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.

AN OPEN LETTER TO CONGRESS, PARTICULARLY THE MONEY ADDICTED

by Ruth A. Sheets

Dear Members of Congress:

The most current versions of Trump Care and the proposed budget are designed to give a large tax cut to those who need it least and cut all kinds of programs for the most vulnerable Americans.  You guys do know that rich people and corporations do not need more welfare money given to them from the government.  You do know that, but you are feeding an addiction more powerful than the opioid crisis afflicting our communities.  I call on you to help the wealthy citizens and corporations acknowledge their addiction and rehabilitate.  Stop giving them the money drug they want and help all of us live better.

I, like you, am a U.S. taxpayer, who cares about this nation and is very concerned about the way we have deified money and those who accumulate it.  We have forgotten how to challenge the notion of their moral superiority and greater value to society.  We have enabled them to spread the lie that more money will cause them to hire more people at higher wages, "trickledown economics."  Everywhere in media, advertisements, books, etc., we see these people and what they have and are regularly assured that they have earned it and everyone else could have it if they worked hard enough. 

You and I know this is not true, but it has caused many folks like you to gain power and privilege beyond anything earned through service to the people.

If you are one of those suffering from money addiction, your constituents and colleagues could be of help in your rehabilitation.  Start with no tax cuts for yourself and the other wealthy people and corporations.  You all don't need it.  The social programs that would be sacrificed to provide your fix are essential for the well-being of a lot of people.  Show all of us that you care for something beyond your re-election.  You might find that your constituents will like you better. 

So, begin with these ideas that have been circulating.

a) No more tax cuts for wealthy persons and corporations. They should pay their fair share of taxes as they use our shared resources, even more than others do.  Call what you are planning what it really is "corporate welfare and feeding a money habit.

b) Invest those tax dollars in our country’s future―in public roads and transit systems; quality and affordable early childhood education; public schools and higher education; researching new medical cures;  investing in programs and strategies to combat climate change and poverty; and ensuring a secure retirement for all of us by strengthening Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

c) Eliminate all tax breaks that encourage multinational corporations to shift jobs and profits offshore.

d) Require corporations to pay the $750 billion they owe on their $2.6 trillion in offshore profits. Use the funds to rebuild roads and bridges, improve schools and create millions of good-paying jobs. 

e) Speak out on behalf of the First Amendment and work with the media to begin changing the perception of Americans that money is everything.

This would be a good start.  Then, when you and the nation are healthier, we can work for more. 

Peace,
Ruth Sheets, Citizen

GOOD BUSINESSMAN?

by Ruth A. Sheets

Mr. Potter was a "good businessman" in A Wonderful Life

Lately, it seems that we are bombarded with the idea that Mitt Romney is such a great businessman that, of course, we need him as president.  I can’t help but wonder what his definition of a “Good Businessman” is.

If one examines the kinds of POLICIES Romney and his supporters are in favor of, it MIGHT NOT seem anything like good business practice. 

Is it good business to. . .  

- give the banking industry self-regulation even though they have proven unable to effectively regulate themselves, nearly bringing down the world economy?

- cut your workforce, then blame the lack of high profits on a tax rate that is too high, not on the fact that people don’t have enough money to pay for your product or service.

- use the “drill baby drill” mantra before the real safety hazards are understood.

- use up natural resources with no solid plans for what will happen when the resource runs out – have they forgotten what is happening to the fishing industry?

- destroy whole sections of THE ENVIRONMENT so that no one else can use or enjoy it in order to acquire coal, timber, and minerals as cheaply as possible. 

   

- outsource jobs and continue to be subsidized by taxpayers for the cost of moving abroad, or moving to other states where they don’t have to deal with unions or environmentalists.

- pay their CEO’s, CFO’s and other high-level folks huge salaries while they lay off thousands of workers, trained people, potential customers?

Mitt Romney and his supporters see no problem with companies like the investment firm where he worked making huge profits from the misfortune of other companies.  Romney claims it is deserved because they take such high risks.  The reality is that there is almost no risk, just a loan shark way of doing business that brings high profits to investment firms.

This model seems amoral.  If these are good business practices, we are in trouble.  State and local governments all over the country are in the process of privatizing many jobs that have been public and have been working well for a long time.  The worst part is that the business practices described above, the lack of morals, and the role of greed do not bode well for anyone.  Officials will exchange good living wage jobs for a quick buck. 

So, when Mitt cries that he is a “good businessman” that may not be a compliment.  He is telling us that he and his supporters plan to dig us in deeper than we already find ourselves.  But, he and his will come out just fine. 

We, the 99% need to be vigilant, although I am not sure that will make much difference these days.  The money these “good businessmen” can spend can buy us and shape our reality and we won’t know it until it is too late.

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?