There has been a lot of
talk lately about money; people who have it, people who don't, people who will
do anything to get it, and people who have so much that they can't spend it
fast enough. If you were to believe
everything you hear, you would think money is the force that makes the world go
around, and that it's the force that can cause it to come to a screeching
halt. Without money, you can't
survive... right?
There has been a huge
deal made lately over two numbers: 99% and 1%.
Apparently 99% of us combined does not make as much money as the other meager
1% by themselves. That's a lot of money
in the hands of a few people. Now, for a
minute, let's look at these numbers with impartial eyes. I am part of the 99%. I am employed by the 1%. There are over a thousand people getting paid
in the corporation I work. There is only
1 CEO of the company, so that CEO is the 0.1% of the company, and yet he's responsible
for the salaries of the 99.9% of the company.
If that CEO makes a bad decision, the 99.9% of us could be out of a job
and 100% of us would be in a pickle.
That being said, not
every CEO is as benevolent as the one I work for, and there is a lot of greed
in that 1% that deserves scrutiny, but let's look into this beyond what we see
on the surface. Let's ask the real questions
as to what's going on here. Why are so
many people upset with the 1%? Is it the
fact that the 1% are spoiled and can get anything they want while most of us
struggle daily to make ends meet? Well,
I hope that's not what most of you think, as I know that often the people in
that 1% work harder and longer than many of the people in the 99%. Could the outrage be caused by envy, people
wanting what the 1% has? I sure hope people
are not as shallow as that. No, it
appears to me that the source of all this frustration comes down to something
very simple. Taxes, Taxes, Taxes.
The 99% seems to pay more
than its fair share, while the 1% pays nothing (or less). Though that is an exaggeration, it is the
most valid point I've heard thus far.
This alone should be the cause for outrage, but we still must be careful
that we don't overlook the real problems here.
So let's then ask why the 1% doesn't pay their fair share in taxes. Well, first, let's say that a lot of
charities receive generous donations from people among the 1% (as well as those
in the 99%). Many of these donations are
tax deductable, so that cuts out a lot of money that the government otherwise
would be seeing. And I can't argue with
the 1% here. If I had the choice of
paying for a child's cancer treatment or fronting the money for a congressman
to buy a condo, the child wins any day.
The second reason that the 1% is paying less in taxes is a less noble
one. Tax breaks. Who sets tax breaks? Congress.
So recapping, whose
fault is it that the 1% is not paying their fair share in taxes? Is it the rich, who pay what they're told to
pay? Charities, who still try to do a little good in this world with what
little they receive? Or Congress, who
approves the tax laws. If we're going to
get upset at someone, let's at least direct it at the right people. So let's
ask another question. Why would
Congress, who gets elected by the 99% (or lately more like 50.1% because nobody
can agree which candidates are the lesser of the two evils) give so much back
to the 1% that statistically has little impact on their elections? Well, that's where we get into politics.
Every politician running
for office needs to do only 4 things: 1)
Meet the age limit. 2) Meet the citizenship requirement. 3) Meet the residency
requirements. The first three
requirements are constitutional, though the last one is the most important. To run for office, every politician needs what?
4) Money! In 2008, between 6 presidential candidates, between
nine hundred million and a billion dollars were raised for the election. That's just for the office of President. President Obama brought in over $500,000,000
while John McCain brought in about $380,000,000. Two questions come to mind when you see those
numbers. 1) Where did all that money
come from? 2) Where the HECK did it go? Does television advertisements, billboards,
radio announcements, newspaper ads, online ads, Super Bowl commercials, bus
stop signs, bus signs, truck signs, airport signs, whatever signs... does all
of that cost a billion dollars for six people?
Well, I suppose transportation is part of that, but even if you have a
$400 flight every day for two straight years, you would only spend about a
third of a million dollars. Where did
the other 99.9% of the funds go? I doubt
it went into a candidates pocket, but a lot of people made a lot of money off
those elections, and President Obama has a lot of people to thank for that half
a billion dollars he received to run and win.
So going back to the
question, why does Congress care so much about the 1% of the people that has most
of the wealth? Who do you think funds
that billion dollar presidential bid?
Who do you think funds most of the politicians elections? Need I say
more?
I guess by now I've made
my point, but I want to take it a bit farther.
Not all of these donations are nefarious; there are a lot of good people
trying to support someone they think will do a lot of good for the Country. My biggest concerns with how things are
going, which I'm sure you all share are this:
Problem 1: If you get
that much money from people, you are bound to appease those who donated the money. This is golden rule 101; if you throw a party
and someone hands you a thousand dollar bill at the door. You sure as heck are going to make sure
they're comfortable the whole time, giving them the most attention, and making
sure that you invite them back again.
Problem 2: Candidates
with the most money have more leverage to sway the voters - they don't always win,
but it makes things very difficult for their competition.
Problem 3: Does it
really take half a billion dollars to run for office? Do you really need a million kinds of
advertisements? Candidates: if you have
a message worth hearing, it will get out.
With social media, online blogs, YouTube videos, Twitter feeds, Facebook,
etcetera, etcetera, there are a lot of free and cheap outlets to get your message
across. If you're worth hearing, people
will hear, people will spread the word.
All free of charge. How sad is it
that you have to spend half a billion dollars to get your message across. No wonder people never know what a candidate
stands for. Candidates: Do you really
need to fly to five cities in a day to campaign? Where's the candidate that drives
cross-country, stopping wherever he can to spread his message? Where's the candidate that rides the bus or
the train? Taxi anyone? If a candidate can't show fiscal restraint
while campaigning, how can we expect them to control the ballooning federal
budget? And you know my vote would go to
the guy I sat next to on the bus rather than the one I saw on television
pompously waving as he gets off a jetliner.
So where does this leave
us? Should we limit campaign
contributions? Should we not vote for
people who spend way too much money on elections? Should we boycott those people and corporations
that donate to these elections? Should
we ban the system of election fundraising altogether and allot each candidate an
equal sum of money from the government, which is the most fair? I cannot answer those questions, and quite
honestly, the people that need to are those that are benefiting from the system
today. But one thing we can all agree on
is this, whether we're the 99%, the 1% or the political candidates gearing up
for an election year: the system's broken. It's been broken for a while. We're just spinning in circles. Will someone finally please stand up and set
us straight?
December 5, 2011
