sharing the wealth?
A good editorial in the latest issue of The Christian Century: American Pie
In the course of discussing tax policy with an unlicensed Ohio plumber, Barack Obama suggested that “spreading the wealth around” a bit more would be good for the country. Obama was trying to explain why he wants to impose a modest tax increase on people who make more than $250,000 a year while reducing taxes on those making less than that amount. John McCain and his supporters immediately seized on Obama’s remark as a sign that Obama favors a socialist form of income redistribution.
The notion that a progressive income tax is a form of socialism is ludicrous. Since the time of Teddy Roosevelt, Americans have recognized that those who are flourishing most in society should pay a proportionately higher share of tax. After all, they are the ones benefiting most from the social stability and infrastructure that government provides.
Talk of socialism would be laughable except that it is part of a larger, disturbing reality in American politics: it has become almost impossible to talk about the disparities in wealth that have arisen over the past three decades and about how this stratification undermines democracy and fosters unequal outcomes in other areas of life, including educational opportunity and access to health care.
Since the late 1970s the share of national income going to the top 1 percent of Americans has doubled and the share for the top 0.1 percent has tripled. More than 40 percent of total income goes to the wealthiest 10 percent—their biggest share of the nation’s pie in at least 65 years. The very wealthy have become enormously wealthy, while middle-class workers have seen their wages stagnate—barely keeping pace with inflation—and at the same time have had to deal with sharp increases in the costs of health care and education.
In light of this trend, the dispute between McCain and Obama on taxes is minor: Obama wants to return the top marginal tax rate to 39 percent, where it was under Clinton, while McCain wants to keep it at 35 percent. Both men, in other words, would maintain the mildly progressive tax system that currently exists. The current system is actually much less progressive than it was in earlier decades—under Eisenhower the top tax rate was 91 percent, and under Nixon it was 70 percent. Those were hardly socialist administrations.
Though tax rates are not the only factor shaping economic conditions, they are an important measure of how the burdens of common life are being distributed. The warnings about socialism should be seen for what they are: a blunt effort to block any discussion of the ominous fact that the U.S. has become a nation of increasing inequality and, for many, of declining opportunity.
“Socialism” is meant to conjure visions of our adversaries, of systems of government that undermine the freedoms and personal opportunities democracies are supposed to guarantee. Its use, as the editorial suggests, serves to stifle, not encourage, debate. The focus of the debate should be fairness. Any enacted tax policy redistributes wealth; the Bush administration tax cuts redistributed wealth to the wealthiest of Americans. Is tax relief for the wealthy “capitalism” as opposed to tax relief for the middle class which is “socialism?” So the foundation of our democracy is subsidies for the upper class? I don’t think that was the vision of our nation’s founders. Fairness and justice are closer to that vision, I think, and closer to the vision of the world God calls us to bring into being.
ask the next president to ban torture
Three organizations (The National Religious Campaign Against Torture, Evangelicals for Human Rights, and The Center for Victims of Torture) are spearheading a joint effort to urge the next president to issue an executive order banning the use of torture by any entity representing the United States. Such an act, in and of itself, could go a long way, I think, toward restoring the integrity of the United States as a global leader in defense of universal human rights, whichever candidate were to be elected. You may join this effort by endorsing the Declaration of Principles for a Presidential Executive Order On Prisoner Treatment, Torture and Cruelty. The text of the Declaration follows …
Declaration of Principles for a Presidential Executive Order On Prisoner Treatment, Torture and Cruelty
Though we come from a variety of backgrounds and walks of life, we agree that the use of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment against prisoners is immoral, unwise, and un-American.
In our effort to secure ourselves, we have resorted to tactics which do not work, which endanger US personnel abroad, which discourage political, military, and intelligence cooperation from our allies, and which ultimately do not enhance our security.
Our President must lead us by our core principles. We must be better than our enemies, and our treatment of prisoners captured in the battle against terrorism must reflect our character and values as Americans.
Therefore, we believe the President of the United States should issue an Executive Order that provides as follows:
The “Golden Rule.” We will not authorize or use any methods of interrogation that we would not find acceptable if used against Americans, be they civilians or soldiers.
One national standard. We will have one national standard for all US personnel and agencies for the interrogation and treatment of prisoners. Currently, the best expression of that standard is the US Army Field Manual, which will be used until any other interrogation technique has been approved based on the Golden Rule principle.
The rule of law. We will acknowledge all prisoners to our courts or the International Red Cross. We will in no circumstance hold persons in secret prisons or engage in disappearances. In all cases, prisoners will have the opportunity to prove their innocence in ways that fully conform to American principles of fairness.
Duty to protect. We acknowledge our historical commitment to end the use of torture and cruelty in the world. The US will not transfer any person to countries that use torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
Checks and balances. Congress and the courts play an invaluable role in protecting the values and institutions of our nation and must have and will have access to the information they need to be fully informed about our detention and interrogation policies.
Clarity and accountability. All US personnel—whether soldiers or intelligence staff—deserve the certainty that they are implementing policy that complies fully with the law. Henceforth all US officials who authorize, implement, or fail in their duty to prevent the use of torture and ill-treatment of prisoners will be held accountable, regardless of rank or position.
reminders of an (almost) perfect day
This is one of my favorite photographs from a five-mile hike over Penobscot and Sargent mountains in Acadia National Park. It frames the reflection of the Bubbles overlooking the north end of Jordan Pond. I like the way the photo turned out, granite mounds reflected in the still waters, framed by green branches and a half-submerged rock in the foreground.
Stoney, our two-and-a-half year old Australian Shepherd, accompanied me on the hike and we both had a great time that day. At least I know I did!
I had been anticipating and planning this day for a year. Each year for three years, Stoney and I have done a hike in the Jordan Pond area. Last year I heard about Sargent Mountain Pond and decided we needed to see it! The pond lies between the two summits and offers both unusually beautiful views and a refreshing rest stop mid-hike. Here’s a view of the pond …
As Stoney and I headed up the trail from Jordan Pond House, the Pond and the flanks of Penobscot Mountain to the west and Pemetic Mountain to the east of the Pond were engulfed in low-lying clouds. But the clouds gave way to strong sunlight as we made our way onto the summit ridge. The day was everything I had anticipated … and more. The climbing was challenging and exhilarating; Sargent Mountain Pond was a delight; and the views from the top of Sargent were an unexpected treat. It was an (almost) perfect day! And a day I will remember for a long time … at least until next year and our next hike!
(Click on any photo to see a larger image!)
nrdc update: good news!
Good news on the endangered species front …
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will withdraw its decision to remove endangered species protections from the gray wolf in the Northern Rockies, according to press reports. Federal protections of wolves will continue for wolves in Yellowstone, Central Idaho and Glacier ecosystems. This development comes on the heels of a federal judge’s decision on a suit brought by NRDC and 11 other conservation groups that blocked the delisting decision. Recently the Department of Interior has been roundly criticized over proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act.
“More than 100 wolves were needlessly killed as a result of the government’s ill-fated delisting effort—and hundreds more would have been shot this fall if federal protections had not been restored,” said Louisa Willcox of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “One of the Endangered Species Act’s greatest success stories would quickly be undone if the killing had continued, And that death toll confirms the need for wolves to retain federal protection until their populations increase and state agencies can demonstrate that they are capable of managing wolf populations responsibly.”
Read the rest of the article: Wolves Win on the National Resources Council website.
sister earth
at our worst … and best
Three Iraqis and a Jordanian filed federal lawsuits Monday alleging they were tortured by U.S. defense contractors while detained at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq in 2003 and 2004.
The lawsuits allege that those arrested and taken to the prison were subjected to forced nudity, electrical shocks, mock executions and other inhumane treatment. They seek unspecified payments high enough to compensate the detainees for their injuries, and to deter contractors from such conduct in the future.
“These innocent men were senselessly tortured by U.S. companies that profited from their misery,” said lead attorney Susan L. Burke, of the Philadelphia law firm Burke O’Neil. “These men came to U.S. courts because our laws, as they have for generations, allow their claims to be heard here.”
From an Associated Press article by David Dishneau, Abu Ghraib Inmates Sue Contractors, Claim Torture
Terrible things — truly terrible things — have been done in our name, “to protect the interests of the nation.” Terrible things have been done, with precious little accountability. Only media reports and opinion pieces — not really the courts and not really the congress — have held the practice of “enhanced interrogation” up to the light of day, but, even so, such reporting has sparked little outrage. Some of us deny it. Some of make excuses for it. And some of us just chalk it up to the cost of ensuring our security.
Personal and national security, whatever the cost, without regard for law or principle or love of neighbor: this shows us at our worst.
But now four individuals subjected to “enhanced interrogation” are suing. I applaud this opportunity to “try” the case, to bring the facts to light, to put the minds and hearts of the American people and the American justice system to the test. And as the lawyer for the plaintiffs suggests, this shows us at our best, capable of facing and redressing our own sins. The American system of governance is supposed to work that way, giving all access to justice, and allowing for self-correction as we learn from our mistakes.
May it be so in this case …
good news: burger king changes its mind
Burger King has reversed its entrenched opposition to raising wages for the tomato pickers helping to provide the produce necessary to its business, removing the last major corporate obstacle to a more just wage for the farm workers. However, the tomato growers are still set against a wage increase. Read Andrew Martin’s coverage in the New York Times:
After a contentious battle that included allegations of spying, Burger King announced on Friday that it had reached an agreement to improve the wages and working conditions of tomato pickers in Florida.
At a news conference on Capitol Hill, the hamburger chain, based in Miami, said it would pay tomato prices adequate to give workers a wage increase of 1.5 cents a pound. A penny a pound will go into the workers’ pockets. The extra half-cent is intended to cover additional payroll taxes and administrative costs for tomato growers.
The 1-cent increase means that for every 32-pound bucket of tomatoes they pick, the workers will earn 77 cents, instead of 45 cents. That is a 71 percent increase, the first substantial one in decades for the workers. At the old wage, a farm workers group said, the pickers typically earned $10,000 to $12,000 a year.
“If the Florida tomato industry is to be sustainable long term, it must become more socially responsible,” said Amy Wagner, a senior vice president at Burger King. She estimated that the wage boost would cost Burger King about $300,000 a year.
In a statement, Burger King’s chief executive, John W. Chidsey, said he was sorry for previous negative remarks directed toward an activist group that has fought on behalf of the pickers, the Coalition for Immokalee Workers. Immokalee is a town in southwest Florida where many of the farm workers live in decrepit shacks and trailers.
Mr. Chidsey praised the workers’ organization as “being on the forefront of efforts to improve farm labor conditions, exposing abuses and driving socially responsible purchasing and work practices in the Florida tomato fields.”
McDonalds and Yum Brands, the parent of Taco Bell, had already agreed to similar deals. But it remained unclear on Friday if workers would receive the pay increase, because Florida tomato growers had resisted it.
The Florida Tomato Growers Exchange, which represents 90 percent of the state’s tomato growers, told The News-Press in Fort Myers, Fla., on Thursday that it was withdrawing its threat of imposing $100,000 fines on members who provided a penny-a-pound pay raise.
Reggie Brown, the exchange’s executive vice president, told the Florida newspaper that he remained troubled by legal questions prompted by the raise and was advising members not to participate.
Mr. Brown could not be located for comment on Friday.
The announcement was hailed by some members of Congress and by farm workers’ organizations, who had waged a vigorous campaign that included petition drives and Congressional hearings.
Senator Bernard Sanders, an Independent of Vermont, said the working conditions of the tomato pickers were a “national and international embarrassment,” and he praised Burger King for agreeing to raise wages.
“We all know that this has been a long and hard road for Burger King,” he said.
Lucas Benitez, of the Coalition for Immokalee Workers, said he was thankful that Burger King agreed to the wage increase, and he said his group would now set its sights on other restaurant chains and grocery retailers who continue to pay wages his group regards as substandard.
Noting that some of those companies market themselves as being socially responsible, Mr. Benitez, co-founder of the farm workers’ group, said, “It is time for those companies to live out the true meaning of their marketers” words.
Friday’s announcement was a sharp departure for Burger King, which had vigorously fought increasing its tomato costs. Burger King acknowledged, for instance, that it had hired a private security firm to obtain information about student and farm worker organizations that were demanding price increases. The company has since severed its ties to the security firm.