|
|
|
| A Larger View |
| Applying Trans-Religious Values to Current Events |
| Volume XII Edition 3 |
May/June |
2007 |
In this issue:
The Power of Money: Or Is It Its Message?
The Case of Circuit City: Good For Whom?
Fighting Poverty: Cabinet-Level Style?
Foreign Aid: Can Philanthropies Do It Better?
Website of Interest: Global Giving
To Ponder On: Affluenza!
The Power of Money:
Or Is It Its Message?
We're all agog. As of last April 1st Barak Obama raised $25 million and what's more he did it through the contributions of some 100,000 donors, mainly small amounts which the experts tell us means that it will be a while before they max out the allowed $2300. They will therefore probably give again or be asked to, meaning Mr. Obama has a ready supply of funds. During that same period Hillary Clinton topped Obama by a million dollars. Her donors, however, numbered about 50,000 and many contributions were large, possibly indicating she may have to work harder in future fund-raising efforts to find new contributors. On the Republican side Mitt Romney raised $20 million, still a very respectable sum.
Some pundits tell us how remarkable all this is, how fired up the electorate is, particularly on the Democratic side and how raising such large sums speaks of unparalleled political participation, implying tacitly or not how such participation is a backbone of democracy. Those same pundits also remind us how expensive political campaigns have become. The money, they say, will be spent on advertising in the many important states which will now vote on the primary next February 5th. There will of course be the usual office expenses, and the equally hefty travel ones. There are polls and the staff they require and there are the many inevitable consultants. The stakes are high and the salaries have gone up, each demands a sizable increase over their counterparts in the past.
It all sounds so rational, but whoa, is it? By having our presidential candidates need to raise such sums, are we forging a system, or worse expecting one, where the one who raises the most money is more likely to be the winner? Are we so eager to assume that raising huge sums of money is a parallel to being the best? Mrs. Clinton who was the first to opt out of the available public financing of political campaigns and the limits they impose, and who in doing so placed pressure on her competitors to do the same, has indicated that if elected President she would favor stronger laws for public financing. So, (leaving aside the issue of a possible double standard) there is something about public financing after all. Could it be that time spent discussing issues may be more productive than that spent raising money, that meeting people as voters may be more productive than meeting them as donors? Could it be there are better ways to elect candidates than to have elections that are increasingly exorbitantly expensive? But more to the point perhaps, if political participation is more involved than giving candidates money, then our current system not only reinforces an illusion but also interferes with a truer form of participation. If that's true, our democracy suffers and so does our understanding of what is spiritual.
The Case of Circuit City:
Good For Whom?
Last March the electronic chain giant Circuit City announced it would lay off 3500 of its best-paid employees. The measure was not personal, unrelated to their job performance but to the fact that the bottom line was sagging. The company made $12 million less this past year than it had previously, and it is trying to rectify the matter. In fact the laid off workers were told that in 11 weeks when their unemployment insurance runs out they will be able to reapply--but at a lower salary.
As anyone can imagine the retail electronics industry as well as other big corporations are closely watching. Could this be a new cost-cutting device, a new wave? The New York Times, however, in an April 9th editorial suggested the move as a possible step for Circuit City in "sowing the seeds of their own obsolescence." The Times explained that the experience is the difference between on-line and brick and mortar buying. It cited the example of "experience stores" places where customers can browse, relax, read, try out the products, talk on their cell, etc. just enjoy themselves until they are ready to buy. Without stores like Circuit City providing such an experience, they explained, people might as well buy online and if they do then Circuit City is shooting itself in the foot. That may be, but there's an important consequence the Times' piece didn't mention.
Leaving aside two obvious issues, the fate of 3500 people and their families (possibly over 10,000 affected individuals) and the even larger issue of the institutionalization of the bottom line trumping the human one, what's wrong with Circuit City's action? Tersely put, the future of the middle class. If jobs don't pay living wages, people have less or no disposable income. With less money to spend there comes a time when enough people just buy less and the economy too is affected. When people cannot afford to buy non-essentials items corporations like Circuit City are bound to lose money. It may not happen overnight, and the above scenario is a simplistic version of what's to come, but unless steps are taken now to arrest the downward spiral of the middle class, it is a scenario more likely to happen than not.
Fighting Poverty:
Cabinet-Level Style?
Let's forget politics. Let's forget that John Edwards is running for president. Let's just think of the idea on its own merits. A few weeks ago while speaking at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire, Mr. Edwards proposed a cabinet-level position to fight global poverty. For one thing he would like to educate 23 million children currently living in poor countries. Those children without education have little hope for a better future and can easily be swayed by the arguments of extremists. While this becomes a breeding ground for a lot of anti-Americanism, more importantly it makes global poverty a national security issue. As such, Mr. Edwards reasons, it deserves a cabinet-level post.
He can be eloquent on the idea. "If we tackle it," he says of global poverty, "we have the chance to change a generation of potential extremists and enemies into a generation of friends." He went on to stress that "combating terrorism should begin in classrooms, not battlefields." Besides education, there would be initiatives for things like health care, sanitation and clean water. To Edwards giving cabinet-level to fighting global poverty is quite logical and in line with the existing ones for Environmental Protection, the national drug czar or the U.S trade representative.
We keep talking about what a new world it is since 9/11, and yet few have addressed the changes needed to cope with our new realities. Perhaps suggesting a cabinet-level post to fight global poverty and linking that post to national security makes it possible for those two worthy goals to go hand in hand and show us the way to a higher way of handling one of our most elusive problems.
Foreign Aid:
Can Philanthropies Do It Better?
In the world today, "there are 950 billionaires whose wealth is estimated at $3.5 trillion," Jeffrey Sacks professor at Columbia University and head of the UN's Millenium Project, told the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development last month. Sachs, a long time anti-poverty advocate who's advised several governments and institutions, was talking about the fact that private philanthropy could end poverty in Africa faster and better than the so-called G8, the group of eight Western nations who pledged to help Africa.
After the success of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation particularly in Africa, Sachs is asking whether private philanthropists could not do more than governments. While the G8 aid has stalled despite their promises at Gleneagles (and even though there are those who are currently working to get those governments to live up to their pledges), just 5% of the wealth of the 950 billionaires would mean $175 billion, a sum that would certainly do the job of lifting Africa out of its problems. Not long ago the Rockefeller Foundation was the hub for sponsoring state-of-the-art foreign aid programs. They have now been overtaken by that of the Gates whose charitable contributions, even before the addition of Warren Buffet's fortune, was the largest in the world. "Maybe private monies will champion solutions to individual problems rather than the G8", Sachs muses. His assumption, as well as that of those who agree with him, is that such private monies would be as well managed and as well spent as those of the Gates' foundation. That may be a somewhat tall order. Bill and Melinda Gates put in a lot of thought and research before opening their organization. It would therefore not be enough to tap into a bit of the world's billionaire's wealth, assuming they'd be willing, but to ensure that their contribution would also be spent with caring, understanding, thought and wisdom.
Website of Interest: www.globalgiving.com
Making Giving Easy
Global Giving not only makes giving easy, it makes it meaningful. It is a web site matching contributors to projects. The projects are all pre-screened and the donations are tax deductible. One can locate a project by region or by theme such as environment or education. It's a rather easy to use site from a nonprofit corporation began by two former World Bank employees who not only sought transparency in the giving process but wanted a direct line from donor to organization. Thus one gives not to the enabling group that is Global Giving but to the organization one has selected.
To Ponder On
Affluenza!
First there was Thorstein Veblen's now classic "The Theory of the Leisure Class" and his pithy phrase, "conspicuous consumption", now we have British psychologist Oliver James' new book, "Affluenza". If it sounds like a virus, it is intentional. According to James, Affluenza is the kind of depression, anxiety, addiction or personality disorder affecting the affluent or anyone placing higher value on bigger houses, more cars, larger television, younger faces. James says that selfish capitalism has run riot, " We have become too addicted to having rather than being and confusing our needs with our wants."
A Larger View is published by the Inner\Outer Partnership, a tax-exempt educational organization probing how trans-religious spiritual principles can be agents of individual and societal change. We are funded through donations. Please send any - as well as any comments - to P.O.Box 1293, Pac. Pal. CA 90272-1293. Also contact us by email at alargerview@earthlink.net or call 310-836-7710 or visit our web site at www.innerouterpartnership.org
To un-subscribe, send an email to alargerview@earthlink.net |
|
