Wealth, Political Influence, Tax Breaks

Over the course of my adult life I’ve worked for two companies both of which have been small family owned businesses. The first one grew to about 50 people over the years and the family became comfortably wealthy which they deserved for their hard work, sacrifices and skills. The second is newer and is still growing and I have no doubt the owners will also achieve a comfortable level of wealth. I have never begrudged them their success and have worked hard to help them achieve it as they have also allowed me to share in that success via a good salary and nice bonuses.

The Republican tax plan, which will likely have passed and been signed into law by the time you read this, the entrepreneurs I’ve worked for over the years may benefit a little but 70% of middle and working class families won’t. The bulk of the benefits go to the wealthiest 10% of Americans, the latest in Republican largesse will go to those with massive real estate holdings like Donald Trump and Sen. Bob Corker who suddenly changed his no vote to a yes vote about the same time as the 20% tax break was added to the bill.

Presidents often tout their economic successes by quoting increases in the Dow Jones Industrial Average which now stands at nearly 25,000. The tax plan includes a huge break on corporate taxes especially for international profits that are brought back to the US which are guaranteed to increase stock values which some analysts expect will cause the Dow to hit 27,000. That’s great if you own stocks but nearly half of Americans don’t, in fact over 80% of stock value is owned by the same 10% of Americans who will benefit the most from the Republican tax plan. How nice for them.

Now here’s the problem, the big reason those massive tax benefits go to the ultra-wealthy is that they use a small fraction of their wealth to influence the rules that affect their wealth. Through campaign donations directly to candidates and political action committees (PAC’s) some of which obscure where the money came from, and an army of lobbyists the wealthiest among us pursue further economic advantage over the rest of us.

The McCain-Feingold Act which provided some limits to the amount of money that could be spent by any one individual or corporation on a single politician wasn’t perfect but since the Supreme Court decisions overturning much of those limits, McCutcheon v. FEC and Citizens United v. FEC there has been a tidal wave of money flowing from the ultra-wealthy into campaign coffers of federal and state legislators. It is now ridiculously expensive to run a competitive campaign for any of those offices in nearly every district.

As I said earlier I don’t have a problem with people getting wealthy off of their own efforts, I do have a problem with people getting even wealthier by stacking the deck. It isn’t just tax breaks that enrich these folks either. They also push laws that prohibit competition such as the law in Texas that says no municipality can operate its own internet service provider. The wealthy also push for reductions in regulation that protect the health and safety of workers and consumers alike. One such example is the elimination of rules that coal companies had to abide by regarding polluting streams with runoff from mining waste which can dump high concentrations of toxic arsenic and mercury into drinking water sources.

We’ve returned to the era of the “Robber Barons”, are you comfortable with that?

Published in the Seguin Gazette - December 22, 2017

Do you believe in the best government money can buy?

However you feel about the results of the 2012 election cycle you’re sure to have recognized that a lot of money was spent on both sides and much of it was by undisclosed very wealthy or corporate sources. Even when only the losing candidate received the benefit of those funds it sends a chilling message to other candidates near and far.

Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson spent nearly $150 million in the last cycle and has vowed to double his contributions in 2016. I don’t mind that Mr. Adelson is exceptionally wealthy but I do mind that he uses that vast wealth to buy my government. Are you comfortable with any one man being allowed to use that much money to influence your congressman or senator?

In the Texas legislature bills have been filed which say “Urging the United States Congress to propose and submit to the states for ratification an amendment to the United States Constitution that overturns Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, establishing that the spending of money to influence elections shall not be construed as speech under the First Amendment, and clarifying that only natural persons are protected by constitutional rights.” The bills are Senate Concurrent Resolution 2 by Sen. Rodney Ellis and House Concurrent Resolution 21 by Rep. Senfronia Thompson, if you think unregulated and undisclosed money in our political process is bad for our democracy you should call your state legislators and ask them to support these two bills.

Privatization - the Bush gift that keeps on giving

It has been a Republican mantra for decades that private enterprise is more efficient than government. In 2005 President George W. Bush led the charge to privatize Social Security. Between the collapse of Enron and the banking system can you imagine where we’d be if he hadn’t failed? When the same president led us into the war in Afghanistan his administration used private security contractors, mercenaries - many of whom are not American citizens, to provide security for supply convoys and military bases. When President Bush led us into the war in Iraq his administration further privatized the war effort by using mercenaries to protect state department personnel leading to the alleged atrocities by Blackwater guards at Nisour Square where 17 innocent Iraqi civilians were killed.

During that same period President Bush appointed two new members to the Supreme Court. Those two members recently joined with three other activist judges from the right in a decision that effectively privatizes the United States Congress and Presidency. The decision in the Citizens United vs. the FEC which allows corporations both domestic and foreign to effectively purchase federal elected officials could well be the most enduring legacy of the George W. Bush administration.

Populist activists from the right and left, like the Tea Party and MoveOn.org should make common cause to call for a constitutional convention as provided for by Article V of the U.S. Constitution to reverse this disastrous decision by amending our constitution.