QUOTES OF THE WEEK
From Fred Bender, Santa Fe: “The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism – ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
“We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.” Dwight D. Eisenhower
THE “WE WANT CHANGE PROJECT – A DEMOCRATIC WORKING PAPER”
(Editor’s Note: The full outline of the “We Want Change Project” can be found online at our website www.thecompasssociety.com and click on vol. III, no.4. This is WEEK #4 in this series of 38 newsletters. The topics covered in the first 3 weeks of the project are:
Bullet I. 1. – “Long-term National Security” – vol. III, no. 4
Bullet II. 2. – “Peace in the Middle East” – vol. III, no. 5
Bullet IV. 2. – “Church Leaders, Speak Up!” – vol. III, no. 6
The series will conclude on the last Saturday before the mid-term elections on Tuesday, Nov. 7, 2006. There are only 34 WEEKS REMAINING before Democrats must capture at least one house of Congress.)
Bullet II.4. – “Corporate Greed is Killing the Consumer”
From the editor: The consumer is the primary economic growth engine in any capitalistic enterprise. It is not the top one percent of the richest individuals in such an enterprise – as the “trickle down” economists would have you believe. Consumerism is responsible for at least two-thirds of the Gross Domestic Product (also Gross National Product) in our country. In the past four or five decades, the U.S. economy has grown on the backs of middle class and lower income consumers in the form of at least three sociological trends. The first trend was fueled by women entering the labor force and creating double-income families. The second trend was created when the consuming public fell in love with credit cards. The third and most recent trend fueling economic growth in this country has been created by rising home prices, low interest rates, and cashing in real estate equity. Without christening these trends with a value judgment of “good” or “bad,” they do represent the sources and the major reasons for the passion to consume products and services. Unfortunately, there are two major trends that not only jeopardize economic growth but also confuse accumulation of wealth with healthy economic growth. The two trends are: 1) the privatization of America; and 2) the enormous and growing gap between the rich and the poor in America.
The stunning escalation of the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) from below 1000 points in the early 1970s to its current levels exceeding 11,000 points represents the primary means-- along with favorable tax policies -- that have allowed the accumulation of wealth by a few. This accumulation does not mean that the dollars accumulated largely by the top one-tenth of one percent of the richest people are being invested in economic growth. The stagnation of real wages; the ridiculous gap between CEO salaries, bonuses, and stock options and those of the employees working for such CEOs; the squeezing of lower and middle class workers by rising health care costs; the outsourcing of jobs through unfair trade agreements; the high cost of a college education; the shredding of social safety nets for the poor; the bankruptcy laws that favor corporations and punish the individual; the disappearance of “defined benefit” retirement plans replaced by “defined contribution” plans all indicate that wealth accumulation does not mean healthy economic growth.
On the contrary, such accumulation is more likely to bring about the destruction of our economic infrastructure rather than growth. The destructive nature of privatization surfaces when it sees government as all bad and business as all good. Such a business philosophy ignores the historically proven value of a partnership between government and business. In such a productive partnership, government fulfills the role of regulator and rule setting that enforces safety and security issues while it (the government) addresses social issues largely being ignored by the business community.
Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower both predicted and could clearly see the possibility that corporate America would force movement away from democratic principles of equality and fairness toward an unhealthy aristocratic oligarchy unless its excesses were held in check by wise public policy.
Following are excerpts from previous issues of The Compass that highlight evidence and facts documenting the truth that corporations and their lobbyists promote the accumulation of wealth by a few at the expense of a healthy middle class and upward mobility for poor working families and individuals.
A COUNTRY OF CORRUPTION, BY LOBBYISTS, FOR CORPORATIONS
(Appeared in The Compass, vol. II, no. 26, Dec. 17, 2005.)
From Knight Ridder Newspapers: Following are excerpts from an article that appeared in the Dec. 11, 2005 issue of The Santa Fe New Mexican. The article was written by James Kuhnhenn:
“Big money is buying influence in Washington these days on a scale seen rarely, if ever, before.”
“Consider this: After the terrorists attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, big-ticket defense contracts doubled, federal spending on those contracts jumped by $100 billion—and the number of lobbyists signed up to represent defense-industry clients spiked from 900 to more than 1,650.”
“In what would be an audacious abuse of that nexus of money, power and influence, two defense contractors now stand accused of bribing Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif.—a power on the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee.” (Note: Cunningham has since been sentenced to serve eight years in prison.)
“That case and other corruption investigations under way have enormous implications for next year’s (2006) congressional elections. At stake may be whether Republicans retain control of Congress.”
Between 2000 and 2004, “the number of firms registered to lobby congressional ‘appropriators’ who control spending in Congress almost doubled, from 1,865 to 3,523.”
TAX DOLLARS SUBSIDIZE THE ‘HYPER RICH’
(Appeared in The Compass, vol. II, no. 18, Aug. 13, 2005.)
From the editor: A Molly Ivins syndicated column calling attention to a study by New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston (and author of the book, “Perfectly Legal”) prompted more accusations of “fomenting class warfare” from Republican pundits. To paraphrase billionaire Warren Buffet, “If there is such a thing as class warfare, our class won.” The Ivins column shared the following findings of the Johnston study:
- “The share of the nation’s income earned by those in this uppermost category (the wealthiest one-thousandth) has more than doubled since 1980…The share of income earned by the rest of the top 10 percent rose far less, and the share earned by the bottom 90 percent fell.”
- “Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest income—a minimum of $87 million per year in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data—now pay taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50-75,000.”
- “Those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100-200,000.”
- “The alternative minimum tax, created 36 years ago to make sure the very richest paid taxes, takes back a growing share of the Bush tax cuts over time from the majority of families earning $75,000 to $1 million…Far fewer of the very wealthiest will be affected by this tax.”
- “Under the Bush tax plan, by 2015, those making between $80,000 and $400,000 will be paying as much as 14 percent more of their incomes than those who are ‘hyper-rich.’”
MORE ON HEALTH CARE COSTS
(Appeared in The Compass, vol. II, no. 15, June 18, 2005)
From the New York Times: Following are excerpts from an article by Milt Freudenheim that appeared in the Mar. 23, 2005 issue:
“The percentage of large and medium-size employers paying 100 percent of workers’ individual premiums plummeted to 17 percent in 2004 from 29 percent in 2000, said Michael Carter, a vice president in Philadelphia with the Hay Group, a benefits consulting firm. Even fewer companies paid the full premium for family coverage – 6 percent of employers in 2004 compared with 11 percent in 2000.”
“At the same time, most workers who are required to share the premium costs are paying more each year.”
“The average share of the premium paid by employees in large and medium-size companies is expected to reach $2,800 for family coverage and $800 for individuals this year (2005), according to a survey by the Hay Group. That would be an increase of 27 percent in the family premium from $2,200 in 2003, and a 23 percent rise from $650 in the individual rate.”
DEMOCRACY SCHOOL REPORT
(Appeared in The Compass, vol. II, no. 14, June 4, 2005)
From Liz M. in Seattle: Forwarded a summation of her experience after attending a 14-hour class on Democracy awareness called the “Democracy School.” Following are excerpts from her summation:
“We viewed and discussed two videos – “Taken for a Ride,” the history of General Motors destroying electric cable car companies in large cities so they could sell gasoline-powered buses. And “FROST,” a NOW (a weekly program aired on PBS) video featuring David Brancaccio chronicling one of the fights in St. Thomas, Pennsylvania, waged by Richard Grossman and attorney Thomas Linzey against corporate invasion.”
“In summarizing a history of the rise of corporate power, the following points were made:
- For over 100 years of our history, governments very carefully and parsimoniously granted charters and always held power over the corporations they created;
- Corporations were created for short periods of time;
- Corporate books were scrutinized at any time by public officials and if found suspicious, charters were revoked and the corporation dissolved;
- If a corporation was needed, but not functioning responsibly, the state, county or township could take it over and place it under public ownership;
- By the late 1800s, wealthy corporations began to purchase judges who granted in the courts more decisions that favored corporations and fewer that favored communities (the common good.);
- In 1886, a Supreme Court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote in a headnote to the Supreme Court decision in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company that the Court had ruled that a private corporation was a “person” under the US Constitution, to be afforded all the protections of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.
(Editor’s Note: The importance of the distinction between a court reporter’s headnote and the actual decision of the Supreme Court is fully presented in Thom Hartmann’s book, “Unequal Protection,” pages 104-109. His book is worth reading for these five pages alone. This legal malfunction does much to explain the troublesome rise in the power of corporations, the abuse of that power, and the distrust of any effort to globalize (spread) that abuse around the world.”)
The Compass Society Newsletter
Published by
The Compass Society
Maynard Chapman, Editor
Copyright © 2006, The Compass Society
Comments