A Gentleman Gone

I have not posted a blog in months. My life has been spinning and, yet, motionless, since we moved to California. This has been a year of bad news, it seems, in which my wonderful grandson has been the only light of every day. Yesterday, I received the news that a friend - a good friend - a friend of forty-five years - has died. He was diagnosed with cancer just four months ago, and never let us know the seriousness of his illness. He avoided seeing us until we visited him in late November on our way to California for a new start. We could see that he was ill, but he spoke optimistically of his chances for recovery. We had no idea we would never talk with him again. My friendship with Dennis Dawson started in high school and has a few holes in it. We were married for a couple of years back when we were just 19 and 20. Dennis had taught himself to play guitar during his time at East Carolina University and I always loved to sing, so we started practicing songs by Joni Mitchell, Linda Rondstadt, Elton John, and James Taylor. Our marriage didn't last: but after we split up, we still had bookings to honor, so, thanks to my oblivion and his good nature, we remained friends and continued to perform. I introduced him to his second wife, Bess. I later moved to Richmond and married the man who would be the father of my children. Dennis and Bess had a daughter, Sara Jane, and when our children were little, we went to King's Dominion together once or twice a year. Later on, after my second divorce, I brought my new beau, John, to meet Den and Bess in North Carolina. We lost touch for a few years - he called it his mid-life crisis period - during which he and Bess were divorced. I never met his third wife before they, too, were divorced. But when we moved to Chatham, VA and found that Dennis was back in South Boston, we contacted him and visited several times before moving to SoBo ourselves in 2009. He even helped us move. It was so much fun seeing Dennis and John become good friends sharing the same silly sense of humor and delight in almost everything new and interesting. We played Scrabble together nearly every week for over two years, during which time Dennis built a business as a guitar teacher. We attended his daughter's wedding, and watched as he shone with pride over the wonderful woman she has become. We performed together again at parties and at Somerset Assisted Living, after my mother moved there, and even had a gig at Bistro 1888. His taste in music had changed over the years, and we loved performing old favorites from the 1930's and '40's. He could play anything on guitar, but had come to appreciate the simplicity - and the possibilities - of those songs. He gave John free guitar lessons, during which they did entirely too much laughing for John to learn anything. In the spring of 2012, I asked him to help me record a CD of soothing tunes for my first grandchild, and he, of course, agreed to do it. It was probably a great inconvenience for him, but he would not let me pay him. We practiced for weeks, and had a great time recording (with little care for our usual perfectionist leanings) just for the fun of it. I now have a recording which I will treasure for the rest of my life. I can hear Dennis play "Blackbird" and "Somewhere Over the Rainbow", and so many other beautiful songs, whenever I like. When so many men our age are still trying to be the boys they used to be, Dennis had matured into a classy, endearingly old-fashioned gentleman. He had a sort of code that he lived by, which was an example to others. He appreciated and respected women. He cherished his friends. He kept his business close to his vest, and never betrayed a confidence. He was caring, thoughtful, tolerant, fun-loving - curious about philosophy, science, human nature - and a loving friend. He adored his daughter, Sara Jane. He considered her to be the greatest gift and most amazing "achievement" of his life. She was with him every day as he lay dying. I wish I could comfort her, but I know that nothing I can do can ease her loss. When Sara Jane so sweetly took the time in her grief to send me the message that Dennis had died, John and I cried over our loss of a wonderful friend - and over the loss of a caring soul to the world which so badly needs men like him. The world grieves and suffers over such a loss, even if unknowingly.

We Have Nothing to Hate but Hate Itself

With the tone of political rhetoric becoming more and more visceral, I have a few points to put forth without malice. I ask the reader to hear this in the tone in which it was written – earnestly, quietly, reasonably.

I have been through a few campaign seasons, voted in the Presidential elections since 1976, and have been involved in campaigning this year. I feel more strongly about this Presidential election than any other. It isn’t the particular candidates. It isn’t even this campaign’s particular issues, so many of which have been ignored in the fray. It is the general atmosphere of hatred present in the Republican campaign, not sensed so strongly in any other election, which makes me feel compelled to participate.
I have many friends, and family members, who usually vote for the Republican candidate. I usually vote for the Democratic candidate. Based on my personal experience as a non-wealthy person, I believe that they have pushed for a government that cares about all of its citizens and, historically, have been better for the general economy (look up the figures). I have never felt the need to agree with everyone I like, or like only people with whom I agree, and those I love are certainly not judged (by me) for their political preferences. I have always found that most people feel the same way. Until this year.

This is the first time I have ever felt personally hated by a candidate and the people who support him. I think that so many vicious lies have infiltrated political speech that people have no idea whether they are being warned or duped. It is difficult to carry on a reasonable discussion with the “Obama haters” because they believe the lies. It is difficult to find Romney supporters who will discuss the election without calling the President names or repeating hateful lines they have learned from the Republican spin factory. And very few people can even begin to talk about the actual issues. All most people talk about is how horrible “it” all is and how much worse “it” is going to get, etc.

The hatred is also based on fear. After all, the FOX News pundits have been screaming that the sky is falling ever since President Obama was elected. The truth is that the President isn’t “ruining” America. There is no evidence of that. The economy is recovering. Over 4 million private sector jobs have been created over the past 30 months, $60 billion in taxpayer subsidies to big banks have been cut, and your personal freedoms have not been squelched.

The lies told about the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare) are numerous: The Affordable Health Care Act is not forcing our grandmothers into death camps or making you change your chosen health insurance plan, or even forcing the small business owner to pay for employees’ health insurance.

What it is doing is allowing children with pre-existing conditions, such as leukemia, to get the health coverage they need to be treated; including check-ups and wellness tests for Medicare recipients; requiring your current Health Insurance provider to spend 80% of your premium on actual healthcare (instead of the 40% most use now); and giving tax credits to small business owners (with fewer than 50 employers) if they want to provide insurance for their employees. There is no mandate for those companies to provide health insurance. I promise. I have actually read the pertinent portions of the bill. If people cannot afford insurance, based on their income, they will not have to spend money they do not have for health care coverage. They will be covered by Medicare, and that money will come from the savings of Medicare payments to now uninsured patients. Those who can afford it will pay for it in amounts determined by household income, so Medicare will no longer have to pay for their uninsured visits to the emergency room for routine care.  Social Security and Medicare are intact and will be protected.

You can look up these facts and more, but most people have just believed what they were told by people they thought they could trust.
I don’t blame the average Republican voter, or even the candidates. I think the real problem is the strange “morphing” of the once-respectable Republican Party with the media extremists who make their living by spouting hateful rhetoric. The worse they are, the more fanatics they attract - and the more money they can demand. The generally accepted rules of engagement have been tossed out for the attitude that “the end justifies the means” when it comes to getting what they want, which is power. Nixon and his cohorts resorted to dirty tricks and illegal means, which they justified with the inflated importance of his reelection, but the Republican Party of the nineteen-seventies wanted my vote. But even then, the entire party didn’t seem to hate me. At least they didn’t admit it in public. The Republican Party of today just counts me out. They won’t care if I don’t vote for them. I get the feeling that they would be insulted if I considered voting for them.  I don’t want to be pandered to, but saying what you really mean and sticking to what you really believe should not be too much to ask of a Presidential candidate.

Mr. Romney believed wholeheartedly in the near-Universal Healthcare system he helped establish in Massachusetts. According to the state records on that law quoted in Wikipedia, “In 2006, Romney signed legislation that mandated that nearly all Massachusetts residents buy or obtain health insurance coverage or face a penalty in the form of an additional income tax assessment. The bill established a regulatory authority to implement the law and establish insurance standards. For residents below certain income thresholds and without adequate employer insurance, state subsidies were established, by using funds previously designated to compensate for the health costs of the uninsured.” That is what “Obamacare” is going to do.  Romney’s plan works and so will the President’s plan. Also, while in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney promised to uphold a woman’s right to choose, as stated in Roe vs. Wade. However, when leaving office in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney, looking forward to making a run for the Republican Presidential candidacy, began to change his policies of balancing the Massachusetts budget through raising fees to business owners. He began to read the GOP booklet and changed his mind about key issues to match the Republican Party’s more conservative policies. He became what he had to become to get the nomination. This is an attitude that taints the whole process of elections in the United States of America.

Finally, there are good Christian people who believe that the heads of the Republican Party are actually concerned with morality. At some point during the last two decades of the last century, there appeared a great voting block called the “Christian Right,” and the Republican Party saw the potential for warping their campaigns to match what those voters seemed to want. They started talking about “God and Country,” “Family Values,” and other catch phrases that fit the demographic. If that is what it took to get those votes, it was easy enough to change a candidate’s speech to include those phrases. They could even change their borderline-liberal positions on certain “hot button” issues like abortion rights and gay and lesbian rights to draw a bead on moral issues in government; and those positions certainly wouldn’t chase off many of the Republicans who vote for corporative interests. The money-for-influence system would still be at work. It was a win/win for candidates who didn’t mind trading personal integrity for votes. Some moderate Republicans of good character left the party at that time. Books were sent out telling the candidates what side of an issue they must support, and what they must oppose, if they wanted support from the National Committee. But that wasn’t enough. They needed a system by which the opposing party could be demonized in the eyes of millions, and in came FOX News. Listen to the raving pundits and you cannot miss the flow of hatred. Now, the GOP will not tolerate any dissension even within the Party. They proved this at the Republican Convention, when the Ron Paul supporters’ shouts and votes were ignored. But do they really care about morality issues, or have they just become people who wear the Christian faith like a costume when it is needed? If the goal is smaller government, how can it be spread to include domain over the personal lives of its citizens?

It is impossible to legislate morality in a free country. Even if he wanted to, Romney could not, as President, ban abortion. It is just a talking point. And he will not be able to make it illegal to be homosexual, or dictate that this country treat homosexuals as second-class citizens.

It is completely against the principles of the founding fathers to make laws telling Americans to change the way they live when that way of life does no harm to others. And hurting someone’s feelings does not count as harm. My personal beliefs on morality should have nothing to do with your government, and neither should yours dictate mine. It seems the religious community has confused the US Constitution with the Ten Commandments. One states the rights and privileges of a free society, and the other is a faith-based guide for how that society should live. The first one can only guarantee your freedom up until it steps on mine. If any one group (religious or otherwise) tries to dictate the beliefs of an entire country, that group is supporting the tenets of a Dictatorship, not a Republic. Our religious freedom depends on not bowing to whatever religion is the loudest or richest. Next time it might not be yours.

From the wish for dictated morality, and blind trust in its proponents, grows hatred of anything different: hatred of people who don’t care if you agree with them - they just want to be left alone to live their own lives; hatred of a President who has tried to do, and is doing, what he can for the American people- not just the wealthy, but all Americans. There is present in this country today a falsely-supported, pervasive hatred of a President who believes in fighting for the basic freedoms of all Americans, even those who oppose him. That is the real Christian attitude. I am not saying that Republicans in general are not Christians, or even that they would have to be Christian to be good people. I am saying that those at the top of the GOP ladder are using the beliefs, and misguided fears, of a blind-faith group of people to gain power over all of us. They are promoting hatred.

Of course, there are bound to be some hateful Democrats, and there are supporters of the President who have no idea what the actual issues are; it’s a big group, after all. But they are an inclusive group which allows and even welcomes diversity of people and opinions. More often than not, humor is the Democratic weapon of choice, very rarely accompanied by a sneer or smirk.

The venom of this year’s Republican Presidential Campaign – and I fear all the campaigns that will follow it down the slippery slope – is not in any way Christian, and should not be hiding behind that cloak, which they can so effortlessly toss aside once those tenets get in the way of their money or power. The hatred has to stop, or that is what will ruin our country.

The Real Question of the 47%

Those of us who appreciate logic know that the foundation of logic is fact. We cannot help but be disturbed by the current line of campaign rhetoric visible on Television, Facebook, etc. There are blatant lies being told on a regular basis, and yes, I'm sorry Republicans, but your guys seem to be especially guilty of just running around with their pants on fire. The latest quote by Mitt Romney on the 47% of people who will "vote for this president no matter what" is being bandied about by both sides as "lies" or "basic truths". Let's look at the figures.

Yes, nearly 47% of Americans do not pay Uncle Sam a chunk of money at the end of the fiscal year. Some of those people, probably only 4,000, are millionaires who use the legal loopholes and deductions to eliminate their tax obligation.[3] The rest of us fall into the following categories: Those given tax credits and or deductions for home-ownership, children, business investments, home improvements, energy-efficiency, etc. The same deductions Mr. Romney himself would take. Over half (28.3%) of those people pay payroll taxes, no matter how low their paycheck, to fund medicaid and Social Security, which they will be entitled to when they reach retirement age. 10.3% of them are from the growing population of the elderly. 6.9% are those whose households earn only enough money to live. (That is $23,050 for a family of four.) And, finally an illusive 1%, who fall into the "other" category.

That equals to 46.5%. Not so bad, Mr. Romney.

However, Romney also stated that these 47% feel entitled to handouts from the government, that they depend on the government for "their food, housing, you-name-it."  Let's look at that more carefully. Using the census count of 314 million Americans, that would mean that 147,580,000 people are receiving food, housing, and you-name-it from the government. Lets keep in mind that "you-name-it" covers student loans, disability payments, school lunch programs, payments to foster families, etc., so that is a lot of people.

According to census.gov, for the year 2009 (the latest I could find) the actual facts are as follows: 

• 18.6% of the population received means-tested government assistance. That means that those people are poor. That counts every child who receives lunch subsidies and everyone on medicaid.
• 15.2% of the pop. received Medicare benefits, which are non-means-based. That means that those people are old enough to be taken care of (even if they have plenty of money), or they have disabilities,  ["In 2010, Medicare provided health insurance to 48 million Americans - 40 million people age 65 and older and eight million younger people with disabilities."[2]]

That already equals, I think, about 105 million, so we're almost there.
According to Blog.heritage.com, the number of people receiving Pell Grants in 2011 was 9.7 million.* This after the fall of the economy in late 2008 put many people out of work and sent them back to school. 
Assuming (Oh, how I hate to do that) that those figures are close to being correct, it is probably enough to take it up to 114.7 million people. That is a huge number on it's own, just under 33 million short of the 
147, 580,000 needed to reach 47%. Add government employees and the military, and we are probably there.
So Mr. Romney's figure is not far off the mark. I was surprised, at first, that nearly half of the country's people are receiving some sort of government help. Then I thought about it. Of course they are. The government funds the military and their families and doles out veterans benefits; helps the poor, the elderly, the disabled. Also take into account the fact that at the time these figures were reached, the country was in the throes of The Great Recession. Many people who would ordinarily be working, had to swallow their pride and get help for their families. Also, with the numbers of elderly people in the system rising, the number of people claiming Social Security and Medicare has boomed as well.
Mr. Romney's statement that all 47% will "vote for this president no matter what" is ludicrous, of course. It would be a great voting base on which Obama could build, but it just isn't so. Of course, some people who are not getting government money will vote for President Obama. People who, even though they support themselves and don't get food stamps, believe that it is the responsibility of each member of a conscientious society to be a good citizen and be willing to help to raise the general well-being of all Americans. 
But none of that should be the focus of this discussion. The real enlightenment comes from the realization that one of the Presidential candidates says he loves America, but apparently hates Americans. At least 47% of them, anyway. Mr. Romney may believe that those Americans are a blot on the American landscape, but, as my father used to say, "I wouldn't tell it." These are not grab-happy freeloaders. These are your friends, neighbors, fellow club members, and family. Does Mr. Romney believe that you think that all of those people think of themselves as victims and want to take money from the government instead of living above the poverty line enjoying the everyday luxuries most of you take for granted? I don't think you do.
The question a responsible leader should ask is "what can we do to help the 18.6% climb up out of poverty?" not "what can we do to wipe these numbers off the charts?" I would think that the best solution is jobs. Jobs created by innovative companies that do not outsource to foreign countries (the president has authorized tax cuts for companies like that), companies that will create something with the personnel resources we have here. There are so many possibilities. I read that one of the tax breaks Romney plans is to eliminate taxes on profits from foreign companies. That sound like an incentive to outsource jobs, not to create jobs for Americans. I will have to do some research on that one.

*If anyone can find the numbers - from a reliable source - on how many students receive government grants, etc., I would appreciate the input. I found a not-so-reliable source, but the best I could come up with: Blog.heritage.org. (they claim that their numbers come from the Department of  Education, but the link they provide does not lead there). 

1

 Major means-tested programs include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), General Assistance (GA), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and housing assistance . 

2

According to Wikipedia
3
CBS News.com

Capitalism Crashing?

Remember that the 2007-2008 crash happened at the end of the reign of King George W. - not at the beginning of Obama's administration. The crash was preceded by the biggest disparity in wealth between the haves and have-nots since the Great Depression of 1929. The gap grew under Bush and is now embarrassingly worse than some third world countries. We have to end the tax gifts for the super-rich to prevent an even more devastating crash - followed by a possible revolution. Do the corporations think the US is immune to a peoples' coups? I hope we don't ever find out. It could get ugly.

American Capitalism giving way to Corporatism - not Socialism.

Real-World American Economics

Some choose a candidate based on economics. This is the one issue that propels the GOP to obscene heights of campaign donations. What the corporations see as a friendly face determines their donations, and they generally throw enough money at a candidate to make it worth their while to elect a certain party. What voters perceive as the best plan for their money determines their vote. What could a corporation possibly do for you personally by gaining the right to hide money off-shore, out-source jobs, pay less of your health insurance, ignore your pension, or relax safety laws? Nothing. Yes, but, Gayle, what's good for the job-creators, is good for the little people. If that is true, where have they been for the past four years? They have had their super tax breaks. Have they been holding back the recovery of an economy ruined by big corporations and financial institutions in order to make our President look bad during his first four years? Or are they just improving the employment rate overseas and not here? If there are jobs, they say they did it, if there are no jobs, they say the Democrats did it. When they start a war, it is necessary; if the President continues our presence in those countries, he is wasting our defense budget. The facts are twisted so badly that even the intelligent voter has trouble sorting through it.

Just accept it, even your favorite candidate (or mine) is likely to lie to the voter about what he will accomplish just to be elected. No president can turn his policies into law if his party does not hold a super-majority in congress. No president can truly promise to balance the budget or never to raise taxes - even the "read my lips" campaign could not be sustained once George Bush, Sr. became President. Taxes are necessary to maintain what we have set up as a system of government. It is not supposed to be a government of the corporation, but of the people. The wealthy (or nearly-wealthy) should be careful not to buy into the notion that everyone with money will receive the same perks as the super-rich. I am amazed at how many of my Republican friends believe that they know someone in the 1%. They have no idea how far above them these people live. So many middle-class Republicans are actually 1% wanna-be's who believe that if the system favoring that level of income stays in place long enough, they will be among them. It's like the kid on the playground assuming he will play in the NBA, so he wears the shirt and buys the posters. 99% of us will never reach that status, but your support for a system that protects their interests, and elevates them politically, will make the gap between us even greater.

There is a class system in this country. We all know it. This year's Presidential campaigns are based on that knowledge. It is and will be a matter of which side of the fence you believe you are on. If you are disillusioned enough to believe that (even though you are still on the playground) you will be playing for the NBA within the next four years, then vote with the GOP. If you understand that corporation money is buying our government and benefiting only the super-rich, vote Democratic. Eventually, everyone's interests will be served better by a government for the people.

Capitalism?

According to Wikipedia, "Capitalism is the system of raising, conserving, and spending a set monetary value in a specified market. There are three main markets in a basic capitalistic economy: labor, goods and services, and financial. Labor markets (people) make products and get paid for work by the goods and services market (companies, firms, or corporations, etc.) which then sells the products back to the laborers. However, both of the first two markets pay into and receive benefits from the financial market (banks, credit-unions, brokerage houses, etc.), which handles and regulates the actual money in the economic system."

This sounds good in theory, but this system depends on the mutual goals of all three markets to be in agreement for all three to succeed in driving a healthy economy. This system only works when the goods and services and financial markets police themselves toward the betterment of the overall economy - not to the betterment of the personal bank accounts of the few in charge. As people began to see safety regulations, child labor laws, worker's compensation plans, etc. as necessary for the well being of workers, and as incentives for working in certain industries, legislation was enacted to regulate industry. Over the course of our economic history, our capitalist origins have developed into the system we have today.
 
In reality, for well over a century, the American economic system has been closer to a "Social Market Economy" system which combines private enterprise with government regulation to (ideally) establish fair competition - maintaining a balance between a high rate of economic growth, low inflation, low levels of unemployment, good working conditions, social welfare, and public services - by using legislative intervention. Notice the word "social" and not "socialist" is used. A Socialist System has a state-directed economic activity and/or a state-owned means of production. No presidential administration has suggested that American industry be owned and operated by the government. The failure of banks and industries "too big to fail" created an unprecedented problem for the government. The measures taken to keep our economy afloat are not "administration policy."

Entitlement

The word "Entitlement" can refer to the rights, money, or privileges that one should be allowed by law, or heredity, or work performed, etc.); but it can also refer to the expectation of one's rights to those privileges.  The word "entitlement" is used (as are the terms, "liberal," "open-minded," and "intellectual") as a derogatory term in regards to: welfare payments; fair wages; equal wages; social security payments; disability payments; student loans; and any other social program, or equalizing factor, aimed at the general well being of Americans. It helps the cause of the GOP to refer to recipients of those social services as "freeloaders" and "deadbeats" (and Reagan's imaginary "welfare queen") even when they are aware that the majority of government benefits recipients are children and the elderly.

"Entitlement" is a favorite word among those opposed to the Social Market Economy this country has exercised for over a century. Most people believe that the US has a Capitalist Economy, but this interpretation is only correct in that it is the "speech of the day" and has less to do with the actual definition of capitalism than with the strained fear of using the word "social" in a description of our actual working economic system. They frighten the uninformed with the word "socialism" as if the US does not already have social programs entrenched in its culture.

Most of the political world's super-rich are very careful not to use the "entitlement" word when referring to their presumed entitlement to extra tax breaks, exemption from government regulations, and their use of America's vast infrastructure - without paying their fair share in income tax. They believe that, because they have more money than nearly everyone else in America, they should be allowed to hide it from the tax system to which the rest of the country is forced to adhere. They feel entitled to these special privileges by virtue of their great wealth - whether that wealth came from  hard work, heredity, luck, privilege, or corporate theft. What that wealth does afford the super-rich is access to, and control of, America's lawmakers, through corporate-funded lobbying. This greed-driven policy-making has increased the disparity of wealth in the US to that equaling a third-world dictatorship. This is (or should be) embarrassing to a democratic society. 
  
(More on real capitalism and the causes and possible solutions to an embarrassing disparity of wealth, later.)