Month: January 2008

There’s a load of rubbish talked in this country about taxation. General consensus is that Republicans are the party of low taxation and Democrats will “tax the hide off of yer”.

The truth about taxation is really very simple. A government needs a certain income from its people to run essential services. How it obtains this income is in the form of taxation. Politicians cast a veil over the means by which they obtain this cash, and influence the vote by taxing those least likely to elect them.

George Bush has blatantly taxed the middle classes while giving enormous tax breaks to his mates in the high-wealth bracket. His excuse, that low taxation allows companies to expand their businesses and improve the economy, is simply that – an excuse. It may be a feasible policy if companies could be relied on to plow their additional profits back into the pockets of their workers, but corporate greed is not given to such sensible, longterm, ideals and consequently tax breaks become nothing more than cash cows for upper management and Wall Street.

The present, very real, fears over recession, coupled with still record highs on the stock market, are obvious evidences of this fact, yet it is incredible just how many Americans fail to grasp the simple concept. So imbued are they with the political principles of “low taxation”, that politicians can often influence huge swathes of the electorate by using gimmicky “low tax” incentives to gain votes.

Mike Huckabee has, perhaps, one of the most obvious tax gimmicks of the century. He is suggesting abolishing all forms of income tax. WOW! What a swell idea! What you earn is what you get. Well, apart from social security contributions, health insurance, Medicare, etc….

How does President Huckabee intend to obtain his fiscal income, if not from income tax? By taxing every single thing we purchase. The immediate effect will be a gross rise in the cost of living, but that’s ok because we’ll all have more cash in our wage packets to compensate.

But is it fair? After all, if a basket of groceries suddenly rises from sixty dollars to one hundred dollars, it means the groceries will cost one hundred dollars for everyone, whether they earn $25,000 a year or $225,000 a year.

Isn’t that exactly the same principle as George Bush taxing the wealthy less than the middle class? In fact, if you do the maths, the wealthy may be even better off under Huckabee than they presently are under Bush. Of course, Huckabee spreads the old smoke screen of ‘tax refunds’ for the poorer end of society, promises of higher value food stamps for the really poverty-stricken, etc., but all they truly are is a smoke screen.

Ask yourself one question: if the idea of “no income tax; high sales tax” is so good, why has no other government on the planet implemented it?

The idea of low taxation is very American, and ties in with the general monetarist doctrines in this country, yet taxation levels have nothing whatever to do with citizen satisfaction. The Danes, for instance, have high levels of taxation, yet are known to be the happiest nation on earth.

How can this be so? Again, the answer is relatively simple.

The people of Denmark are taken care of by their leaders. The Danish government taxes its people highly, but unlike its counterpart in America, spends its taxes wisely, on a health system for all, realistic pensions for the elderly, and generous benefits for those unfortunate enough to be unemployed. Danish politicians are very highly paid, so less susceptible to corrupt practices. To the Danish government, its people come first. In fact, a government of the people; by the people; for the people.

Now, where have I heard that before?

Americans are among the unhappiest people on earth, and it’s because they’re insecure. No individual safety net when things go wrong financially; no security of healthcare, even in the prime of life, let alone in old age; a government that does everything in its power to prevent its people obtaining the benefits to which they are entitled when disabled, sick, or unemployed.

The American taxation system is unfair not just because it taxes the middle class more than the wealthy, but because those taxes are not put to good use. Americans see virtually no return for their taxes, unless one accepts hugely expensive and wasteful wars, a degree of technological weaponry sufficient to destroy the planet, or enough ‘pork’ in Washington to feed the third world for a decade, as ‘good uses’ for one’s hard-earned tax money.

Taxation is not about how much one has to pay, but the security – the welfare – it gives in return. It’s about government spending wisely, with its people’s welfare as the prime source when the decision comes to be made: what shall we spend it on?

The dictionary defines ‘welfare state’ as:

“a social system based on the assumption by a political state of primary responsibility for the individual and social welfare of its citizens.” [my bold].

Can Americans say they live in a welfare state?

In truth, America is a free-for-all with the lucky few achieving financial security at the expense of the majority. This is what is called the “American Dream”.

It’s a dream financially supported, but not shared, by the majority of its citizens.

Filed under: Bleeding the stones

The idea of George W Bush brokering a lasting peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians is akin to a vulture presiding over discussions between a wolf and a mouse as to who should have the last piece of cheese on the plate.

Is it nothing more than total arrogance that drives this pathological under-achiever to believe his chances are better than those who have gone before him?

From Security Council Resolution 242 in 1967 to the Geneva Accords of 2003, a plethora of determined, powerful, individuals have attempted to write themselves into the history books by solving the most complex multi-cultural squabble on the planet.

All have retired, beaten and cowed.

As is so often the case, when one party is as strong as a wolf and the other as weak as a mouse, the wolf says, “Why should I give up anything to a creature as weak as a mouse.”

This has been Israel’s attitude towards the Palestinian people for over forty years. Present day commentators are rightly suggesting that, if George Bush is to make any headway at all, it can only come from applying serious pressure on Israel. It is unlikely the Jewish lobby in Washington will stand for too much of that.

Is Bush, perhaps, still relying on his ‘Hotline’ to God?

It’s possible. To an ego so far out of control, the apparent quieting of Iraq – or, at least, Baghdad – may well be perceived as a ‘Sign’ that it’s time for the next big push.

To George Bush’s ego it goes something like this:

“OK, we’ve sorted Iraq, it’s time to solve the Middle East crisis. There’s still twelve months to wrap up the Israeli/Palestinian situation before term end. That’ll please God, and show Carter and Clinton what a real president can do.”

It may sound a trifle flippant, but seriously, with what we know of the man, can it be that far from the truth?

There is, though, another explanation.

Given that the invasion of Iraq was to secure territory, oil fields, and potential future markets, the Jewish lobby may well be persuaded the time is right for a final settlement of the Middle East issue. Many of those allied to the PNAC are powerful Jews. It would be in their interests as businessmen, to secure a more stable region for trade, at the same time strengthening Israel’s position against a threat, however unlikely, from Iran.

It may well be the case that George W Bush has been ‘told’ that now is the time, and an agreement must be forged. Abbas is weak, and likely to agree to decisions not acceptable to the majority of Palestinians. Politicians are adept at selling their people down the river.

Whatever results from the next twelve months, we can sure of one thing: no ‘agreement’ will be acceptable to all the factions. While the Sunnis of Baghdad are prepared to sell themselves to the Americans for $300 a month – at least, temporarily – Hamas will not be bought.

Weighing the pro and cons, it seems likely that in the end George Bush’s ‘Hotline’ will, yet again, have returned him a wrong number.

Filed under: Will of God, Jehovah, or Allah

Many of the candidates hoping to be the next US president have jumped on the bandwagon of ‘change’. They’ve eventually come to realize that the American public is so fed up with eight years of George W Bush and his lackeys, no candidate will make headway without constant reference to ‘change’.

There is, however, another change taking place, not just in America, but throughout the capitalist world. It’s insidious, creeping, and its been around far longer than George W Bush, or even some of those who preceded him.

This particular change is a gradual backwards slide into what can only be described as a modern form of slavery.

It may not have begun when the cocktail shaker of fate blended Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher, but that ungodly combination became the catalyst that is today transforming the working lives of millions of ordinary people, by the gradual introduction of working practices that would have been considered inhumane fifty or more years ago.

In today’s workplace, experience and expertise are no longer of value. Both in the private sector, and within government departments like the Social Security Administration, the thirst to achieve more with less is forcing a multi-tasking environment that sees business banking experts manning teller positions and highly skilled Social Security Claims Representatives in the role of receptionists. Both are relatively highly paid workers forced to play out demeaning roles once manned by junior clerks.

This situation is now common throughout the western business world, particularly in public service industries, and results from a short-term, cut-staff-numbers-to-increase-profit, policy that relied heavily on the ability of computers to replace humans in the workplace. That policy is failing at an appalling rate.

Computers have not realized the corporate dream of a near worker-free company environment. For most service industry and government workers the opposite has been the case. Computers produce more work, not less. Add to that the endless frustrations of ever-changing software designed to improve on older versions, but more often developed by eager young college grads hoping to make a name for themselves, and with no comprehension of the day to day workings of the environment in which the product will operate (on the occasions it doesn’t continually crash and increase worker frustration) and the interminable staff training sessions on how to use it, and the recipe is a workplace in chaos, without sufficient experienced and able staff in attendance.

Few of us have not experienced the automated voice machine followed by interminable minutes spent holding while ‘“….our customer service representatives are dealing with other customers….” when we attempt to query a bill, or report a faulty line, at our local utility or telephone company. If we achieve the seemingly impossible and connect eventually with a human voice, it is to find a harassed, stressed to the eye-balls, call-center clerk who’s already dealt with twenty irate callers, and he’s only been at work an hour.

Employees are being used more and more as organic computers in the workplace. Rights, long fought for by the trade unionists of yesteryear, are being systematically eroded at an alarming rate.

Finding evidence, other than hearsay, to support this view is difficult as employees have no job security and are reluctant to openly criticize their senior management. Here is one account from 2001, by an employee, ‘Stefan’, of the National Westminster Bank in Britain:

I’m a Natwest employee. One of more that 20 years standing I might add. I’ve always been (and hopefully will remain) one of the Banks front line troops. Either face to face or on the telephone discussing my “specialist subject” of business lending.
Anyway, to the point of this mail. Steady deterioration in the quality of customer service and ever increasing bureaucracy has not only disillusioned the poor customer but has also taken its tool on the the Banks staff who are ever more frustrated and weary due to the fact that they are unable to provide a quality service with the restrictive tools provided. Gradual removal of empowerment to people such as myself who have the experience and demonstrated ability is an even stronger factor. Delivery of common sense approach banking is all but dead albeit that it remains latent in those of us who remember and have the interpersonal and technical skills to carry it out if allowed to do so. Nowadays, I’m sorry to say that I work for an organization whose so called middle management simply live in constant fear of being usurped by somebody younger, cheaper and far less experienced. Top management is (and always has been ) untouchable and untouched by the common employee. This is an organization where the troops carry out the function of passing customers and paperwork from pillar to post (and back again). Most are now brainwashed (I’m sorry to say) into thinking that this is the he way to get things done. Those of us who know (or remember) that there is a better way go unheard and despite how loud we shout, we never seem to get past the early stages of management because they’re working on a somewhat different agenda!!!”

Employees are suffering high stress levels due to the ever increasing pressure to perform multi-tasking (this involves handling their own workload, already way above normal due to staffing cuts at their own level, plus the work of more minor employees not replaced when their positions become vacant) and the overall effect of these policies is to severely cut the service many companies are offering to the public.

Profit, at any cost, is today’s business maxim, and who cares about losing customers when there are plenty more out there.

In the corporate, multi-national world, changing your bank simply means moving from one named establishment to another run by the same conglomerate. Big companies don’t lose customers, they just shuffle them around. As Stefan from NatWest says, they pass paperwork and customers “from pillar to post”.

The US Social Security Administration has cut its staffing levels by over 3,600 in the last two years. SSA employees, always under huge pressure in an extremely difficult job, are working longer hours, often twelve hour days, sometimes six days a week, and are still bogged down with cases extending back two years or more.

As an anonymous employee told me a few weeks ago:

“We now regularly have claimants forced out of their homes and living solely on food stamps because their claims are taking so long to process.”

Back in November 2006, the Washington Post’s Stephen Barr wrote of the SSA:

“……In a letter sent last week to the Senate Finance Committee, the GAO warned that Social Security is coping with staff shortages and operating under a hiring freeze just as the agency’s workload is expected to jump because of the [Medicare] premium increases. The GAO, the congressional auditing agency, noted that the premium change, though approved by Congress in 2003, may come as a surprise to some beneficiaries.”

This ‘hiring freeze’ is still in force over one year later, and has been a continuing process going back beyond the 1990’s. A large proportion of SSA employees are presently reaching retirement age, yet are not replaced. In one office alone, a workforce once seventeen strong (not including management) is now down to twelve. The workload was heavy when there were seventeen.

The Washington Post article continues:

“Mark Lassiter, a Social Security spokesman, said the agency plans to shift workloads among field offices if some offices “are getting disproportionately hit” by telephone calls and visits from Medicare beneficiaries.

He expressed confidence that the agency’s 1,300 field offices will be able to handle any surge in work. “We do the work we are assigned to get done,” he said.” [my bold]

How terribly noble and righteous of Mark Lassiter to make such a pronouncement. “Backs to the wall, lads. Give it all you’ve got!” Of course, Lassiter is the SSA’s chief press officer, on a stinking high salary and definitely not one of those “doing the work assigned to be done”.

Lassiter is also a liar. He knows full well the work is not being done, and it is the poor and needy who suffer most as a result.

But his attitude echoes senior management and board rooms, not just in America but in the UK, and if Sarkozy gets his way, in France as well.

The US SSA is financially controlled by Congress, all of whom are well-used to reclining in soft leather armchairs at various high-level board meetings scheming how to wring one more drop of blood from the workers on the ground floor.

If this situation is allowed to continue, the middle class of America will see its standard of living spiral ever downwards; a process already begun and part of the reason for the clamor for change that is gripping those Washington hopefuls. Removing George W Bush from office will not, however, prove the universal panacea that rights all wrongs, for what is happening is much bigger than George Bush, or Barack Obama, or any other politician.

The ‘change’ being so rapturously pledged by hopefuls in New Hampshire this week will not effect boardroom policies one iota.

This is not about repairing a broken government, but a dysfunctional system. Capitalism itself is fractured. The unmitigated greed of a relatively few individuals, unwilling to share their vast wealth more proportionately, is causing the fabric of capitalism to crack and rend.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in America today. The poor are ignored; those who work are abused, often low paid, insecure.

Where are the trade unions in 21st century America? Their leaders are drinking in the same bars as the bosses. Today, most unions are nothing more than money-making machines just like the companies for whom their members slave. Union dues ensure union leaders join the ranks of company directors and CEO’s, where workplace practices can be defined and agreed over a bourbon and soda in some exclusive Washington club.

For many, many years our fathers and grandfathers fought for the rights of the working man. It was because of their efforts that many Americans are now able to call themselves, not ‘working class’, but middle class. Now, everything our predecessors fought for is being taken away, methodically and deliberately. If the working people of America, and Britain, and France are not prepared to stand up for their hard-earned rights, the western world will continue to slip back into the industrial dark ages.

“Time for a change!” is the cry of the political hopefuls at the New Hampshire primary, but this time it is not the politicians who can help the working people.

This time the working people must begin to help themselves.

Filed under: Worker’s rights