The Accountability of Success

We are all dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants.

Ingrained in American culture is a concept that anyone can achieve success. Indeed, it's the core principal of the American Dream. I think this cultural keystone combined with our strong individualism (and no small amount of politicking) has misled us into believing that a person is solely responsible for their achieving success and, therefore, the burden for failing to achieve success is exclusive to that person as well.

This underlying ideology can have a polarizing effect in American politics and legislation surrounding the socialism of services such as healthcare. The effect can be seen through American politics and media headlines beginning in earnest with Red October^[1] and the Russian Revolution of the early 20^th century. McCarthyism^[2] entrenched us in the Cold War^[3] and continues to undermine sound logic today, preventing Americans from having intelligent discussions concerning social ownership of critical systems.

No Man is an Island

Unfortunately, the American Frontier is gone as the sea of humanity has washed over the entirety of the United States for all practical purposes. No longer can someone pick up and move beyond the grasp of civilization to start anew. Manifest Destiny^[4] and the Anglo^[5] domination and subjugation of the western half of the United States perhaps solidified, if not gave birth to, the American concept individualism and success.

The displaced natives and the immigrant pioneers who braved the frontier were probably the last Americans that could even argue that they were alone responsible for their success. There was no infrastructure, but there was plenty of opportunity in the unclaimed (by whites) lands west of the Mississippi.

Modern America is a much different beast, yet one that still retains its genetic memory of liberty and rugged individualism. If we measure success by financial prosperity, as most Americans do, it becomes incredibly difficult to argue that one's success was independent of the benefits provided by the State, and therefore one's fellow taxpayers.

I'm going to pick one example that I think most Americans will recognize, the founder of Walmart. Sam Walton^[6] did not carve out the location of his first, or any, Walmart location from [tentatively] unclaimed wilds of a frontier. Nor did he build the roads that supplied his retail locations. Nor did he invent the airplanes and tractor trailers that ship merchandise on those roads. Nor did he single-handedly teach all his employees, or himself, the ability to read and write or simple mathematics. He didn't privately fund the fire houses and police precincts that kept his stores safe.

When you think about all the things that were in place, that he wasn't responsible for creating, that allowed Sam Walton to become a success, how can one still hold to the idea that old Sam Walton was completely, or even mostly, responsible for it? This is before we even begin delving into inherited fortunes, like those of Sam's legacy.

The Individual Still Matters

However, I am not trying to dismiss Sam's hard work ethic or other individual qualities as not playing an important role. His Wikipedia entry suggests he worked hard in youth and in college and he even joined the military service during WWII (though is military duties precluded any real action or hardships).

Hard work, determination, and other positive qualities of individuals are multipliers of success. It makes the advantages of infrastructure and social status more beneficial. I believe it is logical to assume that two able individuals of equal socio-economic standing and access to the same infrastructure have the same base chance for success. It will be their individual characteristics, their merits, which will separate them... all other things being equal.

All Things are Not Equal

Sam Walton definitely had ambition and the necessary discipline (and education) to propel him into the ranks of the wealthy elite. However, one should note several intrinsic advantages Sam also possessed which allowed him to do so, beyond the infrastructure provided by the State. Sam was also born into the middle class, was white, and was male. Could he have accomplished the same thing if he was born to dirt poor laborers? Probably. What if he was black? Doubtful. What if he was a woman, or a black woman? Slim chance in hell, and hell no.

As Americans, we need to understand the socio-economic inequities that are omnipresent hurdles to success and figure out ways to destroy or mitigate those obstacles. Take a look at American's 30 richest people^[7] and see how many of them started out poor. Hell, how many of them are not white (or couldn't pass as white)? How many are female? How many are female that didn't inherit their wealth?

It's far easier to become successful when the road has been paved for you and the exits are well marked with appropriate signage. Is there a logical reason we should not try to level the playing field?

No Free Rides

At least half the resistance I see to socializing key services is the dreaded lazy lifetime welfare recipient. I admit, the thought of people abusing the system to keep from pulling their own weight burns me up too. And I have no shortage of trusted accounts of people doing this (or at least repeatedly making the same damned mistakes) with my wife having been a case worker for various income-based social programs.

However, I've heard far more stories of people in need of aid, that socialized services could give, through no fault of their own. They have merely been overwhelmed by a series of unfortunate events that they had no way of predicting. What about young people just starting out? How can they be prepared?

In this case, I think any decision regarding the socialization of important services should ignore the irrational fear of a welfare state and instead focus on what would provide the greatest good for the largest number of people. We can create incentive (or decentive) programs to motivate the lazy as part of the socialization.

Taxes & Penalizing Success

Of course, the topic of taxes follows any discussion of socialism, because you have to pay for it somehow. This is the other primary source of resistance to socialism. There are several facets to the tax discussion, including who/what is taxed, how much they're taxed, and how those taxes are spent.

I find it illogical and hypocritical to say you're willing to pay taxes for roads, schools, fire departments, police, and military yet refuse to consider adding healthcare to the list. What sort of people are we if we value roads over life? What is the statement of value behind the fact that Indianapolis (and surrounding counties) is willing to raise sales tax on food and beverages by 14% (that's increasing it from 7% to 8%) to pay $500 million towards the construction of a football stadium^[8] but we cry foul about socialized medicine? Which one saves lives?

I think there is definitely room to restructure how we spend taxes, without increasing them to accommodate social programs. Currently, the United States government spends 60% (that's $754 Billion) of its money on national security^[9]. I think the two wars we've been engaged in are a waste of money, let alone life. I also believe they were unnecessary, but I'll leave the merits of small commando operation for another post.

Most of the wealthy, those that profit from capital gains, also pay a disproportionate amount of taxes^[10]. Big money has done well in its lobby to keep taxes low in areas outside income tax, which of course has nothing to do with the fact that many legislators have a vest interest in those areas (that's sarcasm, by the way).

It seems to me that, overall, Americans resist the idea of increasing taxes on the wealthiest people. Why? I think this goes all the way back to the core idea that anyone can become [ultra] successful. We don't want to tax the rich more because when we become rich we will have paid our dues, so to speak, and want to enjoy our success.

There are two fundamental topics at play here, but they are both fallacious. First, the super-wealthy are a very small segment of the population for a reason, not many people attain that level of wealth. So chances are most of us won't get to experience that level of success. Second, the ultra-wealthy did not achieve their success all by themselves. This goes back to the fact that everyone relies on the infrastructure provided by the State to achieve their success.

Implementing a progressive tax (one that expects more from the wealthy) that pays for social programs is not so much about penalizing success as it repaying the society that allowed them to attain that success and helping pave the way for others to achieve as well.

References

[1] Red October refers to the second Russian Revolution to occur during 1917.
[2] McCarthyism, also known as the Red Scare, was a fear campaign that used Communism as its scapegoat.
[3] The Cold War was a long period of political tension and surrogate military conflict between the US led NATO and the Soviet Bloc.
[4] Manifest Destiny is a 19^th century American belief in the divine providence for expansion.
[5] Anglo is a term that refers to the descendants of British people in America and other British colonies.
[6] Sam Walton is the founder of the highly profitable Walmart and Sam's Club retail stores, his family rank high in the top 30 wealthiest Americans.
[7] Forbes' list of the richest people in America.
[8] Lucas Oil Stadium cost $720M, the Colts raised $100M and they sold it naming rights for $121M.
[9] Check out Death & Taxes phenomenal infographic concerning tax spending.
[10] Please see presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney's, tax returns.

Indiana Senate Bill 251 - Require the Lord's Prayer in Schools

Current information about Indiana Senate Bill 251 can be found on the Indiana Government website.

Synopsis: School prayer. Allows the governing body of a school corporation or the equivalent authority of a charter school to provide for the recitation of the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of each school day.

Authors: Senators Kruse, Tomes, & Holdman

Fiscal Impact: Explanation of Local Expenditures: There could be some minor impact in deciding the version of the Lord’s Prayer to use; however, it should be able to be done within existing resources. (Chuck Mayfield, Fiscal Analyst).

SECTION 1. IC 20-30-5-4.6 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2012]:
Sec. 4.6. (a) In order that each student recognize the importance of spiritual development in establishing character and becoming a good citizen, the governing body of a school corporation or the equivalent authority of a charter school may require the recitation of the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of each school day. The prayer may be recited by a teacher, a student, or the class of students.
    (b) If the governing body or equivalent authority requires the recitation of the Lord's Prayer under subsection (a), the governing body or equivalent authority shall determine the version of the Lord's Prayer that will be recited in the school corporation or charter school.
    (c) A student is exempt from participation in the prayer if:
        (1) the student chooses not to participate; or
        (2) the student's parent chooses to have the student not participate.

Irresponsible Statesmanship

I'm not quite sure what these state Republican senators were thinking when they drafted this bill, as there is no way it will survive a judicial review. The United States Supreme Court has a long history of killing legislation like this. In fact, the SC just ordered the immediate removal of a simple banner from a Rhode Island high school.

Surely these congressmen did not think such legislation could pass muster, which leads me to ask what purpose does this serve? Well, the fundamentalist christian right has been moving it's troops, testing its borders, and firing shots over the prow of the Constitution since the 9/11 tragedy.

I personally think that these men know this bill will fail and are actually hoping that the controversy surrounding it will earn the bill a spot in the sensational programming that passes for news and journalism these days. This would then feed the flames that power this sectarian war against freedom of [from] religion that most rational people understand is a fundamental cornerstone of Liberty.

So, I'm calling the drafting of this bill irresponsible statesmanship. Why? Well, unlike the poor fiscal analysis, I know this this legislation will be struck down if it becomes law. All the time spent thinking of, drafting, revising, analyzing, and in court proceedings will cost the taxpayers needless money... money and time that could be better spent actually solving real problems.

The Illusion of American Liberty

As I watch the current skirmish the United States congress has engaged in against liberty and civil rights with the National Defense Authorization Act^[1], the most recent volley in a fear campaign for Orwellian legislation that began the Patriot Act^[2] and continuing with SOPA^[3], I begin to question what I think I know about our nation's illustrious history and our legacy of freedom.

As Americans, we are taught that our nation was founded to obtain freedom from tyranny and instill equity among everyone. We are taught that our founding fathers were moral and ethical pillars of the community; we practically deify the names of Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson. Many would lead you to believe that they had divine providence and our nation is the apple of some god's eye.

I'm not naive enough to believe that our founding fathers were living avatars of liberty and altruism, veritable personifications of virtue. They no doubt pulled that criminal act we celebrate as the Boston Tea Party to benefit themselves just as much, if not more than, as a symbolic (or otherwise) gesture to motivate their fellow Americans. They were just a bunch of rich older white men trying to keep their money in their own coffers instead of lining the royal treasury's.

Don't get me wrong, I think the American Revolution was necessary, but I don't delude myself into believing it was an event free from the entanglements of greed and ambition. No, there was most definitely selfishness at play behind the stage of liberty throwing off the yoke of a monarchy.

While Thomas Jefferson penned in the Declaration of Independence that all men were created equal^[4], one must realize that bigotry and racism was intrinsic of early America. Anglos routinely displaced and slaughtered the native inhabitants and the flesh markets fed the blossoming agriculture industry with tons of slaves and women most certainly were not considered equals. I don't care if that's how things were, or if it was accepted; it doesn't make it any less wrong. The term men from the Declaration in this case did not mean humanity in the generic pronoun sense of the word, but instead exclusively referred to white males.

A Coincidental Constitution?

Many Americans, and many beyond the borders of the United States, put our Constitution on a pedestal as the prime example of Democracy, or at least of Republicanism^[5] (nothing to do with the political party). I do not particularly disagree with this notion, I do think its the best thing developed and implemented so far. However, I do not think it's perfect (or that it is beyond betrayal by the government).

I do think it is phenomenal that the document was ever penned to begin with, let alone actually being implemented and surviving almost two hundred and twenty-five years^[6]. I think a perfect storm of inspiration, selfishness, pressure, hubris, experience, intelligence, creativity, and coincidence conspired to create a document that was actually ahead of its time.

Read with the perspective of those drafting the Constitution, the Constitution would be quite progressive by historical measures, but would be very exclusive and backwards by modern standards. This is due to the same reasons I stated when thinking about the immortal declaration in the Declaration of Independence. In the historical perspective, these wonderful words mostly applied to landed men, or rich white males in other words. As it wasn't until much later that persons of all types, regardless of race or gender, could vote and therefore shape legislation.

The coincidence is that the founders managed to pen a document, that when read with a progressive perspective, provided rights and liberty to a much wider population than initially intended. Maybe more progressive members of the Constitutional Convention actually slipped this in by design. I bet the debates in the Philadelphia state house were contentious and heated.

Tyranny Comes Full Circle

Now we've come full circle. Corporations and the Anglo men (read: congressmen & lobbyists) that have grown rich off them, have realized that the Constitution is far too progressive and they are now beginning to chip away at the freedoms we've bled so hard to obtain over the last two centuries. We see liberty caustic legislation slip through under the guise of safety and security provided by fear and drafted by the same caste of people that forged the Constitution so long ago.

Due process and privacy is being eroded under our watch and there is very little we can do to stop it. By conventional means. Beware the names that have enough clout and money to find their way onto the ballots. I truly believe that in order to usurp our freedom back from the cancerous greed that has corrupted our government, we will need to think outside the box.

References

[1] The NDAA is a bill outlying the defense budget and is created once a year. See Wikipedia for more info on the bill in general and watch The Young Turks for more about how it strips Americans of due process afforded to us by the Constitution.

[2] The USA Patriot Act, which is probably one of the biggest misnomer's in legislation history. See Wikipedia for more info.

[4] The Stop Online Piracy Act, which as of this writing has yet to be signed into law, but could very well become law in the near future. See Wikipedia for more info, but this author believes beyond protecting the interests of big business instead of consumers, SOPA could be used to silence unruly citizens... infringing on our 1^st Amendment rights.

[4] An immortal declaration by Thomas Jefferson from the second paragraph the Declaration of Independence. It is a direct attach against the divine right of kings, here's the full statement:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

[5] Republicanism is the rule by many people and by law, as opposed to monarchy, or arbitrary rule by one person. By this definition, dictatorial states are not republics while, according to some such as Kant, constitutional monarchies may be. Kant also supports Republicanism over pure democracy on the grounds that the latter is the unrestricted rule of the majority unrestrained by law. See Wikipedia for more info.

[6] The US Constitution was adopted September 17^th, 1787 after the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union failed to work (due to monetary issues among others). See Wikipedia for more info.