Is Our Government Un-American?

“We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it” ~Jefferson

          The men conceptualizing our Government had diverse and strongly held opinions. However opinionated, the Founding Fathers were adherents of Enlightenment reason to move our Nation forward in dark uncharted waters. Reason enabled compromise. Democratic governance is an act of compromise.

          Why my fixation on compromise? Our Constitution is a document of compromise. Our nation was birthed in profound compromise. The signing of the four major Revolutionary documents was steeped in compromise. While slavery was held by most people to be a moral evil, it was seen by many to be an economic reality, so this crucial issue was compromised. Representation based on State size and population was compromised. A bi-cameral legislature came about through compromise. Federal versus State rights were compromised. The lack of a Bill of Rights was compromised. The extent of Executive and Judicial powers were compromised. How voting occurred and who could vote was compromised. The ability to make treaties and raise a standing army was compromised. And this was all done by the first Congress. Our current Congress can’t seem to pass a single compromised bill. Compromise is now un-American. I contend that the inability to compromise is un-American and represents the inability or incompetence to govern.

          Both reason and compromise appear to be abandoned in our current political system. Extremists cite the virtues of the Founding Fathers but their actions are the antithesis of these virtues. Modern politics is based on ideological entrenchment and bullying.

          Let’s filibuster and obstruct the other side. The filibuster is not in the Constitution. The filibuster is un-American. The Constitution says that the Senate passes laws based on a majority vote (50%). Current Senate practices requiring more votes than a majority are un-American. There is a reason the Founding Fathers set different vote percentages in the bi-cameral legislature. These were based on reason and compromise.

          Let’s get enough seats and we’ll steam-roller our will over the opposition. Let’s get all of Congress and the President too and we’ll be unstoppable. This is not American governance. It is bullying by a majority. That is un-American.  

“Democracy is an experiment, and the right of the majority to rule is no more inherent than the right of the minority to rule; and unless the majority represents sane, righteous, unselfish public sentiment, it has no inherent right.”  ~William Allen White 

          The formation of our Government has been called the Democratic Experiment. It is so named because our Democracy and system of governance evolves over time, and may ultimately either succeed or fail. Success or failure depends on the People’s ability to monitor and realign excesses and perturbations in our Constitutional system.

          Some people are disappointed that the Supercommittee failed. The Supercommittee was always a posture and pander for the political base during an election year. It’s failure enables our national “problem solvers” to take a year off from work and play the blame game. I point out that more than 11 million foreclosures are in the pipeline next year.

          Congress has proven an inability to compromise. This translates into an inability to govern an American Democracy. It’s bad enough when deals are cut that favor special interests rather than the common good. In our current climate, no deals can be cut. In my opinion, any Congressperson unwilling to compromise should be fired. Lincoln said that our institutions are in the People’s hands. The People might review their history and demand reason and compromise from a broken Congress. It is unlikely that the physicians will heal themselves.

The Pursuit of Liberty

          The Thanksgiving holiday, that reflective convergence of Pilgrims, God, slain fowl and duped Native Americans. It is a time to pause and consider the blessings bestowed on us by Providence....before immediately desiring more bestowing next month.

         

          Compared to most other countries and peoples, we are certainly a materially blessed Nation. However, our nation also appears to have many complex systemic challenges which are difficult to decipher and unravel. There are protests in the streets against such systemic impediments to the American Dream. During this time of reflecting on the blessings of Providence, I am reminded of the words of Saint Paul in Ephesians.

          "We  wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual evil in high places (Eph. 6:12)". In the Greek text, this passage is literally rendered "Not is to us the wrestling against blood and flesh, but towards the originals (sovereignities) toward the authorities toward the system-holders (world-mights) of the darkness of the eon this toward the spiritual-forces of the wickedness among the on-heavenlies (celestial-ones). I will now take off my squinty scholar glasses and take up the collection. 

          What can we take away from this arcane passage that is relevant to our current reflections? (1) Greek writers seriously needed punctuation. (2) Our national "struggle" isn't against our fellow Americans. The invisible is driving the visible. While the passage implies deep and spooky behind-the-scenes governance, I don't know that we can control that sort of thing. We probably can't vote it out or pass a law against it. That probably goes beyond a "We the People" thing. But there are a few larger things we can control and influence.

          Is the land of the free in bondage and in need of liberty? We as individuals, families, communities, and as a nation are driven by our perceptions and attitudes. Reality is what we perceive it to be. Our social and political realities are contested and shaped by a vast array of agendas, ideologues and their mouthpieces. Often our religious convictions are indistinguishable from our political convictions. There is great time, energy and money expended to create and sustain our convictions, ideologies, and worldviews.

          Every dimension of our life is so engineered. For example, our purchasing priorities and choices are influenced by media, Madison Avenue, and pop culture. The "influencers" around us seek to sustain, empower and enrich themselves. Once they have succeeded in shaping our political and social realities, they immerse and insulate us within these worldviews and suppress disruptive alternative viewpoints. Both "hippies and hard hats" live in intellectual cocoons, although neither of them are aware of it.

          The "influencers" pit American against American in an arena of ideology and vitriol. Fear, hate and arrogance become the fulcrums for kneejerk emotional reactions. In many ways, the reason the last election was so damaging to the national psyche was that unity, hope and change were personified and contrasted to a message of division and fear. Ideals of hope and change failed to be realized and the terms became derisions. The last election was, in a sense, a portrait of the "spiritual" nature of the democratic experiment. America became great because we were a nation of unity, hope, and change. We erred along the way by trying to personify national values and virtues. We should always strive for these things because that's who we are as a people. We don't abandon them if one guy doesn't deliver. We should also be cautious of personifying and deifying Government, depending on institutions to solve our civil and community problems. The People create the institutions, and can recreate the ones that fail.

          God in His Providence gives us each a brain and a heart. We still have the ability to think and choose, and to change course if prudent. Reason, heart, and indeed faith can overcome unseen forces that seek to divide and conquer.

          The "solution" lies first in ourselves. Change ourselves, change our world. Change our thinking, change our future. For our institutions to become new, we have to become new. We must intentionally shift our thinking and explore/ create the common ground of what it means to be an American. What is our civic responsibility to our community and to one another? The "influencers" seek to keep us separate and struggling, but we can choose as a People to act as a People and create a new "reality". What should this new civic "reality" look like?

          de Tocqueville marveled at the egalitarian, industrious, inclusive and civic spirit of Americans. This was found nowhere else. This spirit made our nation great. We must, as a People, question and cast off the cocoons of the conventional, of indifference and ideology. We must first decide on our shared values...who we are...what we want to build for future generations. Only with clarity of values and purpose can we turn our attention to the institutions, visible manifestations of the invisible "influencers". The Spirit of our shared values and beliefs can oppose the dark divisive values and beliefs surrounding us.

          Take Wall Street as an example. Wall Street practices crashed our national economy and are currently crushing the dreams of millions of Americans through lending and credit practices. Can we assault a building and change this? Can we seek justice through the courts or through "other means" upon the people of Wall Street and change these practices? Probably not. There is a spirit behind Wall Street, a spirit of arrogance, of short term greed, of civic indifference and injustice...and the spirit is legal. There are spirits behind all our institutional 'influencers". In one sense, this may be what Paul is pointing out.

   

          How do we fight institutional "spirits", attitudes and ingrained practices? We the People can think and question and choose a different path, what to value, what to pay attention to, what to spend our time on, what to spend our money on. We can work together to oppose values and practices that set themselves against what make us Americans. We have it within ourselves to tear down the old and build the new.

          On this day of spiritual reflection, how could we choose to shift our thinking and actions to make a difference?

1. We can choose to shift from "me and mine" to "our"
2. We can choose to shift from "doing our thing" to reaching out and building together
3. We can choose to shift from seeking quantity to seeking quality
4. We can choose to shift from consumption to appreciation
5. We can choose to shift from introspective indifference to opposition againindividuals, institutions, and ideologies which divide and exploit us

          Let us reflect on the wisdom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights were considered inalienable, imparted by God and affirmed by Government. May God now impart the wisdom that enables us to establish a course of liberation from our current bondage of institutional "influences".

Scandalous Times

            I think that people are not particularly surprised at scandal and human frailty. I think that people are more incensed by lying and institutional cover-ups. The recent and emerging religious, political and sports sex scandals all have a few convergences. We tend to de-humanize our heroes and make them....heroic Superman wouldn't secretly use his superpowers to get trim on the side.

            It's not that the people involved are bad guys (why don't we hear much about women sexually abusing power?). Joe Paterno is a great leader. He not only won games, but is a great winner. He taught others to be great winners. But Joe messed up like other scandalous figures, caught up in a cult of personality within an institution that protects the cult leader.

            A major mistake made in these scandals is that the leaders turned to the institution to be informed of the appropriate moral response. At Penn State, abuse witness McQuearty ran to "daddy" rather than the police. This same culture exists in many hierarchical cultures, such as the police and the military. The institution will always protect and perpetuate itself. It insulates itself from external accountability. It will always protect it's "reputation". It will always enable scapegoating and cover-ups. Institutions inform a response converse to moral reasoning and in many cases legal reasoning.

            Leaders need a strong personal moral compass and great personal courage to do the "right thing" in the face of institutional pressures. But those that do are often not held up as heroes and exemplars. Why aren't these guys our heroes? How do we as a society contribute to empowering institutional coverups and lack of personal accountability? Are we part of the problem, and how can we become part of the solution?

Amending the Budget

            A current debate concerns the merits and passage of a Constitutional Amendment to balance the Federal budget. Perhaps we could, unlike we did with health care, look towards best practices of other first world nations who have a balanced budget. Are there  any  first world nations with a balanced budget? I know of no democratic nations with a balanced budget. Please....please enlighten my ignorance if this is wrong.

            As far as I am aware, every democratic Government spends more than it takes in. One might point out that China owns much of the United States from forty years of paying our national credit card. This is true. It is also ironic that the strongest economic growth globally is occurring in a Communist country. China has had a surplus since 1999. However, it is autocratic and owns the economy. Don't confuse trade surpluses with budgetary surpluses. US trade is at a disadvantage around the world from other nation's high import tariffs. Perhaps we should have matching trade tariffs, as one gentle reader points out. The other country gets to set whatever number it wants as tariff for our imports. Their exports will receive that same tariff. Seems fair to me. We could call the policy Golden Rule Economics (GRE) or Level Playing Field Economics (LPFE), whichever name you think works better.

            So there is a relationship between economics and national budgets. China has a budgetary surplus because it has an economic surplus. In China the national budget and the economy are the same entity. In democratic countries, they are separate. So until we nationalize all business and banks (I'm sure Obama's next agenda item on Fox News), we must look to the nonsense which is Congress to determine our national fiscal book balancing.

            Congress has always spent more than it takes in. All modern democratic nations spend more than they take in. All nations borrow their debt. Bottom line, you can't run a modern Western nation forced to "balance its budget".

            You can be more fiscally responsible, however. You can reduce the amount of debt you owe as a nation. That's possible and a good thing. Congress has to reduce spending. Sounds simple, unless you're an out-of-touch-with-reality addict jonesing for borrowed money.

            One might point to State balanced budgets. States either fire teachers and firefighters or borrow the money from the Feds. State balanced budgets are an illusion for the most part.

            One must learn the lesson of the gold standard. Our country was taken off the gold standard because it limited the size and growth of our economy. Our money was only as good as the amount of gold we had in storage. Our economy is many times larger than our gold reserve (if we do in fact still have a gold reserve). So now the value of our money is based on the "faith" people have in it. There's a scary thought.

            A related topic is the debt ceiling. When and why was the debt ceiling introduced? It was introduced during WWI as an acknowledgement that we had not a clue how much money a global war would cost. We are the only nation in the world with a raise-able debt ceiling (the other country never raises theirs).

            The realistic reason we have a raise-able debt ceiling and more spending than revenue is that we don't live in a bubble. We live in an unpredictable, dangerous, complex interdependent and dynamic world that can't be limited by the amount of cash in the wallet. Smart people have a credit card for emergencies. A debt ceiling is the emergency credit card (if you have to say start a foreign war for a decade).

            The other reality is that Congress has always spent taxpayer money like drunken sailors. We've just been drinking a lot more since Reagan. So the "Amendment" is less a realistic response to a turbulent environment and more a moral brake on Congressional excess. There is a more simple solution....pay-go. Spend whatever you want, but pay for it from revenue. Stop borrowing foreign money.

            Pay-go requires discipline, commitment and courage, three qualities in short supply in Washington. Can't work...not realistic.....you might state. It did....for four years. Bill Clinton and his bipartisan Congress were the only time in our nation's history (correct me if I'm mistaken) when we had a "surplus" and balanced budget in Congress. Sure I know that there was a bunch of stuff never included in Congressional budgets (>70% of our spending according of OMB). But...the spending that was included was balanced.

            We don't need a "constitutional amendment". Do you how difficult those things are to get passed. Congress does. So they have no intention of passing one. Bear that in mind. It's all show and symbol. We do need pay-go rules and some bipartisan backbone. It's worked before. Maybe we need to get the geezers back in office to show the Tea Party how it's done.

            In order to renew our Government, we as a People must be informed. The CBO/ OMB should put out a yearly report on our actual deficit and spending in a fashion that all Americans can grasp. Ross Perrot will help you with the charts. Renewal might require a clean sweep and radical finance reform. Insider trading and personal enrichment might actually be criminal and prosecuted offenses (looking at you most of Congress). It might be decided in national debate that term limits be imposed. The filibuster as practiced might be changed. Campaign finance reforms might limit contributions of man and beast, I mean corporations, to the same small amount. If Exxon and Jimmy Joe can both only contribute the same amount to keep a bum in office, and all those contributions would be transparently reported, the System would be fairer and more representative.  If our policy creation became less corrupt and less big-money driven, we actually might get a Government that works for the benefit of the People and our general welfare (heard that phrase somewhere). How bout that protestors?

Sharing the Sacrifice

          It is curious to note that the only portion of Obama’s job bill to pass so far is job aid to veterans. So the portion with the least realistic impact and maximum political gain passes. Hmmm….

          Critics of the Administration cite pullout from the Middle East as a blatantly political act. Withdrawal from Iraq is not optional. It’s the law, established by Bush Jr. Withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014 after 13 years of war may be political, but oh that 14th year promises to be the best if we don’t. It won’t matter. Trust me.

          We as a nation can sustain perpetual war. When your enemy is an ideology or label, war never ceases. The reason some can desire perpetual war is that “war” these days is so detached from our national consciousness. It’s something occasionally on the news. To say there is little shared sacrifice in the “war on terror” is a gross understatement. In a nation of 310 million people, only 23 million are veterans. That is 7% that have served in the military. Less than 1% of our current population is in uniform (active, guard, reserves).

          I advocate job aid to veterans. Our nation should provide far more for those who have given their all for that nation. But in the end, the job aid is a very political symbolic statement, another disconnect from the reality of suffering endured by many Americans. Who will provide a jobs bill for the other 99%? Those who serve give their lives for all of us, not just some of us. We can best honor their sacrifice by governing for all of us, not just for some of us.

You Don't Say You Want a Revolution

          I have been fascinated by the Occupy protests because they to some degree seen to get at the heart of the “problem” in our country. They appear to have two main messages, both rather salient. The American system of governance has been hijacked by corporations and that System is stacked against the Middle Class. I hope I’ve represented their message succinctly.

          Contrast these messages to that of the Tea Party, which fixated on debt, deficits, and smaller government. The Tea Party was able to change political discourse by interjecting these issues. The Occupy movement, even in  its infancy, despite a lack of “leaders”, popular spokespeople, and even consistent coherent messages, has injected the issue of injustice into our political dialogue, and is performing a valuable service within our civic life. These guys are changing the political landscape just by consistently hanging out.

          But look at the underlying thesis of the Occupy movement, Government has been wrested from the hands of the People. This is a profound, even revolutionary perspective. It’s implications are probably below the awareness or intention of the protestors, but a revolutionary worldview demands a revolutionary response. That is the dark at the end of the road. One can struggle against the darkness if true to the course set by the bright light of liberty, the notion of We the People. If this light is lost, only the darkness remains.

          There may well be an underlying rage underpinning the peaceful Occupy ethos. Gentle readers should not be surprised if acts of irrational violence and destruction emerge. Such violence and deaths have begun over the last few weeks. While the Tea Party struggles for control over spending, the Occupy struggle is for freedom itself. If their assessment of political reality is accurate, the Occupy fight is not for the balance sheet, but for the soul of the Nation. That is the implication of their message.

          While their overt focus is on inequality, are there deeper drivers of the Occupy movement? The American people have historically endured great socio-economic inequality, yet have remained an aspirational people. Americans aspire to further themselves and to further the lives of their children. This reflects the American Dream. This aspiration provided hope, a reason for the struggle and sacrifice. Remove the hope of the American Dream, and one simply struggles, one is a victim…of politicians…. or the rich….or corporate avarice….whatever is ascribed.

          So is Occupy a revolution? Revolutions are not born of Governments, or even of popular discontent. Revolutions are borne of hope, and from hope to shared vision, from vision to resolve, and from resolve to courage and concerted action. Without hope, all that is left is despair and rage. The Occupy movement may not have leaders and messages because it may the social thrashing of a wounded beast, unsure what action to take to assuage itself. How is the decline of the American Dream related to the populist Occupy protests? There is a converging view that a key social driver is the decline in social mobility, which is at the heart of the American Dream.

          Last year, for the first time in our nation’s history, a majority of Americans reported believing that opportunities for their children would diminish rather than increase. This visceral awareness within the populace reflects what the numbers are just beginning to reveal. Social mobility in America is declining. A Newsweek cover story points out in popular language what social scientists had been monitoring. For a person born in 1970 in the bottom 2/5ths of our economy, 50% of these people remained in the bottom 2/5ths of the economy. They are likely to remain there for life. Contrast this to 30% in England and 20% in Sweden and Denmark. What explains the decline in US social mobility…..a decline in the quality of our educational system.

         

          Quality of education might be defined as preparing students for the real world. As Fareed Zakaria points out, when Steve Jobs graduated high school, the California educational system was the finest in the world. This system enabled the high tech revolution and formation of silicon valley, telecommunications, computing, and the internet. There was more effective government partnership with business and education in those days. Now the California educational system is a disaster, with the State spending twice as much on prisons as education.

          In the 1980s, national standardized testing was introduced and the quality of education declined across the board. The politicians and teacher unions which broke the system continue to advocate the same course which broke it.  Contrast this to the high quality of education in Northern Europe, which still remains consistently high. One may not be surprised to learn that the quality of education is the best predictive correlate of social mobility.  

          Our national institutions are obsolete and broken. They are one the “wrong track” and require renewing. This nation was founded on the unique premise that average people could create their own nation and govern through the rule of law. Can the People once more regain the helm of their governance? It is possible to take back our national institutions, but it will no doubt be a long and “messy business” to do so.

Is a Flat Tax Fair?

          I’ve been mulling over whether a flat tax is fair or should we have a progressive tax. There are two dimensions of fairness to consider, which deal with economics and social justice. Economically, a bottom line is whether a flat tax generates enough revenue to run the Federal Government. You really can’t cut your way to budget balance. Our dialogue should be about the role of Government and the priorities of public spending (and how cost effective our spending is).

          Is a flat tax economically fair? A flat tax with a threshold, say $30,000 with no loopholes is on the face of it fair for everyone. Everyone pays their “fair share”. Problem….not everyone is paid the same way and there are many details and devils to consider when filing on a post card. Most Americans get a paycheck. Rich people don’t get their wealth/ income from a paycheck. They may get a nominal paycheck. For example, Warren Buffett’s paycheck is $100,000. Rich people are paid in stocks and other such capital gains. They benefit from owning stuff. Warren Buffett  socks millions a year away in the bank, but it’s not considered taxable income. It’s considered capital gains. Buffett’s cleaning lady (and you) pay about 30% in Federal income tax. Buffett pays 15% capital gains tax. Corporation don’t have to pay their execs any income as far a paycheck is concerned. Is our current system fair?

          Some proposed flat taxes eliminate all other Federal taxes (capital gains, inheritance, payroll). Are Buffett’s capital gains considered taxable income? Got me. On the face of it, Buffett would pay $20,000 on a 20% flat tax. He’s currently in the 35% bracket. Under some plans, he would lower his income tax rate AND not have to pay capital gains, depending on how the law is written. Who bets how it’s written might give more benefits to the rich?

          So economically, there’s a lot of unknowns and potential un-fairness involved. Let’s look at the moral/ social justice dimension. Is there shared sacrifice, hardship and suffering within society? If a reformed tax code increases the suffering of most Americans, is that fair? I’m not saying it necessarily will produce increased suffering. If the privileged few are not called on to share in national sacrifice under a new tax system, is that fair? The cleaning lady who makes $30,000 has to pay $6,000 in a 20% Federal flat tax. Buffett makes $100,000 and pays $20,000 in Federal flat taxes, while still socking away millions a year. On whom and on which demographic does this flat tax produce more hardship within a family? Who could really use that money more?

          Ok, so lump in capital gains and flat tax everything. Buffett may make $1,000,000,000 a year and would pay $200,000,000. Is that fair economically? More so. What about the social justice dimension? Is 200 Mil a hardship for Buffett’s family, comparable with the hardship in the cleaning lady’s family?

          Look, nobody likes to give up their money, particularly rich people. If you don’t believe it, just play golf with some and observe how they will cheat over a $20 bet. I don’t begrudge the pain of giving money away to Government. But we as a nation are addicted to more social services than we are willing to pay for. We want the emergency responders and the teachers and the trash collectors and the road fixers, We just resent paying for them. This article puts the concept of a flat tax and paying a “fair share” for shared services into a simple light (perhaps too simple). Our laws should be written for the common good, not the good of the few, or the good of the powerful. Determining the public good can make ideas like a flat tax problematic to conceive or justify. What are your thoughts?

Hard Work Is Not Rewarded

          I continue to listen to points made by the Occupy movement and their opponents. While the Occupy movement means many things to many people, two messages seem recurrent: (1) The System is rigged to transfer middle class money upwards, and (2) corporations have undue influence on politics. The numbers over the last twenty years make their first point a certainty. I’ll update this weeks numbers at a later time. I sympathize with their second view. We’re a nation of the People, not of the corporation. The Founding Fathers would, in my view, never have made a business a “person”. Leave it to modern legal lunacy to do so.

          The Core Problem is that the System is rigged….after a fashion. This is not so much a conspiracy as a convergence of many factors. The bottom line is that Middle Class money is being sucked into Corporate Class pockets. This is bad for everyone, but mainly for the Middle Class. Corporations can just take their ball and go to emerging markets to create jobs and profits. With @70% of corporate profit generated outside the US, in one sense corporations might be seen as not part of our economy. They are certainly no longer part of our economic solution. Unless Bubba wants to learn Hindi and wear a turban, he’s stuck in Bugtussle getting money sucked out of his pocket. 78% of our economy is based on consumer spending. Wages are declining. Mortgages are underwater. Households are fueled by credit and generate debt. We’re not likely to spend our way out of this.

          Most Americans are not aware or do not believe that money is being sucked out of their pockets by the corporate class. Some are aware of this and are on the street bitching about it. I point out that our most profitable domestic sector is finance. I can think of fewer more worthless ways to expend one’s life. In the olden days, financiers would invest in the dreams and success of others and make a profit doing so. These days, finance means short term fixation on massive micro-transaction profits. Producing nothing…shuffling cash from one rich pocket to another. No wonder people who work for a living are pissed at Wall Street.

          Objectors to the Occupy crowd appear to be advocates for hard work. If these bums just worked hard, they wouldn’t be on the street (looking at you Herman). This is the ACTUAL central argument and fallacy of today’s economic situation. The reality is that hard work is not rewarded.

          This statements shocks advocates of the American Dream, which is based on individual hard work. As a caveat let me say that if you want to start your own business and work a bijillion hours a week, the American Dream works pretty much as well now as it ever did (if you can get the startup capital). In the olden days, if you worked for somebody else (which most people do to rely on funds and healthcare), hard work and loyalty were rewarded. When the company profited everybody profited. Hence that American Dream thing. However, your hard work and loyalty are now no longer rewarded.

          It is crucial to understand the dissolution of the psychological contract between business and employees. This occurred in the 1980s and I have mentioned it previously. It is REALLY REALLY important to understand what this means. Business no longer HAS to reward loyalty or hard work, or give raises, or share profits, or keep your job. When the company profits, the workers NO LONGER PROFIT. The economy shifted from rewarding work to rewarding ownership. That’s a BIG DEAL.

          It means that corporations could wander around the globe looking for profits and have no loyalty to America or Americans. Their loyalty was to their owners. In many ways, this mindset is similar to the industrialists of previous centuries. During the 20th Century, American workers fought long and hard for a System that would create and benefit the Middle Class. It appears that they have to do so once more.

          So when Middle Class workers oppose the Occupy movement, they are loudly proclaiming the core value of hard work, ignorant that this is obsolete. One can be “right” and still have your way of life ripped apart by the System. Just ask the farmers of Alabama who lost their Hispanic agrarian labor force within the last few weeks because of their tough immigration bill. Were Hispanics really a big problem in Alabama? Unless the System changes, these farms will go the way of their workforce. I doubt that the unemployed playing drums in Oakland will say “Dude, let’s go down to  Alabama and pick whatever the hell they pick in Alabama”. In spite of the farmers plight, I fear the only one going down to Alabama will be the devil (there's a new song in there somewhere).