America, land of the free. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, we are constantly reminded, died for it. Indeed, Americans do enjoy many freedoms. But it would be nice if our corporate and political leaders who constantly beat their gums about freedom would exercise more of the responsibility that comes with freedom, status, and power.
Our past two columns (Times, June 13 and June 20) reviewed the difficulty that too many of our college students have in making the transition to responsibilities that go with their increased freedom and privileged status. This emphasis on freedom without the responsibility that goes with it has spread to the broader society.
Anyone who can demonstrate a minimal level of competence can obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle. Few would deny that responsibility goes with that privilege.
Similarly, few would deny the responsibility that goes with the privilege of consuming alcoholic beverages. Yet, some refuse to exercise it.
The privilege - the right, it is vehemently argued - to own guns has been prominent in the news of late. But some individuals have "asserted that right" by brandishing assault weapons in public dining places. Some, I would hope most, of us believe those actions to exceed responsible behavior. Even in old Dodge City, the prototype of wild cow towns, cowboys ready to celebrate the end of a long and arduous trail drive were relieved of their six-guns.
The freedom to earn higher incomes and accumulate wealth is a celebrated feature of capitalism. The status, privilege, and power that go with increased wealth, we are reminded, are incentives to work hard and achieve financial success.
On this, few would disagree. The problem is that this is where discussion usually ends. It should continue on to the increased responsibility that goes with increased income and wealth. This should include increased responsibility to help pay for the system under which this wealth was accumulated.
But didn't the super-wealthy work hard to accumulate this wealth? "Why should success be punished?" we are asked, as if financial success automatically relieves the super-wealthy of the obligations and responsibilities of ordinary citizens.
Sure, the super-wealthy - or those from whom wealth was inherited - put forth great effort. But so do ordinary Americans who perform often dangerous, physically demanding, or perhaps rather boring, unheralded jobs that are necessary to keep this economy going, but will never receive anywhere near the remuneration enjoyed by those more financially successful. And equivalent efforts of the super-wealthy in, for example, Haiti, Guatemala, or most any other place in the world would come to naught.
And let's clarify - when I refer to the "super-wealthy," I'm not referring to a few residents around here fortunate enough, hardworking enough - you call it - to earn six-figure incomes. I'm referring to the fraction of one percent whose multi-million dollar incomes have skyrocketed while incomes of middle class and working poor Americans have been stagnant for over three decades.
"But the wealthy already pay most of the income tax, and many Americans pay no income taxes," we are reminded, as if progressivity in the tax system would unfairly "punish success."
Since the wealthy already receive most of the income, and their share of income continues to increase, it makes sense that they pay most of the income taxes. If many Americans pay no income taxes, it's because their incomes are so low that taxes on their low incomes would make life even tougher for them. And besides, low and middle income Americans, and the working poor, including those exempt from income taxes, pay a whole array of other taxes and fees.
In recent decades, the lack of responsibility and leadership of those having wealth and power is appalling - depressing, if one thinks about it too long.
The huge Wall Street banks and financial institutions were totally lacking responsibility with mortgage lending and building a financial house of cards that had to collapse. The federal government would be capable of reining in such excesses. Indeed, New Deal legislation had been successful for decades in maintaining financial stability, but was removed under the aegis of freedom of banks to become more creative. We saw how that worked.
But when politicians are bought and paid for by big money, its legality affirmed by the Supreme Court, we reap the inevitable result - a system that relieves major intuitions of responsibilities and obligations of ordinary citizens, and puts the entire system as risk.
We saw a breakdown in responsibility even in the highly vaunted military system. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and top generals in the Pentagon expressed shock and dismay that Iraqi prisoners were being tortured, the act of "a few bad apples," they alleged.
We later are informed of memos coming out of the White House authorizing "enhanced interrogation." Meanwhile, a teen-aged PFC from hardscrabble America who was photographed in the wrong place at the wrong time took the rap. Besides, she was unmarried and pregnant - and smoked. What an easy target for Rumsfeld and his top generals with chests covered with ribbons. Easier to hang her and a couple of sergeants, and wash their hands of it, than to accept responsibility at the top.
That said, military principles are based on honor and responsibility. It is dereliction of duty, malfeasance, and outright dishonor for officers and NCOs to abandon their troops when under fire. That's why the Army and Marine Corps lose so many junior infantry officers in combat. Our top CEOs who lose no opportunity to praise the military would do well to follow the best examples of military conduct.
But typically, when a company is bought out or merged, top executives bail out with golden parachutes, leaving rank and file to suffer unemployment or seek jobs that will surely result in reduced pay.
Somehow, it all got turned around. Instead of greater responsibility, far too often, wealth and power has become an exemption from responsibility.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
Our past two columns (Times, June 13 and June 20) reviewed the difficulty that too many of our college students have in making the transition to responsibilities that go with their increased freedom and privileged status. This emphasis on freedom without the responsibility that goes with it has spread to the broader society.
Anyone who can demonstrate a minimal level of competence can obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle. Few would deny that responsibility goes with that privilege.
Similarly, few would deny the responsibility that goes with the privilege of consuming alcoholic beverages. Yet, some refuse to exercise it.
The privilege - the right, it is vehemently argued - to own guns has been prominent in the news of late. But some individuals have "asserted that right" by brandishing assault weapons in public dining places. Some, I would hope most, of us believe those actions to exceed responsible behavior. Even in old Dodge City, the prototype of wild cow towns, cowboys ready to celebrate the end of a long and arduous trail drive were relieved of their six-guns.
The freedom to earn higher incomes and accumulate wealth is a celebrated feature of capitalism. The status, privilege, and power that go with increased wealth, we are reminded, are incentives to work hard and achieve financial success.
On this, few would disagree. The problem is that this is where discussion usually ends. It should continue on to the increased responsibility that goes with increased income and wealth. This should include increased responsibility to help pay for the system under which this wealth was accumulated.
But didn't the super-wealthy work hard to accumulate this wealth? "Why should success be punished?" we are asked, as if financial success automatically relieves the super-wealthy of the obligations and responsibilities of ordinary citizens.
Sure, the super-wealthy - or those from whom wealth was inherited - put forth great effort. But so do ordinary Americans who perform often dangerous, physically demanding, or perhaps rather boring, unheralded jobs that are necessary to keep this economy going, but will never receive anywhere near the remuneration enjoyed by those more financially successful. And equivalent efforts of the super-wealthy in, for example, Haiti, Guatemala, or most any other place in the world would come to naught.
And let's clarify - when I refer to the "super-wealthy," I'm not referring to a few residents around here fortunate enough, hardworking enough - you call it - to earn six-figure incomes. I'm referring to the fraction of one percent whose multi-million dollar incomes have skyrocketed while incomes of middle class and working poor Americans have been stagnant for over three decades.
"But the wealthy already pay most of the income tax, and many Americans pay no income taxes," we are reminded, as if progressivity in the tax system would unfairly "punish success."
Since the wealthy already receive most of the income, and their share of income continues to increase, it makes sense that they pay most of the income taxes. If many Americans pay no income taxes, it's because their incomes are so low that taxes on their low incomes would make life even tougher for them. And besides, low and middle income Americans, and the working poor, including those exempt from income taxes, pay a whole array of other taxes and fees.
In recent decades, the lack of responsibility and leadership of those having wealth and power is appalling - depressing, if one thinks about it too long.
The huge Wall Street banks and financial institutions were totally lacking responsibility with mortgage lending and building a financial house of cards that had to collapse. The federal government would be capable of reining in such excesses. Indeed, New Deal legislation had been successful for decades in maintaining financial stability, but was removed under the aegis of freedom of banks to become more creative. We saw how that worked.
But when politicians are bought and paid for by big money, its legality affirmed by the Supreme Court, we reap the inevitable result - a system that relieves major intuitions of responsibilities and obligations of ordinary citizens, and puts the entire system as risk.
We saw a breakdown in responsibility even in the highly vaunted military system. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and top generals in the Pentagon expressed shock and dismay that Iraqi prisoners were being tortured, the act of "a few bad apples," they alleged.
We later are informed of memos coming out of the White House authorizing "enhanced interrogation." Meanwhile, a teen-aged PFC from hardscrabble America who was photographed in the wrong place at the wrong time took the rap. Besides, she was unmarried and pregnant - and smoked. What an easy target for Rumsfeld and his top generals with chests covered with ribbons. Easier to hang her and a couple of sergeants, and wash their hands of it, than to accept responsibility at the top.
That said, military principles are based on honor and responsibility. It is dereliction of duty, malfeasance, and outright dishonor for officers and NCOs to abandon their troops when under fire. That's why the Army and Marine Corps lose so many junior infantry officers in combat. Our top CEOs who lose no opportunity to praise the military would do well to follow the best examples of military conduct.
But typically, when a company is bought out or merged, top executives bail out with golden parachutes, leaving rank and file to suffer unemployment or seek jobs that will surely result in reduced pay.
Somehow, it all got turned around. Instead of greater responsibility, far too often, wealth and power has become an exemption from responsibility.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
