So Much To So Few

It's insane! It's crazy and cruel! Where is the sharing, the moral conscience, the gratefulness, the Christian ideal, the compassion, and the generosity that must accompany wealth in all Americans? I am not pointing the finger at Warren Buffett, or Bill Gates, or at any of the giving and considerate wealthy members of our society. Rather my indignation signals to the incredible waste of resources by those super rich athletes, singers, actors, politicians and scions of great fortunes who carelessly throw money at extremely expensive baubles while millions of Americans are suffering the shame and humiliation of foreclosures, loss of jobs, loss of pensions, loss of 401K's, loss of savings, and loss of dignity.

Panther Brooch (House of Cartier): 1.1 Million
Diamond Watch (Chanel): 1.9 Million
Audemars Piguet Jules Audemars Watch: $113,000 
2005 Ferrari 430 Coupe: $130,000

These are but a just a few of the outrageous gifts bought by celebrities who apparently are oblivious to the urgent need to help American families who have no home, no job and nowhere to go. What kind of economic system gives so much to so few?

Communism was a wonderful concept but the selfish nature of man rendered the idea unusable. People want to OWN something, a piece of land, a house, or even a pet, without government intervention. Nevertheless, the idea of a just society implies that citizens who, through no fault of their own, fall into desperate financial straits, should be helped by an official agency. After all, private charities cannot handle so many hardship cases; church groups and social clubs do help as much as they can, as do charitable volunteers. But when the scope of the problem is so great, when the evident cause of such catastrophe can be placed squarely on rapacious Wall Street vultures, only the government has the means and the resources to save these citizens in distress.

After all, don't we help the victims of hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, wild fires, contagious diseases, epidemics, wars, famine, drought, earthquakes and any of the global disasters that every year affect millions of human beings on this planet? Why in the world can't official agencies help the innocent victims of barefaced manipulation of toxic financial instruments and political corruption (those politicians who passed laws to favor big financial institutions in exchange for campaign contributions)?

Why do you think the "Occupy Wall Street" movement has lasted so long and has spread so far and wide to so many cities and countries? It has surged from a profound dissatisfaction and outrage at the capitalistic system that robbed the poor to give it to the rich. Agreed, there is no sin in becoming rich; it is accepted and admired in those who legitimately earned that right. Most create jobs and opportunities for their communities. The problem surges when that fortune has been acquired through dubious means, whether unconscionable bonuses to failed CEO's, bribes to politicians disguised as campaign contributions, finance conglomerates that invent so-called derivatives that include the mortgages of millions.




The numerous financial ties between Congress members and lobbyists are creating laws that favor the already rich at the expense of the middle class; a review of pension laws shows clearly that thousands of retirees have been cheated of their earned income through legal shenanigans in which both corporations and political leaders worked together to cut pension benefits, never with the consent or knowledge of the employees.

Our most important citizens, the ones that prepare the next generation, have salaries that would make a Wall Street broker cringe in financial pain. Yet we throw millions at athletes, most of whom have no idea what to do with it, example Mike Tyson. They buy lavish gifts and sumptuous mansions until the IRS comes knocking on their tax doors. Meanwhile, another 100 families have been thrown into the streets.

Unjust financial and economic system? Of course, that is why the government is the only recourse most people have; witness the enormous importance of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Washington says that these social programs are running out of money when billions are squandered on stupid wars, generous tax breaks for the rich, enormous subsidies to wealthy farmers and unneeded foreign aid.

Something must be done and something will be done, next year.

A Mexican Tragedy

The attack on a casino in Monterrey, Mexico caused close to 60 deaths, a tragedy that could have been averted if the inspectors of that building hadn't been bribed; nobody could leave the second floor because the emergency doors were sealed, against common sense and against the law. For Mexican citizens, this is nothing new; lower level authorities can be bribed easily, a custom called "mordida" or bite. Custom agents, traffic cops, official government clerks, inspectors of all types, and even trash collectors, are easily persuaded to accept a sizable token of appreciation (read cash) in return for a service or for not writing a ticket or for smuggling some goods from the U.S. The mordida becomes a national tragedy when lives are lost.

In June 2009, more than 40 toddlers were killed by a fire in a daycare institution in Hermosillo, Sonora, a state located in the northwest in Mexico, and parents and society alike blamed the government for sloppy (read for taking bribes) oversight of the kinder. The building was old, the electrical installation was deficient, and no provisions were made in case of an emergency. Even so, the daycare received permission to operate. To this day, the "official" investigation has failed to bring anybody to justice, a very common occurrence in Mexico where many higher functionaries try to hide their shenanigans by letting inquiries disappear into the sunset.

I have lived for many years in the beautiful Aztec country, even marrying one of its most attractive citizens. Mexicans are extremely hospitable to foreigners, yes, even to Gringos. I have personally enjoyed the carne asada (barbecued meat) prepared by rich and poor hosts. I have rested on gorgeous beaches in Acapulco and Cancun among other idyllic resorts. I have gorged on tacos, tequila, chile, cerveza, mole (a chocolate-based sauce with chicken), mango, papaya, the list of wondrous foods is endless. Before the environment became poisoned by drug traffickers and violent gangs, Mexico was a paradise for foreigners who flocked by the millions to enjoy its beauty and historical sites. Alas! No more. The failed governance, federal and local, has made the land of Moctezuma a dangerous place to live and travel.

Corruption is of course endemic in every country; here on the border with Mexico, several law enforcement officials have been and will be indicted for turning a blind eye to human smuggling and to drug trafficking. Money will convince those with shaky values. American policemen and border agents cannot, however, claim that their low pay scale prevent them from feeding their families or paying for their retirement. While not extravagant, their salaries and benefits are amply sufficient to lead a decent life and support their families.

Mexican law enforcement, on the other hand, can justly clamor that their financial compensation and benefits are insufficient to make a decent living. An ordinary policeman patrolling his or her beat can earn between five and ten thousand pesos, approximately between $400 and $900 of our currency. That's equivalent to the poverty level or below here in the States ($10,800 for one person and $26,000 for a family of 4). These Mexican public workers often earn less than half of what American counterparts earn and even taking into account purchasing power, they can barely make ends meet by moonlighting at 2 or 3 jobs. Is it surprising therefore that a generous tip will often be accepted in exchange for a "small" favor?

The assailants in Monterrey were apparently not trying to kill people, as they shouted orders to vacate the premises at the casino. Many fled into the street, but tragically many others retreated to the second floor and to restrooms. The attackers probably did not think that the fire would trap so many, mostly older women belonging to the affluent middle-class trying their luck at gambling. Intentional or not, this crime should awaken the indignation of all Mexican citizens; it is time to put an end to cowardly attitudes, "I don't want trouble, I didn't see anything." If every able-bodied adult decided to do something about the rampant crime and violence in the Aztec country, things would change very quickly.

How about allowing ordinary citizens to carry firearms? Just a thought!

EXCHANGING FAVORS

When the first government was created in the first nation formed on earth - probably in today's China, a new political tradition also appeared: the exchange of favors between members of the ruling class and their supporters. The bigger the favor, read the bigger the contribution to the politician's favorite causes, the bigger the payoff, pardon, the quid pro quo. And now that the Supreme Court has opened the floodgates of financial contributions to candidates who seek a public position, so will the rewards increase for the generous donors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission.



Naming ambassadors has almost always been a political plum given to "friends", ie, largest contributors. That nefarious practice has had negative consequences as many of the favored candidates had absolutely no diplomatic skills. Another way to reward supporters has been the last minute pardon given by the sitting president on his last day in office. President Clinton famously or rather infamously pardoned fugitive financier Marc Rich whose only merits were his financial donations to Clinton's war chest. No explanation was ever given by the White House.

Now that we have several governors or ex-governors seeking their party's nomination in the presidential campaign, a magnifying glass is and will be applied to their quid pro quo gestures for big political supporters. The first one to hit the national media is none other than the NY Times which features a series of accusations toward Governor Rick Perry of Texas: "The exchange of campaign contributions for government contracts, favors or positions is all too common in Washington and around the country." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/opinion/gov-rick-perrys-cash-machine.html

Why select Perry in particular who denies the allegations that he was returning favors? "Mr. Perry has long maintained there is no connection between his appointments and their contributions, but the evidence is clear on board after board." Let's be realistic; 99.9% of Congress has engaged in this practice, including the President and his cabinet. The infamous "pork" added to proposed bills has been a mainstay of senators and representatives alike who engaged in the hallowed ritual of planting the seeds of reelection. The NY Times has obviously published this article to target a candidate who has a real chance to end up in the White House. And so the battle begins with broadsides being fired on both sides.

While I feel there is something morally and ethically wrong with the quid pro quo policy, there is nothing illegal about it unless of course it results in harm to the country and its citizens. Creating an agency for the sole purpose of rewarding a friend is clearly an example of this, as the millions involved come from our taxes and the times are difficult enough without creating additional waste. There is a fine line between corruption and rewarding cronies. Political contributions are not bribes as they are perfectly within the law; their aim is to help the candidate defray his or her expenses during a campaign. Humans being human, they will fall prey to the understandable desire to say "thank you" to their friends and supporters in a tangible way.

Somebody said once that lobbying is organized corruption; I beg to differ: Influencing the decisions of politicians is quite legitimate. It has always been that way. I can send emails to my senators and representatives to express my opinion. Whether they pay heed or not is another matter. The political system will not and cannot change, simply because they (the politicians) would have to approve it. The only change they approve regularly is to increase their own salaries. I wish I could do the same!