Anti-tax “Tea Party” in Goshen
April 11, 2009 by Julia King · 5 Comments
It’s so much more relaxing visiting a protest than actually organizing one. As a visitor to a protest, all those people who wear the wrong clothes or make signs that are distractingly ill-conceived are entertaining. As an organizer of a protest, the goal is as much message cohesion as possible; but as a visitor, the presence of opposing political currents (like right-wing Christians and Libertarians, for instance) provides a nice undercurrent of interest. On the political Left, there are frequently too many drums and white guys with dreadlocks; on the political Right, there are too many flags and dirty baseball caps (and when I say “dirty,” I mean that they need to be washed, not that they are embroidered with naked ladies).
And so this morning I stood on the Elkhart County Courthouse lawn in Goshen as several hundred people (some with baseball caps, some with flags, and some with church flyers) threw a local version of the national anti-tax “Tea Party” that’s become all the rage on the Right. A lot of people who didn’t notice our dept or deficit or war expenditures when George W. Bush was in office are suddenly counting our collective pennies now that we’re talking about health care.
Have I mentioned that I like democracy? I do. I do like democracy. I love that Americans can congregate in public spaces and say anything they want (except “fire!” or “kill!” of course).
“Cut the fat!” read one sign (cleverly shaped like a pig). I approached the sign holder and asked her what, exactly, did she not want to pay for. She said she didn’t want to pay for things that “aren’t really necessary.” When I asked her about health care, she paused for quite a while. She wasn’t sure about that. Since she didn’t have insurance, she was iffy on that one. But she did not want to pay for some study about bird migrations, she said.
Midway through our conversation the prayer started, so we silenced ourselves to bow our heads and listen. The pastor at the microphone invoked Deuteronomy 28 and at one point mentioned “heathen nations” and at another point said we should be living as an “unabashedly Christian nation.” It was a long prayer.
I moved on through the crowd, taking note of a man’s “No Taxation without Representation!” sign. Was he from Washington, D.C. (where they really are taxed without representation)? Or was he just confused? Either way, the man (and the crowd) heard from Indiana state representative Wes Culver.
Culver speaks in sweeping terms, the way most good politicians do, but he isn’t afraid to utter specifics. Today he was the only one brave enough to make the real-world connection between taxes and government services. “If you don’t like taxes, don’t complain about potholes or the brush not being picked up on your street,” he said. (It would have been fair to add more items to that list of things not to complain about, including, but not limited to: your poorly educated kids, or when you have to file for bankruptcy because your health insurance runs out, or tainted milk products from China that end up on your table because regulators have been “cut back” along with the budget).
The people who congregated at the courthouse were there for a range of reasons, but they more-or-less agreed that taxes were too high (and that those taxes pay for things that “aren’t really necessary”). Some of them seemed like reasonable people who had done their homework, like the man I spoke with from a group called “FairTax;” (he was nice enough, but I’ll need to read more about it before I comment on the actual plan) but others just wanted to hang their ideology somewhere – and the “taxes” hook was the most convenient place. “Don’t use my tax dollars for abortion,” demanded one sign.
It was a crisp and sunny spring day, perfect weather for a Tea Party. There was plenty of energy and determination. But there was no clear winning argument.
Givers and Takers (and earthquake makers) of the Economy
March 21, 2009 by Julia King · Leave a Comment
A couple of months ago I attended a memorial service for a woman who headed up her congregation’s Care Committee, meaning that while she was alive (and she was incredibly alive) she specialized in swooping in to care for others when they were in need. She baked casseroles for growing families, made sandwiches for the grieving, transported the sick to hospitals. In story after story, her friends described a woman with a nearly insatiable desire to give.
We all know people like this woman, the ones who stack the chairs and sweep the floors while others (me) stand around chatting, the ones who wash the last coffee cups and wipe down the counters… without the slightest expectation of reward. When these people are thanked, they deflect the thanks like Wonder Woman deflects bullets with her magic bracelets. It ends up anywhere but on them.
A.I.G. executives (and others in the news) have me thinking about that Care Committee friend. What is it that makes some people devote their lives to humble giving and others to seeking praise, money, and material reward?
Never mind the numbers — so big they might as well be starring in a movie alongside giant, mutant ladybugs (start with 800,000,000,000, then subtract 170,000,000,000; then sneak out 165,000,000…etc.). Sorry, but some of us (lots of us) are just never going to get the numbers. But if the economy runs in large part on “confidence,” the social psychology of our system matters just as much as all those loony zeros do. It matters that the economy doesn’t make sense in our guts.
We’re Americans. We believe in work and in excellence; we admire both innate ability and hard-won skill; we value persistence and optimism. Yes, we are willing to accept that those who achieve great things are entitled to live with a little more than those of us who never will. But we’re not fools. And we are not mean-spirited (well, maybe when we haven’t had enough sleep). The genial, middle-aged bagger in my grocery store may not be capable of complex problem-solving, but that fact alone should not put him at risk for poverty. In our system it does.
The problem with our fantastic free market is that it’s a little too much like a teenager, chasing after the latest trend and responding to desire over genuine need. For instance, it provides Americans with a dizzying array of affordable sexy shoes (fun, fun, FUN), while a large percentage of us can’t afford to visit a doctor (not so fun). Like a high-schooler, it gives preference to those who are naturally charismatic, or aggressive enough to demand serious money, and pretty much ignores people who are hopelessly incapable — or who deal in modest kindnesses. Sadly, we’ve got a system that even on its best days is about as considerate as a prom queen (hint: not everyone gets invited to her fabulous party).
A lot of people have figured this out, the lopsided truth about our system. But not everyone, like the very smart writers at The Washington Post. In one visit to the keyboard, the editors criticized a fire fighters’ union for wanting COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) pay, and in another they defended A.I.G. bonuses. Damn those greedy fire fighters, that’s what I always say. But the A.I.G. guys, well… they were promised the money, you know. They have bills too, you know. They might get mad and leave their jobs and what would we do THEN, you know?
(Give back HALF?? Did A.I.G.’s Edward Liddy really say that? Because that’s just funny.)
Despite what’s being said by right-wing men living in the mountains with stockpiles of ammo, there’s a lot of space between America’s current (confusing-to-the-people) brand of capitalism and that big bogeyman socialism. But it seems clearer all the time that the best way to guard against forces of serious Marxism is to fight against the forces of serious greed. (Capitalism devotees could learn a thing or two from hospital president Paul Levy, who inspired internal cooperation rather than competition when faced with a budget squeeze.)
Most of the folks at the top of the economic food chain are never going to head up a church Care Committee, but if they know what’s good for themselves (and the country) they are going to learn to live with less.
“Health Care for a Few” is Not Much of a Motto
March 2, 2009 by Julia King · 2 Comments
Last week lawmakers in Indiana passed an amendment to exclude undocumented immigrant families from Medicaid in order to “…protect legal Hoosiers and spend their tax dollars responsibly,” according to a statement from Representative Jackie Walorski’s office (Walorski is sponsor of the amendment to House Bill 1653).
My own representative (Wes Culver) voted for the measure in part because he said a survey of the district showed 80 percent support for it. 80 percent?! Yikes. We are certifiably down-and-out here in district 49; and people do get cranky when they’re down-and-out, but still…embarrassing (right??).
In a town hall meeting Saturday morning at the Goshen Chamber of Commerce, Rep. Culver and State Sen. Carlin Yoder both said voting against Medicaid for undocumented immigrants was a matter of fairness, as though there is some moral code that involves turning one’s back on sick people if they come from the wrong country.
It’s not easy, this whole health care thing (covering as many people as possible with the least amount of money) but it would be good if we could at least agree that it’s almost always “fair” to grant human beings basic medical care. Not only is it fair, but it’s smart. Leaving significant portions of a country’s (or states’) population without access to medical treatment can quickly jeopardize public health as communicable diseases incubate and spread. Viruses don’t care much about citizenship.
It makes sense to look for ways to save money in the health care system, but there are better places to look than in passports.
For instance, thumb-tacked to the bulletin board beside my desk is a glossy advertisement for the emergency room of a nearby hospital. The hospital is so nearby, in fact, that fifteen years ago when my daughter was born I walked there (in labor) at 3 o’clock in the morning. Why would a non-profit, tax-exempt hospital waste valuable resource courting my “business” when I live so close to its facilities? Why would a hospital advertise its emergency room at all?
Also gracing my bulletin board is a shiny 8-page health “magazine” sent from the Marketing and Community Relations Department of another hospital, one roughly half an hour away from my home. Why is a non-profit hospital from a neighboring city competing for me when I already live a stone’s throw away from a hospital in my own city?
Such mailings and publications (in addition to the billboards and radio and television ads) represent large amounts of money, money that is not treating sick or dying people in Indiana. According to one hospital administrator I spoke with, non-profit hospitals have virtually no regulations regarding expenditures. Advertising, huge CEO salaries, none of it’s regulated. If legislators are looking for places to cut or redirect health care dollars, to see to it that tax breaks within the system make sense, here’s a place to start.
Afghanistan: Too Late to Play the Heroes
February 22, 2009 by Julia King · 4 Comments
I remember standing in my neighbor’s backyard one day many months after September eleven. He filled his bird feeder as we talked about the impending war. He supported invading Iraq. I did not. But we both agreed that attacking Afghanistan had been reasonable. This meant, of course, that I (a presumably loving person) had endorsed the killing and maiming of old women and children, of sinister Al Qaeda terrorists and innocents alike, anything to put the universe back in order. In 2001, such a plan seemed workable.
It’s 2009 and none of it seems workable anymore. By shifting away from Iraq and refocusing on Afghanistan, sending a new wave of troops to the region, President Barack Obama is attempting to do the impossible. He’s trying for a “do-over” of legendary proportions.
Had Obama been president in the wake of 9/11 (or Al Gore, a more likely scenario), things would be different. For one, the United States would not have carried out a preemptive war on Iraq, thus squandering world sympathy and the accompanying potential for global cooperation as we tried to find and capture Osama Bin Laden. Just as the Bush administration did, a Democratic administration would have likely invaded Afghanistan, but it would have done so with undivided military and intelligence resources.
Would a different war in Afghanistan have worked, one carried out with singular focus and in another political (and economic) climate? Would American forces have charged in and fixed the place right up, lassoing Osama Bin Laden and all the other bad guys? Knowing what we know now (and hearing from others who have fought for years in the country), it seems unlikely. But the effort would not have been entirely irrational.
It is Obama who insists we use common sense regarding Iraq and the Middle East, asking us to honestly evaluate the situation, including our relationships in that part of the world – relationships that have tremendous bearing on our ability to operate effectively in both Iraq and Afghanistan (and anywhere else we put up our dukes). Now he’s asking us to abandon that common sense, to believe something other than what he has often expressed, which is: “…that you cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban, the spread of extremism in that region solely through military means.” (Obama as quoted in a recent Time article by Mark Thompson.) Remove the word “solely,” and I agree with the president completely.
The difficulty here is that the Taliban (and Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and all the loosely affiliated yet slightly different extremist elements in the area) are unequivocally horrendous. They are so horrendous that on some days it feels like a stretch to even count them as part of humanity. So, what do we do? We wipe them out, of course, the best way we know how – with our unrivaled military might.
When I (and millions of other Americans) supported the initial Afghanistan invasion it was not only because the people who attacked the World Trade Center were so obviously deserving of punishment; and it was not only because we were raw with emotion. It was also because we believed the war could do some good. I imagined myself living under the rule of the Taliban and thought the invasion (in addition to capturing and punishing Bin Laden) could offer a better way of life to those monumentally unfortunate Afghanis caught in the clutches of Islamic extremists. But it turns out (surprise) that adding additional violence to an already turbulent mix does no one a favor. Civilian deaths in Afghanistan are soaring and trust in U.S. military personnel is plummeting. More Americans with guns will not improve those numbers. We have simply done too much in recent years to claim the moral high ground (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay). Even Obama can’t undue the past, can’t right the wrongs of the Bush administration. We cannot begin again.
It is all too much. It’s too much for the American soldiers who leave their families and go half way around the world to discover the horror of killing fellow human beings. And for the families who bury their loved ones in flag-draped coffins. And especially for the men and women of Afghanistan whose homes are destroyed and whose lives are one wave of loss after another.
We should not give up the fight against Islamic extremists (or any other violent extremists, for that matter) – but we must change tactics. Meaning, it won’t be uniformed soldiers who make real progress against extremism. It will be people like Greg Mortenson (see Three Cups of Tea post), people brave enough to enter dangerous places without weapons and sincere enough to build relationships there. And (despite the awfulness of it) by others less gentle, by those who can trick and connive and speak the language and commit clandestine acts of violence to reduce the numbers of the ruthless and immovable (acts that mercifully leave no lifeless children behind).
Ultimately, however, the rate of progress is out of American hands. We can hold our own government to better standards of justice and compassion around the globe (and we must), but we can not quell Afghanistan violence. It is ordinary (and extraordinary) Afghanis who will have to do that, the friends and neighbors, brothers and sisters, the grandmothers of those who would systematically oppress or murder their fellow countrymen and women.
Indiana Poised to Shoot Self in Financial Foot (like California)
February 18, 2009 by Julia King · 2 Comments
I’m late to this issue, possibly because it involves numbers and formulas and financial language that make me want to run off and hide under an accountant’s desk. Or maybe it’s because of the words “Circuit Breaker,” which make me think of my furnace room and a colony of spiders. (No thanks. Someone else can tend to the Circuit Breaker!) Or maybe it’s because the idea of cutting (or capping) taxes and embedding the decision in the Indiana Constitution — even after California was kind enough to show us how the plan unfolds — seems so ludicrous that I’ve just been in denial.
Whatever the reason, up until now I have failed to focus on the fact that the Indiana General Assembly is moving rapidly toward passing legislation that will (as I mentioned) cap property taxes and carve those constraints into the state Constitution.
Are we to believe the legislature has discovered the perfect tax rate, a never-changing formula that makes sense every year, no matter the circumstances — come flood, or famine, or terrorist attack, or collapsing local industries?
Granted, things are not easy – especially here in Northern Indiana. Knowing that certain bills won’t rise could offer some measure of comfort; but the notion that my representatives are down in Indianapolis trying to help me by focusing on my property tax rate sort of makes me giggle (not really, but that sounds nicer).
My husband has run a successful business for thirteen years, a business with close ties to the construction industry. Needless to say, we are tightening our belts and holding our breath. What’s our biggest expense? Our health care premiums. We pay nearly ten thousand dollars a year just for the privilege of paying for all our medical expenses out-of-pocket. We have a catastrophic health plan and nothing more. Ten thousand dollars a year. Our property taxes? Roughly a thousand dollars a year.
This is not the year to squabble over a hundred dollars a month, much less to stamp it into the Constitution. This is the time for politicians to help shore up the safety nets and get ready to catch those of us who may fall.
Obama’s Town Hall Meeting
February 9, 2009 by Julia King · 1 Comment
I wasn’t there in person this time when President Obama came to town, but I was talking to a friend on her cell phone as she watched Air Force One land at the South Bend Regional Airport… AND I did get to watch on TV while a couple of my neighbors shook his hand. So, like millions of others, I heard the president’s words from the comfort of my living room instead of from the bleachers in the Concord High School gymnasium.
In short, Obama delivered. He used the office of the presidency to highlight our community as an example of a place that especially needs help, but also as an example of a place that needs to be willing to see this hardship as an opportunity. He reminded us all what this stimulus package is really about. It’s about moving forward with a new, greener and more socially equitable economy. He stressed the fact that when something is already in disrepair (like our local and national economy), that’s the best time to make important shifts, to rebuild better and smarter.
The roughly 22 percent of Americans who stood by George W. Bush until the end showed us that no matter what, some people will stand their ground. Let them stand. The rest of us better get moving…
Obama Puts Elkhart County in Economic Spotlight
February 8, 2009 by Julia King · 9 Comments
When President Barack Obama comes to Elkhart tomorrow (Monday, Feb. 9), he will presumably hear not only from the many average citizens who stood in line for hours to get tickets, but also from 3rd District Rep. (Republican) Mark Souder (my representative) and 2nd District Rep. (Democrat) Joe Donnelly (the neighboring district’s representative). The two northern Indiana lawmakers have joined forces to protect the flailing (failing) recreational vehicle industry, long a staple of the local economy.
As representatives of a hurting community, Donnelly and Souder are doing something right. They are trying to help their ailing constituents. So, too, is Obama – who recognized Elkhart County as a place that truly needs some tender loving care (also known as “jobs”).
I don’t yet know what Obama plans to say, but I hope it’s different from what Souder and Donnelly are saying. Our northern Indiana guys are looking to boost demand for RVs by requesting that Troubled Assets Relief Program (or TARP) funds be available for loans for RVs (these are funds that were initially established for the housing crisis).
Am I a spoilsport if I say I’m less-than-inspired? Getting people to buy recreational vehicles with stimulus money seems about as creative and forward-thinking as investing in home coal chutes. Maybe there’s more to the plan, but if there is, the details aren’t easy to come by.
Once upon a time a recreational vehicle was a brilliant idea (For real. It was.). But that was before we knew about global warming and before we sampled life with gas prices approaching $5 a gallon. Even if an RV niche can survive, it will have to be much (MUCH) smaller, meaning it cannot be expected to anchor our local economy.
Now, it would be different if Donnelly and Souder were pushing for a complete overhaul of the industry, looking to run RVs on vegetable oil, or hydrogen, or outfit every new RV with solar panels or portable windmills (Okay, I don’t know what I’m talking about here. I’m just throwing ideas out; you get the general picture.). But they aren’t. They’re thinking small when it’s time to think big.
The point is that the stimulus money should be used for the future good of our community – and the country as a whole. As sad and frustrating and scary as it is, not every industry will make it to the other side of this economic crisis. And not every industry should.
Northern Indiana desperately needs jobs, jobs that support families and send kids to college — and jobs that tread lightly on our water and our air and our land. The RV industry is not necessarily that industry. It might be, with massive adjustments. But it might not be.
So, when Obama is here, I hope he listens carefully. I hope he hears all the voices and all the possibilities that exist here. And most important, I hope he brings with him fresh ideas for our hurting home. We want to work. We want to grow. But to do that we need an economy that will survive for the long haul, not one that will limp along temporarily before finally tripping over itself and landing on its face.
Obama to Visit Elkhart (Indiana) Monday, Feb. 9 (woo-hoo!)
February 6, 2009 by Julia King · 2 Comments
Here’s confirmation from a local television station.
MORE LATER
Stimulus Stimulates the Same Old Differences
February 6, 2009 by Julia King · 1 Comment
Despite Rush Limbaugh’s infamous “satirical” anthem about Barack Obama, our president is not actually magic. If he were magic, he would have produced at least a couple of Republican House votes for the stimulus package to properly showcase our new nonpartisan, presumably united America.
Maybe in time we will get there, to this place so many people talk about – where political affiliation doesn’t matter… but I’m not about to go on a hunger strike until we arrive. Unlike many of the other conditions we live with, political affiliation is not an accident of birth (although there is some research suggesting brain differences between conservatives and liberals). But until science proves otherwise, we’ll operate on the assumption that Republicans choose to be Republicans; Democrats choose to be Democrats; Greens choose to be Greens, and so forth.
Although it sometimes feels like it, Democrats and Republicans don’t vote against each other’s ideas just to be contrary; they genuinely disagree. On almost everything. There are occasional areas of public policy where they can work together, but mostly it’s rough. Even when the parties share the same goals (and that happens quite a bit), they rarely agree on how to reach those goals. What’s the best way to demonstrate respect for life? How do we cut down on drug use? How do we fight terrorism? How do we improve education? How do we support families? How do we fix the economy? Our questions are the same, but our answers are almost always different.
To those who are either surprised or disappointed that the stimulus package isn’t wearing a hoop skirt and waltzing gaily through the halls of Congress with Republicans and Democrats taking turns cutting in: take heart. It’s okay. This is the way it has to be. The two main political parties exist to promote very different versions of society; they are bound to be in conflict.
Three Cups of Tea
January 31, 2009 by Julia King · Leave a Comment
On the cover of the book, in small print at the bottom of the page, is a quote from Tom Brokaw: “Thrilling…proof,” it reads, “that one ordinary person, with the right combination of character and determination, really can change the world.”
It’s a reassuring thought, this notion that an average person can change the world, but it’s not exactly the story that unfolds in Three Cups of Tea, the New York Times bestseller by Greg Mortenson and David Oliver Relin. Instead, Three Cups of Tea tells the story of an extraordinary man (Mortenson), one willing to endure almost anything to accomplish his mission.
Mortenson’s mission is peace, and his strategy is to provide education for the poorest children in some of the poorest parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan, far-flung villages that despite their remoteness are desperately intertwined with modern Western life.
I read much of the book sweaty and out of breath, pedaling my stationary bike alone in my living room, exerting energy for no one’s benefit but my own — as if to punctuate the fact of my existential stinginess. Mortenson’s life is one of sacrifice and tremendous effort spent for others (although that’s not his claim; he would say that in the end his work benefits everyone, including him).
The beauty of this story is that it never appears easy. Too frequently, those who accomplish amazing things carry out their tasks with what looks like effortlessness. Not here. Three Cups of Tea is a journey into rugged land and harsh conditions. And it is a story of contrast, of a man straddling two different worlds (one week he’s walking the shiny marble floors of the Pentagon, and the next week he’s bouncing along dusty, craggy mountain roads in a beat-up jeep). Ironically, it is the thorny details of Mortenson’s projects — and of his exhausting schedule — that make it all so believable, so possible.
Like many Americans, I hadn’t paid much attention to places like Afghanistan until September 11. Since then, however, I’ve developed a strong appetite (possibly an unhealthy one) for dismal Middle Eastern focused literature (both fiction and non-fiction) like The Kite Runner, A Thousand Splendid Suns, Reading Lolita in Tehran, Iran Awakening, etc. – my desire to solve the puzzle of Islamic extremist repression forever nudging me back to the page.
Three Cups of Tea doesn’t shy away from the darker aspects of these regions, but neither does it define such places (and the myriad people who inhabit them) by the least common human denominator, by anti-western jihadists, or by beheaders. Mortenson and Relin take us across the globe and introduce us to men and women we can relate to, men and women – and children – who are on “our” side, meaning the side of compassion and tolerance and mutual understanding.
In short: read it. If you’re looking for something that makes sense amidst the chaos and the jumble we’ve come to know as the “Middle East” (however imperfect the term), here is a place to start. Here is a way. I’m late to this book (it was published in 2006), but the work it represents is still in its infancy.
