Opportunity Blueprint

In modern times, we find ourselves a highly divided country with an alarming (and continuously growing) disparity in terms of income between the classes of our society. Incomes diverge, as expenses grow. It hasn't always been that way, but this is where we are and we have to resolve these issues before our nation collapses along the fault-lines of growing division.

First of all, let me say this clearly - it is all about money. There literally is nothing else that divides us at the core except for money. Racism, anti-antisemitism, xenophobia, islamophobia, etc. are all just the byproducts of the basic problem where people fear for their financial well being due to a perceived threat or a poverty-stricken reality makes people desperate enough to believe.

While these threats are just untrue and ridiculous at the core, the division we see across our nation are real. Furthermore, the proposed solutions to the economic divergence/disparity among the classes couldn't be more different and polarizing from both Democrats and Republicans. But without a meaningful admission of the core problem, neither of these one-sided proposals have any viable way of solving the root of the problem.

The government earns money from taxing the citizens' incomes, purchases, sales, gifts, etc. The majority of the revenue comes from income tax. The economy strives when the citizens are capable and motivated to spend their disposable incomes. As a result, it drives corporate profits and government revenues up. Finally, businesses see a reason to keep people employed and hire more staff to expand in order to meet the demand.

It has long been a predominant Republican belief that applying a flat tax across all tax brackets will raise enough revenue to balance the budget. However, taxing the lower classes and those below the poverty line would not only drive people into a further financial despair, it would also require additional Federal spending to accommodate those suffering from such a tax program. The general population will have less disposable income, the businesses will lay off staff due to waning demand and the government will be left with an ever-declining revenue. It is a losing scenario.

It has long been a predominant Democrat belief that spending government funds to hire people and create government sponsored projects are ways to increase employment and, subsequently, increase the government's revenue stream. While this appears to be a good plan in theory, it is a totally different result in practice. When you are spending tax revenue on hiring public and creating projects that do not have a corresponding demand, you are in fact cannibalizing the government funds. Yes, the unemployment decreases and the government revenues increase. However, your spending outpaces the revenue received. It is a net negative effect and a losing scenario as well.

What I propose is a return to near-parity in terms of net income. What does that mean? Net income is the total amount of money a person takes home from their wages after all taxes (including income tax) are paid. How would someone increase the incomes of the poverty line and lower classes? Simple, it would involve a two-fold plan of income re-balancing in an employer-employee environment.

First, the government would need to institute an enforceable guideline for compensation of companies' lowest paid employees to be no less than a certain reasonable percentage of the highest earning employee (usually the CEO). This way, each company is required to distribute its profits more fairly and each employee earns enough to where the taxes no longer cripple them below a living wage (that would otherwise require them to borrow in order to survive).

Second, the government would need to protect American companies and workers from outsourcing and in-sourcing scenarios. A lot of companies began to chase profits in the 1990s with cheap overseas labor that resulted in higher profit margins. However, this all came at taxpayer expense as hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their source of a living wage. The government loses revenue from taxes on those incomes and is now forced to spend their depleting revenue to support the newly unemployed. It is time to stop the bleeding. United States is still the leading consumer economy in the world. As such, it can dictate what US companies' foreign manufactured goods can pay in taxes - recognizing that one such product or service bought, is one American product or service left with declining demand. To solve this problematic economic minefield, the government needs to gradually phase in a tax of (5%, 10%, 15%... n%), where n% equals the difference in cost between a comparable American product (or service) + 2%. This will level the playing field for US produced goods and services, while providing American companies operating overseas with enough time to move back their operations, avoid losing government incentives and hire American workers.

The end result will be a greater level of net income for majority of Americans, a new degree of income parity between the highest and lowest earners, protection for American workers' incomes, increased disposable income spending, increased government revenue, reduced unemployment benefits spending and a more stable economy. 

And maybe, just maybe, when we are in a new era of wholesale economic revival, our divisions will greatly diminish as our incomes and interests converge.

Righteous, Pretentious and Dangerous

I often do a thorough job of exposing the media and its ratings-fueled buy-me-a-sponsor sensationalist broadcasts. The entertainment news outlets rarely fact-check, promote divisive opinions and rarely provide an objective journalistic perspective that Edward Murrow or Walter Cronkite would approve. Having said that, it is important to note the types of individuals these news outlets serve - those who feel their efforts and opinions are righteous, but in the end are just pretentious lemmings who try to ride the coat-tails of what they believe will be the next great revolution of consciousness.

While there is a great deal of people who actually know that there is more to a story than the headline, these people are highly analytic calm individuals who will not jump in Al Sharptonian fashion on a platform of Racial Divide and 'Great Injustice'. As a result, we are left with the bottom-of-the-barrel knee-jerk reactionaries who are willing to perpetuate uninformed feelings-based divisive opinions to wave their flag of righteousness. Not many actions can be more pretentious than to carry forward the ignorant opinion of others in the name of outrage and/or seeking justice.

Which is why my column is a bit delayed, respective of the events it addresses. I take pride in my due diligence of research before any analysis is performed... plus I have a day job. I try to provide an objective analysis, and express my feelings in the form of question(s) at the end. That way I am not predisposing my readers to any conclusion. I am not saying that I am completely impartial, but I always try to reach that mark and constantly improve my approach to reach this goal.

But there is a higher level of responsibility that exists, beyond the bloggers, beyond the news outlets. It is the responsibility of Publicly Elected Officials to protect the people they serve. A large part of that responsibility falls into what such an official says and doesn't say. With respect to the Eric Garner death, where the Police Officer (Daniel Pantaleo) used an illegal tactic to subdue the suspect, there was clear misconduct on the part of the officer. There is no question that he is responsible for the suspect's death and I wrote about this incident in my December 10th column (Real Crime). Regrettably, the mayor of New York City, Bill De Blasio, decided to dive into the racially divisive outrage head-first and fuel the fire further by sharing his feelings, instead of doing his job - isolating the incident as an improper action by a police officer and attempting calm the situation to a peaceful end.

This kind of commentary by the city's leader validates the reactionary sensationalist vigilante feelings of a mob of people. These people were already on edge and now they have the city leader's validation of their feelings. These feelings of vigilante justice manifested themselves in the 'Dead Cops' protesters in New York City. Eventually, such validation reached the mentally unstable youth, Ismaayil Brinsley, who wound up ambushing and executing two NYPD Officers this past weekend.

While Mayor De Blasio has the right to share his feelings as a citizen of New York, he has a higher obligation that trumps that right as the Mayor of New York. And this month he has proven unwilling or incapable to fulfill his obligation as Mayor. Being a leader means you have to do and say things that are in the best interest of the people who elected you, which don't necessarily reflect your own feelings or agenda. Bill De Blasio - you failed the people who elected you.

There are columnists who consider themselves righteous and try to protect the right to hateful speech of the 'Dead Cops' protesters. Fact is, those rights have not been infringed upon by anyone - the group was allowed to carry on, demanding the indiscriminate death of Police Officers unopposed as they marched down the streets of New York. But as advocates of hate speech, these same columnists validated the broad target of the vigilante mob outrage, which has been irresponsibly placed on the heads of the men and women who protect your sorry asses.

Furthermore, these same columnists are pretentious enough to point out the comments of the PBA president (who was furious at Mayor De Blasio for his actions) are meant to incite reprisals by police. This conclusion is so pretentious, so far-fetched and ridiculous, that I am actually angry that I have to teach the ABCs of reason and rationale to people who claim to be intelligent. The Police department is trained to serve and protect. They arrest and imprison criminals, including vigilantes. They possess a professional tolerance that prevents them from seeking out "vengeance". They will protect you, regardless of your pretentious and dangerous rhetoric that incites and validates those who do harm to others.

While I disagree with some of the comments made by the PBA president Patrick Lynch, for the most part he was looking out for the welfare of the police force. I will strike down the 'blood on the hands of mayor' inference, but it is at the very least irresponsible to fan the flames of racial divide as the Mayor before any fact of racism is even confirmed with respect to the Eric Garner case. But to say that the PBA president incited police vigilantes is an ignorant statement in itself. The PBA president has a responsibility to his police officers, while the Mayor has a responsibility to the entire population of New York City. PBA president has been locked in a battle with the Mayor regarding the treatment of officers for some time now - attempting to protect his officers.

The excuse being used by advocates who badly want to see a vindication and rightfulness of protesters here is that - "it was just a couple of dozen protesters who chanted Dead Cops Now, the rest did not promote violence". A question to those advocates - Did you witness the rest of the protests in New York City to make that statement or are you pulling another ignorant opinion from your blooming ass?

Carefully crated words that evoke strong feelings disseminated through media in the modern world can be powerful - they can start movements and bring governments to their knees. And there are people who believe they are pursuing a just cause, because it "feels right", writing opinions that fuel the racial divide using history and presumption of guilt. However, remaining ignorant of factual evidence and drawing far-fetched parallels to suit their narrative, they are simply pretentious and, in the case of the two slain police officers, dangerous.