Response to "The Blame Game"

Christopher Cormier at E.12th Political Musings for the Lone Star State recently published a post, "The Blame Game", weighing in on the immigration debate. I am in agreement when Christopher said "In a knee-jerk reaction to drug trafficking and the environment it creates, if we focus on illegal immigrants without addressing the ever-growing demand for illegal drugs from the American populace, we are taking limited police resources away from the very problem we fear." Like so many issues, this battle is on how to treat the symptoms without every addressing the problem.

The chance of the U.S. government of completely stopping people from illegally crossing the border is absolutely zero. It is simply impossible. We are just as likely to clean up the bodies of those who died in the attempt, than capture those in the act. Even the cost of what we are capable of doing is staggering. Yet so many people who are proponents of the Arizona Immigration Law (or those supporting two ongoing wars for that matter) are also conservatives and members of the TEA Party, who are protesting government spending. The cost to the government to hold, process, and deport the influx of illegal immigrants following the passing of this law is going to be astronomical. Not to mention the fact that law enforcement resources are going to be drained from pursuing perpetrators of crimes like murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults. Many argue that illegal immigrants take American jobs and benefits, without paying taxes. This of course ignores sales tax, as well as the fact that the extremely low wages they are being paid would likely prevent them from paying Federal Income taxes. Even if these workers were documented, that would likely remain unchanged. Are immigrants really "stealing" American jobs? Or are they simply supplanting the cheap labor of slaves and sharecroppers, performing the jobs that most Americans are unwilling to do? Have you ever lost out on a job to an illegal immigrant?

I think that few people would disagree the primary reason that people are crossing the border (at extreme risk) is economic opportunity. Therefore, it would seem the most logical and cost effective way to stem illegal immigration would be to simply pursue those who hire illegal immigrants. The rallying cry behind this law is that the government failing in its duty to stem this tide, yet little is mentioned in regard to those offering the incentive to come to the U.S. illegally in the first place. Clearly, if there were no jobs to be had, there would be no reason to cross the border. (Similarly, the drug violence on the border will never go away so long as there is a demand and profit to be made from illegal drugs.) Of course this ignores what Christopher described as business' "quasi-symbiotic relationship with the constant supply of immigrants." To that end, it would seem supporting an enforced documented guest worker program would be the best solution. This would allow businesses (and the U.S. economy) to benefit from the labor that is provided, while creating a valve on immigration. If the only way to get a job is through the program, it would dissuade workers from trying to work around the system. This would also offer protection for the workers while allowing the government to keep track of them and keep them within the system.

There seems to be a squaring off in America right now between those that blame our society's ills on the Government and those who blame Big Business. Immigration, health care reform, Wall Street regulation, nearly all the major headlines in the news today, are being used as evidence of how they are "hijacking" America. Texan's anger towards the U.S. government has lead to people refusing to participate in the census and may lead to the loss of a seat in the House. To simply declare the government or business the cause of all our problems is overly simplistic and it also denies individual responsibility to help create the society we want to live in. It is also naive to think that business is the source of all the good in America and government is the source of all the bad (or vice-versa.) As Christopher said, it's time to stop looking for scapegoats and start looking for actual solutions. And getting rid of everything you disagree with isn't one of them.

Response to Response to AZ Immigration Law

In response to My Texas Blog: Response to AZ Immigration Law

A few points -

"If you aren't illegal you should have nothing to hide" - So do you feel the Police should have the right to search you, your property, or monitor your phone calls and internet activities? Because if you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide? Where do you draw the line?

"If I were to leave the country I would need to have my "papers" on me, big deal, so how is this any different?" - It's different because the people being asked to carry papers are citizens, not visitors. You are assumed guilty until proven innocent.

"Legislators' knew people would immediately bring up race so it's already been built into the bill that a person cannot be questioned based on race." - Do you think an Anglo is going to have their citizenship questioned? Of course not, so therefore they won't be required to carry around citizenship papers. The law is going to require racial profiling by it's very nature.

"Americans have fought for every right we have, and Obama wants to give these rights to people who are bankrupting our schools, hospitals, prisons, and our welfare system." - The rights that Americans have fought for are not rights exclusive to American citizens. To quote Thomas Jefferson "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights...[insert Declaration of Independence & Bill of Rights]"

Good Job People!

How Much is Too Much?

On April 16, 2010 the Austin Chronicle published a story regarding a $34 million plan to redevelop the Waller Creek district. Furthermore, a separate project to build a tunnel through the area to shrink the flood plain is in the works. The plan envisions transforming the creek area into a centerpiece of Downtown, similar to the River Walk in San Antonio or Millennium Park in Chicago. Initially seeking to improve landscaping, lighting and trails, there are further proposals for promenades, restaurants and shops along the creek. While the idea of improving the Waller Creek area is generally a popular one with voters, the project has been stalled many times over the decades, primarily over questions of funding. While walking near that area recently, I considered that the cost of revitalizing Waller Creek area wouldn't be nearly so expensive if it hadn't been allowed to fall into such a state of disrepair over the decades.

This brought to my mind a recent program aired on PBS called "Liquid Assets". The program documented the importance and challenges of maintaining our water infrastructure. It profiled Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin who has been dubbed the "Sewer Mayor" for her efforts to improve the city's neglected water and sewer systems. It also brought to mind the recent I-35 Bridge Collapse in Minneapolis. Following the collapse, many stories ran investigating the safety of our nation's bridges, with reports of a high percentage of them being structurally deficient. While opinions about this issue were strong immediately following the collapse, it has once again been relegated to the background.

According to and April 21 report in the Statesman, Austin is facing a $28 million budget shortfall. A combination of lower sales tax revenue and a drop in property values has lead to the likelihood of an increase in property taxes. Obviously this is unpopular with homeowners, especially after an increase just last year. It is important to consider however, that this is not so much an increase in taxes paid, but rather an attempt to recoup tax dollars lost due to the recession.

Texas is one of only seven states that doesn't collect State income taxes. The State and Local Tax burden in Texas has been historically one of the lowest in the country with Texas ranking 43rd in 2008, behind states like Alaska, Nevada, and Wyoming. One should note that these states have far lower population densities than Texas and considerably less infrastructure to maintain. A majority of Nevada's income comes from taxation of gaming, with over 85% of the population living in Las Vegas and Reno. A majority of the State of Alaska's income comes from taxation of the oil industry and Federal subsidies. In fact, Alaska collects such a surplus of funds, it pays out dividends to it's residents.

It seems that many Texans take their political model from the idea of a classic Texas rancher, who just wants to lead a self-sustaining life outside of the reach of government. This may be reasonable attitude for someone who lives in Guerra (population - 8), but it is not a very realistic model for someone living in Houston (population 2.2 million.) Almost 90% of Texans live in urban areas. Every day you drive Texas roads. You expect reliable service from local Police and Fire departments. You expect clean water and sanitation. You want your children to receive a quality public education. You might run around Town Lake, swim at Barton Springs, or check out a book from the library. The idea of living your life outside of government and taxes is a fine one, but you can't expect to reap the benefits of the things it provides and not have to pay the cost. You may not agree with the need for all of these things, but they do add to the over all quality of life in Austin, whether you use them or not. All these things cost money. Often the expense is exacerbated by the refusal of the public to pay the cost of upkeep (as the in case with Atlanta's sewers.) This causes the cost to rise exponentially, like the late fees on a credit card. Don't get me wrong, I don't like paying taxes either. But I do see them as necessary. You will get no argument from me that we need to reduce wasteful spending in the Government. There is no doubt that improvements in handling tax dollars can be made. But we also need to we need to consider what we are paying for and the value that has in our lives.

Slate - Don't ignore the Tea Party's toxic take on History

Well Said

(Skip the first 3 sections) - The Austin Chronicle - Days of Blame

Response to "Are all Texan children college bound?"

Chantell at Citizens Actions Toward The Government brings up some interesting points regarding education in her post "Are all Texan children college bound?" The falling graduation rates in the United States, and specifically Texas, are alarming. So is the fact that the U.S. is slipping in worldwide education rankings. Do we want to create a separate curriculum for students not pursuing post-secondary education? Is it better to graduate students by a lower standard rather than have them drop out?

It is common in other countries (such as Japan, Switzerland, or Korea for example) to have different secondary programs for students based on interest or ability. The examples I've chosen are considered to have some of the best educational systems in the world. So I think Chantell's question as to whether or not each student needs to follow the college bound curriculum carries a lot of weight. However, the standards for all students in these other countries are still very high and students are expected to put in significant effort. In the U.S., expectations are far lower, yet the dropout rate is much higher. Perhaps this demonstrates that the issue isn't the difficulty of the curriculum, but the expectations we as a society have on students and the cultural value we place on education. If we lower the standards to get more kids through the system and provide them with a minimal level of education, it will also lower the value of a diploma. It also won't change the fact that these children are being undereducated.

As our economy shifts from an industrial to a technological base, so shift our educational needs. We can't (nor should we want to) compete with countries like China or India in manufacturing. These are developing economies, with a much lower wage structure than ours. As a developed nation, our jobs need to be innovating and creating the products those countries manufacture. We can't afford to let the world pass us by in these areas. Additionally, a strong parallel exists between a nation's quality of life and it's education. Beyond the economic benefits, levels of education also affect societal problems (crime rates and teen pregnancy for example.)

Many question whether TAKS and the No Child Left Behind Act are the most effective way to raise our schools' standards. The arguments against these programs are legitimate, but I think it's important to remember that the reason these programs exist in the first place is to reestablish skill levels that our schools have been failing to meet. When trying to reach universal proficiency, what level of proficiency is expected? Chantell argues that we need to bring back the minimum plan so that "so that all children, regardless of their academic abilities will have the chance to graduate with pride." Pride is something we feel when we earn something, not when something is given to us. The whole point of education isn't to make students lives more difficult in the short term, but to make their lives easier in the long term. I understand her reasons and respect her argument, but I think we need to be very careful when lowering our academic standards. While I agree that bringing back the minimum plan may address some immediate concerns, I'd hate to see us headed in the wrong direction.

Like so many problems, there is no simple solution to this issue. We as a nation need to reevaluate our education system. We need to understand that the only way to remain the most economically powerful country in the world is to make education a priority. That doesn't just mean pushing children to excel in their studies, but also improving systems to support students dealing with issues like poverty and pregnancy, insuring that they don't slip through the cracks. It means increasing school budgets instead of trying to make our educators make do with less. It also means increasing the wages of teachers and finding ways to make the field more competitive.

Regardless of the standards we set or how we measure them, we can't expect the state of education to improve as we consistently try to find ways to spend as little as possible on it. Clearly, Texas has a long way to go.

Perry Calls For Virtual Textbooks

On April 7, the Austin Statesman reported a proposal by Gov. Rick Perry that Texas abandon traditional textbooks in favor of computer technology. Gov. Perry was attending a computer gaming conference when he announced this proposal, which he hopes to explore when the Legislature meets in 2011. The primary reason stated was that this would allow students access to the most up to date material. The Bryan-College Station Eagle reported that Perry stated that the switch would have to be done cost effectively and he was unsure whether the move would save money. "There's obviously opposition [to switching to totally computerized material], but there's always opposition to change," Perry said. Additionally, KVUE reported that the Gov didn't have a cost comparison between books and online educational materials.

Should Texas switch over completely to ebooks and computer technology? In addition to having the most current material, an interesting possibility of switching to ebooks would be ending the controversy over what should be in them. If a student's parents wanted their child's book to include mention of intelligent design for example, it wouldn't require changing the text of every student. It would also be much easier to adapt the reading material to address students individual needs. However, I think it will take a while for teachers and students to effectively use the new technology. There is also a question of whether all this technology can be more of a distraction than a help.

The Columbus Dispatch reports in a story about an Ohio textbook bill, that ebook costs are half or less than that of traditional books. If using ebooks will save 50% off the cost of teaching materials, it would seem that would be a good investment. For K-12, you have to consider the necessity to provide laptops or some sort of e-reader to every student. That would be very expensive. Not to mention the maintenance and eventual replacement of this equipment or the need to improve school's IT systems. I think, especially initially, these costs would be prohibitive. In principal, switching to the new technology is a good idea and plans need to be made for it's eventual adoption. I'm not sure how we can make this happen right now, when the schools are already underfunded. We can have all the ideas in the world to improve our public schools, but they are meaningless if we don't fund them. Perry complains that since he took office in 2000, some schools have used textbooks saying Ann Richards was governor. Perhaps this is an indictment of his administration's funding of public schools.

On the college level, the move towards ebooks is already happening and the cost is already on the students. I see no reason to mandate ebook use exclusively, I think that should remain the choice of the student.

But why are textbooks so expensive in the first place? A quick search on the book used for this class has the price ranging from $68.46 for a used copy to $132.41 for a new copy. This is for a softcover book of less than 300 pages. I went to the self-publishing site Lulu.com and found that I could publish this book in the same format myself for $8.90. That is for a single copy with Lulu's markup. Let's say for argument's sake that the publishing cost is actually $5. $132 is a 2500% mark up! Obviously there are other costs involved including the authors need to be paid. However, this is the case with all books, yet the cost isn't nearly as high with them. Also, I don't think that the authors of these textbooks are making any higher percentage on these books than other authors, so I would assume that any extra money coming in is going to bookstores and publishers.

Something else that is interesting about textbooks is how often they are revised and new editions are put out. Our textbook is in it's third edition, the first being published in 2000. A quick search on Amazon and Textbook.com shows this to be pretty standard, a new edition every 2-3 years. It could be argued that this is to correct errors, reorganize, and add new information. Fair, but I suspect however that a major reason is the fact that after 2-3 years there are so many used copies floating around that it starts cutting deeply into new book sales.

Now, I make no claim to understand the in's and out's of publishing. There could be any number of reasons why the prices of textbooks are so much higher than other books. An article for Psychologicalscience.org makes a good case placing the blame on the used book market. The point is, I think we can agree that the high prices of textbooks has nothing to do with the cost of manufacturing.

The cost of publishing an ebook is $0. Outside of possibly some editing, I can think of very little that significantly changes the file from the author's computer to the file of the student that purchases the book. Honestly, 50% of the price still seems like a lot to me, considering all the publisher is doing is allowing a file to be copied. My suspicion is that the price of ebooks will actually not go down as they become more and more accepted. Sales will be impacted by the fact that students will share files (much like what has happened in the music industry in the past decade.) Why pay $50 for a file you only plan on using a few months when you can have that exact file for nothing? I think that while the savings are significant, they are also as artificial as the cost. The cost is determined by how much money is needed to maintain the outdated business structure and profit margins. I think the publishing world is going to be hit with the same reality that hit the film and music industries. The old business models do not work in this new world.

Threats linked to health votes prompt security

Since the assignment was to write a critique of an editorial or commentary from one of the blogs listed in the suggested sources, I thought the easiest thing to do would be to go to check on TexasFred. From the links and articles I’ve read from his blog, I assumed it would be pretty easy to find something to critique, since I’ve disagreed with most of the points I’ve heard him make. Imagine my surprise when I actually agreed with what he was saying in his latest entry.

(TexasFred - Threats linked to health votes prompt security - 3/25/10)

In the article, TexasFred admonishes the threats, violence and vandalism directed towards Democrats who voted for the Health Care Bill. His defensive tone implies this posting is directed at liberals as he states “this was NOT the work of PATRIOTS, it is the ill-conceived efforts of uncouth louts suffering from a strain of violence that they feel must be carried out. Or, perhaps it’s that of pure trouble makers that seek to incite radical violence in this nation.” I completely agree with that statement. Democracy is supposed to be what holds this country together. Being a patriot isn’t about violence or revenge. But if you truly believe in this country, I think it is about fighting the good fight, while treating your opponent the way you’d expect to be treated.

As he continues, he seems to direct his words more towards his fellow TEA Party members in saying “I can’t speak for ALL TEA Party members, but as for me, it is MY opinion that if there is ANY proof that this was an act perpetrated by TEA Party members, of any affiliation, be they Executive Board, General Board or rank and file, those individuals need to be removed from The TEA Party and disavowed, never to be allowed back into the organization again.” Again, I agree that it would be in the TEA Party’s best interest to disassociate itself from these or any other kind of illegal activities. I am not a TEA Party member, nor do I agree with most of their arguments. Having said that, I feel they will never get a serious discourse on the issues they want addressed if they allow thugs to take over. This will only serve to discredit the movement.

I certainly understand the frustration that many who are opposed to the Health Care Reform Bill are feeling. I felt the exact same way regarding the invasion of Iraq. Just like the Tea Baggers, citizens held rallies, wrote their congressmen, did everything in their power as citizens to try to stop the war. It left people feeling frustrated, disenfranchised, and powerless in stopping what they felt was a huge mistake. And here we are, almost 10 years later. Whether you agree with him or not, Obama was elected because he promised change and the people who put him in office are the same ones who felt powerless 10 years ago. We do not live in a totalitarian state and our presidents are not dictators. Sometimes change happens more slowly than we would like, but that is the price of peace. We don’t live in a country of coups and bloody overthrows, where change happens quickly and violently. Tea Baggers aren’t shot in the streets of Washington like protesters in Iran. Neither were those who protested the war. If you sincerely compare the President to Hitler or Stalin it only shows how fortunate you really are never to have actually experienced living under such a regime. If you resort to threats or violence to push your agenda, you are no better than the dictators you are comparing your opponents to.

Having said this, I do take issue with some of the things Fred has to say. He continues “I am NOT going to sit here and say that the American people will never have to rise and take back this nation, that will remain an open and viable possibility, and an option in the future. We are, after all, a nation built on rebellion and revolution against an oppressive government. But this is NOT the right time, not yet. All legal and peaceful means of resolution will have to be fully exhausted before radical actions take place.” I’m concerned whenever I hear of people advocating overthrowing the government, however reservedly. I think it could be argued that the people who are issuing the threats and violence disagree with Fred and feel that time for radical action has come. If you want to reserve your right to “rise up and take back the nation” when “all legal and peaceful means have been exhausted”, that COULD be interpreted as pretty much any time you don’t get what you want. We have seen recently in Texas with the Fort Hood shootings and IRS plane attack what happens when people think it is OK to use violence when they feel all their options have run out. Clearly, these are examples from a fringe of society, but who is most likely to act on such beliefs? In a democracy, things aren't always going to be the way you want them to be. If you feel you need to take the nation back, who would you taking it from? A totalitarian government or your fellow citizens? Yes, our nation was built on rebellion and revolution, but it was against a foreign country. The TEA party likes to remind us of the cries of “Taxation without Representation”, but I think there is definitely a difference between no representation at all and duly elected representation you happen to disagree with.

I will close with a slight rewrite of TexasFred’s closing statement -
Always speak the truth. Speak intelligently. DO NOT make threats of violence or death against the President or any members of the Congress or the Senate. Assemble LEGALLY, and peacefully. NEVER utter threats against any that oppose you. Be an American PATRIOT in every sense of the word! Be proud of this USA and all that it should stand for.

U.S. history textbooks could soon be flavored heavily with Texas conservatism

Interesting article

Yahoo! News - U.S. history textbooks could soon be flavored heavily with Texas conservatism

Editorial: Americans' murders in Juarez finally get our attention

The Dallas Morning News ran an editorial on 3/18/2010 regarding American response to the slayings of American employee working at the consulate in Ciudad Juárez. Lesley Enriquez and her husband, Arthur Redfels were killed in broad daylight on Saturday, March 13 as they left a consulate social event. The article goes on to comment that the U.S. has been virtually ignoring the violence in Juárez as the numbers of victims has continued to swell over the last three years. It goes on to state that 2,600 people were murdered in Juárez in 2009 and "if that many civilians were killed in one year in Baghdad or Kabul, Washington's foreign-policy community – those smart folks who attend think-tank luncheons, write insightful articles and analyze world affairs on cable TV – would be having nonstop arguments about a grave world problem." The article concludes by urging the U.S. to make the violence in Mexico a "top-tier foreign-policy matter" before the violence spills across the border or risks the $51 billion in annual trade between El Paso and Juárez.

I completely agree that bringing down Mexican drug cartels needs to be a top priority of the U.S. government. My argument with this editorial is that it fails to mention that we have a moral responsibility to bring these cartels under control, as the violence they are bringing to Mexico is fueled with American money and is incited by our demand for illegal drugs. I certainly agree that it is important that we protect our citizens and that billions of dollars in trade between El Paso and Juárez are important. However, even if these things were not at stake, we still have a responsibility to the people of Mexico to stand beside them and fight what is essentially our drug war. The violence that is happening in Mexico right now is not because of a religious or political fight. It's not a civil war. It's about money pure and simple. Billions of dollars of American money. Because of that, the blood of the thousands of innocent people being slaughtered over that money is also on the nation who supplies it. I agree 100% with this article, but in my opinion, the idea that we need to address this problem before it spills over into Texas or affects our economy completely misses the point. We need to acknowledge our part in this situation. I'm sure it is clear to the people of Mexico and the rest of the international community, even if we would prefer not to see it.

Editorial: Americans' murders in Juarez finally get our attention | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Opinion: Editorials

Nueces Bike Boulevard Proposal

Recently, a plan was introduced to the city to turn Nueces Boulevard into a Bike Boulevard.This plan is being promoted by the League of Bicycling Voters. A group has been created opposing this plan, Keep Austin Moving. In a nutshell, the plan proposes to make Nueces Boulevard more bike friendly without closing it to car traffic. The plan would use methods such as speed bumps, medians, and various tools to restrict auto traffic flow to accomplish this. The bike boulevard will connect MLK to the Lance Armstrong Bikeway, approximately 15 blocks away. Proponents claim this will promote bicycle traffic , improve bicycling conditions, and help with building and maintaining a comprehensive bicycle system for the city. Opponents are concerned that it will add to further traffic problems and congestion within the city, as well as negatively affect existing businesses along Nueces Boulevard. I think both arguments have merit. However, I think it's important to consider that in the last decade, the number of people who live in downtown Austin has doubled to 8,000 people. We've all seen the recent explosion of condo buildings and it is expected that the demand for housing will continue. With these numbers, congestion can not be avoided and the city needs to look at ways to provide better public transportation, as well as promote pedestrian and bicycle traffic as an alternative. This will also go very far in promoting the "Green" image Austin has been working hard to project. I don't personally do much cycling, not in a small part due to not feeling comfortable sharing Austin's busy streets with motor traffic. Whether or not you agree with this proposal, I think Austin needs to rethink how people are moving around the city and I think the creation of safer and faster bike friendly or bike only routes around the city is a good idea and would benefit everyone, motorists and cyclists alike.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid:951292

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/nueces-bicycle-plan-not-on-easy-street-183748.html

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid:951290

http://lobv.org/

http://keepaustinmoving.org/

Disgruntled Americans are the New Terrorists

I have to agree with this.

The Smirking Chimp - Disgruntled Americans are the New Terrorists

Texas Tribune - Meet the Flintstones

Interesting Article -

Texas Tribune - Meet the Flintstones

The Manifesto Of Austin, Texas Crash Pilot Joseph Andrew Stack

If you’re reading this, you’re no doubt asking yourself, “Why did this have to happen?” The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time. The writing process, started many months ago, was intended to be therapy in the face of the looming realization that there isn’t enough therapy in the world that can fix what is really broken. Needless to say, this rant could fill volumes with example after example if I would let it. I find the process of writing it frustrating, tedious, and probably pointless… especially given my gross inability to gracefully articulate my thoughts in light of the storm raging in my head. Exactly what is therapeutic about that I’m not sure, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was “no taxation without representation”. I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood. These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a “crackpot”, traitor and worse.

While very few working people would say they haven’t had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.

Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”. It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.

And justice? You’ve got to be kidding!

How can any rational individual explain that white elephant conundrum in the middle of our tax system and, indeed, our entire legal system? Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly “holds accountable” its victims, claiming that they’re responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law “requires” a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that’s not “duress” than what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is.

How did I get here?

My introduction to the real American nightmare starts back in the early ‘80s. Unfortunately after more than 16 years of school, somewhere along the line I picked up the absurd, pompous notion that I could read and understand plain English. Some friends introduced me to a group of people who were having ‘tax code’ readings and discussions. In particular, zeroed in on a section relating to the wonderful “exemptions” that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy. We carefully studied the law (with the help of some of the “best”, high-paid, experienced tax lawyers in the business), and then began to do exactly what the “big boys” were doing (except that we weren’t steeling from our congregation or lying to the government about our massive profits in the name of God). We took a great deal of care to make it all visible, following all of the rules, exactly the way the law said it was to be done.

The intent of this exercise and our efforts was to bring about a much-needed re-evaluation of the laws that allow the monsters of organized religion to make such a mockery of people who earn an honest living. However, this is where I learned that there are two “interpretations” for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us… Oh, and the monsters are the very ones making and enforcing the laws; the inquisition is still alive and well today in this country.

That little lesson in patriotism cost me $40,000+, 10 years of my life, and set my retirement plans back to 0. It made me realize for the first time that I live in a country with an ideology that is based on a total and complete lie. It also made me realize, not only how naive I had been, but also the incredible stupidity of the American public; that they buy, hook, line, and sinker, the crap about their “freedom”… and that they continue to do so with eyes closed in the face of overwhelming evidence and all that keeps happening in front of them.

Before even having to make a shaky recovery from the sting of the first lesson on what justice really means in this country (around 1984 after making my way through engineering school and still another five years of “paying my dues”), I felt I finally had to take a chance of launching my dream of becoming an independent engineer.

On the subjects of engineers and dreams of independence, I should digress somewhat to say that I’m sure that I inherited the fascination for creative problem solving from my father. I realized this at a very young age.

The significance of independence, however, came much later during my early years of college; at the age of 18 or 19 when I was living on my own as student in an apartment in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. My neighbor was an elderly retired woman (80+ seemed ancient to me at that age) who was the widowed wife of a retired steel worker. Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mills of central Pennsylvania with promises from big business and the union that, for his 30 years of service, he would have a pension and medical care to look forward to in his retirement. Instead he was one of the thousands who got nothing because the incompetent mill management and corrupt union (not to mention the government) raided their pension funds and stole their retirement. All she had was social security to live on.

In retrospect, the situation was laughable because here I was living on peanut butter and bread (or Ritz crackers when I could afford to splurge) for months at a time. When I got to know this poor figure and heard her story I felt worse for her plight than for my own (I, after all, I thought I had everything to in front of me). I was genuinely appalled at one point, as we exchanged stories and commiserated with each other over our situations, when she in her grandmotherly fashion tried to convince me that I would be “healthier” eating cat food (like her) rather than trying to get all my substance from peanut butter and bread. I couldn’t quite go there, but the impression was made. I decided that I didn’t trust big business to take care of me, and that I would take responsibility for my own future and myself.

Return to the early ‘80s, and here I was off to a terrifying start as a ‘wet-behind-the-ears’ contract software engineer… and two years later, thanks to the fine backroom, midnight effort by the sleazy executives of Arthur Andersen (the very same folks who later brought us Enron and other such calamities) and an equally sleazy New York Senator (Patrick Moynihan), we saw the passage of 1986 tax reform act with its section 1706.

For you who are unfamiliar, here is the core text of the IRS Section 1706, defining the treatment of workers (such as contract engineers) for tax purposes. Visit this link for a conference committee report (http://www.synergistech.com/1706.shtml#ConferenceCommitteeReport) regarding the intended interpretation of Section 1706 and the relevant parts of Section 530, as amended. For information on how these laws affect technical services workers and their clients, read our discussion here (http://www.synergistech.com/ic-taxlaw.shtml).

SEC. 1706. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TECHNICAL PERSONNEL.

(a) IN GENERAL – Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

(d) EXCEPTION. – This section shall not apply in the case of an individual who pursuant to an arrangement between the taxpayer and another person, provides services for such other person as an engineer, designer, drafter, computer programmer, systems analyst, or other similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE. – The amendment made by this section shall apply to remuneration paid and services rendered after December 31, 1986.

Note:

· “another person” is the client in the traditional job-shop relationship.

· “taxpayer” is the recruiter, broker, agency, or job shop.

· “individual”, “employee”, or “worker” is you.

Admittedly, you need to read the treatment to understand what it is saying but it’s not very complicated. The bottom line is that they may as well have put my name right in the text of section (d). Moreover, they could only have been more blunt if they would have came out and directly declared me a criminal and non-citizen slave. Twenty years later, I still can’t believe my eyes.

During 1987, I spent close to $5000 of my ‘pocket change’, and at least 1000 hours of my time writing, printing, and mailing to any senator, congressman, governor, or slug that might listen; none did, and they universally treated me as if I was wasting their time. I spent countless hours on the L.A. freeways driving to meetings and any and all of the disorganized professional groups who were attempting to mount a campaign against this atrocity. This, only to discover that our efforts were being easily derailed by a few moles from the brokers who were just beginning to enjoy the windfall from the new declaration of their “freedom”. Oh, and don’t forget, for all of the time I was spending on this, I was loosing income that I couldn’t bill clients.

After months of struggling it had clearly gotten to be a futile exercise. The best we could get for all of our trouble is a pronouncement from an IRS mouthpiece that they weren’t going to enforce that provision (read harass engineers and scientists). This immediately proved to be a lie, and the mere existence of the regulation began to have its impact on my bottom line; this, of course, was the intended effect.

Again, rewind my retirement plans back to 0 and shift them into idle. If I had any sense, I clearly should have left abandoned engineering and never looked back.

Instead I got busy working 100-hour workweeks. Then came the L.A. depression of the early 1990s. Our leaders decided that they didn’t need the all of those extra Air Force bases they had in Southern California, so they were closed; just like that. The result was economic devastation in the region that rivaled the widely publicized Texas S&L fiasco. However, because the government caused it, no one gave a shit about all of the young families who lost their homes or street after street of boarded up houses abandoned to the wealthy loan companies who received government funds to “shore up” their windfall. Again, I lost my retirement.

Years later, after weathering a divorce and the constant struggle trying to build some momentum with my business, I find myself once again beginning to finally pick up some speed. Then came the .COM bust and the 911 nightmare. Our leaders decided that all aircraft were grounded for what seemed like an eternity; and long after that, ‘special’ facilities like San Francisco were on security alert for months. This made access to my customers prohibitively expensive. Ironically, after what they had done the Government came to the aid of the airlines with billions of our tax dollars … as usual they left me to rot and die while they bailed out their rich, incompetent cronies WITH MY MONEY! After these events, there went my business but not quite yet all of my retirement and savings.

By this time, I’m thinking that it might be good for a change. Bye to California, I’ll try Austin for a while. So I moved, only to find out that this is a place with a highly inflated sense of self-importance and where damn little real engineering work is done. I’ve never experienced such a hard time finding work. The rates are 1/3 of what I was earning before the crash, because pay rates here are fixed by the three or four large companies in the area who are in collusion to drive down prices and wages… and this happens because the justice department is all on the take and doesn’t give a fuck about serving anyone or anything but themselves and their rich buddies.

To survive, I was forced to cannibalize my savings and retirement, the last of which was a small IRA. This came in a year with mammoth expenses and not a single dollar of income. I filed no return that year thinking that because I didn’t have any income there was no need. The sleazy government decided that they disagreed. But they didn’t notify me in time for me to launch a legal objection so when I attempted to get a protest filed with the court I was told I was no longer entitled to due process because the time to file ran out. Bend over for another $10,000 helping of justice.

So now we come to the present. After my experience with the CPA world, following the business crash I swore that I’d never enter another accountant’s office again. But here I am with a new marriage and a boatload of undocumented income, not to mention an expensive new business asset, a piano, which I had no idea how to handle. After considerable thought I decided that it would be irresponsible NOT to get professional help; a very big mistake.

When we received the forms back I was very optimistic that they were in order. I had taken all of the years information to Bill Ross, and he came back with results very similar to what I was expecting. Except that he had neglected to include the contents of Sheryl’s unreported income; $12,700 worth of it. To make matters worse, Ross knew all along this was missing and I didn’t have a clue until he pointed it out in the middle of the audit. By that time it had become brutally evident that he was representing himself and not me.

This left me stuck in the middle of this disaster trying to defend transactions that have no relationship to anything tax-related (at least the tax-related transactions were poorly documented). Things I never knew anything about and things my wife had no clue would ever matter to anyone. The end result is… well, just look around.

I remember reading about the stock market crash before the “great” depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. Isn’t it ironic how far we’ve come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn’t have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it’s “business-as-usual”. Now when the wealthy fuck up, the poor get to die for the mistakes… isn’t that a clever, tidy solution.

As government agencies go, the FAA is often justifiably referred to as a tombstone agency, though they are hardly alone. The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government. Nothing changes unless there is a body count (unless it is in the interest of the wealthy sows at the government trough). In a government full of hypocrites from top to bottom, life is as cheap as their lies and their self-serving laws.

I know I’m hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn’t limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at “big brother” while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won’t continue; I have just had enough.

I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer. The cruel joke is that the really big chunks of shit at the top have known this all along and have been laughing, at and using this awareness against, fools like me all along.

I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

Joe Stack (1956–2010)