IMMIGRATION IRRITATION

America was founded by those who came here without permission, forcing the country’s original inhabitants out—pushing them further and further westward—and killing their food supply. First generation immigrants often fled their homelands for better lives for their children and to free themselves from oppressive ruling parties and religious conflicts. Immigrants today are doing the same things.

Some Americans criticize today’s immigrants for risking their lives in order to provide safer circumstances for their children—the same as our forefathers did, traveling across treacherous oceans with meager provisions and sickness and death to deal with. Some blame current immigrants for wanting to get out of harm’s way in their native countries where drug dealers often kill at will—the same as our ancestors did when fleeing burnings at the stake and executions.

Instead of criticizing them, why can’t we help them?

Leviticus is often quoted by the religious right, so look at what is said in the 19th chapter, verses 33 and 34 (King James Version): “And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” The New Life Version: “If a stranger lives with you in your land, do not do wrong to him. You should act toward the stranger who lives among you as you would toward one born among you. Love him as you love yourself. For you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

Should we not love our neighbors, no matter what the circumstances of their arrival? Should they not be treated as ones born among us?

We, too, were strangers long ago in Egypt and again in America a few centuries ago. When did we lose our empathy and condemn those doing the same things our ancestors did? When was forgiveness eliminated from the Christian vocabulary?

Could we not, as Christians, solve the problems of immigration with dignity and Christian love?

FLAT TAX FLAWS

Flat taxes (or “fair taxes” as they’re sometimes erroneously called) are flatly UNfair.

It theoretically sounds “fair” to tax everyone at the same percentage—until one looks at the facts.

HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION
Families struggling to make ends meet, making a median income of $40,000 annually will pay about 33% of their income for minimum housing expenses and another 17% for transportation (calculated at $3/gallon prices—too low, I know). Those two items capture 50% of their total income.

A family making $1 Million annually can pay $85,000/year for housing and $57,000 for transportation. They pay only 14.2% of their income for the same two items.

FOOD
Assume the wealthy family spends $73,000 on food annually ($200/day). That’s only 7.3% of their income.

The average family spends $4,656/year (a little over $1/day for a family of four) on food. That’s 11.18% of their income.

MEDICAL
Let’s consider that the average family spends $6,600/year for insurance and/or medical bills. That amounts to 15.84% of their income.

The wealthy family can afford to pay $33,600 (high estimate), which reduces their income by only 3.36%.

CLOTHING
The wealthiest family can spend $12,000/annually for clothing (1.2% of income).

The median income family may shop garage sales and thrift shops, buying clothes for a family of four on only $600/year. That comes to 1.44% of annual income on clothing.


Housing, transportation, food, medical costs, and clothing are necessities.

An average family will spend 94.9% of their income on NECESSITIES! They have exactly $2,124.41 left for emergencies, medical co-pays, savings, investments, college tuition savings, etc.

The wealthy family has spent only 56.46% of their income, leaving them with 43.54%--$435,400!

Costs are the same for all income levels. Rising housing, gas, and food prices won’t appreciably affect the wealthy, but can devastate an average family. One missed paycheck—due to layoffs, illness, etc—could bankrupt an average family.

Jefferson said, “Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."

WHO DOESN'T PAY INCOME TAXES

We hear conservatives and liberals alike complain about how many people don’t pay income taxes. Those numbers are frequently inflated, but a New York Times article, written by Bruce Bartlett (who held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representative Jack Kemp and Ron Paul), helps set some records straight with up-to-date information.

The actual percentage of non-payers for 2011 is 46.4 percent (from the Tax Policy Center). Mr. Bartlett points out that the growth of the percentage of non-payers is “largely a result of Republican tax policies.” The earned-income tax credit (originated by Ford and expanded by both Reagan and Bush I, in lieu of raising minimum wages) was the main reason for lower incomes being largely exempted. Because of that, the percentage of non-payers rose from 19.2% to 25.2%.

In the 1990s George W. Bush’s GOP administration added a large child credit to the tax code. The percentage of non-tax payers jumped to 36.3%, as a result.

In 2011, 78,000 individuals making incomes of $211,000-$533,000 or more paid not one cent of income taxes. There are additionally 24,000 with incomes of $533,000-$2.2 Million that pay zero. Why? Bruce Bartlett says it’s because capital gains (taxed at only 15%) are a huge percentage of their incomes or they may have invested some or all of their wealth in tax-free municipal bonds.

These are the “Welfare Queens” who prey on tax loopholes to fill their own pockets.

A large percentage of those who paid no income taxes earned less than $16,812 in 2010. Many of them are part-time workers, youth working their way through school, unskilled laborers, or seniors trying to make ends meet.

Thomas Jefferson wrote James Madison in 1785, "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”

This is far from a new concept. It worked for a very long time during America’s most prosperous years.

VOUCHERING EDUCATION

I have devoted most of my life, and almost all my career, to furthering public education. Unfortunately, it may be dying a slow death.

The K-12 system has already suffered enormous losses. Just last year 40% of all jobs lost in America were from public schools and it doesn’t look like that will improve soon. Vouchers and charter schools are taking over public education, which is not a good thing.

Vouchers (tax credits) like the ones proposed by the Oklahoma legislature are a joke. They include families making up to $122,379 annually, although they were sold as an opportunity for low-income children to attend private schools.

Well more than half of our population qualifies for the scholarships, which are capped at $5000 per student.

Of nine private schools in Okla. City and Tulsa, the tuition range is $5,655 to $16,475. The average was $11,011.33—which leaves “low income” families with a bill of $6,011.33! Truly low income families cannot afford that!

Post-secondary education is also facing direct hits by legislators around the nation. “For profit” colleges have popped up throughout our country, with devastating consequences for many students.

Public schools, technology centers, colleges, and universities have to abide by certain guidelines in order to maintain accreditation. Those guidelines ensure accountability and successful outcomes. We are extremely fortunate to have several quality post-secondary opportunities for youth in the area. The post-secondary schools work closely with workforce professionals and industries to provide courses that will lead to jobs in demand occupations that provide self-sufficient wages for our citizens.

The educators with whom I’ve had the privilege of working are professionals who’ve devoted their lives to providing valuable opportunities for young people—all young people, not just the privileged few. Some have forgone their own opportunities to make a lot of money to do so. Many teachers themselves live on “poverty wages” and their own children qualify for free or reduced rate lunches.

Children deserve to be valued by people who care deeply for them and their futures, instead of private industries that see them as “raw materials” used to make profits.

DISSERVICE TO OUR VETS

Mr. Santorum,

Pardon the lack of a proper salutation, but I just couldn’t bring myself to use Honorable with your name.

Your crude comments on June 6, 2011 about the reason so many of our American soldiers landed at Normandy did a huge disservice to those brave young men. The young men about whom you spoke parachuted into and landed on the beaches of Normandy to help make a better world and to eliminate the Nazi influence in Europe.

You think they put their lives on the line so that they could make their own choices about health care? Not even close! They did it for far loftier reasons than you can evidently imagine.

Those same young men are the gentleman I see on a regular basis at the Oklahoma Veterans’ Center—who are now in their mid-80’s to early 90’s—when I visit my almost 95 year old father, who’s a WWII veteran.

How many of those gentlemen do you really think can make their own decisions about health care? How many of them could afford to pay more out of pocket for their medical expenses? Some of those who were severely injured couldn’t make those decisions when they were in their 50’s, much less now.

My precious father received two five year degrees simultaneously after studying four total years—one in Architecture and one in Architectural Engineering. He was an extremely intelligent man who was raised by a single mother during the Great Depression. He would never have been able to attend college without the benefit of the G.I. Bill.

He participated in the National Youth Association (a WPA program for poor youth, providing “work study” projects at their schools) and learned skills that took him later to an Aircraft Mechanic program with Beechcraft in Wichita, Kansas, that eventually led him to become an aircraft inspector in England during the War. Two of his three brothers were involved in another WPA program, CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) that targeted unemployed, unmarried men from relief families, ages 18-25. Those two gentlemen both became successful citizens who provided well for their own families, as a result of that program.

My Daddy saw firsthand the devastation the Depression brought to his family and others. He still carefully tears Kleenex into smaller sections, a carryover from the days when they were a luxury.

He worked hard all his life, well into his eighties, but never made enough money to save a great deal. His Social Security and Medicare, along with access to veteran’s health care, have enabled him to survive. He’s one of the fortunate ones who has family to care for him and kept him at home until he was no longer able to physically get around on his own.

You should be most ashamed, though, for using a day intended to honor the sacrifices our WWII heroes, living and deceased, as political fodder.

LIVING ON SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE

Ask my 94 year old father if Social Security and/or Medicare should be “transformed.”

He was born in 1916 and raised by his uncle on a farm where he worked until he dropped out of high school. His family was not only poor, as he always said, “we were so poor, we pronounced it ‘pore’.” His grandmother offered him room and board at her house if he went back to school, so he did while working at a local department store.

After graduating from high school, he was admitted into an NYA (National Youth Administration) program, where he was elected student body president.

Soon afterward, his uncle helped him enroll in an aircraft mechanic program in Wichita, Kansas. While there, he was drafted into World War II. The company arranged for a deferral for him—twice. The third time, he decided he wouldn’t accept another deferral and he served in England as an aircraft inspector until after VE Day.

Following WWII, he enrolled at Okla. State University (then Oklahoma A&M). He enrolled in the architecture program and, in the next four years, completed two five year degrees—Architecture and Architectural Engineering.

After working about seven years for other architectural firms, he decided to go into business for himself. So, in 1957, he opened his own office.

Work was sporadic for many years and, although he was paid well upon completion of a project, he never had a steady salary, retirement, or company insurance. My mother worked her whole life, until it was cut short by cancer when she was 49 years old, with two daughters ages 17 and 18. Her Social Security benefits allowed both to attend college.

My father retired when he was in his 80’s and has lived entirely on his Social Security and Medicare since. Fortunately, those programs, along with his VA benefits, have enabled him to live with dignity. What, though, would have happened to him if he hadn’t had them?

My father has been a Republican all his life, but he would not support the “transformation” of these programs!

HISTORY IS REPEATING ITSELF

Throughout the 1800s, and well into the twentieth century, American workers were often subjected to working excessive hours in low paying jobs and dangerous, unsafe working conditions. Children worked alongside their parents, unable to get an education in order to help families put food on their tables.

When the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory caught fire and 146 women and girls died 100 years ago this year, public awareness peaked. The American people learned that many of the deaths were preventable because of locked exits and raw materials blocking other escape routes. Activists emerged and labor unions gained enough strength to help workers collectively bargain for livable wages, decent hours, regulations on child labor, and safety measures for the workplace.

Thanks to the efforts of labor unions, the U.S. has minimum wage laws, child labor laws, mandatory overtime pay for hours worked beyond designated workweek hours, and mostly sufficient workplace safety regulations that protect workers throughout our great nation. We shouldn’t have to worry about sweatshops in the 21st century. Or should we?

American corporations are shipping more and more jobs overseas in order to increase profits and please their shareholders. The only way that can be done is by reducing costs and, by hiring overseas workers, companies can pay far less than they’d have to pay for labor in the U.S., thereby reducing their costs.

As recently as December, 2010, just before Christmas, a Bangladesh garment factory making clothes for American companies burned under similar circumstances as the Triangle fire in New York City 100 years ago. They, too, had locked exits. Twenty-nine women and children died and over 100 were injured.

In 1911, the Triangle workers made $0.14 per hour. Almost 100 years later, in 2010, the Bangladesh workers made $0.28 per hour. And, the Bangladesh victims’ families were each given only $2080 compensation for their deaths.

We supported the sweatshop and their loathsome practices in Bangladesh if we’ve ever bought Baby Gap jeans (400,000 were destroyed in that fire) or other items made there for Gap (their largest client), Wal Mart, H&M, Target, or J.C. Penney.

97% of American clothing is now made overseas. We only produce 3 items of clothing for every 100 items sold here. We are not only allowing American corporations to exploit workers in other parts of the world, we are encouraging it every time we buy merchandise made elsewhere.

This is only one of several reasons American factories are moving their companies overseas. When we purchase goods made by poorly paid workers in unsafe workplaces, we’re essentially saying it’s okay to exploit workers, as long as they’re not Americans.

Human beings have rights—ALL humans—worldwide.

We want cheap goods, but at what cost to human life?