Can it be solved?

Monday, February 1, 2021

Open Letter to Ms. Meghan McKain

Ms. McCain, I love watching The View and listening to the different viewpoints, including yours. I don't often agree with you but I support your right to express yourself. This letter was inspired by your expression of disapproval of President Biden's reversing restrictions on federal government funding of reproductive health care organizations providing sanitary medical abortions to women in foreign countries. You implied that Joe is not sincere about uniting the country because you believe abortion is murder. It sounds like you are saying the country can not come together unless and until public policy is aligned with the religious beliefs with which you were reared. If that is the case, unity is a pipe dream. Maybe the president thinks of unity as people with different beliefs coming together to peacefully and calmly try to understand each other's views. That would be challenging for me as I tend to get excited when expressing my beliefs verbally. I don't understand, Ms. McCain, how you can justify depriving women and girls in third world countries of the civil right to a sanitary medically competant abortion, a civil right the females of this country possess. Also a right that any of those foriegn females could exercise by coming to this country if they had the means. Should public policy be determined by anyone's personal religious beliefs? Do you beieve that pubic policy and laws should conform to the tenets of the religion to which the numerical majority of a population professes to belong? In that case, if, at some point, the majority of Americans were Moslem, we would all have to live in conformance to Sharia law. Wouldn't that be nice? I don't know how the Christian Bible could be used as a model for public policy as there are so many prohibitions in the O.T. that are reversed in the N.T. and vice versa. Divorce for example. Acceptable in tne Old. Frowned upon in the New. Speaking of the Bible, I wonder why God did not come rght out and say "abortion is murder"? Seems that would have bolstered the so-called "pro-life" stance. Did you know that abortion, while the word does not appear in the Bible, was a common lawful practice in the Roman Empire? Strange that Jesus did not condemn abortion. "And I say unto you, abortion is murder". Does not require a lot of time or effort. Maybe he knew that the soul does not enter a viable fetus until it is being born. Perhaps we are supposed to believe the 5th commandment covers abortion. Why? It evidently does not refer to killing the fatted calf, nor the Caananites, nor Jacob, nor the first born of the Egyptians. So why do some Christians believe abortion is murder? I beieve the answer is tradition for Catholics. What is tradition? An influential person comes up with an idea which catches on and is repeated long enough that it eventually is regarded as irrefutable truth. So, several years after the crucifixtion a church leader decided abortion was a sin. Repeated so often, it became true for Catholics. It wasn't until the 1820s that some states passed laws regulating abortions. And it wasn't until 1979 that evangelicals siezed on the abortion issue as a rallying cry to try to keep Carter from being reelected according to the on-line article, Real Origins of the Religious Right. Although this may not apply to you, Ms. McCain, I get the impression that some anti-abortion rights people believe that pro-rights folk either don't realize that the fetus is an autonomous human being with its own soul or that they know it and don't care. If I believed, as some anti- abortionists do, that a soul (not the mother's) enters the zygote at the moment of conception, I would have to love the unborn and care about them as much as I care about the mothers. Fortunately, my religious belief, that a separate soul does not enter the viable fetus before it is born, allows me to be more concerned with the mother and her rights than with the non-existent rights of a non- viable fetus. I am in favor of the state prohibiting abortion during the final trimester unless the mother's health is threatened. That is because forcing a living viable fetus from the womb would result in it recieving an autonomous soul and with it, the right to life. While there is no scientific evidence to support my belief, there is also no evidence that proves the soul enters the fetus before birth. As far as reversing /i>, thus depriving females of the right to a clean medically induced abortion, that would result in more hardship and death. Can you imagine being 14, pregnant and too scared and desperate to turn to your family for help? Desperate enough to pay a non-scrupulous person $100 to push a dirty coat hanger up b/w your legs? Can you imagine subsequently bleeding to death in a dark back alley? Did you know that 39 women died in 1972 from the effects of ilegal abortion? In my opinion, even one would have been too many. In my opinion the earth has problems as a result of too many people. So I don't feel sorry that some of the hundreds of thousands of terminated fetuses might have become the scientific geniuses we need. If Curie had not discovered radium, someone else would have. And if not, the Radium Girls might have lived longer. And how many of those terminated fetuses might have become serial killers responsible for murdering my family or yours? As I said, you have a right to your opinion. But acting as if your opinion and beliefs matter more than those of people who disagree with you feels condescending to me. Sincerely, Richard w. Geiger rgphilo1@gmail.com

Friday, August 1, 2014

What is a GOOD economy?

What is a Good Economy?
(published on www.socialproblemsrg.blogspot.com)

   It seems we are informed daily about the state of the American economy as measured by the GDP, the rate of inflation, the Federal deficit, the stock market losses or gains, the growing national debt. I wonder whose economy is being assessed. I understand that the net worth of the most affluent 7% of Americans has been increasing since the end of the recession in 2009 whereas the the net worth of the less affluent 93% has been decreasing (based on www.pewsocialtrends.org/.../a-rise-in-wealth-for-the-wealthydeclines-for...). Increased wealth at the top has not been trickling down to the bottom.

   So how can the economy be described as improving, unless, of course, one is describing the economy of the upper 7% most affluent Americans.

    The Obamas, the Clintons, the Bushes seem to be convinced that the way to make the American economy maximally prosperous is for American companies to produce goods and services for the whole world. This, I suspect is the rationale for trade agreements with other countries. This sounds sensible since there are about twenty times more potential customers in the rest of the world as there are in the United States. This was probably the reasoning used to justify NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement).  I found an article in the Milwaukee Journal (www. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) posted on 1/22/14 by David Newby entitled "Fast track on Trade Agreement is Wrong Track".   Newby says a lot of American jobs were lost as a result of NAFTA. According to this article, other "free" trade agreements since then resulted in the loss of several million more.

     Why do trade agreements result in a loss of American jobs? I believe it is because foreign companies manufactured similar goods as American companies but the foreign goods were less expensive. American consumers, who seem to regard bargains as an intrinsic human right, stopped buying American goods in favor of cheaper foreign products. How are foreign companies able to sell less expensive products? There are probably numerous factors involved. Some of those factors may be (1) that foreign workers are willing to work for less than American workers. (2) Perhaps American companies insist on greater profit margins than foreign companies. (3) Foreign companies may not have to comply with the strict safety, product quality and environmental regulations that American companies must observe. (4) Foreign governments may subsidize the competing foreign businesses to a greater extent than the American government subsidizes the same kind of businesses in this country.

     NAFTA's overall effect on life in America is debatable. What is less debatable is that the richest Americans, Canadians and Mexicans are richer today than they were in 1994. How? If hundreds of thousands of Americans lost jobs as a result of cheaper goods from Mexico and Canada being bought by American consumers, would that not indicate less gain for American manufacturers? If you are an American manufacturer who can not compete with goods from other countries, you have options. You can invest your money in your foreign competitor's business or you can move your operation to a country where the expense of manufacturing is cheaper. Either way, you continue to make money. Too bad making money is not that simple for those who lost their manufacturing jobs.

What is the solution to the uneven competition between American and foreign companies?

In his article cited above Newby reports that there is a new trade agreement in the works. The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement (TPPTA) has been negotiated in secret for four years. The 1000-page draft has 29 chapters, 24 of which have to do with "harmonizing " standards and regulations between participating nations. Translated, that means the large corporations are trying to undermine American standards and regulations that support worker safety, environmental quality, etc.

   Anyone with a high school education should realize that lowering work safety, product quality, and environmental protection regulations in this country will result in more human illness, accidents and environmental damage. Who will pay the price? Insurance companies? Higher insurance premiums. The government? Increased taxes and/or increased national indebtedness.

     If the United States signs on to the TPPTA, the Upper 7% will make out like bandits and the rest of us will be stuck with the bill. And the Obama administration will accept the credit for a more prosperous economy. This is, evidently, the best plan our brightest thinkers and experts can conceive. Although I am not the brightest or best thinker, I think this is a sad situation. To understand why I think that let me explain first what a bad economy looks like (the present condition) and then what I think a good economy would like.

THE BAD ECONOMY

We presently have an economy in which governments, rather than buying American-made

goods and services, thereby increasing income from taxes, shop the international marketplace for the cheapest products and/or services. The Federal Government, for example, borrows money from China and then uses a portion of that money to purchase Chinese goods. This deprives the American government of income from the increased tax revenue they could have collected by buying American and which tax income they need to pay what they owe China. Buying from the Chinese also helps Chinese businesses to prosper and increases the interest the American taxpayers will have to pay the Chinese banks. I can't help wondering whose idea it was to start borrowing money from a country with one of the most abusive governments in the world.

    The fact that governments in the U.S. waste countless billions of dollars annually could also be examined from an ethical point of view. (See www.socialproblemsrg.blogspot.com , the National Debt post for details about government waste.)

I think an economy is not doing well when 14.8 % of the population lives in poverty, and 1.5 million households (including 2.8 million children) are designated as living in "extreme poverty" (on less than two dollars a day before government benefits)                                                                (http://en.wiki/economy_of_the_United_States).

   A bad economy is one in which low income citizens do not have an equal level of police protection, educational quality, healthful housing, quality parks and playgrounds, infrastructure maintenance, and other municipal services.

    It is not good when businesses value profit more than the Common Good; when business decisions involving consumer health and safety are made on the basis of cost/benefit analysis (See http://web1.calbaptist.edu/dskubik/pinto.htm for an example); when large corporations are permitted to decide if people have the right to know what is in their food; when large corporations are granted the right to free speech; when corporations can give large amounts of money to candidates of both parties so that whichever candidate wins an election will favor that corporation.

A GOOD ECONOMY

A good economy would entail the Federal Government and State and Municipal governments purchasing necessary goods and services from American suppliers except where the needed goods or services could not be furnished by American suppliers within a reasonable amount of time and a foreign supplier was able to furnish the same sooner.

Governments would not waste money, i.e. spend it unnecessarily, in a good economy. (See www.socialproblemsrg.blogspot.com , the National Debt post for a fuller explanation of wasteful spending.) That would include not giving government subsidies to industriesthat can make a profit without the subsidies.

A good economy would be one in which American businesses would be patriotic enough to keep their corporate headquarters and their production operations within the United States and one in which consumers would willingly commit to boycotting any business that was either unpatriotic or socially irresponsible. By social irresponsibility I mean threatening the Common Good and/or human rights.

It would be good if the government of the United States did not owe money to other countries, especially those that violate human rights. A better economy would be one in which the national debt as well as all State and municipal debts would be paid in full. And in which the income of governments would be sufficient to pay all necessary(non-wasteful) expenses.

A really good economy would be one in which there was a truly progressive federal income tax system without tax exceptions for individuals, families, nor businesses. An example of a progressive annual personal income tax would be one that started at .01% rate of taxation for those making b/w $712 and $1000 extending in increasing increments to 90% for those making $1 billion and above.

I think it would be good if the state collected the property taxes designed to fund pre-school, primary, and secondary public education. That way the total sum could be equitably divided among all public schools in the state based on the number of students enrolled in each school. In regard to school boards, if the school board members must be paid, that salary could be paid by the State.

A good economy would be one in which all adults willing and able to work would have decent jobs that paid enough to enable them to afford healthful lifestyles. (For more details on healthful lifestyle, check out www.equaleconomy.blogspot.com , Section C. An Alternative Solution, #1 A Healthful Lifestyle.)

Governments would ensure that every citizen would be able to share equally in a quality Common Good (education, libraries, parks, gymnasiums, infrastructure, health care, etc.).

Businesses would value the preservation of the Common Good and human rights more than profit.

Political candidates would not receive large sums of money, etc. from any individual entity in a good economy.

The common knee-jerk response to the "good economy" concept is that it would not be fiscally feasible. I disagree and make the case for affordability at www.equaleconomy.blogspot.com, Section D Analysis of the Alternative Solution, #1 Affordability.

Friday, January 10, 2014

Is the U.S. a Plutocracy? Does Anyone Really Care?

The Short Version of

Is the U.S. now a Plutocracy? Does Anyone Really Care?

By Richard W. Geiger

www.savingrepublic.blogspot.com or

www.social problemsrg.blogspot.com

It occurred to me that the Plutocracy blog is getting a bit lengthy due to my need to be thorough, understandable, and as persuasive as possible. The blog is divided into sections from A to G. I’ll try to summarize what each section is about. That way the reader can use their time most productively rather than trying to read the whole thing. If you are on one of the sites named above you have probably used the Firefox Browser to get here. The complete Plutocracy blog follows this short version.

What this blog is about: Plutocracy means “government by the wealthy” and “a group of wealthy people who control or influence a government”.

A. ECONOMIC INEQUALITY

1. Personal Income

This section presents numerous references designed to inform the reader about the very real disproportionate distribution of financial income. The reader will learn that 15.5 million Americans earn more than $114,000 annually. That 33% of American households have annual incomes exceeding $77,000. That there are more than 46 million Americans living in poverty, including 2.8 million children living in conditions classified as extremely poor.

2. Net Worth

This section gives numerous references to demonstrate changes in net worth in the United States as well as in the world in general. The reader will be shown that the net worth of the wealthiest earners has been increasing for several decades while the net worth of the less wealthy has been decreasing.

3. Summary

This section presents the argument that although money moves from the Upper Class to the Middle and Lower Classes, more money has been flowing from the bottom to the top than vice versa. The result is greater economic inequality.

B. POLITICS AND WEALTH

1. Congress

This section presents evidence based on research that U.S. Congressmen are more responsive to their upper class constituents and discusses why that is.

2. Upper Class and Government

This section describes how tax dollars help to grow and maintain incomes for the Upper Class.

3. Entitlements

This section addresses the following question: Where does the money the government expends on entitlements end up?

4. The Supreme Court

This section notes that the Supreme Court decisions seem to favor the members of the economic Class to which the Justices belong.

5. The Common Good

This section suggests that the Upper Class does not care about the Common Good of all Americans more than they care about money and power. The Global Warming issue is used as an example.

6. Trade Agreements

This section is based on research about NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and the new Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Trade Agreement. The research suggests that the TPP Agreement will be even worse for the American wage earner and the Common Good than NAFTA was.

7. Legislation

How can you tell if legislation is designed to enhance the Common good or to benefit the Upper Class? This section contrasts modern legislation with the WPA and CCC programs of the Great Depression.

C. PSYCHOLOGY OF THE RICH

Does it ever seem to you that wealthy people are narcissistic, self-focused and entitled? This section references research that indicates just that.

D. MATERIALISM

The discussion in this section suggests that the root of the problem of American plutocracy and the solution involves the materialistic nature of American society. The case is presented that materialism enables plutocracy which is a threat to the Republic. Rather than increasing national security, materialism makes America more vulnerable. Materialistic values held by the Lower and Middle Classes allow the Upper Class to grow its disproportionate share of wealth and power.

E. DOING NOTHING

This section discusses the long-term result of doing nothing to stop the wealthy from controlling the government of the U.S. That result is the antithesis of the Common Good. This section also describes the rights and opportunities that every citizen should possess as part and parcel of the Common Good.

F. HARD WORK AND CLASS

This section discusses the relationship between work and economic gain and the necessity of hard work to establish and maintain the Common Good.

G. CONCLUSION

This section discusses which institutions cannot be depended upon to promote and enhance the Common Good. It describes some of the things that caring people can do.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Is the U.S. now a Plutocracy? Does Anyone Really Care?

by Richard Geiger

Is the United States government metamorphosing from a Republic into a Plutocracy? Plutocracy comes from Greek terms meaning wealth and power. According to Webster a plutocracy is "government by the wealthy" and "a group of wealthy people who control or influence a government". I think the above question is relevant considering the following:

A. Economic Inequality

Is there a state of economic inequality in this country? Wealth and political power are related. If there are more wealthy people in a population than poorer people, a plutocracy is, perhaps, inevitable. How much of a discrepancy is there between the rich and not so rich in this country? This section will discuss personal income and household net worth.
1. Personal Income

According to Wikepedia (http://en.wiki/economy_of_the_United_States) personal income is an individual's total earnings from salary, wages, investments, etc. Personal income varies greatly in the U.S. This variation can be expressed with the terms lower class, middle class, and upper class. We hear about the decreasing size of the middle class.

But what is the "middle class"? There are a number of indicators to determine middle class inclusion and there is the individual American's subjective perception of class designation. For the purpose of this blog, in terms of personal income, the middle class refers to those individuals and households whose income is between 75% and 150 % of the current annual median American income as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau. Median does not refer to the average. The median is a point that divides a set of numbers into halves. To determine the median income of a group, the income amounts would be arranged in ascending order. For example:

$10

$1000

$12000

The median is the middle number. For the above group of figures the median would be $10. If we added $500,000 to the list there would be two numbers in the middle. When that occurs, the two numbers in the middle of the list are averaged in order to determine the median number for the group. With $500,000 added, $10 and $1000 become the middle numbers. Their average is $505, the new median. If one adds more numbers to the list that are less than the median, the new calculated median will be less than the old median. If one adds more numbers to the list that are more than the median, the median will increase. So when you hear that the median income of Americans is decreasing, that means more people are earning less.
The median income for the 50 states, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico was $51,371 in 2012. (www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr12-02.pdf). This indicates that half the population of individuals made less than $51,371 and the other half earned more than $51,371.

So to determine class income for 2012 I multiply $51,371 by .75 which yields $38,528 and multiply $51,371 by 1.5 which is $77, 056. For the purpose of simplifying the information in this blog, people who earned more than $77,056 in 2012 belonged to the upper class. People who earned $38,528 or less belonged to the lower class. The rest belonged to the middle class.
If you think about money the way I do, a million dollars is hard to picture let alone a billion. To help create a mental image of large sums of wealth, imagine a large table the surface of which is divided into one thousand spaces. Now imagine a one dollar bill in each of the one thousand spaces. In order to have one million one dollar bills evenly divided between the 1000 table top spaces, 999 one dollar bills would have to be added to the dollar bill in each of the one thousand spaces. There would then be 1000 stacks of 1000 one dollar bills or $1million dollars on the table. If 999,000 one dollar bills would be added to each of the thousand spaces already holding $1000 each, there would be 1000 stacks of one million dollars each. The table would then be holding the total sum of $1 billion. If 999 million one dollar bills were added to each of the one thousand stacks of one million bills each, there would be $1 trillion on the table. Keeping that in mind,consider the following.

The shrinking size of the middle class since the 1970s is referred to in an article in ThinkProgress (1/12/2012) available at
http://thinkprogress.orgeconomy/2012/01/12/403324/Krueger-income-inequality-envy/. Alan Krueger, Chairman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, has said the steady decline in the size of the middle class is equivalent to shifting $1.1 trillion dollars of income from the the lower 99% of income earners to the top 1% annually for the past 30 years. That statement supports the idea that as middle class citizens succumb to poverty or die, most of their former wealth is absorbed by the wealthiest Americans. Krueger's statement also seems to indicate that members of the lower class are not rising into the middle class at rates that would be necessary to prevent the middle class from shrinking. Another factor is that a third of the children who grow up in the middle class fall out of that class as adults (http://pewtrusts.org>NewsRoom>PressReleases) .

According to an article entitled "Richest 1% earn biggest share since the Roaring '20s" edited by Robert Frank and posted on 9/11/13 at www.cnbc.com/id/101025377, the top 1% of American tax payers are not all millionaires. They had pre-tax incomes of at least $394,000 in 2012. Total earnings for 2012 according to the Total Personal Income U.S. chart at www.bbber.unm.edu/econ/us-tpi.htm was $13,401,868,693,000. According to Wikepedia (http://en.wiki/economy_of_the_United_States) there were 155.6 million people in the work force for the fiscal year beginning on 10/1/12. One percent of that number is 1,556,000. The top 1% of earners (1,556,000) pocketed 19% or $2,546,356,651,000 of the nation's total household income in 2012.

The top 10% of earners (15,560,000) had incomes exceeding $114,000 for 2012. They received 48.2% of total earnings in 2012. That is a total of $6,322,905,248,000. The following chart may help to compare those figures.

PERS. INC. EARNERS SHARE OF PERSONAL INCOME AV. INC. PER EARNER

Upper 1% (1,556,000) $2,546,356,651,000 (19%) $1,636,475

Upper 10% (15,560,000) $6,322,905,248,000 (48.2.%) $406,999

Lower 90% (140,140,000) $6,968,976,481,000 (51.8%) $49,728

      At www.forbes.com/sites/phildemuth/2013/11/25/are-you-rich-enough-the-terrible-tragedy-of-income-inequality-among-the-1 is an article entitled "Are You Rich Enough? The Terrible Tragedy of Income Inequality Among the 1%" by Phil Demuth posted 11/25/13. According to this article in order to belong to the top half of the top 1% of America's rich, you would have to earn at least $611,000 annually and have about $2 million in liquid assets.  The top tenth of one percent have an annual income of at least $1.9 million. The top one hundredth of one percent have an income of at least $10.2 million.  .
PERS. INCOME EARNERS    MINIMUM ANNUAL INCOME
Top 1%                                                          $394,000
Top .5%                                                         $611,000
Top .1%                                                         $1,900,000
Top .01%                                                       $10,200,000

The richer one is, the more corporate shares and stocks one can afford. Since the end of the Great Recession in 2009, Robert Frank's article reports that 95% of gains from corporate profits and rising stock prices have gone to the upper 1% earners.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2008-2012 American Community Survey
(http://factfinder2:census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xtml?pid=ACS_12_5YR_DP02&prodtype=table), of the 115,226,802 households in the country, 5,345,209 or 4.6% received income and benefits of $200,000 or more. 7.2% of the country's households (8,272,970) received less than $10,000 in income and benefits.

TOTAL # HOUSEHOLDS PERCENT AN.INCOME

8,272,970 7.2% Less than $10,000

5,345,209 4.6% More than $200,000

On 7/4/2013 the U.S. Census Bureau reported the U.S. population numbered 316,148,990. The 7.2% of households from the above chart include some of the the 14.8 % of the U.S. population (46,790,000 individuals) living in poverty. The term "extreme poverty" is used to designate those households living on less than two dollars a day before government benefits. There were twice as many households living in extreme poverty in 2011, 1.5 million, as in 1996. 2.8 million children were living in those 1.5 million poor households in 2011 (http://en.wiki/economy_of_the_United_States).

2. Net Worth

Another way to assess the problem of economic inequality is to scrutinize net worth. Net worth is not the same measure as income. Net worth is the sum of your assets minus your debts. According to the Think Progress article referred to in #1., studies have shown that economic inequality can have a restrictive effect on economic growth. That does not appear to hold true for the upper class as measured by net worth. An article at www.pewsocialtrends.org/.../a-rise-in-wealth-for-the-wealthydeclines-for... is entitled "A Rise in Wealth for the Wealthy; Declines for the Lower 93% - An Uneven Recovery, 2009-2011" by Richard Fry and Paul Taylor. According to this article the economic net worth of households of the 7% most affluent Americans increased an average of 28% from 2009 to 2011. The net worth of the less affluent 93% of Americans fell by 4%. This was after the Great Recession ended in June, 2009.

       What does all that mean?   Imagine that your household in 2011 had a net worth of $836,033 or less. That would mean your household was one of 111 million American households with that net worth. If, on the other hand, your household was one of the 7% most affluent in the country the net worth of your household would be greater than $836,033. The average net worth of the group of 111million households in 2009 was $139,896. In 2011 that figure had decreased to $133,817. During the same period the average net worth of the group of the 7 million more affluent households increased from $2,476,244 to $3,173,895. If it's true that money does not grow on trees, then the loss of net worth for the 93% contributed to the gains made by the 7%.

INCOME   #OF HOUSEHOLDS       2009 AV. NET WORTH         2011 AV. NET WORTH
Upper 7%      7 million                             $2,476,244                              $3,173,895
Lower 93%    111 million                            $139,896                                $133,817

These figures don't seem entirely accurate and they are averages. There will be some people in the 93% category that will insist they lost no net worth or even gained some between 2009 and 2011. The point is that most of those households in the 93% group lost net worth.

An article at www.Washington.cbslocal:/.../study-American-households-hit-43-year-low...posted 11/20/12 by New York University professor Edward N. Wolf is entitled "Study: American Households Hit 43 Year Low in Net Worth". According to this article, median net worth of American households is at $57,000 its lowest level since 1969. The net worth of the one percent of the wealthiest households has increased an average of 71% since 1969.

      According to an article posted at www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html, in 2010 35.4% of all private wealth in the country was owned by the upper 1%. The next lowest 19% owned 53.3% of the private wealth. This left 12.3% of private wealth to be shared among the remaining 80% of earners.
                                            % OF PRIVATE    AMOUNT OF       AVERAGE WEALTH
INCOME EARNERS             WEALTH          WEALTH                 PER EARNER
100% (155.6 million)                100%               $54.2 trillion                $348,329
80% (124.48 million)                 12.3%              $6.6666 trillion            $53, 555
19% (29.55 million)                   53.3%             $28..888 trillion             $977,617
1%   (1,556,000)                          35.4%             $19.1868 trillion           $123.3 million

The rich getting richer post recession was not unique to the U.S. An article at www.democraticunderground.com>Discuss posted 6-22-11 is entitled "World's Wealthiest Now Richer Than Before the Recession". Although countries worldwide approached bankruptcy and implemented austerity measures as a result of the recession, by 2010 the world's richest people had regained what they lost in the recession and were richer than ever, according to this article. It uses the initials HNWI to stand for high net worth individuals. HNWI are people who have more than one million dollars in free cash. UHNWI are ultra high net worth individuals. They have at least $30 million in free cash. By 2010 there were 11 million HNWIs in the world, more than in 2007. The number of UHNWIs increased by 10% from 2007 to 103,000 worldwide in 2010.
ECONOMIC STATUS   NET WORTH       NUMBER (2010)

HNWI $1,000,000+ 11 million

UHNWI $30,000,000+ 103 thousand

To add some perspective, the 103 thousand UHNWIs could give a million dollars away to each of 308,897,000 individuals and still be HNWIs. The collective minimum net worth of the HNWIs plus that of the UHNWIs, divided between 6 billion people, would exceed $515/person.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau's World Population Clock there were over 7.1 billion people in the world at the end of January, 2014. There is an article posted on the Forbes website (www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2014/01/23/the-85-...) entitled "The 85 Richest People In The World Have As Much Wealth As the 3.5 Billion Poorest" by Laura Shin. The article addresses the contents of the January, 2014 Oxfam International report that states that just one percent of the human race owns almost half of the world's wealth. The world's 85 richest people have a total net worth equal to the total net worth of the poorest 3.5 billion people living on planet Earth. Apparently increasing economic inequality is an international phenomenon.

3. Summary
        One may wonder who "the rich" are?  I normally think of the most successful businessmen and bankers as the rich. Some Hollywood stars and producers, talk show hosts, pop music idols, popular sports figures, illegal drug king pins, mafia bosses, politicians, plastic surgeons, lawyers, etc. are also the rich.
       Why do the rich have so much more than the rest of us? This is my simplified understanding of how money moves through the economic system. Employers pay money to their employees in the form of salary, wages, commissions, benefits, bonuses, tips, etc.   Employees pay some of that money to different levels of government in the form of income and payroll taxes, fees, tolls, etc. I remember hearing some years ago that when all the payments to government are added together, the average worker must work until May to pay for the portion of his income that goes to pay his/her government obligations for the year.
       Businesses also pay income and excise taxes, license and other fees, etc. to different levels of government.   Governments spend the revenue they collect to build and repair infrastructure; provide for the needs of poor, disabled and retired citizens; administer hundreds, if not thousands of programs; pay the wages and salaries of millions of employees, etc. The poor, disabled, and retired citizens; government employees; employees of private business; and employers are all consumers. They spend the money they receive on goods and services, investments, and donations. The donations help to fund private non-profit organizations which spend that money for salaries, goods, services, etc.  For-Profit and Not-for-Profit Businesses and the different levels of government are consumers in that they spend money to acquire goods and services from private businesses.  It seems like all the money in the economy ends up passing through private businesses. Private businesses as a group receive money from all consumers. Governments collect money from businesses and individuals.
      Some large corporations get billions of that tax money back in the form of subsidies, what some call "corporate welfare". Some would defend government subsidies to large corporations by pointing out that these corporations are free to relocate overseas. So the government is paying the corporations to stay put. And the difference between that and blackmail is?    Blackmail or not, government subsidies help increase corporate profits.
       When a business is successful, it will collect more income than is necessary to pay for the expenses of the business. The amount of excess income is called profit. In an expanding economy, a business uses its profits to expand the business, i.e., to encourage more demand for the goods and/or services the business produces or to satisfy an increased demand if one already exists. I remember hearing a speech by President Obama last year that alluded to the fact that the country's largest corporations were holding record profits in reserve rather than using them for business expansion. I remember thinking that would not be happening if Governor Romney had won the 2012 election.
       Large corporations are owned by or held in stock and run by upper class individuals. As already noted, between 2009 and 2011, 95% of corporate profits and rising stock prices went to the upper 1% of earners.  As the profits of large corporations grow, the upper class becomes  richer.

Of course, the upper class are also consumers. They require goods and services. It is reasonable for the rich to get those goods and services from suppliers who are also rich. Why shop at a neighborhood grocery store when you can order your groceries on line and have them delivered to your home? This also helps keep money in the hands of the upper class and away from the middle class.

There is an idea that not raising taxes on the rich will result in more of their money reaching the lower classes. The information above belies that idea and indicates that there is a disproportionate flow of wealth from the bottom toward the top. The rich are getting richer and the rest of us are getting poorer.

There are major corporations that made billions in profits from 2008-2011 but paid no Federal income tax (www.thinkprogress.org/.../major-corporations-taxes-four-year/ ). Wages paid by big business to its employees is one way money filters downward. As long as the minimum wage does not rise significantly for the lowest paid employees and certain occupations like restaurant workers and home health aides remain unprotected by the minimum wage law, the upper class will be able to hoard more of the nation's wealth.

B. POLITICS AND WEALTH

1. Congress

The study "Responsiveness in an Era of Inequality" by Thomas Hayes appeared in Political Science Quarterly, Sept., 2013 issue (prq.sagepub.com). This study compared the voting records of Senators in the 107th through the 111th Congresses with the opinions of the Senators' constituents. This study found that the Senators voted in accordance with the opinions of their wealthiest constituents. The opinions of lower class constituents did not appear to have any effect on the Senators votes. This was the case for both democrat and republican senators. This may be due to the high net worth of Senators. According to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics (http://www.opensecrets.org/pdfs/) in 2012 over half of all U.S. congressmen were millionaires. They weren't all that rich when they were originally elected. The wealthiest congressman is from California. His maximum net worth exceeds $590 million. He could give a dollar to every man, woman and child in the country and still be worth more than $200 million.

       Wealthier congressmen would naturally have more values and opinions in common with their wealthier constituents. In general, one would expect wealthier constituents to possess easier access to their elected representatives than poorer constituents could command.
         Not only are half of all congressmen millionaires. According to an About.com article "Salaries and Benefits of U.S.Congress Members" by Robert Longley (usgovinfo.com/od/uscongresspay.htm) 2012 annual salary for rank and file House and Senate members was $174,000. That means they are all in the Upper Class. You may recall that in 2012 the top 10% of earners in this country had incomes exceeding $114,000. So all members of Congress are in the top 10%. Retirement and health benefits are extra. Plus they get an annual allowance to defray the expense of carrying out their congressional duties. In 2012 House members received an average allowance of $1,353,205. Senators averaged an allowance of $7.9 million.   Congressmen are also allowed to earn money outside of Congress with certain restrictions.
        The salary of Congress determines the salaries of other federal jobs such as federal judges. They also earn enough to put them comfortably in the Upper Class.

2. Upper Class and Government
      I failed to find out how many federal employees belong to the Upper Class. At http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/overpaid-federal-workers, I found out that the average civilian federal worker does belong to the Upper class as the average annual wage is $81,704. Excluding the U.S. Post Office, Uncle Sam paid a total of $248 billion to 2.1 million civilian workers in 2013. According to a USA article "For feds, more get 6-figure salaries" by Dennis Cauchon
(http://usatoday.com/.../2009-12-10-federal-pay-salaries_N.htm) civilian federal government employees earning $150,000 or more annually increased from 1,868 in December, 2007 to 10,100 in June, 2009. That was the period of the Great Recession. Cauchon reports that when the recession started the Department of Transportation employed one person with a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, there were 1,690 Transportation employees getting that rate. This was during the Great Recession.
       One wonders if the U.S. government is one of the Rich, run for the Rich, by the Rich. Let's look at Revenue - the money the government collects.   Total revenue for 2012 was $2,450,200,000,000 (www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev2012_0.html). Perhaps most of the revenue comes from the Rich. According to the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution (www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/.../revenue.ctm), 42% of the revenue collected in 2012 came from Individual income taxes; 40% from payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare payments); 9% from corporate taxes; 8% from excise taxes; and 6% from other sources (fees, etc.).   For several decades the source of the major portion of revenue has been Individual Income Tax. I had the impression that the large corporations must be baring a large share of the tax burden. In fact, the tax paid by Corporations to the Federal Government was 5 & 6% of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in the early 1950's. It was 1.3% of GDP in 2010. As noted above, corporations paid 9% of the total revenue collected by the Federal Government in 2012-a little more than $220.5 billion. Compare that with the 42% collected from Personal Income Tax, i.e. almost $1.03 trillion.
      When economists compare personal income tax revenue with personal income amounts, they use a measure called a "quintile" sometimes referred to as a "quartile". A quintile is one fifth or 20% of a group. Household income is divided into five quintiles. The first quintile refers to one fifth of the total American households with the lowest pre-tax incomes. The second quintile will include the 20% of households with the next highest income levels, etc. As noted above, according to the U.S. Census Bureau there are 115,226,802 households in the country.   As I understand it, each quintile would refer to ap. 23,045,360 households.
        A Peter G. Peterson Foundation (http://pgpf.org/chart-archive/0014_taxes-income) article "High income households earn a disproportionate share of pre-tax income and pay even larger share of total federal taxes" points out that the rich pay a greater share of the personal tax revenue to the federal government than the poor do. This chart demonstrates the disproportionate shares for tax year 2011.

QUINTILE INCOME RANGE   PRE-TAX INCOME   FED. TAX COLLECTED
1st                Less than $20,100           4% of total             .4% ($4 billion+)
2nd              $20,100-$39,800             10% of total             4% ($41 billion+)
3rd               $38,800-$64,500             15% of total           11% ($113 billion+)
4th               $64,500-$108,300           20% of total           18% ($185 billion+)
  5th               More than $108,300        52% of total            67% ($689 billion+)

According to the web site cited above, the reason why more wealthy households pay a greater portion of their income than poorer households is that the federal tax system is progressive. That means that the more one earns the higher one's tax rate is. In deciding how fair this is, consider that lower class households are subject to local and state taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, etc. Payroll taxes are deducted only from the 5th quintile's first $110,000 of earnings. Because of 150 expenditures in the tax code (exemptions, deductions, credits and other special provisions) a number of very rich people end up paying a lower percentage of their income to the Federal Government  than do some Middle Class earners.
        All that money that most of the 4th and 5th quintiles earn, comes from investments in and salaries from private enterprises.   Remember that since the end of the Great Recession in 2009, Robert Frank's article reports that 95% of gains from corporate profits and rising stock prices have gone to the upper 1% earners.    Large corporate enterprises are obviously making lots of money. Where does all that money come from? Everyone spends money in this country. Some even spend more than they earn. If we did not spend, how long would these lucrative enterprises last?  Even people on welfare and food stamps are helping to keep the rich and powerful warm and comfortable with the purchases they make with government "hand-outs". Do you think retired people don't use social security to heat their house and gas their cars?
      Is it reasonable for those who run corporations to resent paying taxes and to want to repeal regulations? Take Exxon Corporation, for example. The profits from this oil company giant were $41.1 billion in 2011. According to an article by Rebecca Leber posted on 1/13/12 (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/31/415337/exxonmobile-41billion-but...) that amount of money averages out to a $5 million dollar profit per hour. A more accurate amount would be only $4.7 million per hour. But still... Rebecca reports that between 2008 and 2010 Exxon's corporate tax rate was 17.6%. Compare that with the standard 35% corporate tax rate. In 2009 Exxon made a profit of $45.2 billion and yet paid no federal taxes. Do you remember the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska a couple decades ago? In 2006, the environment was still not the same quality it had been before the spill. The government asked Exxon for an additional $92 million to help improve the situation. That may sound like a lot to me and you, but to this corporation it was less than the profit they would make in 20 hours. I would gladly volunteer 20 hours to fix an environmental problem, especially one I had caused. But Exxon opposed the government request on legal grounds.
      I found another of Rebecca Leber's articles posted 4/25/13 (thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04 /25/1917601/exxon-first-quarter-profit-2013/) entitled "Exxon Earns $9.5 billion Q1 Profit One Month After Arkansas Oil Spill That It Pays No Taxes To Help Clean Up". In it she reports that there was a break in the Exxon Pegasus oil pipeline that carries oil from Illinois to Texas.   This occurred in a small town in Arkansas on 3/29/13. The crude oil ran through the streets like a river. It turns out that Exxon is exempted from contributing money to the fund the government draws from to clean up these spills. One must wonder if that exemption was won with some of the $12,970,000 Rebecca reports Exxon spent on lobbying efforts. Or maybe it was an indirect benefit of the $3.6 million dollars in political contributions for the 2012 campaign,  89% of which went to Republicans. Maybe Exxon would not look so bad if the government did not give them $600 million dollars in tax breaks for 2011.  Or if their CEO's 2014 salary weren't $40.3 million.
      The federal government spends every dime it collects in revenue and then borrows more when that runs out. Someone is getting richer just on the interest from the national debt. The United States debt as of the end of January, 2014 was more than $9.2 trillion according to the National Debt Clock. How does the government spend more than $2.5 trillion in a year? Let's look at some expenditures for 2012:
$667 billion+ on National Defense
$346 billion+ on health
$124 billion+ on veteran's benefits and services
$93 billion+ on transportation
$29 billion+ on General Science and Technology
$25 billion+ on Community and Regional Development
$17 billion+ on agriculture
$14 billion+ on energy
     This is just a portion of federal government expenditures. They add up to more than $1,329,000,000. That money went into somebody's coffers. I suspect most of it went to Upper Class earners. The taxes they pay, in a sense, help to make them richer. So, is it fair to expect more from those who have more?

3. Entitlements
       At http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/mittromney/a/Mitt-Romney-Quotes.htm, you can read the multi-millionaire presidential candidate Mitt Romney's infamous quote he intended only for the ears of his wealthy supporters. "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it....I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their own lives."   I think this quote probably characterizes the typical attitude of the rich toward those who are economically needy.
      The upper class uses the term "entitled" to describe needy people they consider lazy. Lower class people use "entitled" to refer to wealthy narcissistic people who think wealth is accompanied by special privileges which the law does not guarantee to poorer people.
        Had Mr. Romney done his homework, perhaps he would have specified which entitlements that 47 % of the population receives that he believes makes them irresponsible. Is it Social Security and Medicare which accounts for 40% of annual federal revenue and which comes from the pay of individual earners? Is it Food stamps? Public Assistance? Medicaid? Federal employee and military retirement plans? Most VA programs? Agricultural Price Support Programs?   All are federal entitlement programs.
        According to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2008-2012 American Community Survey (http://factyfinder2:censuc.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xtml?pid=ACS_12_5YR_DP03)
$2.5+ billion is spent on cash public assistance in a year. This is a small fraction of the annual budget. As already noted, all that money is spent purchasing goods and services from private business. The same is true of Medicaid and Food Stamps. Whereas taxpayers as a whole pay for these programs, taxpayers as a whole also benefit financially from these same programs.
      What happens when businesses raise their prices? People dependent on entitlements have a harder time when stuff costs more. So the government must put more money into entitlement programs that help impoverished households. To pay for the increase the government must either raise taxes or borrow more. Of course when prices rise, it also costs the government more to purchase the supplies it needs.
        The Republican plan to privatize social security seems like an attempt of private enterprise to grab the trillion dollars per year taxpayers pay into the social security fund. This money could earn vast amounts in profits for private investors. Their desire to privatize social security is a rather transparent attempt of the Upper Class to accumulate more money from the lower classes.

4. The Supreme Court

According to the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission, corporations and unions have the constitutional right to influence politicians, election outcomes, legislation through multi-million dollar contributions and lobbying activities. There is nothing illegal about politicians becoming lobbyists for private businesses when their term of public service expires. Nor is it illegal for former private company lobbyists to take government jobs. Conflict of interest? Supposedly there is none.

It seems to me that a close and intertwined relationship between government and business makes plutocracy more likely. I don't know if there is an organized effort to "plutocratize" the American government. I know there are millions being spent to elect "Tea Party" candidates, whose goal is to reduce taxes, reduce the size and complexity of the federal government by eliminating whole agencies, etc. The problem with that is that businesses will not bother to regulate themselves. Taking away government regulations is a recipe for kissing the Common Good goodbye.

5. The Common Good

Do you think big business and the wealthiest would willingly preserve the Common Good? Take, for example the billionaire oil baron Koch brothers who fund Americans for Prosperity with millions of dollars. This organization has convinced hundreds of congressmen to sign the NO CLIMATE TAX PLEDGE. The pledge is to "oppose legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue" (www.NOCLIMATETAXPLEDGE.COM). This effort is designed to keep President Obama's global warming solution of cap and trade energy legislation from becoming law.

   Wait a minute. What if global warming is a farce, a false alarm? I can understand those who wish that were true. First of all, coastal flooding all over the world; whole islands submerging; more violent storms; world wide food shortages. Scary stuff. And what if humans are responsible? Each of us would bare a portion of the responsibility for the negative effects of global warming. That's not a comfortable thought. And even if you do everything you can to reduce your carbon contribution to the atmosphere, what about the other 7 billion people in the world you can's control? That could result in an overwhelming feeling of impotence. It's certainly easier and more emotionally comfortable to bury one's head in the sand. But if global warming is real and is caused by human activity, future generations will not appreciate the passive stance of people like the Koch brothers.
   The emotional reaction of denying global warming is akin to psychological denial. It is a stance taken by those who choose not to think critically. There are other people who utilize faith as a way of not coming to terms with real problems. If you believe the earth is only 3000 years old, then coal and oil must have been created directly by God and must, therefore, be harmless to burn. There are, evidently, climate change deniers that don't fit into either of the above categories, seem to have full adult intellectual capacities, and yet still argue that the earth is not getting warmer. One might believe that scientists are deluding themselves into imagining they can measure concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere. But how can one deny the pictures from decades past which show there were glaciers on mountains that are now bare? The atmosphere can hold only so much water vapor before it descends as rain. Where does the melting ice from glaciers and polar ice caps go? Gravity carries it into the ocean. How does the ocean level keep from rising as more water is added? If something other than melting glaciers and polar ice caps is causing ocean levels to rise, what is it?
      Thinking people can deny a lot of things that seem true to most of us. But how can one deny cause and effect? Every action, every change that takes place is caused by something else. In turn, everything that changes becomes a cause in itself because every change has some effect. You can't remove billions of tons of coal and oil (fossil fuels) from the ground where it's been for millions of years, release the carbon from it into the atmosphere through burning and not expect anything to change as a result. If climate change is not an effect of increasing the amount of atmospheric carbon, what are the effects? The belief that increased amounts of atmospheric carbon is having no effect is magical thinking.
   Some people are willing to accept the reality of a warming planet (after all, glaciers and sea ice don't melt faster than usual because things are cooling down), but still believe that the earth warming at the same time as more fossil fuels are being combusted by more people than ever before is purely coincidental.   I wonder what they are doing to determine what is causing the planet to warm and to determine what can be done about it.
      Why do people like the Kochs oppose efforts to slow down the rate of global warming? They claim that there is no correlation between melting polar ice caps and the increasing concentration of atmospheric carbon, even though that contradicts scientific research that 97% of climate scientists accept as valid (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus). But could that be a pretense? If we are to decrease the rate of global warming, the burning of fossil fuels, including oil, must be decreased. There goes millions in potential profits if you are in the fossil fuel business. If that is not the real reason for opposing climate change remediation, then perhaps it is because the Koch brothers have the solution to the problem. The worse a physical problem gets over time the more expensive it is to fix. Maybe the Kochs figure they can make more profit by fixing global warming later rather than sooner.

Why oppose efforts to slow down the rate of global warming? They claim that there is no correlation between melting polar ice caps and the increasing concentration of atmospheric carbon, even though that contradicts scientific research that most scientists accept as valid. But could that be a pretense? If we are to decrease the rate of global warming, the burning of fossil fuels, including oil, must be decreased. There goes millions in potential profits if you are in the fossil fuel business. If that is not the real reason for opposing climate change remediation, then perhaps it is because the Koch brothers have the solution to the problem. The worse a physical problem gets over time the more expensive it is to fix. Maybe they figure they can make more profit by fixing global warming later rather than sooner.

       According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (www.oceanservice.neaa.gov>OceanFacts) sea level is rising due to expansion of warmer water in the oceans and the loss of land-based ice. This threatens human habitation in low lying coastal regions. Global warming is also threatening polar bears which researchers have determined are under stress. In one area of Canada the population decreased from 1,200 bears in 1987 to 850 in 2004. (www.polarbearsinternational.org.>ourwork>ResearchPrograms and www.theguardian.com.Environment>Polar Regions).
      The South Pole is also affected by global warming. According to the Penguins World web site (www.penguins-world.com>Conservation) scientists believe that climate change over the past 50 years has resulted in the depletion of half of the population of Antarctic penguins.
        But what if you are a major player in the fossil fuel industry? Wouldn't the idea of global warming due to human activity make you a little nervous? Wouldn't you do everything you could to avoid the risk of billions of your profits being confiscated on the finding of the World Court that that is the value or cost in terms of lost human property and health due to global warming? Another possible motivation for climate change denial.
      Global climate change is happening and is having deleterious effects on the Common Good worldwide.

6.Trade Agreements
       There has been a good deal of criticism over the years directed at the effects of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement).  I found an article in the Milwaukee Journal (www. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) posted on 1/22/14 by David Newby entitled "Fast track on Trade Agreement is Wrong Track".   Newby says NAFTA resulted in the loss of at least a million American jobs. Other "free" trade agreements since then resulted in the loss of several million more.
     NAFTA's overall effect on life in America is debatable. What is less debatable is that the richest Americans, Canadians and Mexicans are richer today than they were in 1994. How? If hundreds of thousands lost jobs as a result of cheaper goods from Mexico and Canada being bought by American consumers, would that not indicate less gain for American manufacturers? If you are an American manufacturer who can not compete with goods from other countries, you have choices.  You can invest your money in your foreign competitor's business or you can move your operation to a country where the expense of manufacturing is cheaper. Either way, you continue to make money. Too bad making money is not that simple for those who lost their manufacturing jobs. But if it were that easy for everybody, who would do the actual WORK?
       In his article cited above Newby reports that there is a new trade agreement in the works. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement has been negotiated in secret for four years. The 1000-page draft has 29 chapters, 24 of which have to do with "harmonizing " standards and regulations between participating nations. Translated, that means the large corporations are trying to undermine American standards and regulations that support worker safety, environmental quality, etc. In other words, if this treaty is approved, wave goodbye to the Common Good and hello to increasing Plutocracy. The way to preserve and promote the Common Good here and in the rest of the world is for America to remain steadfast and demand that other nations raise their standards and regulations. Multinational Corporations won't like that because it might cause a slight decrease in the rate at which the 85 richest individuals' net worth grows. American businessmen would rather the federal government and the states drop their standards so that owners and stock holders of businesses can get even richer.

7. Legislation
Not all Federal Congress members are always irresponsible and dismissive of the Common Good. A few may have experienced real life in the Lower or Middle Classes prior to taking office. And I don't object to government of the rich, by the rich. There is no reason why Upper Class people are not as capable of governing as Middle and Lower Class people. The problem is that most members of Congress evidently view the nation's problems through a distorted filter of political power and upper class wealth. This results in governing for the benefit of the rich.
     These congressional representatives try to convince us that their actions and proposed legislation are in the best interest of the middle class. As if the Lower Class doesn't make up 33% of the country's population or as if their interests are non-consequential. Politicians like to "spin" issues, facts, etc. in order to convince us that we should want the same thing they want. They want us to believe that what they do and what they propose to do with taxpayer money is for the Common Good.
       How can you tell what is true? Look at who benefits the most economically and whose well-being gets threatened. Let's take for an example a bill that would facilitate the building of a new coal burning electric generation plant. The congressman proposing the plan, who will probably represent a major coal producing state, will claim that the additional electricity is needed and that the new plant will generate x number of jobs. Who benefits the most economically? The owners/stock holders of the coal company that will supply the coal. Who will suffer? People who live in the vicinity of the new plant. If they are already sick, the pollution from the plant will make them sicker. Some formerly healthy people will not be as healthy after breathing the dirty air for a time. If you have any doubt that coal burning has negative health impacts check out the American Lung Association's reports at http://www.lung.org/healthy-air/outdoor/resources/. There's also the contribution the plant will make to global warming. Nor would those who want this new coal burning plant allow it to be located near an Upper Class neighborhood. Yet they expect us to believe the new plant would serve the public interest.
      If more electricity is needed why not promote solar and wind generated electricity? People won't get sick or sicker. More jobs will be created. Using energy from alternative sources results in less climate change. The one drawback to alternative electricity generation is less business for fossil fuel companies.
      How many bills in Congress would help businesses to get richer? Contrast that with the WPA (Work Projects Administration) and the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) that helped America cope with the Great Depression. Millions of unemployed Americans were put to work planting trees and building thousands of bridges, schools, parks. In other words the WPA enhanced the Common Good without the ulterior motive of adding to the coffers of the Upper Class. Without the three billion trees planted by the CCC, global warming would be progressing even faster than it is. If FDR had the present Congress to deal with during the Great Depression, I believe they would have tried to block the formation of the WPA and the CCC. Unless they could have figured out a way for the WPA and CCC programs to make their wealthiest constituents even wealthier.

                                                   C. PSYCHOLOGY OF THE WEALTHY

Why don't businesses voluntarily raise the wages of the lowest paid employees? Could there be a psychological factor affecting the disproportionate distribution of wealth from the bottom to the top? Does it surprise anyone that wealthy people and businesses make blatant efforts to influence our government and the legislation that comes out of the government in order to increase their wealth? Is it surprising that they care not at all about what is good for all of us in general? Consider an article in the Aug. 20, 2013 issue of Personality and Social Psychology entitled "Wealth and the Inflated Self: Class, Entitlement, and Narcissism" It suggests a definite connection between narcissism and higher socio-economic status. The Mirriam-Webster Dictionary defines narcissistic as "overly concerned with one's own desires, needs or interests". Lower class disadvantaged individuals seem to learn to be other-centered and more interdependent with others. Research suggests that children from wealthy families learn to be more independent, self-focused, entitled (believing they deserve more and better than others), less socially responsible.

A good example of this is 16-year old Ethan Couch who, in 2012, killed four people and injured nine while speeding drunk in a pick-up truck in Burleson, Texas. (Source - http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Judge-Jean-Becomes-Target-of-Ethan-Couch-Affluenza-Criticism-235718611.html). Judge Jean Boyd, who presided over the court case, was evidently convinced by the defense attorney's claim that Ethan was a victim of "affluenza". His parents were rich and loathe to discipline their entitled son. Rather than doing the bidding of the prosecution that called for the teenager to be sentenced as an adult to 20 years in prison, Judge Boyd opted for one year in a rehab facility and ten years probation.

D. MATERIALISM

It may seem to the reader that I am blaming the Upper Class for either the existent or approaching Plutocracy of the United States. The data presented so far supports the idea that the Rich in general are not concerned about the Common Good. I suspect that most Americans who are not wealthy would share the same indifference if they had been fated to be wealthy. Why? Because wealth gives one a sense of additional power and power corrupts.

Members of the upper class are probably more indifferent to the Common Good than members of the Middle Class, and the Middle Class, in general, may care less about the Common Good than the Lower Class. But I find no indication that the Common Good is a priority for any particular socio-economic class in this country.
I heard on an NPR program yesterday that, although the number of college graduates from the lower class has been increasing, it is not resulting in a corresponding increase in lower class graduates entering the middle class. It was stated that no one knows why this is. I can think of a couple possibilities. The more negative possibility is that, because of the influence their socio-economic background has had, many of these graduates are judged as unworthy of joining the elevated ranks of the Middle Class. The other, more positive possibility, is that their college education has enlightened them to the negative effect of materialistic values which they have freely chosen to reject.

It seems to me that younger adults seem more concerned about improving society than middle aged adults. They may even pursue a college education with the idea of using it to make a difference. What happens to most of these people? Upon graduating they get married, get into intractable jobs, have kids, procure a home mortgage. In other words, they join the rat race of working to survive, pay the bills, etc. Improving the world becomes nothing more than a pipe dream for many formerly idealistic young people.
Did the Top 1% "socially engineer" this scenario in which those caring individuals who are smart enough to make a difference, to improve life for everyone, find themselves in situations that cause their priorities to change and that distract them from the larger social issues? Does the International top 1% create economic downturns such as the Great Recession of 2007-2009 in order to intensify the distraction of the Middle Class from the Common Good and increase their own wealth and power in the process? I don't know. But I wonder, what is to stop anyone with the wealth and power to do that?

Concern for the Common Good is not on the lists of New Years Resolutions made by the Upper 1%. But it probably is not on most any one's list regardless of their income level or net worth. The wealthy have a logical reason for not promoting the Common Good. It doesn't increase the bottom line, i.e. profit. While government regulations, in many cases, protect and promote the Common Good, complying with those regulations often costs corporations money-eats up profits.
In my opinion, people who amass and preserve great wealth don't do it for altruistic purposes. The movie Social Network is an example of wealth accumulation by whatever means work. This movie tells the story of Facebook's beginnings. Did you know that Facebook made one billion in pre-tax dollars in 2012, paid no federal taxes and reported a $429 million refund from state and federal tax filings for 2010 and 2011? In case you're wondering, I've never used Facebook. And I've been boycotting Exxon gas ever since the Exxon Valdez sallied the Alaskan coast.

Why don't the Middle and Lower classes demand of government and corporations that they make the Common Good a priority? It is the consumption of goods and services by these classes that help make Upper Class existence and growth possible. Might the efforts of millions of people trying to be rich and famous or at least more materially comfortable be contributing to the problem?

Remember the Monkeys' singing "How much do we really need?" Contrast that with Madonna singing, "I am a material girl living in a material world". Material comforts, nicer clothes, finer jewelry, expensive accouterments is just stuff. It becomes a problem when one overvalues the stuff; craves the stuff to the exclusion of concern for others; when stuff becomes more important to one than what effect one's actions may have on others.

Back in the 70s I wrote and copyrighted a manuscript entitled The Way of Christ: A Guide to Christian Behavior. It wasn't a religious tract. It wasn't touting Christian faith nor trying to make converts. It answered this simple question: How would people behave if they were to follow the teachings of Jesus - only those teachings reportedly spoken by him in the four Gospels? If an alien from another planet was to read this manuscript and try to find a Christian culture anywhere on earth as defined by my manuscript, I predict the alien would fail.
One of the chapters of my manuscript was on materialism. Jesus taught in Matthew's gospel (6:24) that one cannot serve God if one worships Mammon. Mammon is the translation of a Greek term meaning Wealth and the worship thereof. I believe that America is not a Christian country. Even though the majority of the population consider themselves to be affiliated with some sort of Christian religion, I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest this country is religious in the way an Arab country with a majority of Muslims is religious. I remember reading a book entitled The Secular Society about 48 years ago. It presented a convincing argument that our society is secular rather than religious. I would not want to live in a religious society. However, I think it would be good if Americans respected the desire of those who wish to do so.

Another way of looking at it is this. America has a culture that is as religious as a Muslim country's culture. Materialism is America's de facto religion and Mammon is the nation's god. Perhaps the high priests are the top one hundredth of 1% of the country's highest earners and the large ad agencies are Mammon's prophets. Mammon's followers are the materialists who can be found in all of the economic classes.
How to tell if someone is a materialist? The following is a list of the beliefs and attitudes held by those who practice Materialism:

Money and power are intrinsically good.
More is better.
Bigger is always better.
Greed is good.
I need to improve that which I possess.
All I should care about is me and mine and that which benefits me and mine.
I will never have enough.
I live by the law of the jungle.
I am justified in doing whatever is necessary to hold on to what I have.

I believe the American Upper Class as a whole is materialistic. A great many people in the Lower and Middle Classes are also materialistic. Their materialistic consumerism helps to create and maintain Upper Class income.
I think it is unfortunate that the churches in this country don't spend as much time and energy preaching against materialism as they do attacking abortion and homosexuality. The churches, like the U.S. Congress, are part of the problem. They have found that in a materialistic culture, a church, especially one with televised services, can be more successful preaching the gospel of prosperity.

     Just because one lives in a materialistic, secular society does not take away an individual's power of choice. In fact we are always making choices based on our priorities. For example, is buying that motorcycle, which will increase the net worth of millionaires with Harley Davidson stock, more important than feeding the children more nourishing food? Is going to bingo so important that one is willing to leave the kids with the boyfriend whom one knows has abusive tendencies?
     I suppose some people will choose to believe that the materialistic nature of American culture keeps us more secure as a nation. There have been four major military conflicts involving the American military since World War II.   Korea was a draw. The Korean War ended in a ceasefire with neither side declaring victory (http://www.ask.com/question/how-did-the-korean-war-end).  The Communists beat us in Vietnam as they had the French before us. We withdrew from Iraq before defeating the Taliban. The outcome in Afghanistan is uncertain as well. These wars have made billions of dollars in profits for arms dealers, military contractors like Haliburton, and corrupt officials in the embattled countries. A lot of dedicated men and women from lower and middle class families have died. But are we more secure?  According to PEW Research Center (www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/07/worlds-muslim-population-more-widespread-than-you-think/), as of 6/7/13 there were 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. That was 23% of the human population. Before 9/11/01, many devout Muslims viewed America as the source of a false religion spreading its corrupt materialistic values to the countries of the Near East. I wonder if the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have resulted in even more Muslims sharing that viewpoint.
        Most Americans who identify as Christian don't condone the murder of abortion doctors and the bombing of abortion clinics. At the same time they oppose the practice of abortion, believing it is offensive to the Christian God.   Similarly, most Muslims do not condone Jihad or holy war. But they do not condone the worship of Mammon either. For a devout Muslim there is only one God and that is Allah.  In their view the worship of Mammon is offensive to Allah. Nor do they favor materialism polluting the religious culture of countries where Muslims are in the majority. Any group of people who practices a religion or philosophy which potentially angers 23% of the world's population is foolish to think of itself as more secure.

The wealthy take advantage of poorer people's materialistic desires, longings and addictions. They hire advertising firms to persuade people to buy more and to buy more expensive products and services. The successful ad agency executives rise in the upper class when consumers respond positively to their ads. How many in the middle and lower classes are in debt thanks to successful advertising? But it's not the ads that are to blame for economic inequality. It's not the materialistic nature of American society. It's my fault. It's your fault. We have free will. No one is forcing us to support an American Plutocracy.

E. DOING NOTHING

Let's assume you and I don't care enough to do anything to stop the slide toward more plutocracy. In other words, we freely choose to go along with the agenda of the rich and powerful in order to get along. Just like our parents' and our grandparents' generations did. What will that look like? The wealthy amassing even more power? Expect the following:

1. More unsafe working conditions.

2. More food contamination and poisoning.

3. Dirtier more contaminated water supply.

4. Higher prices.

5. More middle and lower class workers earning less.

6. The above paying fewer taxes.

7. An increase in unnecessary harmful pollution.

8. As tax income decreases, an increase in urban blight (see www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/dtroit-blight).

9. More chemical spills.

10. Closed public parks and playgrounds.

11. Dirtier air, more unhealthful to breathe.

12. Increased world-wide climate disruption.
13. Increased litter.
14. The wealthy and corporations paying less in taxes.*

*Some large corporations that depend on national airports and federal highways to do business and maximize profits do not pay the full 35% federal income tax. They evidently think that it's OK for other businesses and individuals to pay for the maintenance of that infrastructure, as does Congress.

    You may be wondering what I mean by the "Common Good". The above list is the antithesis of the Common Good. Even though the very wealthy are willing to accept the above list as the price of their maximizing profits and power, I don't believe they are evil per se. They are products of a materialistic culture which teaches all of us that money is good because more money means more power and/or improved security. Power is neither good nor bad in itself. How one uses that power determines if it is beneficial or detrimental.
      We all have the power of free will. We can always make different choices. And we can also make the wrong choices.
      Perhaps it is human nature for increased power to change a person's priorities. The movie "All the King's Men" based on the life of Huey Long, senator from Louisiana, certainly makes me wonder. A person with good intentions can become the very problem that person sets out to correct.
       Please read the list above once more and ask this question: Is this what the founding fathers of our country intended? That seems to be what the rich Tea Party Republicans would have us believe.
      One may wonder, at this point, why anyone should care about the Common Good. If you are a member of the upper class living in your noise-free guarded and/or gated community or estate with your in-house water filtration and air purification systems; with your free proximate access to litter-free park-like open space; with your in-house gym; with regular trips to the health spas; with daily deliveries of healthful mostly organic meals; with your top-of-the-line nutritional supplements, I got nothing. No reason why you should care about the Common Good.
      If you live in a Middle Class household, you should care. Your household has been losing net worth through no fault of yours. One of your three children is probably going to join the ranks of the Lower Class as an adult. The price of goods and services is going to continue to increase while your buying power continues to decrease.

     If you are a member of the Lower Class, you should care. Even if your children should be fortunate enough for someone to put them through college, they still may not be able to break into the Middle Class.
     A decline in the Common Good negatively impacts Lower and Middle class families and individuals the most. We all should have access to certain rights and opportunities and that access should not be dependent on our income or net worth. Those rights and opportunities include the following:
1. To be physically healthy.
2. To breathe clean air.
3. To drink pure water.
4. To eat nutritious uncontaminated food that is not going to result in obesity.
5. To access good quality health care.
6.  To access nearby quality public parks and playgrounds.
7. To be financially secure without compromising our principles, our dignity,our health and safety.
8. To safely get to and from work, to and from the park, to and from the market, to and from school.
9. To affordable pleasant healthful dwelling space.
10. To hot running water.
11. To adequate privacy for each household member.
12. To governments that care about environmental quality.
13. To governments committed to worker health and safety.
14. To governments committed to the upkeep of parks and playgrounds.
15. To governments that can effectively discourage criminal abuse of citizens.

There are 208 million people in the Lower and Middle Classes. Their indiscriminate materialistic consumption feeds the rich and powerful. The top 1% of earners in this country number over 1.5 million. That's an average of 30,000 per state. They have the collective ability to finance the campaign of every political candidate in every state. The Upper Class makes up 33% of the population - more than 104 million people. That's not only a lot of potential votes. It's also a huge source of financial support for those political candidates willing to do the bidding of the rich and powerful in deference to the Common Good. If we add to that the materialistic voters from the Lower and Middle Classes, it is little wonder that so many Tea Party candidates have been elected.
If I could address materialistic voters in the lower classes I would say the following:

"The Upper Class and the candidates they back don't care about you and your well-being. These people value money and power and want to use you to get more of it for themselves. The only way to save the Republic of the United States is to stop supporting powerful wealthy special interests. Stop thinking you are powerless and dependent on the wealthy. This is supposed to be a governmnet of all the people, by all the people, and for the benefit of all the people."

F. HARD WORK AND CLASS

We probably all know Lower Class people who work hard all their lives. Perhaps their labor helps their employers and supervisors to remain in the Middle Class or even advance to the Upper Class. They, however, never make it to the Middle Class.

There are also Lower Class individuals who don't work because of chronic physical illness, severe mental illness, severe mental challenge, physical disability, etc. Then there are some financially poor people who are able bodied and able minded but just don't fit in. They have not been fortunate enough to find a niche. Some of them must work harder than Exxon's CEO just to survive. And there's some people who are unemployed because the niches they occupied have been eliminated.

       The very wealthy are not concerned about losing their niches. You may believe that greater financial gain can only be achieved by working harder. That depends on who you are and how wealthy you are.   In fact, the very rich don't have to work to make millions. According to a University of California study entitled "Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, Power" (www2.UCSC.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html), 13,480 American individuals or families reported incomes exceeding $10 million in 2008. Only 19% of all that income came from wages and salaries.
         In this materialistic society successful people like to think that the harder one works the
more money one will make. I've found that is not always the case.
       Am I saying people should not work hard? Not at all.  I am saying those who do honest labor while still remaining poor deserve at least as much respect as any member of the Upper Class is given. An honest ethical Lower Class person who does not resort to abusive criminal acts in order to make ends meet or to "make it big" is more worthy of respect than an Upper Class person who "bends the rules" in order to gain more wealth.

      Work is a means to an end. Some people work to survive. Some work to improve their health and fitness or skill level. Some work to serve others in need. Some work only for material gain. The latter are the hard-core materialistic followers of Mammon which teaches them it is good to make one's fortune by whatever means necessary. If they are not already in the ranks of the rich narcissistic indifferent who value their own comfort and security over the Common Good, they are willing to work as hard as necessary to get there.
      What's the alternative to Mammon's teaching? That is best expressed in the immortal words of John F. Kennedy, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." It will require a lot of hard work to restore, enhance, and maintain the Common Good for all Americans.
     There are two-thirds (66%) of American earners make less than $77,056 annually. They will either join together to reverse plutocratic rule in this country and preserve the Common Good or they will continue to focus on winning the lottery or American Idol or whatever so they can join the Upper Class.

G. CONCLUSION

In this country there is a shrinking middle class and an upper class increasing its net worth. The middle class lost worth between 2009 and 2011. The lower class is getting poorer. The wealthy are spending millions if not billions to shape the size, power and purpose of the Federal Government to benefit the wealthiest Americans. All U.S. Senators and Representatives, who are supposed to represent all the people, are paid enough to be among the country's upper ten percent of earners. They are more responsive to their upper class constituents. Congress has become a nest for the wealthy. The old saying "You're either part of the solution or you are part of the problem" is applicable to Congress. The current members of Congress lack the motivation to save the Republic from becoming plutocratic.

Will the Supreme Court, whose members get paid enough to put them in the Upper Class, save the Republic? According to them the Constitution protects the right of the very rich to influence government through the exercise of free speech. The rich have no qualms about spending billions on unlimited campaign contributions and lobbying for legislation that benefits them and their businesses and opposing legislation which threatens their "bottom line".

      The psychology of the rich makes it very unlikely that most of them will do any selfless thing for the good of the nation. There may be exceptions. So far I have not heard about any of the "megarich" donating a million dollars toward paying off the national debt. Nor do I expect to see any of the largest corporations give up any of their net worth in order to pay more to their lowest paid employees. That would be an economic stimulus. If businesses were willing to sacrifice some of their profits by lowering the price of goods and services, more people would be able to afford those goods and services. The greater demand would lead to more job creation.   Perhaps fewer stores would have to close.  Why won't it happen? Because the rich don't care about anything but wealth-getting it, protecting it, increasing it. If businesses did what I suggest above, their owners and major stock holders may not be able to endow an impressive multi-million dollar legacy toward the end of their most productive years. The rich think they are entitled to great wealth and they teach the same mentality to their children. If you need a real life example of the indifference of large corporations and the people who run them, watch Michael Moore's movie Roger and Me. This film documents the role of GM in the decline of Flint, Michigan while Roger Smith was the head of General Motors.
       There are apparent exceptions. Bill Gates giving millions away to whomever. Andrew Carnegie endowing libraries. We should be respectful and grateful for their generosity. But the problem remains.
      Can we look to the Christian church for support? After all, Jesus was opposed to materialism. "It is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven...." (MAT19:16-24). I doubt the rich of Jesus time were as numerous as today. Times have changed and so has the Christian church. You won't hear many church leaders criticizing materialism for fear of alienating their wealthiest donors.

My opinion is that the rich are influenced by the materialistic nature of American culture as we all are and that that influence is a major contributing factor to the disproportionate distribution of wealth in America.

Republic or plutocracy? If they have not already done so there does not seem to be much preventing the wealthy from taking over. To do nothing to staunch the flow of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the upper class will result in the decline of the Common Good.

What can we do? The present situation of the major national political parties makes it unlikely that a person from the Middle or Lower classes has a chance to run for national office in either party. Perhaps the best one can do is find out which candidate is the least wealthy and has the least backing from the wealthy campaign contributors and vote for him or her. Then hope who ever gets elected will work to promote the Common Good instead of doing the bidding of the upper class.

Remember that you have the power of choice. What you buy and who you buy from can make a difference. Support small local businesses rather than big box stores whenever possible. Stop purchasing things supplied by any corporation that doesn't care about the Common Good.

If you have investments, find out what your money is doing. There are more important considerations than getting the greatest return on the money you invest. Does the stock you own belong to a company whose actions degrade the environment? Does the company export jobs overseas to child labor operations? Has the company fully paid fines for violating regulations and has it taken steps to avoid the same mistakes in the future? How do they treat their employees?

Support and learn from non-profit organizations like Green America (www.greenamerica.org) and Public Citizen (www.citizen.org) which are working to protect and promote the Common Good.

If enough people express their concern for the Common Good by the way they spend money, it will force businesses to be accountable. That may not be enough to impact some businesses because of the huge financial support they get from governments. Another option may have to be added to correct the behavior of these corporations. That option would be an organized personal individual tax payer revolt. By that I mean changing the number of deductions from one's payroll check to "0" and withholding tax due until the governments and corporations stop threatening the Common Good and start promoting and preserving it instead.

Materialists, regardless of their class designation, tend to see themselves as eminently practical. I believe if enough people commit themselves, the Republic can be saved, or at this point, revived. A materialist would view that as an unattainable goal. For materialists doing nothing to save anything is the preferable, practical, less stressful choice. In other words, the EASY WAY OUT. Each of us chooses. The easy way out or the harder path. You can either serve Mammon or be an heroic sucker for a seemingly lost cause. If you choose the former, too bad. Too bad for the Republic. Too bad for the Common Good. Too bad for the environment. Too bad for the poor.

I started writing this blog to answer the two questions in the title. In the process of writing and research I have discovered what happens when a materialistic society allows an increasing number of narcissistic followers of Mammon to accumulate wealth without limits. The results are increasing social and economic inequality, plutocracy, and neglect of the Common Good.

ADDENDUM

There are churches, synagogues, and mosques who try to help the needy by supplying their physical needs. This is quite commendable and necessary. It is also like a doctor treating a patient’s physical pain without addressing the underlying cause of the pain.

Churches should be urging people to forgive and to be tolerant. Forgiveness, however, is not a substitute for holding accountable those who need to be forgiven. The very wealthy seem to me to be living on clouds. They have no firm foundation to hold them up. One individual, concentrating hard enough can dissolve a small cloud using his/her mind. A sufficient number of people with enough concentrated commitment can dissolve the cloud bank of the very wealthy. As long as less wealthy people give the very wealthy a free pass, show the wealthy more respect than they would show a skid row bum, the narcissistic, self-righteous attitudes of the very rich will persist

Despite everything I have written about the dire situation I believe the country is in there are a number of positive things happening in the world lately. For example, Warren Buffet’s reported plan to give away his fortune before he dies. Of course, this will not help at all if he gives it directly to his wealthy cronies. There’s also Buffet and Gates forming a club or whatever of the super rich who agree to give half of their fortunes to charity. One must wonder if the recipient charities will suddenly decide that staff and management deserves a raise in income and/or that the organization can suddenly afford to make their offices more modern and comfortable. Or will the donations from the rich be used instead to create jobs for the poor unemployed-jobs that enhance the Common Good?

Another positive thing is that one can sign petitions, donate or make pledges that support the Common Good using one’s PC. I, myself, was unsuccessful in launching a campaign to combat plutocracy on Causes.com. Perhaps a more computer savvy person wiil be able to do that. There is also Moveon.orgCivicAction, and CARE2.com where you can support positive change.

I just heard on public radio about the millennial generation. Those are the people born in the 1990s. Supposedly this generation is less greedy and selfish than previous generations and desires to contribute to society as opposed to making maximum income. Maybe future historians will be able to look back through time and realize that December of 2012, the end of the Mayan calendar, was actually the beginning of a new era marked by a decrease in human greed and self-centeredness. I don’t think that can happen unless enough people get with the program.

I have not put much emphasis on the positive in this blog because I think many people use other people’s good intentions and actions as an excuse to remain complacent. This blog is not designed to enable complacency.