AN UNHAPPY BUT NECESSARY REMINDER!

By Edwin Cooney

There is absolutely no pleasure for me writing this week’s commentary! Part of the reason for my lack of pleasure is that I don't fully comprehend either the cause or effect of this incident. Yet, somehow, I feel I ought to!

Last Thursday, I read in the New York Times about the execution of John William King. King had murdered James Byrd, Jr .back on Sunday, June 7th, 1998. James Byrd was a 49-year-old black man who was beaten, spray-painted, and chained to the back of a pickup truck and dragged along a back road near Jasper, Texas until he was dead. Three men, Lawrence Russell Brewer, John William King, and Shawn Allen Berry, were convicted of the crime in 1999.

According to the Times, King had done a stint in prison earlier and was clearly a racist. His body was covered with racist tattoos, one of which depicted a black man hanging by a noose. Brewer, who was executed in 2011, so abused the traditional condemned prisoner’s final meal that the privilege has been withdrawn in the State of Texas. Shawn Allen Berry, who will not be executed for the crime, will have to wait for the year 2038 to be eligible for parole. 

To my mind, however, none of these men were fully human!

Everything about this crime is incomprehensible to me. King, according to the Times, kept his eyes closed as witnesses entered the death chamber. When asked by warden Bill Lewis if he had any last words to say, he simply said "no." He'd left a written final statement earlier and it read incredibly, “those who don't have the capital get the punishment."

In that statement, I suppose we get a glimpse into King's outlook on humanity. Apparently, King saw human value pretty much in monetary terms. Part of my non comprehension of this crime lies in the question: what could possibly drive someone to treat another living being as King, Brewer, and Berry treated James Byrd? The nature of their behavior is beyond even racism! It's animalistic! No human mind like theirs is even close to being normal. More to the point, it's even inadequate to simply label such behavior as “evil." Designating such an act as a “hate crime” is not instructive. We simply never learn from such designations!

The moral for me, a strong opponent of capital punishment, lies in the reality that right up there with doing something about climate change, our main task as human beings must be the task of learning to master our own minds.

Another disturbing fact that I learned from this article in the Times last Thursday was that John William King was the first white man in the history of Texas ever convicted of murdering a black man.

In case you wondered, I have no sympathy for either King, Brewer, or Berry. Whatever their anxieties may have been, they richly earned them. As for their lives, they destroyed them before the State of Texas got around to it. As for capital punishment, it has been labeled “legal murder” and it’s time to “delegalize" it. 

To paraphrase King's final written statement:

Unless and until we use sufficient capital to understand and control our behavior, we're just skipping and tripping down the proverbial plank into permanent extinction!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THANK YOU, MR. AND MRS. READER

By Edwin Cooney

It was my hope that last week's column would be seen as a lighthearted assessment of the annual lot of taxpayers which would offer a positive and even a creative way of minimizing our annual pain.

There were two separate entities involved in that assessment: you and me.

Your participation was wonderful —top notch, as they say! The highest honor I ever receive as a writer is your feedback from these musings, however painful or gratifying such feedback can be.

My proposal was purely suggestive and, as I see it, almost perfect except that I left out a crucial provision in my proposed federal lottery to both encourage and reward the taxpayer. That part of the proposal should have been that the winnings were tax-free. Nevertheless, the willingness of a half dozen or so of you was not only revealing in your individual outlooks and conditions, it demonstrated to me the complexities of life in twenty-first century America. I'll both discreetly and briefly share the most interesting of these reactions.

A retired teacher in New England insists that she'll never smile while paying her taxes so long as the head of Amazon escapes his responsibility to pay income tax. She, after all, had to "cough up" $5,000 and, apparently, $500 more a month will be coming out of  her pension next year. Soon she'll be faced with local taxes. She'll smile, she writes,  when there's more of an equality among taxpayer obligations. (Note: it's mighty hard to argue with her!)

A Florida responder who receives Social Security benefits, realizing that he's receiving more than he ever put into government, was grateful to the FBI, the CIA, FEMA, and other federal agencies which protect "...my ass" from all types of natural and humankind disasters.

A Pennsylvania taxpayer said he'd have preferred a column screaming about the inequities in the collection and spending of tax dollars rather than a column urging him to smile when he pays his taxes. He wondered if the winnings would be taxable, how much they would be, and how many payments there would be. Mostly, he was unhappy that we spend billions on weapons and begrudge the mere millions we ought to be spending for a national healthcare system. In short, he wanted my proposed program spelled out verbatim — and I haven't yet even been elected to Congress!

A magazine editor from the state of Washington (at least that's where I think he comes from) very much enjoyed my outlook and my proposal. He asserted that it has more to argue for it than it has to argue against it.

The most delicious response I got was from a former military man with whom I used to imbibe at my old Alameda, California watering hole. He now lives in Colorado. He wrote simply: don't compare the private citizen with the soldier. When I reminded him that the Founding Fathers did just that by insisting that the Commander-in-Chief of the Army be a civilian rather than a soldier and inviting him to elaborate on his position, he simply refused by wishing me and my family a happy Easter. Apparently, my former drinking buddy believes that a soldier, or a warrior, is more worthy of tax benefits than John and Susie Q citizen.

The bottom line is this: my greatest reward is realized when I stimulate thought through one of these columns. A willingness to forgo opinion and rethink past conclusions is often too arduous and painful for most people.

Sunday, June 16th will mark my fifteenth anniversary writing these columns. The purpose of each column is to accomplish at least one of three things. They are to  inform, to stimulate thought, and to entertain the reader.

As for you, the reader — without you, the verdict is simple: there is no column!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

TAXES - A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE!

By Edwin Cooney

So, you're a taxpayer! Me, too! I don't have a sufficient enough income to pay the IRS but, like most Americans, I do pay taxes.

The taxes I pay are invariably passed on to me by those who do pay income taxes. They include my landlord, my grocer, my doctor, and the owner of my favorite watering hole. Even my church needs more money. The point is that we all pay taxes. Even more to the point is that most everyone will benefit in one way or another from today's take by Uncle Sam.

Here's a reality for you: your taxation and mine is in some ways quite profitable. One of the ways Americans are resourceful is how they create industries to overcome the downsides of their existence. For example, hundreds of thousands of Americans earn a healthy living each tax season by selling their expertise to the public as tax consultants. Another reality is how we Americans over the centuries have very cleverly industrialized and subsequently even profited from all kinds of woes. Taxes pay for our education. Taxes pay for our common defense whether caused by foreign invasion, disastrous weather conditions, disease epidemics, fires, or earthquakes.

I was struck some years ago by an observation former Governor Jerry Brown of California made about our national campaign against cancer. What he said opened a vein of positive thought for me. "I suspect," said Brown, "that there are more people living off cancer than are dying from cancer." The same could be said about the vast components of our struggle against disability and even hunger.

I think we'd all be a lot better off to the exact degree that we allow ourselves to modify our outlook on the laying and collecting of taxes. Let's try a few paradigm experiments:

1) Might a taxpayer's duty be as vital to the nation as that of a soldier? Isn't a taxpayer equally as valuable as the service of a policeman or a soldier?

2) How many plays, movies, or even books are there where the taxpayer is the hero? If it is brave to put one's life on the line during wartime, isn't the person who shares their wealth with others equally so? If a soldier is gloriously patriotic shouldn't a taxpayer be considered a patriotic hero?

3) Are you a victim or a hero when you honor your income tax obligation?

4) If “a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down," might we all benefit if we legislated some reward system into the taxpaying structure and process?

5) Since people like being rewarded even as they do what they ought to be doing, perhaps April 15th could be a federal lottery day: pay your taxes and have the chance of earning $20,000 while performing your patriotic duty.

Beginning with Ronald Reagan, conservatives have wanted John and Susie Q. Citizen to hurt when they pay their taxes because people in pain will resist that which causes pain. The fact of the matter is that politicians on both the right and the left have lists of vital priorities that invariably cost money — which inevitably comes from taxes. All politicians (and unhappily there are no exceptions) are both rescuers and fixers. If they weren’t, we wouldn't elect them.

Until the day comes when a taxpayer is a hero or a winner, April 15th is bound to be nothing but painful.

I say, smile when you pay your taxes! I will if you will!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY 

LETTER TO JOE BIDEN

By Edwin Cooney

DEAR JOE,

I understand you’re considering running for president in 2020. I think it’s an excellent idea since, at least on paper, you’re the most qualified potential candidate to hold that office with the possible exception (remember Joe I said possible) of Donald J. Trump whose held that office for two years now.

I can’t recall an unelected presidential candidate since James A. Garfield in 1880 who was as well qualified as are you to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. His reputation, like yours, was considerable among his peers. Like your reputation, Garfield’s bore some scratches, but also like yours, his was sprinkled with just a dash of diamond dust. It was also said of Garfield that he was sufficiently capable and qualified to hold every cabinet post in his administration. Even if no one can legitimately make the same claim for you, I can’t recall that we ever elected a president who, like you, has been the chair of both the Senate Judiciary Committee and of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

As for your age, pick a vice presidential candidate who is sufficiently young and capable. Then, at least imply that you’ll serve only one term and you’ll need only wings and an engine to take off. It’s my guess that Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar would be your strongest running-mate.

Should you imply that you’ll serve only a single term, that would entice support from a broad spectrum of independent voters and thus strengthen the Democratic Party’s appeal. It would also stabilize the quality of its policy proposals for healthcare reform, climate change, and other desirable social and economic alterations. Even more attractive would be the likelihood that you’d be succeeded by your female vice president be it Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, or Kamala Harris.

You have two outstanding advantages which are of vital political significance. First, there is your considerable experience of 37 years in the United States Senate which enabled you to cope with a vast variety of public issues. Like any other public servant, you’ve had more than your share of misjudgments and mistakes. As for your achievements, because your work, or perhaps a better way to put it would be to say your vote, is only a fraction of any wise Senate decision, such a wise vote can only be accrued to the whole of the Senate body politic rather than to yourself. Still, as stated above, the fact that you’ve been elected to two major Senate chairs (of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee) are at least two testimonies to the respect you compelled from your Senate colleagues. These two vital positions were highly prestigious and thus sought by other senators. They were neither honors, nor were they mere trophies for your personal gratification.

Your second advantage is that you served eight years as the second highest political officer in the land. You’ve been that proverbial “heartbeat away” from the presidency. (Note: only two living Americans in this land of over three-hundred million people, Al Gore and Dick Cheney, possess comparable experience to yours.) Since the illness of Woodrow Wilson, almost a hundred years ago, the vice presidential office has been critical to the process of government. Thomas R. Marshall, Wilson’s Vice President, was too frightened to try and assume any responsibility during Wilson’s recovery from his severe stroke, but he certainly both could and should have! Since the death of FDR and the accession of Harry Truman, the Vice President has been seen as a vital part of our national continuity, especially those who have served for eight years.

Here’s another asset you possess. Although both your conduct and performance are shy of perfection, you not only know that, you actually acknowledge that. President Trump openly considers himself second only to “possibly Abraham Lincoln” in his conduct of the presidency which is an open testament to his self-indulging arrogance. Finally, as I see it, you offer yourself to the public knowing the worth of your Democratic opponents. I’m confident that both a Biden candidacy and a Biden presidency will be not about Biden, but about the country.

Writing in the New York Times a few days ago, Roger Cohen urges you, for two reasons, not to run. In the first place he believes that the political center of the Democratic Party is too far to the left to accommodate the mistakes and sins of an old white male. Consequently, he’s convinced the charges leveled against you from both the left and the right are likely to overwhelm, destroy and hurt you. I think Mr. Cohen, who insists he likes you (and I have no doubt that he truly does), believes that you lack the wherewithal to stand up to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that are about to fall upon you. Perhaps you and Mr. Cohen know each other, but even if such is the case, I think he’s wrong. Your trek through personal disappointment and tragedy, I believe, prepares you to make this run as did Lincoln’s despair and FDR’s polio strengthen and energize them.

Thus, Mr. former Vice President, I endorse you. Should some other Democrat prevail, I’ll endorse that candidate as I’m sure you will. In the meantime, don’t apologize for the party’s liberal past and above all, meet all the forthcoming charges as directly and forthrightly as you can.

Be off to the races. With the right strategy you can both take and deserve this prize.

Oh, one more thing. Should the President get too nasty during the fall campaign, you can always get in his personal space!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

RELAX! BE COOL! DON’T GET TOO PICKY!

By Edwin Cooney

No, you really shouldn’t be too disappointed that the President was exonerated of collusion with the Russians during the 2016 campaign. After all, none of us should want the President to be guilty of any crime! (More about that later.) Furthermore, within the system, we elected Donald Trump back in 2016 whether we like it or not. It’s to the advantage of the opposition that President Trump will finish his term. There’s a much, much bigger fight to be made rather than quarreling over the President’s guilt or innocence.

It’s time to settle once and for all this question of capitalism verses socialism. So first of all, let’s stake out our territory. Here’s the first question:

What do either capitalism or socialism have to do with liberty?  Neither ideology is written into our constitution. After all, industrialism was not fully developed in the United States at the time the constitution was adopted. Our forefathers were agrarian farmers, not industrial capitalists. Back in George Washington’s time, most Americans made their own clothes, built their own houses, arranged their own transport, chose their own doctors, and, above all, grew their own food. Back then, our leaders were in no position to regulate either commerce or trade. What they did do was put capitalists under government protection (that’s welfare, of course) showing little regard for the working man or woman. In Europe, it was called “protectionism.” As industrialism advanced, most European leaders even with solid conservative credentials began opposing protectionist tariffs. Why? Because they amounted to corporate welfare in that they were equivalent to a tax on both the worker and the consumer. 

Next question: When and how was it that the products of capitalism began to affect the welfare of the people? It started after the Civil War. Manufactured goods, the mining of coal and oil, and the employment of an increasing number of people all began to affect the ways and conditions under which more and more people lived. 

Finally, how did manufacturers respond to the new world they created for the employee and the consumer?  In most cases, they wantonly ignored the legitimate needs of the people as a whole. Therefore, they ignored issues regarding safe working conditions and cheated farmers and small rural businessmen who sought to ship their goods for sale to metropolitan areas. They opposed state and local government efforts to protect the public from dangerous train crossings and other unhealthful deprivations. Their bottom line was about profit. To them, profit and ownership were America’s only legitimate liberties with the possible exception of religious liberty. (Don’t tell that to the Mormons who, for a short time, could be legally murdered in Illinois and Missouri before the Civil War.) As for the right of workers to organize, that didn’t happen until 1902 when Teddy Roosevelt began making Labor a political and social issue beginning in the wake of the anthracite coal strike. To me, TR earned his highest place in history when, in 1911, during a speech in Pottawatomie County, Kansas, he publicly declared that human rights were superior to property rights.

Hence, for the last hundred years, the Democratic party, even with its various misdeeds (such as institutional racism and even perhaps a splash of ethnic prejudices), has led the way in the socialism of America. Beginning in 1914, Woodrow Wilson established the Federal Trade Commission to prevent big business from monopolizing the rights of small businessmen. Slowly  but surely, Wilson’s New Freedom, FDR’s New Deal, Truman’s Fair Deal, JFK’s New Frontier and LBJ’s Great Society enabled several generations to more readily control their social standing within society.

My quarrel with President Trump is that he and his administration are more anti-social than anti-socialistic. Every industrialized country in the world does what circumstances require to house, educate, and sustain the physical well-being of its citizens. As I see it, to think in social terms is the Number One priority of any workable society.

As we wend our way toward 2020, let’s keep the following in mind:

1) When any party becomes too quarrelsome about its leadership or ideological bent, that party, with an occasional exception, loses. Examples include Goldwater in 1964, Hubert Humphrey in 1978, George McGovern in 1972, and Hillary Clinton in 2016.

2) The Democratic Party usually wins when its message concerns the people’s anxieties and needs rather than its leaders’ ambitions.

3) The Democratic Party must not run away from its traditional agenda. Democrats must define what it means to be sociably responsible. Its agenda does not include the takeover of the means of production or the nationalization of private enterprise. 

4) If Democrats wrest power from Trump and the GOP in 2020, it will be in part because they understand the historic narrowness of the Republican party. If Democrats can be charged with advocating too much welfare for the poor, they should make sure the public understands that the GOP is always ready to replace social welfare with corporate welfare.

5) Democrats must be proud enough of their achievements in order to deserve the voters’ permission to guide our future.

There are countless stories throughout American history regarding what political bosses like Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley, Jersey City Mayor Frank Hague, and Senate leaders like Lyndon B. Johnson did to dominate their political fiefdoms. It’s my conclusion that President Trump’s attempt to control FBI director James Comey was on a par with their behavior.

The worst of President Trump has nothing to do with his party or even with its most deplorable attitudes and policies. Even today, there are still many honorable Republicans. He is almost but not quite as bad as Britain’s worst monarchs, so when he charges Democrats with “socialist intentions,” let’s remind the public that President Trump is personally downright anti-social!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY