Balancing Competing Stakeholders' Rights to Life, Liberty & Property

The great debate on news and social media sites of late seem centered on the fear that our constitutional "right to life, liberty or property" shall be hindered, denied, or lost. This main issue is repeatedly debated around three contexts. In a very simplistic manner, this blog will visit those three contexts only to illustrate that the hotly debated "issues" are really just contexts for looking at the threshhold, or main issue, of the limits and powers of Constitution protections.

Same Sex Marriage
One context framing that fear revolves around same sex marriage. A few are adamently opposed to same sex marriage based on the argument that homosexuality is "wrong". Because this argument is based on a moral stance built on religious belief, the argument seems to center on a fear that legalizing same sex marriage will erode religious freedom, create societal depravity, or lead to catastrophes caused by divine retribution for allowing sin to go unchecked. Those on the total opposite side of this debate base their argument on "equal rights", part of the Fourteenth Amendment. Just as miscogeny laws preventing interracial marriages have been deemed unconstitutional; so, too, the propoents of gay marriage believe the laws prohibiting them from marrying someone they love just because of an inherent sexual orientation should be deemed unconstitutional. As with all arguments around such a hotly debated issue, there are many more people landing somewhere between those few holding the views of the two polar opposite camps.

Gun Legislation
The second context is gun control. In one camp are those seemingly opposed to any laws restricting gun use. These people fear losing their Constitutional freedoms in general and the right to use a gun to defend home, self, family, and property. On the opposite camp are those wanting a ban on assault weapons (able to discharge numerous rounds in just seconds), and background checks and weapons training before weapons permits are issued. Again those are the polar opposite views on that issue. Most land somewhere in between those two camps.

On the gun rights issue, Congress, in the Second Amendment, has spoken, though vaguely and ambiguously:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Retrieved from:http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#preamble

An annotation at that same site states, "Whether this provision protects the individual's right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated." In other words, Courts have not yet defined or figured out what this means. Those who want their guns with limited restrictions want them for self-protection; in other words they are emphasizing their own right to life and property. This group thinks they can best protect themselves by having the latest weapon for responding to danger. The other camp sees gun restrictions as a preventive measure lessening the need for having to respond to danger. But underlying both sides is that underlying desire to protect life and property.

Abortion Debate
Yet a third context for the discussion revolves around "right to life". In the one camp are those who wish abortion (sometimes even contraception) to be made illegal. Again this argument is primarily based on moral grounds and on the argument that taking a fetus's life is murder. This same camp, however, also tends to be in favor of capital punishment and strongly advocates gun rights for self-protection. In the other camp are those who seem to define "right to life" as including the entirety of the Fourteenth Amendment; they tend to be in favor of gun regulation, against capital punishment, and in favor of programs protecting the property rights of those dependent upon Social Security benefits, a government option for health care, legislation that would curtail protections for corporations, businesses, and financial industries that allow profits and resources to be held by a small minority of citizens while the majority struggle for food and shelter.

One problem with the first camp's argument is that the First Amendment does not and cannot protect any particular religion and, therefore, it cannot legislate based purely on morality or a specific religious entity's belief system.
The Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (emphasis mine). Retrieved from:
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#preamble

Again this post is not attempting to detail all the nuances of the contexts. Only a simplistic outline has been provided to illustrate that the threshold issue in all three instances is really the question of how far the Fourteenth Amendment extends. If we could only get a handle on that question, the other questions might more easily fall into place.

Passed in 1868, the Amendment states:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Retrieved from: http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#preamble

In reality our rights that are "protected" by the Constitution are often "taken". We are not allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded fear because exercising that freedom could create a stampede, mass exit, and loss of life or limb. The press is limited in what it can say; it cannot libel another person for doing so would damage another's reputation and, thus, restrict that person's freedom and possibly their livelihood. "Liberty", freedom to move about as one pleases, is restricted by stop lights, pedestrian crossings, locked doors, and common courtesy such as waiting in line to pay for merchandise, etc.

A few tests determine when a Constitutional right can be "taken":

1. Is the underlying basis for upholding the law rational? The Courts look to evidence to determine that question. This test is the one most easily passed; some valid reason usually can be found.
2. Does the law target a protected class? Laws define who fits in this category and, generally, answers this question. Regarding the question of same-sex marriage, at least two Courts have decided that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage does target a class that should be protected, that homosexuals have been unfairly targeted and, thus, should be protected. 
3. Does the law protect a state interest? This third question is the one most difficult to analyze. It looks to evidence proving that the state (federal government or individual state) is somehow harmed by the enactment of a law, and looks at whether protecting the state interest is worth the cost of enforcing or enacting the law.

It will be interesting to see how state and federal government answers that third question and, then, applies the answer to that third question to the contexts of abortion, same-sex marriage, and gun legislation.

 

Max

“Hi, how can I help you?” the stylist asked.

“The sign says walk-ins are welcome; are you able to fit me in?”

“Yes, have a seat, Hon,” the stylist answered.

The standard greeting of Old Virginia. But this stylist was young. There was no wedding ring or other jewelry. There was no nametag. The voice could be male or female. The waist length ponytail added to my confusion. The workstation didn’t help either—no photos, artwork, or other clues to an appropriate conversation opening. Suddenly I realized just how much I defaulted to gender stereotypes whenever other conversational cues are absent.

Years ago I gave a talk about how etiquette provides a place to hang our hats and coats, a generally universally accepted code that helps begin a first-time meeting without fear of inadvertently insulting another. The rules provide a sense of security, a sense of knowing how to begin. They aren’t meant so much as a means to control behavior but more as examples of how to love others as we ourselves want to be loved, a framework on which to build a relationship. But outside clues are important if we are to understand which guidelines apply.

Here in this salon, however, I was stuck. In essence I stood, hat and coat in hands, not knowing what to do next. All cues, even my least favorite one of gender, were gone. With males, as a contented single female, I tend to tread carefully, and keep a distance that makes it clear I am not available as a potential significant other. I speak less about feelings. Even the topics I choose gravitate toward that which is appropriate for the “traditional male.” With females, on the other hand, my tone is lighter, more relaxed, less guarded, more open about feelings. Beginning topics gravitate toward those of interest to traditional females.

An imperfect system? Definitely. But historically it’s been a starting place for developing rapport, a default that failed me now.

“What are we doing today?”

“It’s been too long since my last haircut. It was a pixie and I am thinking of doing that again.”

“Pat Benatar has a pixie. She’s my hero.”

The stylist gently picked up strands and let them fall, studying the texture.

“Nice hair. Lots of wave.”

“And cowlicks. I loved my last hairstylist, but she is too far away since I moved. She cut by art, not measurement. I have found my favorite stylists cut that way.”

I hoped the tone would be heard as friendly but also a tad bit nervous about someone new trying to tame my unruly locks. The result was perfect, and ended up being one I had no trouble maintaining.

It was now time to leave and here in the south, the standard exit for someone my age is, “Thank you, ma’am” or “Thank you, sir.” Or for those who have been here longer, “Thank you, hon.”  As a relative newcomer to Virginia, I can’t make myself do the latter so I resorted to a neutral “Thank you so much,” then paid and asked for a follow-up appointment.

After returning to the car, I looked at the appointment card. The stylist’s name was Max. A nickname for Maxine or Maxwell? or just Max?

Today I returned to the shop, still confused about social cues, wondering what we could talk about. At least I had a name, a means for being a bit more personable.

“Good morning, Max.”

After a brief comment about the bitter cold, the conversation switched to what I wanted, my desire to reshape my pixie.

“I remember talking last time about a singer you liked who also had a pixie,” I ventured, with more than a little trepidation. Music is not the context I usually choose for a discussion. For some reason, certain music styles agitate my ADHD. Therefore, I don’t listen to the radio and, as much as possible, carefully select the music I hear. Unfortunately that means I also do not know much about the artists. Choosing this conversation thread, therefore, could take me to a personal dead end and a hunt for a new topic. But it was all I had. Thankfully it proved enough.

“Pat Benatar, my hero. She did a benefit after Sandy.”

“I love hearing stories like that. It makes the artists human.”

“Yes, she grew up in Statin Island.”

“Really? So this was personal for her?”

Max then summed up Ms. Benatar’s history, her beginnings as a singing waiter and how she was “found.” Chosen details made it clear what was important to Max. This was storytelling at its finest. A form of communication I knew well, having grown up in Iowa where storytelling and family legends identify values, outline boundaries, and illustrate cultural norms.  

Pat Benatar began singing opera, Max said. But she found herself the first time she sang rock and roll and never went back to opera.

“Being true to herself,” I said. “That is such great history. I’m of a different generation, obviously, and his vocal range was nowhere near Pat Benatar’s, but Johnny Cash is one of my favorites.”

Max ran away with the conversation.  Johnny overcame so much. His lyrics were profound. And once famous, he helped George Jones get started.

“Ahh yes, Johnny Cash didn’t just break through; he shared what he knew with others.”

“Yes,” Max agreed.

Through the chosen details in both stories, I discovered Max and I treasured many similar values. Overcoming life’s challenges and our own mistakes. Hard work. Earning the titles we wear. Giving back to the community. Mentoring others. Doing what one was created to do.

Max dried my hair, added a little spray, and handed me a mirror.

 “Max, you have a great job. You help people feel beautiful.”

I was not just referring to the cut, but also the affirmation that comes when someone shares your internal compass. Before the next appointment, I will find some piece of trivia about Pat Benatar on which to continue the conversation for I now know Max. And now I know the rules. Shared rules, in fact.

And I like feeling beautiful.

Moonlight

Moonlight. In reality there is no such thing. The light we see from the moon is only a reflection of the sun's light. The moon acts like a giant mirror and bounces rays of sunlight back to us.

Even so on a dark night, that reflected light reveals landmarks that help us find our way. Moonlight also sheds light on dangerous obstacles: the curb to step over; the tree requiring a detour; the stranger lurking in the shadows.

Like moonlight, aid workers, social workers, clergy, intake workers, community organizers, and counselors are obvious light reflectors. By connecting needs with resources, by suggesting options and strategies, by listening to need and collaborating for solutions, they help those on the periphery find their way through the darkness.  

But they're not the only ones with moonlight. Think of the heroes in your life, the ones who empowered you to try one more time. Most often they just found some way to care, like the friend who years ago brought me a yellow gerbera (looks like a yellow daisy) on a bleak day.

"I thought you'd like some sunshine," she said.

And so it arrived via moonlight.

"More and more, the desire grows in me simply to walk around, greet people, enter their homes, sit on their doorsteps...to have the time to practice the ministry of presence...I wonder if the first thing (before meetings and social organizing) should be to know people by name, to eat and drink with them, to listen to their stories and tell your own, and to let them know with words, handshakes, and hugs that you do not simply like them, but truly love them." --Henri Nouwen, quoted in Connections, January 2013.

Being present. Something any one of us can do -- even those of us on the periphery. Go light your world!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtIIFJIxdUw

Living Above Grace's Expectation

“So do to others what you would have them do to you."

I have always missed the "so" when reading this passage from Matthew. But look at that “so”. It precedes the statement, "If you . . . know how to give good gifts...how much more will the Father give?”

This passage really has much to say about grace. The Father God lavishes good things on us, so we should at least be able to treat others as we wish to be treated. God would do far more than that, but He only asks from us that we treat others as we wish to be treated. We will never measure up to His goodness. He knows that. So all he asks is that we give others the same respect we give ourselves.

But there is more yet. I happened to read that passage the same day I read this one from Genesis.  The land "is worth 400 ... but what is that between you and me?” And Abraham then paid the full 400. I understand that this depicts the way financial transactions were negotiated in the Genesis period, that Abraham would have understood that the 400 was a suggested price for the land. Just as the Genesis people had their own negotiating terms, so do the people groups in the international community in which I live.

Perhaps “do unto others as you would have done to you" is best rephrased, “do to others as you would have done to you IF you were the Senegalese in front of you.” Or “do to others as you would have done to you IF you were the Muslim in front of you.” “Or “do to others as you would have done to you IF you were the Kurd in front of you.” Or the Russian? The Cuban? The Dominican? The Mexican? The . . .

I wonder, do I automatically fall back to my southern Iowa ways no matter who is in front of me? What if instead I did unto others in accordance with the manner and culture they understand? What if I went even farther and gave to others in a way they understood as being even better than how I want to be treated? What if I truly sought to understand them, to see their heart, to hear their need?

What if we all did?

The Droid...The Great Equalizer

When I noticed that several students who lived on government assistance with shelter, food, and education, but never appeared anywhere without their tech “toy”, I wondered at the choice. But over time they taught me a lesson. I learned hese “toys” were actually phone, dictionary, social network, encyclopedias, calendars, library, and news sources. When an unexpected question came up in class, these students quickly found answers on their Droids and iPhones.These “toys” enabled and empowered them to do what, just a few years before, only the wealthy had been able to do.

The fate of human dignity is partially in the Droid, to paraphrase an Abraham Lincoln quote in the movie, "Lincoln".

 

Applying the lessons of my students, last November, when unemployment checks came too late to make February’s rent payment, I chucked the apartment and kept my Droid. A roof over my head would not get me a job, would not bring me hope. Only technology and transportation could accomplish that.

Use the library computers, some said. But the library only allowed users to sign up for one-hour blocks. Then the user had to give up the seat to the next in line. Even though I type 85 words per minute, finding jobs to apply for took longer than that. Applying for them, completing the pages and pages of computer-based forms, took another one to two hours. With my Droid’s hot spot connection, the one-hour computer limit was no problem. Laptop and Droid in hand, I found an outlet and took as long as I needed.

Use a coffee shop, others said. There’s no time limit there. But $4 and $5 coffees quickly added up to more than the phone. Besides the Droid’s hot spot allows me to use a pass key and protect my identity, not an option on public WiFi.

With laptop and Droid, too, I could work anywhere anytime. I wasn’t limited by the availability of public WiFi and hotspots.

For contact information, I provided companies with Internet address and mobile phone number. In reality that is safer than giving a street address anyway, and no one needed to know that I didn’t have a home to call my own.

I did find a room to rent, with access to a kitchen and bath shared with two other people. But only a room. Again the Droid was my savior. With very little space for “stuff”, I loaded books on the Droid’s Kindle, installed a Bible app so I could keep up with daily devotions, and uploaded other work tools onto the little pack-of-cards-sized box. Using the scanner on my printer, I scanned and saved records and documents on to a cloud-based service. Wherever I am, my books, files, and address book come too—all on that palm-sized Droid.

I logged interview dates and times, and preparation and follow-up tasks onto an online calendar; and set alarms to remind me of deadlines and appointments. Then when working three and four jobs with day and evening hours on any seven days of the week, the Droid told me what day it was and when I had to be where.

When there wasn’t time enough to travel home between jobs or appointments, but too much time to just waste, apps allowed me to read e-mail, telephone job contacts, conduct research on the Internet, chat with friends, and catch up on the latest news as reported by nine papers, including the BBC and Reuters.

Notebooks created on an Evernote app let me catalogue research, photos, and notes for writing projects; maintaining book lists; and other miscellaneous information such as a snapshot of library and store hours – all easily accessible, available whenever I need it but taking very little messenger bag space. Unlike pieces of paper, the information is never lost.

When unexpected free or wait time comes up, a glance at my phone tells me what’s open, what still needs doing, and enables me to effectively manage the time.

When my daughter and her family took a sabbatical year and needed help with unfinished household tasks in preparation for their house sitting family’s arrival, I created an Evernote folder with photos of maintenance and lawn helpers business cards, a list of tasks to complete, and names and addresses of other contacts.  As repairs were needed, I snapped photos and e-mailed snapshots of the problem, and then followed-up by e-mailing progress photos to the kids. A broken part? No problem—take a photo, show it to a hardware store clerk, and get what was needed. I snapped copies of receipts and e-mailed those by “sharing” to the kids’ personal e-mail accounts, where they could download them to their income tax files. All this …done from my car.

Job hunting. A Droid specialty. I filled Evernote folders for each lead with job descriptions, company information, and lists of questions. At an interview, it was easy to flick to needed information, and pinch and zoom for easy readability. Interviewers watching me flip to my list of questions and to work samples were provided evidence of my mastery of technology.

Medical information for doctor’s appointments – on the Droid.

Language translator? On the Droid.

Weather information and alerts. On the Droid.

Directions from one place to another? On the Droid.

Camera, video camera and flashlight? On the Droid.

“Stuff” worth hundreds of dollars all on a gadget that costs about $90 per month.

Given the choice again between shelter or Droid? I will choose the Droid. Opportunity. Information. Virtual ssistant. Voice. Empowerment. A great equalizer.

Subsidies and the Fiscal Cliff

I did it! Less than one year after losing one job in an economy where the jobless usually need 1.5 years to find another job, I had a job with a regular paycheck and benefits, including health insurance. Unfortunately the salary was no higher than what I had earned more than 15 years ago, back in a time when a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk, and a tank of gas cost much less.

Then after ten months of renting a room, including kitchen privileges in a minimalist kitchen (so small the refrigerator is in the hall) and bathroom shared with two other housemates, I found an apartment within my budget of $400 per month for all housing costs (25% of my take home wage; one week’s income). The $300 deposit was manageable, but then I learned I would need electric for lights, cooking, and electronics. I went to Harrisonburg Electric; the deposit was $300 per month, a month and a half of grocery money.

“Don’t worry; you will get that back after a year. And if you sign up for automatic withdrawal, the deposit will be a bit smaller,” the clerk said.

Total move in costs: $1,000. About 63% of my monthly take home pay. More than three times what I spend in a month for my room.

Yet, in many ways, I am a fortunate member of the hidden poor. I at least have a heated room in which to live, and access to a kitchen and a bathroom. I no longer juggle three and four part-time jobs to make ends meet, as I had done for the past three years, I now have retirement benefits. And for the first time in nine years, I have access to good health care. (In the middle of that nine- year period, there was a year when I had health insurance, but no transportation to a clinic or hospital.)

Unfortunately I can’t eat healthcare benefits and I can’t live in a retirement account. So I looked into Section VIII housing. Alas! Foiled again.

“In general, the family's income may not exceed 50% of the median income for the county or metropolitan area in which the family chooses to live.” http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8.

Where I live 50% of the median income is $12,500 and the average apartment, including Section VIII housing, is $600 per month, 35% of my take home pay. Usually utilities are not included in the rental fee. At $27,000 per year, however, my income is more than double the maximum income level for Section VIII. Even my take home pay of $20,800 per year, what I actually have to live on, is too high. And how does someone making $12,500 come up with nearly $1,000 just for deposit fees?

Yet according to the U.S. government, I am not poor. The poverty index is $11,702. Statistics indicate that 15% of Americans eek by at that income level, although they receive and are dependent on governmental services. Those with earnings above the poverty level yet unable to afford an apartment, transportation, food, or health care are not included in that 15%. http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21565956-americas-poor-were-little-mentioned-barack-obamas-re-election-campaign-they-deserve.

If poverty were redefined not by a number unchanged for decades, if a definition of poverty actually included those who are unable to afford basic housing, food, and medical care, how high would the percentages be? The only online article addressing that question stated that one out of four Americans earns less than $10 per hour and 59% live in a household where at least one person receives some sort of governmental assistance. Unfortunately, that article does not define the term “governmental assistance”.

And defining that term is not easy. Some definitions of “governmental assistance” include government backed student loans, which theoretically will be repaid. Some include Social Security benefits, a fund the recipient contributed to. Still others include only benefits such as SNAP, WIC, and assistance other than loans or funds paid into and available for tapping into at a later time. No definition includes benefits disguised under such terms as economic development grants, tax and oil subsidies, government bailouts, or other government assistance provided to large corporations.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/unemployment-and-poverty-in-america-75-economic-numbers-from-2012-that-are-almost-too-crazy-to-believe/5316546

Discussions on solutions to the fiscal cliff don’t give any serious attention to the hidden poor. According to the Wall Street Journal, anticipated tax increases in 2013 by tax category are:

Ave Inc	Inc Amt	% of Increase
50,000 - 75,000	2,399	4.8% to 3.20%
75,000 - 100,000	3,688	4.92% - 3.69%
100,000 to 200,000	6,662	6.66% - 3.33%
200,000 - 500,000	14,643	7.32% - 2.93%
500,000 to $1 mil	38,969	7.79% - 3.9%
More than $1 mil	254,637	25.46%

Incomes below $50,000 aren’t even listed in the table but the Wall Street Journal's financial calculator will tell you. See http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/12/19/tax-increases-coming-whether-fiscal-cliff-is-averted-or-not/?mod=e2tw

 For someone making an annual gross income of $27,000, the increase would be $540, here the equivalent of about one and a half weeks’ of the average take home salary. But remember: $540, as explained before, comes from someone who cannot afford an apartment unless they pay well above the typical financial expert’s recommended 25-33% for housing costs, one for whom the question of whether to give up food, rent, or transportation is a very real question. A savings account was most likely sacrificed long ago.

And that $540 additional tax won’t just provide food assistance for a homeless child. It also subsidizes the income of the billionaire with yachts, palatial homes, automobile collections, and jets.

Observed Fact or News & Social Media Fiction

“Good morning. It is a warm sunny day today,” I heard first thing this morning.

I looked out the window but saw only dense fog, and snow.

 

A row of bright red triangular weather alert symbols lit up the top row of my smart phone. If only it were always that easy to tell fact from news and social media fiction.

Forbes publishes a list of the 100 wealthiest Americans. The list and chart are at the end of this post.

Wal-Mart owners and family members are numbers 8, 9, 10, 11, 82, 83 & 100. Seven of the 100, nearly a tenth are Wal-Mart owners. Their combined net worth of $120 billion is 600,000 times greater than an annual salary of $20,000, which is still higher than the federal minimum annual wage $15,080 per year ($7.25 times 2080 hours).

The Koch brothers, with $62 billion, are in 6^th and 7^th place and worth about half of the Wal-Mart family. Even so their wealth would support 300,000 employees earning $20,000 per year for a year. Yet their diverse mixture of companies benefit from tax and oil subsidies, and government contracts, even while they campaign against “entitlements”. Staunch libertarians, they spent millions to support the Republican Party during the 2012 election. The Cato Institute, which the Koch brothers, cofounded was the first major libertarian think tank. The Washington based Institute’s 120 employees are devoted to promoting property rights, educational choice, and economic freedom. In 1978 the Koch brothers “helped found–and still fund–George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, the go-to academy for deregulation; they have funded the Federalist Society, which shapes conservative judicial thinking; the pro-market Heritage Foundation; a California-based center skeptical of human-driven climate change; and many other institutions.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/09/10/819541/charles-koch-wsj/?mobile=nc and Forbes Magazine’s online edition.

Nineteen of the wealthiest built their financial empire through hedge funds and investing. Hedge funds are high risk investment strategies using leverage (investors borrow the money to buy the funds), short-selling, and other speculative practices. They are not subject to some of the government regulations designed to protect investors, do not always have to register or file public reports with the SEC. http://www.sec.gov/answers/hedge.htm.

The total wealth of the top 100 wealthiest Americans is $1.3 trillion, or nearly equal to 1/16 of the national debt of $16 trillion. This, in my mind, puts a completely different perspective on the debt than the fear inducing warnings the media sends about the gargantuan size of American debt. Yes, the debt is larger than ever, but so is U.S. wealth.

A mere 100 people in the U.S. hold $1.3 trillion and control way too many of America’s paychecks.

Tell me, if you can, how it is that a person who gambles using hedge funds is worth more than the person who cleans that speculator’s floors, produces the goods sold, and handles the administrative tasks that come with running a business.

 Tell me, if you can, how it can be okay for a billionaire to hoard yachts, planes and automobiles while the person near the bottom of the giant corporation can barely afford housing.

When a typical American citizen begins stockpiling food; collects more items than can be used in a lifetime, we label that person “a hoarder,” someone with a mental illness (the view from my window). When a billionaire, however, stockpiles more automobiles, jets, property, houses, and yachts than can be used in a lifetime, that person is a tribute to capitalism at its finest and lauded as a success (the view of those who see only sunshine).

When a typical American depends on Social Security income (to which they contributed through years of deductions from their annual salary), assistance through the food stamp, now SNAP program, takes advantage of heating assistance or other governmental help, we say they are dependent on entitlements (the view from my window). When the Wal-Mart family members, Koch brothers and other billionaires, however, grab tax and oil subsidies, economic development grants, bailouts, and government contracts, we quickly drop the word “entitlement” and increase the tax rate on the middle class to support their greed (the view of those who see only sunshine).

Now I know that net worth is not the same as annual salary. Not all money is liquid, or easily accessed. But using such arguments to discredit the points in this article is mere quibbling. The point remains the same.

Those flying across the world in their jets, entertaining in spatial mansions homes, and manning their yachts have far more than one who works long workweeks to support that billionaire’s unsustainable lifestyle. And that lifestyle is unsustainable. Sure their excess may last through a lifetime, maybe even through their children’s lifetime. Eventually, however, history clearly shows that the well of resources needed to support their lifestyle will run dry, or the people will wake up and revolt.

 

50 Wealthiest Americans
Name	Billion	Company/Business
Bill Gates	$       66.0	Microsoft
Warren Buffett	$       46.0	Bershire Hathawa
Larry Ellison	$       41.0	Oracle
Charles Koch	$       31.0	Diversified
David Koch	$       31.0	Diversified
Christy Walton & family	$       27.9	Wal-Mart
Jim Walton	$       26.8	Wal-Mart
Alice Walton	$       26.3	Wal-Mart
Robson Walton	$       26.1	Wal-Mart
Michael Bloomberg	$       25.8	Bloomberg LP
Jeff Bezos	$       23.2	Amazon.com
Sergey Brin	$       20.3	Google
Larry Page	$       20.3	Google
George Soros	$       19.0	hedge funds
Forrest Mars, Jr.	$       17.0	candy
Jacqueline Mars	$       17.0	candy
John Mars	$       17.0	candy
Steve Ballmer	$       15.9	Microsoft
Paul Allen	$       15.0	Microsoft
Carl Icahn	$       14.8	leveraged buyouts
Micchael Dell	$       14.6	Dell
Phil Knight	$       13.1	Nike
Donald Bren	$       13.0	real estate
Len Blavatnik	$       12.5	Diversified
Ronald Perelma	$       12.0	leveraged buyouts
Abigail Johnson	$       11.8	money management
John Paulson	$       11.0	hedge funds
Laurene Powell Jobs & family	$       11.0	Apple, Disney
james Simmons	$       11.0	hedge funds
Jack Taylor & family	$       11.0	Enterprise Rent-a-Car
Anne Cos Chambers	$       10.7	media
Ray Dalio	$       10.0	hedge funds
George Kaiser	$       10.0	oil, gas & banking
Harold Hamm	$         9.7	oil & gas
Richard Kinder	$         9.4	pipelines
Rupert Murdoch	$         9.4	News Corp
Mark Zuckerberg	$         9.4	Facebook
Charles Ergen	$         9.0	EchoStar
Steve Cohen	$         8.8	hedge funds
Andrew Beal	$         8.4	banks, real estate
Pierre Omidyar	$         8.2	Ebay
Leonard Lauder	$         7.7	Estee Lauder
Philip Anschutz	$         7.6	investments
Eric Schmidt	$         7.5	Google
Samuel Newhouse, Jr.	$         7.4	Conde Nast
James Goodnight	$         7.3	software
Patrick Soon-Shion	$         7.3	pharmaceuticals
Harold Simmons	$         7.1	investments
Charles Buffet	$         6.9	supermarkets
Donald Newhouse	$         6.6	Conde Nast
Edward Johnson, III	$         6.5	Fidelity
Ralph Lauren	$         6.5	Ralph Lauren
Ira Rennert	$         6.5	investments
Eli Broad	$         6.3	investments
John Menard Jr.	$         6.0	retail
David Geffen	$         5.6	movies, music
John Malone	$         5.6	cable television
Jeffrey Hildebrand	$         5.5	oil
David Tepper	$         5.5	hedge funds
Jim Kennedy	$         5.4	media
Blair Parry-Okeden	$         5.4	media
Ray Lee Hunt	$         5.2	oil, real estate
Richard LeFrak & family	$         5.2	real estate
Stephen Schwarzman	$         5.2	private equity
Dennis Washington	$         5.2	construction, mining
Richard DeVos	$         5.1	Amway
Micky Arison	$         5.0	Carnival Cruises
Hank & Doug Meijer	$         4.9	supermarkets
Robert Rowling	$         4.9	investments
Gordon Moore	$         4.8	Intel
Dannine Avara	$         4.7	pipelines
Scott Duncan	$         4.7	pipelines
Milane Frantz	$         4.7	pipelines
Charles Johnson	$         4.7	money management
Randa Williams	$         4.7	pipelines
Rupert Johnson, Jr.	$         4.6	money management
Thomas Peterfly	$         4.6	discount brokerage
Jim Sook & Do Won Chang	$         4.5	Forever 21
David Green	$         4.5	retail
Ann Walton Kroenke	$         4.5	Wal-Mart
Trevor Rees-Jones	$         4.5	Wal-Mart
Leslie Wexner	$         4.4	retail
Bruce Kovner	$         4.3	hedge funds
Daniel Ziff	$         4.3	investments
Dirk Ziff	$         4.3	investments
Robert Ziff	$         4.3	investments
S. Truett Cathy	$         4.2	Chick-fil-A
Leonard Stern	$         4.2	real estate
Sumner Redstone	$         4.1	Vicacom
John Paul DeJoria	$         4.0	hair products, tequila
Thomas Frist, Jr. & family	$         4.0	health care
Barbara Carlson Gage	$         4.0	hotels, restaurants
Bruce Halle	$         4.0	Discount tire
William Koch	$         4.0	oil, investments
Henry Kravis	$         4.0	leveraged buyouts
Stanley Kroenke	$         4.0	sports, real estate
Marilyn Carlson Nelson	$         4.0	hotels, restaurants
Nancy Walton Laurie	$         3.9	Wal-Mart
TOTAL			1.05 Trillion
Data retrieved 24Dec12 from http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/