Sunday, December 21, 2014

The Transformation (2)

The text I published last week was revealing and surprising to me. Here is another quotation about how Americans do and love politics:

"So, the new NBC poll, the new NBC/"Wall Street Journal" poll that came out. If this poll were a medical test, the resulting diagnosis would be schizophrenia. I mean, no offense to schizophrenia. Look at this. Do you favor the basic idea of reforming he immigration system? Do you favor a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants? The answer, yes, 57 percent of the country favors that. OK. How about if we achieve that goal the way President Obama says he wants to? Do you favor a pathway for undocumented immigrants that also requires them to pay a fine and any back taxes and to pass a background check, like the president want? Do you want that? The answer: yes, with an exclamation point -- 74 percent yes. We love that idea. As a nation, we love what the president wants to do to reform immigration policy. Great. That seems very simple. Now that the president is going to act on immigration policy, let`s ask about that. Do you favor what the president is about to do? No. No. We love this policy. We hate this policy. How dare this president does what we want? Here`s my other favorite. They asked people what the newly elected Congress should do in Washington. What do you want them to do? And this is the list of ranked policies -- policies ranked in terms of what people want the new Congress to do. Look at the top five. 

The top  five most popular policies the American people want this Congress to pursue are: 

  • number one, lowering the cost of student loans, also 
  • increase spending on infrastructure, 
  • raising the federal minimum wage, 
  • approving more money to fight Ebola, and 
  • limiting carbon emissions to fight climate change. 

Those are the five most popular policies on the whole list of things that Congress should do. The top five are all things that the Republicans who were just elected to lead the Congress are adamantly opposed to. So, as a nation, we just elected a Congress that has pledged to fight tooth and nail against the policies that we most want to see enacted. And here`s the best part. When asked are you happy with what you just did, are you happy with electing this new majority that`s pledging to stand against everything you want, does that seem like a good thing? The answer is yes. Yes, very happy with the result of the election. So, Americans want very specific things for the country. And we`re also delighted to elect the people who will stop the country from getting those things. It`s almost like people don`t really know what`s going on in politics. Or they don`t really know what decisions are being made and by whom in Washington. It`s almost like the public isn`t that well-informed about who wants what, what`s going on with policy and politics that even on issues that they say they care about. It`s almost like we don`t know."

Rachel Maddow, in the Rachel Maddow Show on November 19, 2014

Friday, December 12, 2014

The Transformation

By Edwin Lyngar, published in SALON, July 16, 2014

"I was a 20-year-old college dropout with no more than $100 in the bank the day my son was born in 1994.  I’d been in the Coast Guard just over six months. Joining the service was my solution to a lot of problems, not the least of which was being married to a pregnant, 19-year-old fellow dropout.  We were poor, and my overwhelming response to poverty was a profound shame that drove me into the arms of the people least willing to help — conservatives.
Just before our first baby arrived, my wife and I walked into the social services office near the base where I was stationed in rural North Carolina. “You qualify for WIC and food stamps,” the middle-aged woman said.  I don’t know whether she disapproved of us or if all social services workers in the South oozed an understated unpleasantness.  We took the Women, Infants, Children vouchers for free peanut butter, cheese and baby formula and got into the food stamp line.
Looking around, I saw no other young servicemen.  Coming from the white working class, I’d always been taught that food stamps were for the “others” — failures, drug addicts or immigrants, maybe — not for real Americans like me.  I could not bear the stigma, so we walked out before our number was called.
Even though we didn’t take the food stamps, we lived in the warm embrace of the federal government with subsidized housing and utilities, courtesy of Uncle Sam.  Yet I blamed all of my considerable problems on the government, the only institution that was actively working to alleviate my suffering. I railed against government spending (i.e., raising my own salary).  At the same time, the earned income tax credit was the only way I could balance my budget at the end of the year.
I felt my own poverty was a moral failure.  To support my feelings of inadequacy, every move I made only pushed me deeper into poverty.  I bought a car and got screwed on the financing.  The credit I could get, I overused and was overpriced to start with.  My wife couldn’t get or keep a job, and we could not afford reliable day care in any case.  I was naive, broke and uneducated but still felt entitled to a middle-class existence.
If you had taken WIC and the EITC away from me, my son would still have eaten, but my life would have been much more miserable.  Without government help, I would have had to borrow money from my family more often.  I borrowed money from my parents less than a handful of times, but I remember every single instance with a burning shame.  To ask for money was to admit defeat, to be a de facto loser.
To make up for my own failures, I voted to give rich people tax cuts, because somewhere deep inside, I knew they were better than me.  They earned it.  My support for conservative politics was atonement for the original sin of being white trash.
In my second tour of duty, I grew in rank and my circumstances improved.  I voted for George W. Bush.  I sent his campaign money, even though I had little to spare. During the Bush v. Gore recount, I grabbed a sign and walked the streets of San Francisco to protest, carrying my toddler on my shoulders.  I got emotional, thinking of “freedom.”
Sometime after he took office, I watched Bush speak at an event.  He talked of tax cuts.  “It’s the people’s money,” he said.  By then I was making even better money, but I didn’t care about tax cuts for myself.  I was still paying little if any income tax, but I believed in “fairness.” The “death tax” (aka the estate tax) was unfair and rich people paid more taxes so they should get more of a tax break.  I ignored my own personal struggles when I made political decisions.
By the financial meltdown of 2008, I was out of the military and living in Reno, Nevada — a state hard hit by the downturn.  I voted libertarian that election year, even though the utter failure of the free market was obvious.  The financial crisis proved that rich people are no better than me, and in fact, are often inferior to average people.  They crash companies, loot pensions and destroy banks, and when they hit a snag, they scream to be rescued by government largess.  By contrast, I continued to pay my oversize mortgage for years, even as my home lost more than half its value.  I viewed my bad investment as yet another moral failure.  When it comes to voting and investing, rich people make calculated decisions, while regular people make “emotional” and “moral” ones.  Despite growing self-awareness, I pushed away reality for another election cycle.
In 2010, I couldn’t support my own Tea Party candidate for Senate because Sharron Angle was an obvious lunatic.  I instead sent money to the Rand Paul campaign.  Immediately the Tea Party-led Congress pushed drastic cuts in government spending that prolonged the economic pain.  The jobs crisis in my own city was exacerbated by the needless gutting of government employment.  The people who crashed the economy — bankers and business people — screamed about government spending and exploited Tea Party outrage to get their own taxes lowered.  Just months after the Tea Party victory, I realized my mistake, but I could only watch as the people I supported inflicted massive, unnecessary pain on the economy through government shutdowns, spending cuts and gleeful cruelty.
I finally “got it.”  In 2012, I shunned my self-destructive voting habits and supported Obama. I only wished there were a major party more liberal than the Democrats for whom I could vote.  Even as I saw the folly of my own lifelong voting record, many of my friends and family moved further into the Tea Party embrace, even as conservative policies made their lives worse.
I have a close friend on permanent disability.  He votes reliably for the most extreme conservative in every election.  Although he’s a Nevadan, he lives just across the border in California, because that progressive state provides better social safety nets for its disabled. He always votes for the person most likely to slash the program he depends ondaily for his own survival.  It’s like clinging to the end of a thin rope and voting for the rope-cutting razor party.
The people who most support the Republicans and the Tea Party carry a secret burden.  Many know that they are one medical emergency or broken down car away from ruin, and they blame the government.  They vote against their own interests, often hurting themselves in concrete ways, in a vain attempt to deal with their own, misguided shame about being poor.  They believe “freedom” is the answer, even though they live a form of wage indenture in a rigged system.
I didn’t become a liberal until I was nearly 40. By the time I came around, I was an educated professional, married to another professional.  We’re “making it,” whatever that means these days.  I gladly pay taxes now, but this attitude is also rooted in self-interest.  I have relatives who are poor, and without government services, I might have to support them.  We can all go back to living in clans, like cavemen, or we can build institutions and programs that help people who need it.  It seems like a great bargain to me.
I’m angry at my younger self, not for being poor, but for supporting politicians who would have kept me poor if they were able.  Despite my personal attempts to destroy the safety net, those benefits helped me.  I earned a bachelor’s degree for free courtesy of a federal program, and after my military service I used the GI Bill to get two graduate degrees, all while making ends meet with the earned income tax credit.  The GI Bill not only helped me, it also created much of the American middle class after World War II.  Conservatives often crow about “supporting the military,” but imagine how much better America would be if the government used just 10 percent of the military budget to pay for universal higher education, rather than saddling 20-year-olds with mortgage-like debt.
Government often fails because the moneyed interests don’t want it to succeed.  They hate government and most especially activist government (aka government that does something useful).  Their hatred for government is really disdain for Americans, except as consumers or underpaid labor.
Sadly, it took me years — decades — to see the illogic of supporting people who disdain me.  But I’m a super-slow learner.  I wish I could take the poorest, struggling conservatives and shake them.  I would scream that their circumstances or failures or joblessness are not all their fault.  They should wise up and vote themselves a break.  Rich people vote their self-interest in every single election.  Why don’t poor people?"
You can follow Edwin Lyngar on twitter @Edwin_Lyngar

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

What is your Vision for America?

This is the weighty question I posed in my book where I explore how the political map of America - my adopted homeland - differs wildly from that of my native Switzerland. I am passionate about American life and culture, and my new book examines the differences in health care, retirement plans, tax systems and international affairs between the two nations, in an effort to find common ground and sources of inspiration and improvement.

My findings reflect intense differences in values, commitments and priorities between the US and Switzerland, which impacts the people, their economies, politics and international relations profoundly. While the American people seems driven by wealth, fame and short-term success, the Swiss focus on quality, precision, independence, integrity, financial stability and the physical well-being of its countrymen. The Swiss take pride in taking care of their citizens throughout their lives by having well-oiled social systems in place. While healthcare is considered a service in Switzerland, in the United States, I believe it to be a very profitable business. I question if this is a lack of solidarity and if America is, in fact, a plutocracy.

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Worldview of the U.S.

Europeans have perceived the average American as rich, self-made, and self-confident, able to improve social status by diligence, know-how, and luck. The average American, for example, rises from rags to riches, growing up poor and making it to the top as a respected individual.

Europeans see Americans as able to afford anything, including a nice car, a beautiful home, and expensive entertainment. They are not deeply concerned about illness and old age, medical care, or hospital stays. Retirement funds are not necessary because Americans are rich. They are independent, self-assured, and completely free. Money is not an issue, and “the American Way of Life” is a natural state of being. 

Sunday, November 16, 2014

A Divided Country - The Real Reason

“The biggest divide in this country is not between Democrats and Republicans, it’s between people who care and people who don’t care”

Rachel Maddow
Republicans for Obama

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Taxes

The tax code for U.S. corporations contains some peculiarities that the general public hardly knows about. Henkel[1] added that if profits are made by these companies but earned abroad, and the money, as cash, is not returned to the United States, it cannot be taxed in the U.S. system. This is an invitation for internationally active companies to use this legal loophole and stash their profits abroad; thereby reducing tax revenue in the United States.
Regulations do not come more peculiar than this incentive to move production to Europe or the Far East. In fact, regional offices of U.S. corporations are mushrooming overseas – in Ireland, Great Britain, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and Singapore. The arguments of the defenders of this policy are oddly alienating; they promote business outside the United States, which is detrimental to the U.S. economy and, therefore, the American people. Allan Sloane, a reporter for Fortune magazine, wrote in 2014 how U.S. corporations buy companies in Europe and move their headquarters there to avoid paying U.S. taxes. These moves are called “inversions.”[2]
In my view, U.S. tax laws favor large U.S. corporations in contrast to small or medium-sized companies and individual citizens. Companies with branches around the globe are taxed for their U.S. profit only. But, U.S. citizens living abroad are taxed around the globe for their income. Why the difference? Is it based on powerful and influential lobbying in Washington that only corporations can afford? 
According to Jilani,[3] thirty U.S. corporations from 2008 to 2010 spent more on lobbying than what they paid in income taxes. 


[1] Christiane H. Henkel, “US Konzerne horten Geld” [US Corporations Hoard Cash], Neue Zürcher Zeitung, October 11, 2011.
[2]   Allan Sloan, “Positively un-American Tax Dodges”, Fortune, July 7, 2014
[3]   Zaid Jilani, “Between 2008 And 2010, 30 Big Corporations Spent More Lobbying Washington Than They Paid In Income Taxes,Think Progress Economy, December 7, 2011, (with full list of these companies).

Thursday, November 6, 2014

Divided Country

·         A recent report by the Pew Research Center found that Americans are more politically polarized today than they were 20 years ago.[1] Twenty-one percent of Americans consider themselves to be consistently liberal or consistently conservative. “You have more than a third of Republicans saying the Democratic Party is a threat to the nation, more than a quarter of Democrats saying the same thing about the Republicans,” said Michael Dimock, Vice President of Research at the Pew Research Center.[2] Compromise doesn’t appear to be the goal anymore. Instead, people seem to prefer to be around those with the same values for living and working, and are tired of hearing a different opinion. 



[1]Pew study finds more polarized Americans increasingly resistant to political compromise”, Rocky Mountain PBS, The Newshour, June 12, 2014, Gwen Ifill discusses with Michael Dimock
[2]   Michael Dimock, ibid.

Sunday, November 2, 2014

Gridlock

The present gridlock in Congress has a lot to do with the reinstallation of strict party discipline 20 years ago. Implementations of the parties’ policies were seen as the only viable solutions. In the 90s, Newt Gingrich[1] was a strong proponent of towing the party line and has enforced this behavior in the Republican Party. The voter is led to believe that the party line has already been established as a national solution and any compromise would have to be interpreted as defeat.

Every two years, citizens of the United States participate in elections for the U.S. House of Representatives and one-third of the U.S. Senate. The President is elected every four years. Power manifests itself by the changing party colors of the president and the party majorities in the House or Senate. This is the ideal situation and constitutes the stability and effectiveness of the American brand of democracy. But, today‘s reality is different.



[1]   U. S. Representative 1979 – 1999, 1995 – 1999 House speaker

Thursday, October 30, 2014

The Well-Being of the United States

The Democratic and Republican parties dominate the U.S. electoral system and it seems that these equally strong parties block each other as well as the entire political process. The rules of power are very strange to Europeans who are used to a variety of viable political choices with multiparty systems. American voters have no party selection if they are in favor of environmentalism and against abortion, for example. Smaller parties have no influence. In fact there are only two choices, Democrat or Republican.

U.S. citizens want action; they want decision-making and results by their representatives. This is why they elected the members of the Congress. This is why they pay taxes. Political manipulation can never be eradicated, but the objective of a member of Congress must be the well-being of the nation and its citizens. If every voice in Congress represents its own specific interests, the collective welfare is neglected.

Americans allow themselves the luxury to leave many problems unsolved, and Congress refuses to seek solutions in form of compromises. Instead, a lot of energy is wasted on determining the authenticity of a president’s birth certificate; in my opinion, this is just ridiculous.

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Television Democracy

A quote from my book: 

In his memoir, “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary of War”, Robert Gates writes that Congress members immediately change their opinions when a television camera shows up.[1] Their behavior turns from understanding and conciliatory to crude and uncivilized as if they put their own interests before the needs of the United States. Their activities are focused on the own reelection. The favorable response of a public opinion poll seems most important. These ambiguities are the secret of American politics.

Do you agree that Senatorial Candidates who respond to the question who they voted for in 2008 and 2012 with "Ahhhhhhhh-uhhhhhhhhhhhM" clearly see the polls as more important than integrity and their truth! 



[1]   Robert M. Gates, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary of War, Borzoi Book/Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York 2014

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

The Two Party System

The Democratic and Republican parties dominate the U.S. electoral system and it seems that these equally strong parties block each other as well as the entire political process. The rules of power are very strange to Europeans who are used to a variety of viable political choices with multiparty systems. American voters have no party selection if they are in favor of environmentalism and against abortion, for example. Smaller parties have no influence. In fact there are only two choices, Democrat or Republican. 

Americans allow themselves the luxury to leave many problems unsolved, and Congress refuses to seek solutions in form of compromises. Instead, a lot of energy is wasted on determining the authenticity of a president's birth certificate; in my opinion, this is just ridiculous.