The Distrust of Government in America

There was always a tension in the United States over the concept of a strong central government.  Although we gained independence in 1776, we operated as allied but sovereign states under the articles of confederation until 1789.  A number of problems came up during those intervening years in terms of both serious economic issues and the inability to mount a common defense.  That is what finally proved to the majority in the words of Benjamin Franklin that "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately”. The suspicion between the players in this game did not end with the ratification of the Constitution.  Northerners had severe issues with the idea of Southerners keeping slaves.  As the years went on, this became increasingly a sticking point between the Northern and Southern states.  This occurred in spite of the fact that only about 23% of southern white families owned slaves.  Rich southerners ginned up anti-northern support under the banner of states rights, claiming that the North was forcing its moral opinion down the throats of Southerners against their will.

Most Southerners probably would not have cared about slavery, but the idea of having outsiders coming into their state and telling them what is right and what is wrong was a bridge too far even for the non-slave owning masses.  The moral issue here is that the root of the issue, slavery, is so horribly and undeniably wrong from a moral standpoint.  The Northerners were right, and slavery did need to be eradicated.  Sometimes when a wrong is being perpetrated by another and the perpetrator will not own up to the immorality of his position, then strong action is warranted.  In this case the necessary action was the Civil War.

Although the Civil War ended slavery in the United States, the distrust of the federal government continues among white southerners even today.  You still hear southern conservative politicians describe the civil war as “the Yankee war of aggression” and even hear the occasional talk of succession.

A more recent trend has been the distrust of government coming not only from southern conservatives, but from civil libertarians and even from the left side of the political spectrum.  Much of this is rooted in the idea that corporations and oligarchs are in control of the political process and that government, especially at the federal level, is controlled by them. 

Many people, especially on the far left, believe that almost all corporations operate only for the purpose of greed, blind to their moral responsibilities to the general public.  The truth is that some really are up to selfish nefarious stuff.  One only needs to question the motivations of the Koch brothers or Sheldon Adelson to see that. 

But many companies operate out of a sort of ignorance.  Their governing boards and CEO’s are conscious only of what affects their stock price, and they are so removed from the concerns of the public in general that the concerns of Main Street seem only like a distant echo.  These companies aren’t nefarious.  They are clueless.

The right wing press, such as talk radio and Fox news, has latched on to this new audience for anti-government propaganda.  They talk up people like Cliven Bundy praising him as a hero for evading grazing fees on federal government land.  I have to wonder how much of this we would have heard had Mr. Bundy been black. 

The right wing propagandists have long spouted their flawed belief that (to quote anti-tax nut Grover Norquist) government should be so small “we can drown it in the bathtub."  But the new distrust from the left due to corporate money has given them a new angle, helping them to augment their cause which was born in southern distrust of northern government.

Our government is flawed, no doubt.  It always has been.  But compared with all the other governments in the world it’s still pretty damned good.  The policies of the federal government are decided by the people we elect.  I say do not distrust the government.  Weakening the government weakens us as a nation and empowers corporations, theocrats and others that would harm our rights, the environment, and our way of life.

We all need work within the system to bring about change.  Vote, and get everyone you know to vote.  Make sure you understand the facts of every event and never let yourself get swayed by rhetoric.  Do not get angry.  Listen to BOTH sides of every issue and make your vote based on what who you think will most closely support your viewpoint.  If we all do this, then the federal government will be what it is supposed to be: A government of the people, by the people and for the people.

On Belief

I want to thank my good friend Jeffro H for writing today's entry.  I thought it was insightful and important so I reposted it here:

Beliefs are nothing to be proud of.  Believing something is not an accomplishment. I grew up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they’re really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because “strength of belief” is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you’ve made it a part of your ego. Listen to any “die-hard” conservative or liberal talk about their deepest beliefs and you are listening to somebody who will never hear what you say on any matter that matters to them — unless you believe the same. It is gratifying to speak forcefully, it is gratifying to be agreed with, and this high is what the die-hards are chasing. Wherever there is a belief, there is a closed door. Take on the beliefs that stand up to your most honest, humble scrutiny, and never be afraid to lose them.

Tea Party Extremism

I hadn't posted to this blog in quite some time, but the recent political situation in the US congress has caused me to once again come here and vent.  The Tea party has become a radical organization far removed from a tolerant moderate viewpoint and should be actively opposed by every sensible American.

I want to be clear about my viewpoint.  I do not appreciate radical elements of ANY political stripe.  In the past I have also been in total opposition to lefty nut jobs like Cynthia McKinney and Dennis Kucinich.  They too showed a total lack of tolerance or even a basic understanding of the positions of those that disagreed with them.  That said, the venom of the Tea Party appears to be rooted in something far more dangerous.  The Tea Party has a conscious desire to destroy the American Government.

I was brought up with a deep respect for my country and its government.  I understand who the framers of the constitution were, and have studied the federalist papers and understand what their motivations were and why they constructed the constitution the way they did.  The separation of powers and the way power is balanced in that document keeps any one group from becoming a tyranny over any other.  Creating that balance was nothing short of brilliant.

I also realize that the departments of the Executive branch are the arms of the government that provide services to the people and are necessary to the prosperity and peace we all take for granted in this country.  These functions include Parks, Veterans and Disability services, and services for the poor and the aged.  They carry out the constitution's requirement to "promote the general welfare".

The Tea Party seems to think only in terms of the government taking their tax money and giving it away to other people.  They seem to think the functions of the executive can be accomplished by local organizations and churches without any government help.  I wonder what would happen if they were told that they have to give the amount they pay in taxes to charities instead?  I would bet that individually they would not like that any better.  It's a selfish philosophy where its all about themselves and nobody else.

Many of these people claim to be evangelical Christians, but they actually ignore the Bibles many directives that a good Christian must help the poor.

Let me quote  James 2:14 thru 2:17 : Dear brothers, what's the use of saying that you have faith and are Christians if you aren't proving it by helping others? Will that kind of faith save anyone? If you have a friend who is in need of food and clothing, and you say to him, "Well, good-bye and God bless you; stay warm and eat hearty," and then don't give him clothes or food, what good does that do? So you see, it isn't enough just to have faith. You must also do good to prove that you have it. Faith that doesn't show itself by good works is no faith at all--it is dead and useless.

The directive here is inescapable.  But if you try to argue this with Tea Party folks you get an Ayn Rand argument about makers and takers.  They will tell you that these "takers" will be more self sufficient if you don't help them at all.  They take this position in direct opposition to their message of their savior, but will completely deny that is the case.

This brings me to another point about Evangelical Christianity.  These people believe that the bible is absolutely perfect.  They believe this to the point of denying scientific evidence.  This comes out in such things as climate change denial, a belief that some things doctors do is not beneficial ( I've heard these luddite arguments on things like immunizations and even chemotherapy), they believe that the world is only 6000 years old and that cavemen lived with dinosaurs.  That the Grand Canyon was carved by Noah's flood.  No argument can sway them from these beliefs.

This sort of psychology, where  you can deny evidence no matter how strongly that evidence proves you wrong is also applied to their politics.  If you are a moderate of any stripe, you can generally apply the statement "I could be wrong, but..." to any statement of political position.  Moderates listen to argument and make pragmatic decisions based on fact.  These Tea Party people do not do that.  They believe what they believe and they will not be swayed by any argument or common sense.

One more point I'd like to make about the Tea Party.  It has a large southern faction, and these people still are fighting the Civil War.  They see the federal government as still being the entity that crushed the Confederacy, and still feel that the south fought for a noble cause.  For proof I offer a speech by Georgia representative Paul Broun on the floor of the house in 2010 in which he referred to the Civil War as "the war of Yankee aggression".

These people are doing nothing short of advocating for the fall of the american government.  They need to be marginalized and despised.  There is nothing positive or affirming about anything coming from them or from their message.  They are a cancer upon the American body politic.

Tin Foil Hats

Last night I wound up in a several hour long distance phone conversation with an old high school buddy. I have not seen him in many years, and though we stay in touch, I had not spoken with him in many months.  The conversation began innocently, discussing the current status of old friends and our own social and economic situations.  As the subject turned to politics, I began to realize that my old friend had embraced some radical ideas. 

He is a very intelligent man, and has always been fairly moderate politically in his beliefs.  I spent most of the conversation trying to ferret out how he came to his viewpoints, what his sources for his ideas were, and most important I think: The reason he, or anyone of similar character, is embracing such stuff.

The exploration of this topic began as my friend described the economic situation of the Northern California town where he and I grew up and went to school.  His description was disheartening: businesses shuttered, unemployment rampant, crime (including home invasions) way up.  He talked about the streets being unsafe, with street gangs roaming everywhere.  All this social and economic decay in a town I recall primarily as a middle class bedroom community.  He talked about being personally trapped in his own seemingly hopeless economic circumstances.  He described his situation as being in a cage.

It was then he made a comment that made my jaw drop.  I had asked him about his plans for the future and what he was going to do to move forward.  His reply was “It doesn’t matter.  The world banking system and the government are all going to collapse in a few months anyway and I have enough guns and ammo to hold the lawless hoards off for a while”.  He didn’t say this sarcastically or metaphorically.  He really meant it

My friend has always been a gun enthusiast.  I recall many years ago going out in the country with him on numerous occasions to do target shooting.  This interest, along with his internet skills (which are substantial), had led him eventually onto blogs posted by fringe groups and militias, many of which actively desire the downfall of the US government and the world economic system.  Some of these groups are purely anarchist in nature, while others have xenophobic and racist overtones.  To be clear:  I do not believe my friend (who like me is Caucasian) has a racist bone in his body.  He does however have a lot of frustration with non-English speaking Hispanics that now make up a considerable portion of the population of his hometown. 

These fringe websites and blogs told him something that he really wanted to hear.  They told him that his circumstances are in no way his own fault.  They told him that his situation is the product of a conspiracy by rich people, banks, and the government aimed at repressing him and those like him.  They gave him someone to blame other than himself.

We went through a number of the conspiracy theories that are current with these groups, all of which I am satisfied I was able to debunk.  Most importantly, I was able to get my friend to question the efficacy of these theories.  Questioning facts and sources of everything reported in the media or online is essential to exposing lies, spin, and hypocrisy.  Radicalism thrives when you unquestioningly believe things that affirm your own emotional attachment to a cause or issue.  To keep centered on any subject, you must always doubt, you must always be able to ask yourself: “is it possible that what I believe is wrong?”

At this point, I should articulate my viewpoint on conspiracy theories.  They usually appeal to an emotional need to believe a particular viewpoint and are seldom backed by thoroughly convincing data, thus the term “theories”.  I don’t find evidence for bigfoot or alien autopsies very compelling.  I don’t think the government has crashed flying sauces stored at Area 51 or Wright-Patterson AFB.  I think John Kennedy was most likely shot by Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone and Robert Kennedy was most likely shot by Sirhan Sirhan acting alone.  My reasoning for all this is uncomplicated.  I find the argument known as Occam’s Razor to be compelling:  When offered competing hypotheses, by far the most likely is the one which makes the fewest assumptions.  All the conspiracy theories I just mentioned do have well known alternative explanations, but when unbiased light is shined brightly on the known facts, the less convoluted explanations seem far more plausible.

My conversation with my old friend covered a wide range of conspiracies.  The first was birtherism, the belief that President Barack Obama is somehow not an American.  My friend was familiar with the arguments of Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, and his contention that the president’s birth certificate is a forgery.  I pointed out that his recent contentions have been thoroughly refuted by the state of Hawaii and even Arizona governor Jan Brewer, who is well known for her dislike of the president.  Her position was reported in the March 6, 2012 edition of the Phoenix area newspaper, the East Valley Tribune.

The conversation went further into the weeds from there.  My friend stated that the United States was made a corporation by the “Act of 1871” which made it a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bank of England and the Rothschild family.  While I did find articles about this on some conspiracy websites, finding the source document itself was more of a challenge.  Eventually I found that this theory was based on an otherwise non-descript law passed that year that detailed somewhat how the process the US government can use to collect debts should work.  They were making an amazing stretch of logic to construe that this somehow made the US government beholden to the huge banking interests of the time.  It reminded me of an episode of the animated show Southpark, where underwear gnomes were stealing underwear from dryers to somehow make a profit.  The process to achieve the end result was not comprehendible to anyone except these gnomes.

My friend then brought up a story about multi-billionaire George Soros selling off ALL of his stock to buy gold so he could weather the coming economic collapse.  This is proof he said of this eminent catastrophe.  Again the sources were a variety of militia and conspiracy sites, and can be easily googled.  My research found that Earlier this year Soros had spoken about gold in a negative light, stating at the time that gold was artificially high.  Indeed his statement alone may have caused gold prices to stabilize or even go down slightly.  More recently, he sold $130 million in stock and bought gold with it.  Not his entire $20 billion portfolio, mind you, but 1/150^th of it.  This is a substantial sum, but not unprecedented.  Simply buying gold negated the effect of his previous statement and the purchase caused the price of gold to rise.  There is no data on whether he held this position or sold it.  He could have sold all that gold in hours or days.  He would have made $1.3 million on that sale for every 1% increase in the price of gold his actions caused.  I find this profit motive far more compelling then the conspiracy claim that he was preparing for some bizarre coming “economic Armageddon”.

The conversation later turned to a lawsuit filed by a man named Neil Keenan.  The lawsuit itself seems to be real, but I found myself questioning the factual basis for it.  The conspiracy consists of the idea that all the world's gold is somehow actually controlled by the family of the former dictator of Indonesia, Suharto, and that he was a just a controlling entity for the actual owner, a shadowy group from China known as the “Dragon Family”.  The gold was stolen by European banks and the US Federal Reserve somehow through shadowy dealings with the Vatican Illuminati (isn't "Vatican" and "Illuminati" contradictory terms?).  Is your BS filter going off?  I know mine was, but somehow my intelligent friend was buying all this.  He wants these “government/federal reserve/banker /rich people/ bastards” to pay for their sins.  He belived that this suit would bring about the downfall of the entire banking system and somehow usher in a new “golden age” by doing so.  He wants this so badly that he was willing to believe even this convoluted tale.

The Neil Keenan suit as best as I can tell is real.  It’s the basis of reality for its facts that I question.  For transparency sake here is a conspiracy site source:    http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/judicial_and_courts/news.php?q=1336095731

Here is a more detailed and better written explanation.  I can’t speak for the editorial bent of this site either way, though I strongly suspect a “conspiracy sympathetic” bent:  http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/05/41930.htm

That website link above is dated from December of 2011, so I sought more updated info on the lawsuit and found this:

http://iamretorque.com/2012/07/04/divine-cosmosdavid-wilcock/

This article, besides stating the suit had been withdrawn, extensively discusses the work of one Benjamin Fulford in substantiating the suit’s claims.  I wanted to therefore know who Fulford is, and quickly found his bio on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Fulford

This Wikipedia article states in part that “After the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, Fulford claimed on Japanese television that "[t]he American government in cooperation with [the] Federal Reserve, the Rockefellers, and other powerful groups, they are planning the eruption of Mt. Fuji Volcano”.  OK.  I’m done.  We are into the tin foil hat country of alien abductions and Illuminati.  I can’t accept anything this guy says with a straight face, and no intelligent well grounded person should.  If this is the best quality of support Neil Keenan can get for this convoluted and withdrawn lawsuit, I must allow this to be the final straw.  He too is most likely in the tin foil hat business.

My point in giving this stuff attention is that there are a great number of disaffected Americans who want a scapegoat for their issues.  They aren’t taught to be skeptical and to question sources.  If they are told something that gives them comfort, they believe it with all their hearts.  There is a lot of anger out there, and these conspiracy folks are working hard to tap into that anger through convoluted stories that seem to explain how the powers of the world are screwing the little guy.  I don’t have an answer for how to combat this.  My best suggestion is that the mainstream media outlets like Fox, CNN and MSNBC should discuss the most popular crackpot theories on a regular basis, using the time to explain in detail why these things are just not true.  they need to expose who is originating this stuff, and explain exactly what motivates them to spread this venom.

The truth about the healthcare debate

1 John 3:17-18

If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.

As recently as 150 years ago, a doctor in our civilization was little more than a charlatan.  Armed with splints and bone saws, all they could really do was set broken bones, do the occasional amputation, and kill pain with a few potions of questionable efficacy and safety.  Between the Civil War and World War one that slowly changed, and by the twentieth century all doctors were certified, trained men of great learning and were usually quite well paid. 

As that century progressed they gained more knowledge, became specialized, and could use more and more expensive tests and equipment to improve health and save lives.  As the costs for catastrophic care and even general care began to rise, people began to protect themselves en masse from catastrophic health burdens by grouping together in health plans.  Hospital and medical expense policies were introduced during the first half of the 20th century. During the 1920s, individual hospitals began offering services to individuals on a pre-paid basis, eventually leading to the development of Blue Cross organizations.  The predecessors of today's Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) originated beginning in 1929, through the 1930s and on during World War II.  These were by and large always employer paid group plans.  This system continued to work well into the 1980’s.  Costs for these plans were low enough that employers could justify paying for them as an expense required to attract and keep quality employees.

But in the 1980’s the costs began a dramatic rise.  The amount these insurers were charging companies began to be far more than they could justify.  Plans began to cover less and cost more.  Employers no longer found it justifiable to provide comprehensive health insurance to their employees.  Millions of Americans became uninsured or under insured.

What is wrong today is that so many people in the United States do not have health care coverage.  We see evidence of this almost every day.  How many times have you walked into a convenience store and seen a flyer pleading for people to attend a chicken mull or barbecue plate dinner as a means to help finance someone’s, often a child’s, health care costs.  Obviously something is wrong when we have to rely on the donated nickels and dimes of strangers to cover serious health care costs for our friends, our family, and our neighbors.  These people are dying if their health care costs are not covered.  Radiation therapy for cancer and medications to combat the rejection of a transplanted kidney are expensive.

Currently there are nearly 50 million uninsured Americans. These uninsured are not just the healthy young or the poor, but includes working people who either have no access to employer-based health insurance or who cannot afford to pay the premiums; small business persons who don’t qualify for group discounts or other affordable health insurance; and people of all ages with serious health conditions who insurers do not want as customers either at all or only at mind-boggling rates. All of these people will now have access to affordable health insurance.

            Under “Obamacare,” beginning in 2014, people earning less than 133% of the poverty level, $14,856 for an individual or $30,657 for a family of four, will be eligible for Medicaid funded, initially 100% by the federal government and then 90% federally funded. People earning up to 400% of the poverty rate will be eligible for federal subsidies to purchase health insurance if affordable job-based insurance is unavailable. These provisions will stabilize family economics and prevent the often catastrophic effects of unexpected medical bills, which expenses, in 2009, resulted in 900,000 Americans filing bankruptcy.

            While there are penalties if a person despite the above subsidies still chooses not to purchase health insurance, there are exceptions, based on income and cost of insurance. This penalty does not apply until 2014 and will initially be very small, $95 and then increase to $325 in 2015 and $695 in 2016 and will be applied against tax refunds; however, the IRS can neither jail nor seize an individual’s property to collect this penalty.  Thus, there will be no “prosecution” as opponents of the law allege.

            Small employers (25 or fewer employees) who pay at least 50% of their employees’ health insurance premiums, have benefitted from a tax credit since 2010 of up to 35% of the amount paid for employee health insurance.  Employers of more than 50 people will be penalized if by 2014 they don’t provide health insurance; however, the Act provides for the health insurance exchanges which make employers’ group insurance more affordable. These provisions have already and will continue to help new businesses, entrepreneurs and existing small businesses afford to hire new employees and grow their businesses.

            Young people get sick, suffer traumatic accidents, and have babies—all of which require costly health care.  Under the Affordable Care Act children up to age 26 are allowed to remain on their parents’ health insurance, already resulting in millions of previously uninsured youths having insurance. 

By 2014, insurance companies will be required to price and sell policies to everyone regardless of health status and high risk pools have already been established for persons with pre-existing conditions. Finally, many of us will be receiving a refund from our insurance companies next month due to new requirements that 80% of our insurance premiums go to paying claims.

 

            As President Obama has stated, this law is not perfect, but it is a major step forward.  Improvements absolutely can be made, and Congress should do whatever makes sense for the common good. However, the outcry by some to simply reverse Obamacare is non-productive and will do nothing to address the health insurance crisis that Obamacare is designed to address. 

Waste in Space

NASA spent ten billion dollars on the Constellation program during the five years of its existence, from 2005 until president Obama cancelled it in 2010.  They had little to show for the money except an expensive and almost catastrophic suborbital test flight of a dummy first stage and an incomplete space capsule. The Orion/MPCV capsule is the only piece they carried over to the current SLS program.  Developing the Orion capsule consumed about half of the money; $5 billion of that $10 billion.  Recent estimates for Orion reaching first flight say that it will require $6 to 7 billion more. NASA also spent around a billion dollars just to modify one of the shuttle launch pads so that it could be used to launch the Ares vehicle.

Meanwhile SpaceX developed and launched two complete launch vehicles, the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9, and a space capsule that will eventually carry humans in orbit, the Dragon. They designed and flew two different versions of their Merlin rocket engines plus their Draco thruster, they built a huge factory in California, a test facility in Texas, and launch facilities on a pacific atoll and at Cape Canaveral, Florida.  They are building another launch pad at Vandenburg Air Force Base in California.  They have done all of this for about $1 billion, and almost all of that was exclusively privately raised funds. The SpaceX Falcon 9 can put an 11.5 ton payload into low earth orbit (LEO) for approximately $54 million or $2400 a pound. The Falcon 9 / Dragon spacecraft will launch a 7 person crew to LEO for approximately $120 million or a fraction over $17 million per seat.  That's about one third of what Russia is now charging NASA for seats on Soyuz and an order of magnitude cheaper than Constellation would have been. Even the Chinese have flatly stated that they cannot match SpaceX on price.

Also, SpaceX plans to test fly its Falcon Heavy in late 2012 or early 2013.  The Falcon Heavy that will have a payload capacity of around 53 tons to LEO at a cost of less than $150 million per launch.  That is $1400 per pound, which is getting very close to the “holy grail” price of $1000 per pound. Again that was with ZERO developmental cost to the American taxpayer.

The future of manned space exploration is with commercial development, not bloated government programs like SLS.  The Space Launch System, or SLS, is the government funded project NASA came up with to please members of the House and Senate that opposed President Obama's efforts to lower costs by introducing commercial competition.  It followed the cancellation of the Constellation Program as the vehicle to replace the retired Space Shuttle.  An unofficial NASA document recently estimated the cost of the program through 2025 to total at least $41B for four 70 metric ton launches.  Some estimates place the SLS cost per pound to LEO at $8,500, more than six times that of the Falcon Heavy.

The Competitive Space Task Force, in September 2011, said that the new government launcher directly violates NASA’s charter, the Space Act, and the 1998 Commercial Space Act requirements for NASA to pursue the "fullest possible engagement of commercial providers" and to "seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space".  So why are we throwing scarce taxpayer money at the monstrosity called SLS, and not fully funding COTS and Commercial Crew programs?  Ask your Senator or Congressman.  Something is VERY wrong with this picture.

On the Occupy Movement

As 2011 draws to a close, the financial districts of out greatest cities find themselves occupied.  Not by troops carrying weaponry, but by large groups of people who feel disenfranchised by our economy.  These people blame the pillars of capitalism, banks and major corporations, for their woes.  They also feel that our elected representatives have become nothing more than lackeys of these powerful interests.  Their battle cry is powerful and incredibly inclusive: “We Are The 99%”.

Beginning with a mere 1000 protesters in New York’s Zucotti Park on September 17^th, the protests in New York swelled to 40,000 just two months later with similar protests occurring in every major US population center.

There is good reason for their anger.  According to the Congressional Budget Office, incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275% between 1979 and 2007. During those same years, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Over the last 30 years, the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% while their average tax rate reduced by 37%.  In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927.  In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. This means that the 20% of Americans with the largest incomes own 85% of the country's wealth, and the bottom 80% of the population own only 15%. 

The most recent recession, which started in 2007, saw the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grow from 34.6% to 37.1%, and the share owned by the top 20% of Americans grow from 85% to 87.7%.  During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. During that period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.

New York Times columnist Anne-Marie Slaughter described pictures on the "We are the 99" website as "page after page of testimonials from members of the middle class who took out loans to pay for education, took out mortgages to buy their houses and a piece of the American dream, worked hard at the jobs they could find, and ended up unemployed or radically underemployed and on the precipice of financial and social ruin.”

The conservative right has been quick to call these protesters bums.  Fox news has attempted to paint them as homeless troublemakers and drug addicts.  Fox went so far as to put up a picture of a bunch of hypodermic needles that the NYPD had seized from the medical tent at Zucotti park, claiming it was proof that they were a bunch of drug users.  They failed to mention the “drugs” found with the hypodermics were antibiotics, insulin and other injectables used for medical purposes.

Respect for the heartfelt position of others, rational discussion and willingness to compromise are core requirements for finding solutions to widespread problems within a society.  The numbers quoted here show unequivocally that there is something wrong within the system.  The only discussion should be how to fix it.

The far right sees all the occupy protesters as bums who just want to take a share of the pie they don’t deserve and didn’t earn.  To be fair, there is also a radical element on the left that thinks dismantling the corporations and the banking infrastructure and ruining every “rich” executive will somehow make everyone live better.  Both sides need to pull away form these extreme viewpoints.

The most common criticism of the occupy protests seems to be its lack of message concerning solutions.  The movement has not thus far promoted specific legislation or politicians.  The truth is, this may be its greatest strength.  What they have done is start a national debate about income disparity and the role of banks and corporations in our society.  Dialogue leads to popular awareness, and that is never a bad thing.