Where are the jobs? A few suggested solutions.

I see ads daily stating "now hiring", "immediate opening", "help wanted" and the like.  I also see numerous people looking for opportunities - either wanting to change jobs / companies / positions or new college graduates simply looking to get started in life.  And yet . . . many of these job seekers are met only with frustration, not opportunity.  In my humble opinion, many of these advertising open requisitions for headcount are only "interviewing" not "hiring."  An example of this was clearly articulated recently in the Wall Street Journal online news site (See here:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304821304577436172660988042.html ).  One of the parties in this article describes the current job market as "looking for the unicorn" and gives as an example:

"a company that drew 25,000 applicants for a standard engineering position only to have the HR department say not one was qualified. One job seeker said "he had been told he was perfect for a given position—except for the fact that his previous job title didn't match that of the vacancy," ."

This is both astounding and perplexing.  A look at the "Fortune 1000" companies shows they are holding more cash on their balance sheets that at any time in history. (See here:  http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/06/2-trillion-cash-obamas-fault/ - and it turns out, it is NOT Obama's fault - to the chagrin of my right-wing friends.)  Interest rates on corporate (and for that matter, public) debt are at or near historic lows.  So, why aren't companies  using these cash hoards to hire and expand?

In my opinion, companies are not taking action because there is no public policy to encourage or give incentive to taking action.  So comes the next question . . .

Why has neither political party actually taken any significant action with respect to initiating public policies to put people back to work?  And why do we as citizens keep sending the same people back to Washington, D.C. and to our state capitols?  I know, I know, the Dems blame the G.O.P. and the G.O.P. blames the Democrats.  Both sides sound like 7th graders - "He / she started it!"

You know what?  I really don't give a damn who started it.  I am not concerned with fixing blame.  I am concerned with fixing problems.  What I want is to see action - real action to initiate polices that fix these problems.

Following is a list of simple actions I would like to see politicians of both parties undertake - or explain to the citizens of America why they are opposed to these actions:

1.  Eliminate any tax incentives or tax preference items that encourage businesses to move jobs overseas.  Whether or not this effect was "intentional" when the law was created is a moot point.  The point is, eliminate the effect. (See here: http://www.ehow.com/info_12036692_tax-break-outsourcing.html )

2.  Institute public policies and tax incentives for creating jobs in the United States.  Plainly the simple-minded notion of lowering tax rates (especially on the very rich) has not increased jobs or hiring or reduced income inequality.  It is a failed policy - so let's institute some policies that will work!

3.  Equalize the tax code for individuals and corporations.  According to the "Citizens United" ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, corporations are people and can spend unlimited sums in political races.  If Corporations are "people" then they should be taxed in a fashion similar to "people".  What I mean here - if you as an individual make a contribution to a political candidate, it is taxable.  But if a corporation makes a contribution, it is an expense and therefore reduces income - so is NOT taxable.  This is not only patently wrong, but unfair.

4.  Re-institute a national draft.  Every citizen in this country has not only the right, but the duty to serve our nation.  This would function not only as a reduction to unemployment, but also as a form of 'nation-building' here at home, breaking down barriers to race, creed, color, economic strata, regions, and any other barriers that tend to separate and stratify us as a people and a nation.  This draft would need to be for all citizens between the ages of 18 and say 35 to pick a number.  Both women and men.  It may or may not be military service, but it must be organized national service and it must include other races, creeds, colors, economic strata and so on - where people live together, work together, get to know one another and hopefully develop relationships that will last throughout their lives.

5.  Institute a 40X tax.  What is a 40X tax?  Look at the history of wage disparity and the Lorenz Curve. (See here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_curve )  Currently there are a number of pundits on the right that argue many public policies and taxes are "nothing more than a redistribution of wealth."  In point of fact, I would argue the tax cuts as instituted in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2008 - which did nothing to stimulate the economy - served as a redistribution of wealth.  This once again tried - and failed - trickle down economics allowed the wealthy to be somewhat more immune to the financial meltdown virus than the average citizen.  How you ask?  Each tax cut allowed the wealthiest of citizens to retain more of their wealth.  Then, when the financial meltdown occurred - and the subsequent "private" debt was "socialised" - that is, subsidised by money from the public coffers (by a Republican President - at the behest of his Secretary of the Treasury, for those keeping score), the lower income citizen was saddled with a far higher relative percentage of the tax burden to 'bail out' the banks and financial institutions - institutions that ironically have stock most likely to be owned by those that received the majority of the tax break.

So, what does any of that have to do with a 40X tax?  A 40X tax says simply that those making more than 40 times the AVERAGE wage will pay a higher tax on wages that are beyond that 40X figure.  As an example, if the 'Average' income is $ 50,000.00 then the point of impact of a 40X tax would be $ 50,000 X 40 = $2,000,000.  So anyone making over $ 2,000,000 would pay a higher tax rate on everything over that $ 2,000,000 mark.  I don't know about you, but everyone I interact with would be pretty happy to have the opportunity to worry about having to pay a 40X tax - but few would actually be impacted.

Finally, vote out the scoundrels and scallywags standing in the way of enacting - or at least discussing - real and potential solutions.  Those standing in the way should be tried for treason, insurrection, and / or sedition.  They are actively working to damage our country just as much as they would be if they were agents for other nations or powers.  This, in my opinion includes lobbyists - they ARE in fact working for other powers, trying to cut special deals for their special interests at the expense of the citizens as a whole.

Will the enacting of these items result in a more just, fair, and equitable nation?  Well, it couldn't hurt.

I think we need more PIGs in government.

P.I.G. is not pork-barrel in government. What is P.I.G. you ask? P.I.G. is "PRAGMATISM IN GOVERNMENT" Is it pragmatic to have huge corporations paying $ 0.00 in income taxes? Of course not. Is it pragmatic to have a tax system legislated to give corporations TAX SUBSIDIES to outsource jobs, put Americans out of work, and drive our economy down? Of course not. A pragmatic approach to public policy (In my mind) consist of these pillars:

F - Is it fair? Is the public policy as enacted, reasonable and fair, neither penalizing any group of citizens or constituents too meanly not rewarding any group too generously, but offering equal opportunity and benefits under the law and/or policy. (In my mind, Social Security is unfair, it taxes salary to a level around $ 100,000, so the really big earners get a free ride, because they can and do also contribute to IRA's, making a multi-tiered retirement system. That's not fair.)

E - Is it enforceable? In many ways, this also falls under the "affordable" constraint. Laws and policies do not enforce themselves, there is a cost involved in enforcement and this must be included. An example - it may be apocryphal - is that it is against the law to carry "pliers" in a vehicle in some western states. Supposedly this law was enacted during the era of "range wars" but plainly this is unenforceable, thus unreasonable.

A - Is it affordable? Just as there are many, many, worthy causes, likewise there are a multitude of worthwhile and worthy actions that should be pursued as public policy. Realistically though, we simply can't "boil the ocean." Which actions should be pursued in public policy? These should be prioritized to give the "highest" return - where return is measured in positive outcomes, be that higher graduation rate, lower criminal recidivism rate, or whatever metric is appropriate. (Somehow, I doubt adventurous invasions into foreign countries under dubious circumstance to expend 1.000's of lives and trillions of dollars would rank in the top 1,000 items needing attention, but I digress.)

R - Is it reasonable? There are many examples of laws on the books that can be considered "reactionary." While these laws may make good political circus and pandering, laws and policy should act as guidelines, not defining to the nth degree ad infinitum, and not as a reactionary response. Another example - it is not "reasonable" to build a wall along the southern border of the U.S. It is reasonable to work with Mexico to develop economic plans that encourage growth of a strong middle class on both sides of the border. Mexican immigrants do not risk their lives for the fun of it, they do it because they want what we all want, an economic opportunity. (Of course, the G.O.P. plan may work - destroy the U.S. economy and the immigrants will stop coming!)

So, that's my pitch. I want to support someone whose perspective towards public policy incorporates four pillars - is it fair, enforceable, affordable, and reasonable? I'm a P.I.G., how about you?

What is wrong with democracy in America? Well, for starters we do not live in a democracy. According to Wikipedia, democracy is "is a form of government in which all eligible people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law." We live in a "constitutional republic" a form of government John Adams defined as a a government of laws, and not of men. Constitutional republics attempt to weaken the threat of "majoritarnianism" and protect dissenting individuals and minority groups from a "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. The power of the majority of the people is limited to electing representatives who legislate within the limits of an overarching constitutional law that a simple majority cannot modify. This, of course, can make our form of government frustratingly slow and sloppy, but the goal is to ensure our freedoms are not encroached upon.

Plainly by definition, our government was designed to be based on compromise to prevent "tyranny of the majority", or any other form of tyranny. The fundamental form of our government came about via a compromise known as "The Great Compromise" or the "Connecticut Compromise" that led to our having a bicameral legislature, that is, a legislature consisting of two bodies, House and Senate. So, even before we had a Constitution, the founders of our nation recognized the need for compromise.

And yet. And yet. Today we find our country oddly enough held hostage by a tyrant - none other than "ideology". Thus, ideology in this extreme becomes fanaticism and tyranny, neither an acceptable position for a representative elected by the people. So, what has gone wrong?

I believe the modern right-wing and those of the right wing claiming to be 'Christian' are guilty of heresy. While many claim to be "blessed" because they have been given stewardship for much, in fact wealth is a curse for those professing to be Christian. You don't need to trust me on this, look at the words of Christ in Mark 10:17 - 27. 'A wealthy person approached Christ and asked what must be done to enter the kingdom of heaven.' According to the Apostle Mark, Christ instructed him to obey the commandments (Exodous 20:3 - 17) - Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness . . . and so on. The wealthy person said 'I do these things.' And Christ told the person. 'one thing you have not done, sell your assets and take your wealth, give it to the poor and follow me.' And the wealthy person went away sadly, for he could not forgo the pleasures of wealth.

Now, fast-forward to the 21st century. Suddenly, wealth being a 'blessing' has become the standard in many Christian circles - so-called. Since the days of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and others who claim to be Christian leaders but are leading people astray, it is accepted in many groups that 'we have wealth because we are blessed.' In fact, if you have wealth and cannot bring yourself to 'give it to the poor' you have been cursed, not blessed. How heretical to believe that somehow you are better . . . blessed . . . because you have things.

And now, in the Congress of the United States, this heretical perversity has been elevated to a new level. The lies and hypocrisy . . . 'We MUST cut Social Security, Medicare, other 'entitlements.'' These are the programs that help the most helpless among us. And those calling for cuts are . . . those claiming to be representing Christians, the G.O.P. Honestly, I'm inclined to believe these are the same ilk that were driven from the temple as money lenders.

But some people believe the ends justify the means. They will lie when the truth would do better. They will pervert a word. Pervert a program. Pervert a religion. Pervert and destroy a country, if they believe it serves their purpose. They have no heart and no honor.

Welcome to the fascist rule of the 21st century G.O.P. lead by the Tea Party. The same people that didn't mind painting the President of the United States as a "terrorist." The same people that use those that incite violence, then claim 'oh, we don't support violence.' These people are Christian? I say these are vile hypocrites and will have the opportunity to burn in a special part of Hell in recompense for dishonoring the spirit and the letter of the Logos.

I am absolutely sick of the tone politics has taken. On both sides. Where have all of the socially liberal, fiscal conservatives gone? Are there no "people of goodwill" that can set aside their differences and focus on the areas where they agree and move forward together to make good public policy? I mean, look at the terms being used: "Attack Machine", "GOP lies", "Deception", "Special Interest funded attacks", "Progressivism is the cancer", and on and on.

None of these are the terms of people of good will working together to form a stronger national union or a sound policy. These terms are all terms of divisiveness, demonizing one group or another. The only thing on which the two sides can agree is that they want you to send them your money "to show them you won't tolerate" or "stand for" or "to send a message".

We are all being played for morons. Unemployment is - depending on where you live - anywhere from 9 to 25%. People are losing their houses, have no health insurance, have college debt at 8.5% for crying out loud and these f*****s in Washington that have health care, have retirement have a $ 100,000 per month expense account want you to send them money!

Hmmmm . . . . well, here's an idea or two, why don't we all REALLY SEND A MESSAGE TO WASHINGTON? Why don't we all at the next election simply write in "none of the above." Do you want leadership? Sorry, none of the above currently demonstrate leadership. What about bi-partisanship? Sorry, same here. New ideas? Nope. Willingness to work together for common good? Not here. Let's face it, the only thing the politicians can agree on is their desire to get re-elected. Not a good reason to send them back to Washington. Let's send them all home.

Call me a hopeless ideologue. Or Perhaps a hopeful one. I have for the longest time held the belief that, given information surrounding a circumstance people would behave rationally. By rationally, I mean make decisions that are reasonable and supported by the facts. Doesn't that sound reasonable? It certainly does to me.

Like everyone I receive loads of unsolicited - typically forwarded - emails. These emails almost always have what to me seems a mean-hearted, mean-spirited tone. I have cudgeled my brain in an effort to recall a single one that has worked to unite people, find a consensus, a common good and cannot recall a single one - which is itself a sad commentary, but a topic for another day.

Many of these emails are very well crafted - they create a sense of urgency, as if the author is sharing something of grave importance - and many also contain components of truth. . . half-truths, really. Remember though, a half-truth is like a half-brick. It can do more damage in some cases because it can be thrown farther. And half-truth emails are thrown all over the Internet.

Anyway, when I receive one of these emails I try to ascertain the truth - if the email has anything beyond simply biased, opinionated statements - and verify whether the sender has any new or real insight. As you have already guessed, typically these emails are spurious. Generally they have been altered - perhaps starting off as a real comment by some business person, comedian, or some such - to hold in many cases very hateful, spiteful agendas. A perfect example, I recently received one claiming Laura Bush had 1 personal assistant while Michelle Obama has 22. This one is easy enough to verify by reviewing the "Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff" (You can see the whole story of this email here). Plainly, this email was put together simply to say hateful things about the current First Lady. Now I am pleased to say, the individual sending me this email is an honorable man. I responded to him with the facts and he issued a second email blast indicating the error with the prior email. I value his honesty and candor - there are plenty of lousy things both parties do without the need to make things up.

This honorable individual is the exception. And don't misunderstand, we still have vast areas regarding public policy on which we disagree - which is fine.

In the vast majority of cases however, I have been very disappointed to learn most people that forward these types of email HAVE NO INTEREST in learning of factual errors in their assertions or hearing any opinion beyond their own. In fact, it appears for most of these the attitude of the sender is really one of: DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH THE FACTS, MY MIND IS MADE UP!!! In fact in some cases people have actually attached a line at the bottom saying something like - if you disagree, don't respond to this as I don't care what you think. Of course, in those cases I attempt to respect their wishes, I simply delete the email or in some cases respond by asking them not to forward that type of crap to me.

But the others. . . those that come and are plainly misguided and wrong . . . in my hopefulness or naivete I will respond with a question or facts that demonstrate truth. And don't get me wrong, truth cuts both ways and regularly hammers people on all sides of political discourse - but it is the truth. And the truth will set you free.

Much to my chagrin it seems virtually everyone who issues these biased misleading emails really doesn't want to engage in discussion, share ideas, or find common ground. It appears they only want to hear the same hateful, biased stories ad nauseum! The same old things - whatever is wrong it is always "their" fault - whoever the "their" is. 90%+ of these types of emails (or at least those sent to me) seem to originate on the right-wing side of politics.

Try as I might to engage any of these email purveyors in conversation - let's look at history, how did we get here? - I generally get the most hateful responses imaginable or no response at all. On the rare occasion when the purveyors of hate have engaged, the conversation is almost surreal. Ask challenging questions and the answers you get are to the questions they wish you would have asked, not the ones you DID ask. This unfortunately, is nothing more than an attack machine.

It saddens me. I would thoroughly enjoy finding out that most or many . . . or some citizens are interested in discussing public policy. Like the Founders of this country wanted, an enlightened citizenry engaged in public debate and discourse. Instead, what I find is a citizenry becoming more and more removed from real discussion. Stratified, each standing in their own corner, with an agenda and hurtling vile lies and curses at their perceived "enemies" and distancing groups farther and farther apart. It honestly defies reason - in my humble perspective.

I mean, at the end of the day, we are all in this together. For the most part we have more in common with one another than we have differences. Why can't we focus on the 90 % we agree on and make public policy that addresses and supports our common best interests rather that focusing on the 10% we disagree on? In the words of Rodney King, "Can we all just get along?" These hateful agenda emails, expressing these vile biases, lies, and half-truths - often cloaked in false patriotism or false religion demean the sender and do evil work in polarizing the citizens of our country. Perhaps there is a special place in hell for those who feel the end justifies the means and have no compunction about spreading, lies, slanders and falsehoods. At least I hope there is.

Regardless of your political perspectives, I hope you can and do articulate and support your views truthfully, but with an open ear. After all, no one has a "corner" on good ideas. I would welcome rational discussion on public policy.

Until next time.

January 1, 2010 - Hard to believe the "Naughties" are past. What a decade it has been - from the hopefulness of 2000, having avoided annihilation during space aliens, acts of God, and also cyber-annihilation by Y2K, the abominable acts of terrorism by al Qeda against the World Trade Center Towers - or was it terrorism allowed by the Bush administration wanting to galvanize the American Public for the convoluted, changing reasons / changing stories push into Iraq (see here: http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads.php) - to the dreadful human and economic cost of the war, the economic meltdown (tied to the Republican Congress elimination of Glass-Steagall act) recession, the election of Barak Obama . . . so many things have happened in the past ten years.

So, as every New Year, we stand on the cusp of the future. What, if anything, have we learned from the past ten years and how can we use that to leverage us forward - as a people, as a nation, as a species?

The first thing we have learned - or should have learned - those we elect to represent "us" really don't care about us. They only care about themselves and staying in office. They have no courage to lead, no character to accept responsibility for their actions. True leaders have a moral compass, take action, and take responsibility. Unfortunately, we are now a corpocracy, our elected representatives working diligently to pander and support corporations - at the expense of individuals. How much did each U.S. taxpayer contribute to "saving" Wall Street? To saving Capitalism? But wait, if you are "saving" capitalism - if you erase the responsibility of taking bad risks - then in essence haven't we supported a form of socialism? A form of socialism based on government support of corporations rather than the traditional socialist view of government support of citizens. So, it is okay for the government to give "healthcare" or "life support" to the bankers, just not to the citizens. By the way, the amount spent in a couple of months to "save" the profligate corporations is about as much as even the most anti-healthcare representatives estimate the cost to be for the next decade of healthcare. As a recap, the past decade has been painful, hateful, expensive, and not a good experience.

People seem so . . . angry now. But the real question here should be, how much of this anger is due to manipulation by the media? Rather than working to explain positions and complex issues, the "news" has completely sold out and chosen to be entertainment rather than "serious" media. That's what happens when news becomes a profit center rather than a public service. The news outlets become simply another mechanism for cross-selling of product - American Idol, the Jay Leno Show, professional sports, you name it. And nothing against those other "products" - they simply aren't news. And the media watering down, dumbing down and replacing with entertainment the analysis of challenging events, they have chosen to pander - with full support of both parties - creating the false sense of urgency and crisis. Media has chosen NOT to cover real issues, not to form legitimate platforms of analysis ensuring an enlightened electorate - working for a better country and world but instead are pandering and in the process stratifying the American people and the world - all in support of a revenue stream for their corporate masters.

It is unfortunate the media - who could work to be a force bringing people together - and the FCC who could create and enforce public policies that lead to more cohesiveness and a more enlightened populace have instead chosen to be weak, cowardly, and nothing more than lapdogs.

Perhaps I have not effectively articulated my arguments, if that is the case then please forgive me. But the point of this missive is simply to explain why I have chosen to "dial out" of the messaging corporations, political parties and government are sending. Are there crisis? Of course. But they are not the crises that corporations and government send out emails about each day.

Each side - Democrats and Republicans - would have you believe that members of the opposing side "eat their young" - demonizing them to such an extent that bi-partisanship is simply not an option . . . and this is absurd. Both sides have people worthy of respect and people worthy of disdain. Both sides SHOULD exhibit common sense, but currently politics is so polarized there is no middle ground.

And both sides are currently so filled with lazy politicians more interested in re-election than public policy, more interested in self-service than public service that the whole scenario is simply disgusting. What we have today is a leadership vacuum and law to serve lobbyists. The American Congress is open for business . . . for sale to the highest bidder.

At least, that is one man's opinion.