WHERE YOU COULD REALLY HELP - IF YOU CARED

Ruth A. Sheets

Every day, my inbox contains notices from candidates who just learned the Koch brothers or some other super rich entities are financing an opponent's campaign for amounts of money that ordinary citizens in their thousands will never be able to match.

This is disturbing. In a democracy, financial interference in elections by the super wealthy should be obscene, unacceptable. But, in reality, it is just the opposite. It's encouraged and Supreme Court approved. We hear both parties do it and so it's OK.

First of all, this level of financial interference with elections is not equally applied, but should not be allowed at all. There should be a reasonable limit to contributions any citizen can make to candidates, no matter their wealth. This won't happen any time soon because this super money gets people elected who are beholden to particular individuals, corporations, industries, or causes. The gains bring excessive, usually undeserved power and influence to the donors. This goes to the highest levels of government, all three branches as well as the most local levels for school board and town councils.

Rich people want to know their money will get them influence and recognition, even celebrity. They name things after themselves, establish foundations that give money to grateful groups who will make the donors seem legitimate and philanthropic. They want something for their dollars, and that something is name recognition, political influence, and a variety of "unacknowledged" special privileges.

The wealthy of the world believe they got their money by their own hard work, skill and talent, so, owe nothing to anyone else, but generously choose to share their largess with those they deem worthy. And, of course, those they deem worthy are those who have the same political and social views. Their foundations draw supplicants who come begging on their knees for the dribbles of help distributed to the poor and pathetic.

Toss a few bucks to local charities (not too much, though). Support a cultural institution, especially if your name can be on something. Give to your college/university to get a chair named for you, or perhaps an important building on campus. That also gives your kids free tuition to the institution. What a deal!

If the wealthy of our nation really cared about the country, its people, and its institutions, they would pay their workers better wages. They would name their buildings for great Americans like Harriet Tubman, Susan B. Anthony, or Caesar Chavez who made major contributions to American life and discourse. Then, they would seek out and help struggling local organizations that support people whose luck did not lead to the same level of wealth the donor has.

A million dollars to a place like Bethany Children's Home in Womelsdorf, PA that serves children from troubled home situations could indefinitely provide essential fees for graduating seniors attending school in local districts. Knowing they could attend proms, receive yearbooks, and walk at graduation would make a huge difference to so many young people. But, there would probably not be a lot of publicity. It's not glamorous, but truly needed.

That same million dollars, though is more likely to be contributed to a campaign to put some mega conservative in office who will promote fossil fuels in the face of global warming or try to limit women's right to choose as women have no right anywhere but in the home cooking, cleaning, and caring for their master. And, Oh yes, it will help to elect people who can make the donors even richer. Yeah, that's what America needs.

So, shame on you because you rich guys could make such a huge positive difference that would benefit so many more people. You could help real kids, support artists just starting out. You could help local schools get supplies and take trips that would make the education experience so much more valuable to kids. You could help communities preserve local historical sites. You could support community groups that provide after school recreation and study for kids who don't yet have the luck you had. You could do so much more with your money, a drop in the bucket for you, but you don't.
I get it, such largess might help people who don't share your ultra conservative views. Right now, you are hoarding your funds to obtain the greatest influence you can. Shame on you when you could help so many because you've received so much.

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.

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!

A COMMON SPIRIT?

By Ruth A. Sheets

Was there ever a time when all people in America valued sharing and giving to the next generation?  Probably not, but I believe there was a time when many people felt that we had some responsibility to those who have less than we do and also to those who are yet to be born.

Through the 1970’s, even early 1980’s few Americans would have thought it was a good idea to undermine public education.  Few would have considered it  "good for business" to deceive people about their ability to buy a home. Only a small minority of Americans would have acknowledged the belief that folks in poverty were there because they deserved to be.

In those days, people believed in the American Capitalist system, but understood that if you had made it, you shared at least part of your success with others for the general good.  If fellow citizens received a good education, everyone benefited because it could lead to more innovation, more jobs, more progress for everyone.

Somehow, we have lost a common spirit.  Instead of lifting others, as we lift ourselves, it is now "I’ll get everything I can and everyone else can get what they can.  But, I will do everything I can to be sure they don’t get even the smallest part of what I have."

We want to fight a war, no problem, let someone else fight and pay for it.  We’ll just make money from it.

We need roads and bridges?  Let the states and locals pay for them, they’re not really "National", you know. 

"I got an education and I worked hard at it," they say.  "If someone wants an education, they can get one and we’ll make money from it, and I don’t mean the teachers, who aren’t worth what they are paid anyway."

"Health care?  I’m healthy, I don’t need to worry about that.  Besides, insurance companies should have the right to decide who they will cover and for how much.  That’s how the free market works."

If those people took out a mortgage they should have known they couldn’t pay for it.  I’m not responsible for their stupidity.  

When one percent of the population has the bulk of the resources, and they can’t relate to the 99%, it is hard to see our society successfully coming out of the current recession or dealing with the other challenges that face us:  military spending, public education, collapse of the housing industry, infrastructure, health care, our children’s future.

After all, the 1% can go to another country if this one falls apart.  Money is money and they keep theirs all over the world.  We’re just tools for their use.

We have somehow decided that’s OK.  When did we do that?