes our aversion of the word. Tie the word to taxes, and presto, a tax that must be ended because it is abhorrent.  How can we tax a person’s death? If anyone questions this move, actors are hired to portray people of moderate means who complain that they worked so hard and should be able to pass everything they made on to their children, (even if those children earn more than the parents).

Staying with the word “death,” we come to “death panels.”  What image does that conjure? It is certainly not a positive one. This term was the Republican response to the concept that a patient might want to discuss end-of-life issues with their doctor. Because these discussions will take a significant amount of time if done properly and with compassion, it was recommended that doctors be fairly compensated for their time.

If a legislator or candidate has the goal of stopping a plan that makes sense to a lot of people, the language must change to induce the proper amount of fear and/or loathing.  The term “death panel” does that beautifully.  Even though there is no panel involved and the whole process only involves discussion and consultation, it doesn’t matter because death panel sounds so horrific few people will want to analyze it.

Within the past few months a new term has come forward.  It seems that it is no longer acceptable to refer to the wealthy or rich in those terms.  The new Tea Party term is “job creators.”  One can logically put a case forward that the wealthiest people should pay their fair share. But call them "Job Creators"-- imply that they are the only folks who will pull us out of this economic mess --and of course it would be wrong not to give them more money.

The tax cuts in the Bush administration predominantly benefited the top 2% of Americans and we are in the deepest recession since the 1930’s.  The wealthy have been getting tax cuts for nearly a decade now.   Where are the jobs they were supposed to be creating? 

There will always be people out there ready to misdirect us with the words they use.  Our task as thinking human beings is to look behind what they are actually saying and see who benefits from the misdirection.  Maybe instead of worrying so much about how well our students do on standardized tests, we should change our focus to developing effective critical thinking skills. 

Do you think the Tea Party and their friends would like to help fund that? 

Peace,

Ruth