December Awareness - by The Stillwater Scouter

December Awareness*

by
The Stillwater Scouter
~~~~~~~ // ~~~~~~~

December is Universal Human Rights Month and Awareness Month of Awareness Months Month.

Weekly observances in December involve Cookie Cutters, Hand Washing Awareness, Halcyon Days, and Bird Counts.

- December 1 is Day With(out) Art Day.

- December 2 is Mutt Day.

- December 3 is Persons With Disabilities Day.

- December 4 is Wildlife Conservation Day.

- December 5 is Ninja Day and Bathtub Party Day.

- December 6 is Miners' Day.

- December 7 is Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day.

- December 8 is Worldwide Candle Lighting Day (The Scouter's best to BB's own Peachy ... and The Compassionate Friends).

- December 9 is Anti-corruption Day. [TPO says, "Good Luck with that!"]
 
- December 10 is Nobel Prize Day.

- December 11 is Mountain Day.

- December 12 is Poinsettia Day.

- December 13 starts the Leonid meteor shower.

- December 14 is Monkey Day.

- December 15 is Bill of Rights Day.

- December 16 is Chocolate-covered Anything Day.

- December 17 is Wright Brothers Day. The full moon is called 'Cold Moon' by Native Americans of the Great Lakes, as long nights/short days mean cold weather.

- December 18 is Migrants Day.

- December 19 is the first anniversary of Park Geun-hye being elected the first woman President of South Korea.

- December 20 is Underdog Day.

- December 21 is Yule, Winter Solstice, International Dalek Remembrance Day, and Humbug Day.

- December 22 is Haiku Poetry Day.

- December 23 is the date that 82 sailors from the USS Pueblo were released after 11 months.

- Christmas Eve and day are December 24 and 25.

- December 26 is Whiner's Day and Thank-you Note Day.

- December 27 is somebody's birthday.

- December 28 is Pledge of Allegiance Day.

- December 29 is Tick Tock Day.

- December 30 is Falling Needles Family Fest Day.

- December 31 is New Year's Eve.
_____________________________________________
*Source: The Bulletin Board, Pioneer Press (11/30/2013)

Not such a good deal! - by Carlos Lozada

The deal with rich people

By Carlos Lozada *

Washington Post / Opinions, November 27, 2013

/=/=/=/=/ ~~~~ /=/=/=/=/

Americans aren’t so sure about rich people.

For every revered Steve Jobs, there’s a reviled Bernie Madoff; for every folksy Warren Buffett, there’s a tone-deaf Mitt Romney. The pursuit of happiness is patriotic, but the pursuit of riches can come off as greedy. This ambivalence toward the wealthy is embedded in American democracy, and no one knows how to yank it out.

Even Alexis de Tocqueville [wrote in “Democracy in America”] : “I do not mean that there is any lack of wealthy individuals in the United States. I know of no country, indeed, where the love of money has taken stronger hold.”

So Americans dislike inequality but crave wealth — and this paradox propels our mixed feelings about the rich. Oppressors or job creators? Ambitious go-getters or rapacious 1 percenters?

Robert F. Dalzell, a historian at Williams College, believes he has an answer. America has a long-standing deal with the rich, he explains, one that allows the country to “forge an accommodation between wealth and democracy.” It’s simple: Yes, rich people, you can exploit workers and natural resources and lord your wealth over everyone if you like, and we’ll resent you for it. But if, along the way, you give a chunk of your fortune to charity, all will be forgiven, old sport. History won’t judge you as a capitalist; it will hail you as a philanthropist.

This uneasy bargain is the premise of Dalzell’s “The Good Rich and What They Cost Us,” which chronicles the deal from before the revolution through the recent financial crisis. Of course, just because the deal has lasted this long doesn’t mean that it will endure. Or that it is a particularly good one. Or that the rich aren’t constantly trying to rewrite the terms.

[....]

So, the rich just want to be loved. Is that so wrong? If more than 100 of the planet’s wealthiest families and individuals are promising to give away unfathomable amounts of money, why quibble?

Well, there’s at least one reason: The deal gets worse as the price paid for the rich’s charity — the inequality between the affluent and the rest — keeps rising. From 1979 to 2007, the real, after-tax income of the top 1 percent of the U.S. population grew by 275 percent, compared with 18 percent for the bottom fifth, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Social mobility has become more stunted in the United States than in Europe. And Americans see themselves falling further behind: A Washington Post-ABC News poll last year found that 57 percent of registered voters believed that the gap between the rich and rest was larger than it had been historically; only 5 percent thought it was smaller.

The deal will get even worse if efforts to push laws and policies that benefit wealthier Americans succeed. In “Rich People’s Movements,” Isaac William Martin, a sociologist at the University of California at San Diego, says today’s tea party is just the latest manifestation of another American tradition: the mobilization of wealthy and middle-class citizens in an effort to cut their taxes and contributions to the state.

Before the tea party, Martin tells us, there were tax clubs — groups of bankers throughout the South that agitated for tax cuts and helped bring about the Revenue Act of 1926, which “cut the tax rates on the richest Americans more deeply than any other tax law in history.” Before we had Grover Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform, we had J.A. Arnold and the American Taxpayers’ League, and Vivien Kellems and the Liberty Belles, a 1950s women’s movement that campaigned to repeal the income tax. And before Arthur Laffer and supply-side economics, there was Andrew Mellon, the banker, philanthropist and Treasury secretary whose 1924 book, “Taxation: The People’s Business,” argued that cutting income tax rates would create more revenue through greater economic growth.

[....]

In fact, it is not just the wealthy, but often the middle class or the slightly-richer-than-average who have campaigned for lower taxes on affluent Americans. “People need not be dupes in order to protest on behalf of others who are richer than they are,” Martin argues. “The activists and supporters of rich people’s movements were defending their own real interests, as they saw them. A tax increase on the richest 1 percent may be perceived by many upper-middle-income property owners as the first step in a broader assault on property rights.” In other words, there’s nothing the matter with Kansas.

Shortly before the Republican National Convention gathered last year to nominate a man who could have become one of the richest presidents in U.S. history, the Pew Research Center conducted a survey on American attitudes toward the wealthy. The chronic ambivalence was there: Forty-three percent of respondents said rich people are more likely than the average American to be intelligent, and 42 percent believed that the rich worked harder than everyone else. The good rich! But 55 percent said wealthy people were more likely to be greedy, and 34 percent thought they were less likely to be honest. The bad rich.

Can “giving pledges” and foundation grants sustain America’s deal with the wealthy in a time of increasing inequality and falling social mobility? In his conclusion, Dalzell worries that the belief in the generosity of the good rich leads us to “tolerate, even celebrate, the violation of some of our most cherished ideals” of fairness and egalitarianism.

Perhaps the dilemma of extreme wealth and disparities in a democracy is that noblesse oblige becomes necessary. These two books show that the wealthy give much with one hand but seek to contribute far less with the other. That makes the giving they choose to do all the more critical but all the less accountable.

And that doesn’t sound like such a good deal.

 ______________________________________________________
* Carlos Lozada is Outlook editor of The Washington Post.