Bailing Out America

 
     Who are the rich people who need their tax cuts extended--when they shouldn't?

     They are not billionaires.  They are people who became millionaire because of the Bush tax cuts, and at the expense of the working class, but lost most of it during the Great Recession.  They are people whose trusts, many established for their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, were also hit.     

     They are people who invested more than they could ultimately afford on homes that were too big. on mansions they could't afford, and on expensive cars for each member of the family.  

     They are people who spent much of their children's inheritance on worldwide trips, entertainment and recreation, not expecting the Great Recession and the decline in prices of their homes whose sizes too often exceeded the needs of the family.  

     Many of these are people who impoverished themselves by poor management of their wealth, and hope to bounce back on the backs of the middle class to which they only recently belonged, and they won't feel guilty about impoverishing them so long as they regain their financial standing.  

     Many of these people were rich people, who earned as much a $500 thousand a year, who have become middle class again, and fear they may have lost their last best opportunity to again enrich themselves legitimately.      

     Many of them are having to take care of adult children who did not prepare themselves for secure employment, forcing parents and the children into a lower standard of living.

     Many of them are trying to build new wealth at the expense of the middle class and working poor, money which they should have saved for their children's future and present needs.

     However, people with hundreds of millions of dollars in wealth or more  don't need tax-cut extensions.  They're generally smart enough, shrewd enough or positioned well enough to have invested wisely and avoided being terribly damaged by the recession.  Most of them actually used the recession, and the lead up to it, to further enrich themselves. Many of them were already super-rich, with enough money to adequately fund even trusts of  future generations. 

    The only problem with funding future generations is that top academic talents may go undeveloped to the detriment of the nation.  And if moral virtues and traditional values are not the underpinnings of their ambitions and if those talents were to be used to seek out weaknesses  within our political and economic systems for personal gain--then maybe the nation is better off with their not be well-educated.

     Poor management of money, of course, enriches some elements of the population, whereas, wise management of money enriches a different set of elements, and often provides jobs for a different kind of employee.

     The people of the emerging economies want to have what Americans have, and the more they achieve that goal, the more Americans trend toward conditions from which they have come.

     Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown pointed out in a recent interview that while the emerging world is presently taking jobs and wealth from the Western world, those jobs and that accumulation of wealth will eventually produce consumers who will want to buy the kinds of thing we will either make or make better and faster than anyone else.  

     But that will only happen in the US if we educate our children better than everybody else, so they can either generate the creative ideas, produce unique but necessary products, or play their parts by enabling both of these to happen through education and productive, rewarding labor.

     In the meantime, although there are many formerly rich people (and people who were just well off) who need tax cuts to return to their status among the elite, there are very rich people whose standards of living have not be seriously impacted by the Great Recession, and would not be impacted were their wealth reduced in some cases by a billion dollars or two, and in other cases by several hundreds of million dollars, and  still others by several tens of millions of dollars.  Some of them spend hundreds of millions of dollars seeking political office.

     Now, is the time for President Obama to call on the patriotism of the wealthy who really did not want or need their Bush tax cuts extended, and ask them to come to the rescue of the nation that made their wealth possible by giving back to the government, not only any tax cuts to which they are entitled to over the next two years, but give even more as they can afford.

     Right-wing conservative Republicans have criticized wealthy Americans who have expressed opposition to Bush tax cuts being extended for the wealthy, suggesting that they could give it back if they don't want it.  Well, this is the time for every liberal, moderate, and conservative American, for every religious leader and congregations, for every doctor, lawyer, and Indian chief, for every bank and corporation who has an American agenda to, not only make that appeal, but make a generous contributions to this "bailout" of America.  Middle-class generosity would make the job even easier.

     Our brave young men and women, the vast majority of whom have neither amassed nor inherited wealth of any consequence, are sacrificing their lives and jeopardizing their futures to protect this nation, its way of life and the opportunities it affords fellow Americans.  Those who have benefited from those opportunities, be they businesses or individuals, should be willing to show that nation, in times of dire need, their gratitude in measures commensurate with their good fortune. 

     But we need somebody of note to take the lead toward sacrifice and a new national pride, toward a renewal of the American economy to one where lost wealth and lost opportunities can be restored, both for ourselves and our posterities.
     This is a venture where Democrats and Republicans should find common ground.

Ronald