A Franciscan Abroad

The issue of taxes and the overall fairness of the U.S. tax structure has been in the news again recently with the release of Mitt Romney’s tax return for 2010 and projected tax return for 2011.  According to the papers released, Romney paid just 13.9% of his income in taxes in 2010 and expects to pay just 15.4% in 2011.  This is a much lower tax rate than that of a family earning less than $100,000 a year.  These people are taxed at an effective rate of 26.5%.  The reason for this drastically lower rate is explained by the fact that the majority of Romney’s income comes in the form of capital gains or profits made on investments and not from salaried income, which is taxed at close to 35% in his tax bracket.

The current capital gains tax rate is 15%, the lowest rate in nearly 35 years.  Prior to 1978 capital gains were taxed at 35%.  Since then, however, this tax rate has been progressively lowered by different presidential administrations (not that there is anything truly Progressive about it).  Oddly enough, the one exception to this, and the only time in the last thirty years that capital gains were taxed at the same rate as earned income, was from 1988 to 1990 as a result of a 1986 law passed by Ronald Reagan.  

As it currently stands the capital gains tax rate is manifestly unfair because it primarily benefits the very wealthy and contributes to the staggering inequality between rich and poor in this country.  According to Forbes Magazine, the top 0.1% of all earners in the U.S. earn half of all capital gains.  Let me repeat that, fifty percent of all capital gains income in this country goes to one-tenth of one percent of the nation, roughly 315,000 people.  Among the Forbes 400 (Forbes’ annual list of the wealthiest people in the country), 60% of  income is in the form of capital gains.  Furthermore, according to the Congressional Research Service (pdf), changes in income from capital gains and dividends were the single largest factor in rising income inequality from 1996-2006.

Why is this a problem from the perspective of Catholic Social Thought (CST)?  Basically because this kind of income inequality is a violation of the common good.  The concept of the common good is one of the most important guiding principles of a Catholic understanding of the how a society should work.  It states that the basic human rights of all people should be guaranteed and that all people should have access to those things necessary for human flourishing.  This is not the case in a society where, like the U.S., a small majority control the majority of wealth while the poorest of society struggle to survive in the midst of poverty and hardship.  According to the Second Vatican Council’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (#66):

“If the demands of justice and equity are to be satisfied, vigorous efforts must be made, without violence to the rights of persons or to the natural characteristics of each country, to remove as quickly as possible the immense economic inequalities which now exist.”

One effective way to reduce income inequality in the U.S. would be to raise the capital gains tax rate to 35% so that it equaled the tax rate on earned income.  Such a proposal is well in line with the CST tradition, indeed, the U.S. Bishops called for a tax structure (pdf) which raises adequate revenue to provide services to the poor and one in which the wealthiest Americans pay a higher tax rate (Economic Justice for All #202).  Nor would such a proposal violate the right to private property (for the purposes of this discussion property includes income and wealth).

It is important to remember here that private property is not an absolute right in the Catholic tradition.  The goods of the Earth are intended by God for the use and benefit of all people and justice demands that all people have adequate access to them.  According to Pope Paul VI in his 1967 encyclical letter Populorum Progressio (On the Development of Peoples)  all other rights, including those of property and free commerces are to be subordinated to this principle of justice (#22).  Speaking explicitly of private property, the Pope says:

“Private property does not constitute for anyone an absolute and unconditioned right.  No one is justified in keeping for his [sic] exclusive use what he does not need, when others lack necessities.” (#23)

When the vested wealth of the few impedes the realization of the common good, then not only is the expropriation of private property allowed, but demanded in the name of justice (Populorum Progressio #24).  A better, more progressive, more just tax structure is one way to expropriate such wealth for the betterment of the common good of all society.

In short, a fairer capital gains tax is something that would serve the common good of the people of the U.S. and is well supported in CST.  All Catholics, indeed all people interested in a more just society, should support such a measure and demand it of our government.

On this feast of the Holy Innocents we are called to remember the innocent children orphaned, killed, and suffering throughout the world.  According  to Matthew’s Gospel, Herod the Great, the Roman client-king of Judea, was fearful of the birth of the king of the Jews that the wise men from the east had revealed to him.  To counter this threat to his rule Herod ordered the slaughter of all male infants under the age of two in the vicinity of Bethlehem, hoping to kill the boy before he came of age.  Herod, of course, failed and the boy he sought to murder became a different kind of king, one who would go willingly to his own death for the salvation of the world.  Today, however, the Church remembers the tragic death of those innocent boys because of one man’s ruthless paranoia.

Unfortunately, we still live in a world where the lives of children are seen as disposable commodities for the ruthless of the world.  According to The Hunger Project:  every 5 seconds a child dies from hunger; 11 million children die each year from malaria, diarrhea, and pneumonia; and 22,000 children die each day from poverty related conditions.  During 2010 an average of two children a day were killed by violence in Afghanistan alone while countless more wander the streets as orphans or street children (as many as 60,000 in Kabul alone according to some sources).  As I write, authorities in Indiana are preparing for the expected influx of child sex traffickers expected during Super Bowl weekend next month.  None of these problems are inevitable and all are caused in some way by societal indifference and neglect.  All of them point to the fact that holy innocents continue to be martyred and sacrifices across the world each and every day.

Right now there is an ongoing two week protest in front of the White House opposing a proposed oil pipeline that opponents describe as North America’s largest Carbon Bomb. The Keystone XL Pipeline, if approved, would stretch 1700 miles from Hardisty, Alberta to Nederland, Texas. In the process it will cross thousands of acres of wilderness and threaten millions of gallons of water. This pipeline will carry a unusually viscous and corrosive form of crude oil known as diluted bitumen (DilBit) that is derived from Alberta’s Oil Sands in an environmentally catastrophic process similar to strip mining. The completion of the the Keystone XL would dramatically increase the amount of DilBit exported to the U.S. for processing. In doing so it would increase dramatically CO2 emissions in the coming decades to the point of no recovery. According to NASA scientist James Hansen, “if tar sands are thrown into the mix it is essentially game over [for the climate].” DilBit crude is the bomb that can destroy the planet, the Keystone pipeline is the fuse that can set this bomb off.

There are many reasons for opposing this pipeline. DilBit pipelines are at a higher risk of leaks and explosions than regular crude oil pipelines. This is because DilBit is more acidic, viscous, and corrosive than normal forms of crude. As such it has a higher rate of pipeline corrosion and tends to leak more often. According to a National Resource Defense Council comparison Alberta Canada’s Dilbit pipelines leaked at a rate sixteen times higher than U.S. Regular crude pipelines between 2002 and 2010. This was despite the fact that the Alberta pipelines are newer than their U.S. counterparts.

One of the reasons for this higher rate of leaking is the fact that DilBit is so thick and viscous when it comes out of the ground it must be diluted with natural gas condensate and other chemicals in order to be pumped through pipelines. Even in this diluted state is must be shipped at higher temperatures and under greater pressure. One particular danger is that the natural gas added to the mixture is unstable and can convert to gas form. When this happens gas bubbles can form that warp pipes and block the flow of gas. The technical name for this phenomenon is ‘column separation’ and it reads the same on sensors as a leak. The solution, however, is the exact opposite. To fix a gas bubble you increase the pressure in the pipe, not shut it down. This kind of dangerous mis-reading was one factor that allowed a ruptured pipeline in Michigan to gush oil into the Kalamazoo River for more than twelve hours before being shut down. Ultimately over 800,000 gallons of oil were spilled.

DilBit contains a number of toxic chemicals that are dangerous to human health and can contaminate groundwater; including: benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, n-hexane, vanadium, nickel, and arsenic. The Keystone Pipeline will pass over, and in some cases through some the U.S.’s biggest water supplies; including the Great Lakes and Nebraska’s Ogallala Aquifer. The Ogallala Aquifer provides drinking water to millions and is major source of groundwater for irrigation.

The reasons for opposing the Keystone XL go beyond the safety risks associated with DilBit pipelines. DilBit crude is more polluting and if used will lead to irreversible climate change. The Keystone pipeline would import approximately 3 million barrels per day of this heavy polluting oil into the U.S; the equivalent of adding 22 million passenger cars to U.S. roads. If fully exploited Alberta’s tar sands would add roughly 400 gigatons of carbon to the atmosphere. The is more than enough to push the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere above the 450 parts-per-million(ppm) level tipping point that would lead to irreversible, unpredictable changes in Earth’s climate.

The current level of CO2 in the air stands at 385 ppm, a level that is already causing deleterious effects, and scientists recommend a reduction to 350 ppm in order to avoid long-term changes. The Keystone XL pipeline will ensure that this reduction will not take place by locking the U.S. and Canada into long-term reliance on high pollution energy sources.

If we are to avoid catastrophic climate change and reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to sustainable levels we cannot continue to rely on carbon based energy sources. The only hope for the planet is the development of clean, alternative energy sources that will allow us to reduce CO2 emissions the creation of greenhouse gases. Projects like the Keystone XL Pipeline move us in the exact opposite direction and must be opposed by anyone who cares about the future of life on earth.

For anyone in the Washington area please consider joining the protests in front of the White House, they will be continuing through September 3^rd. While many will be performing acts of civil disobedience this is not a requirement to attend the rallies and many will be there showing support for those who are being arrested for this cause. More information can be found at www.tarsandsaction.org

For those who cannot attend the rally please see www.franciscanaction.org for more information on the this issue and consider signing a petition opposing this pipeline at http://act.350.org/sign/tar-sands

This has been a pet peeve of mine for quite a while and one worth addressing in the current climate of militarism and and a misunderstood sense of patriotism. The issue is simply this: Too many people refer to the President of the U.S. as the Commander in Chief of the United States of America. He is not. The President is Commander in Chief of the Armed forces of the United States and not of the entire country. According to Article II, Section II of the U.S. Constitution:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

Nowhere in the text does it refer to the President as the CIC of the entire nation, or even of non-active duty military personnel. The title CIC has no civilian application or equivalent and to use it as such creates dangerous modes of thinking and reacting.

The reason why is that referring to the President as the CIC of the entire country encourages an atmosphere of blind obedience to the executive authority and stifles criticism. In other words, it encourages people to think of the President as someone having quasi-military authority over them and to treat him as such. How often have you heard the argument that we must get behind our CIC and support his policies? How often have politicians, including Presidents, appealed for unity during time of conflict by using this expression.

Sadly, the misuse of this title is part of a broader pattern of concentrating war-making powers in the Executive Branch in contradiction to the Constitution. The authors of the Constitution placed very strict limits on the ability of the President to utilize the military without the prior authorization of Congress. In fact, under the Constitution, the President has no power to make war, or even to establish laws and regulations for the military, only Congress can do so.

During the last sixty years or so, however, the successive Presidents have gradually usurped this power through a variety of police actions and kinetic military actions (the current term in vogue). And while this practice reached particularly odious heights under George W. Bush, it has continued with President Obama’s attack on Libya.

I fear that this trend will continue until Congress takes back its rightful authority and remembers that the President is not their Commander in Chief either.

According to Merriam-Webster’s 11^th Collegiate Dictionary an indentured servant is someone who is bound to work for another for a specified time, especially in return for payment, travel expenses, and maintenance. During the colonial period in the United States indentured servants often differed from slaves in that their servitude had an end date. By this definition being an intern at Disney World is something close to this reality. In an article that appears in the May issue of Guernica magazine Ross Perlin outlines the working conditions of a Disney World intern.

For all practical purposes such interns are regular employees who aren’t paid the same wages and receive no benefits. Their work includes running rides, cooking hamburgers and french fries, cleaning hotel rooms, moving cars, and performing custodial work; just like regular employees. Many of the costumed icons that wander the park for pictures also fall into this category. What makes this experience an internship is that the company offers educational courses for university credit, often in the greatness of Disney. According to one intern cited in the article one course consisted almost completely of Disney managers extolling the virtues of Lee Cockerell, Vice President of Walt Disney World Operations. These minimal courses are often canceled during peak times in the park. The program makes it clear that the interns are their to work and the “academics” are set up to justify the program as an educational experience.

For the privilege of working at Disney World these interns are paid near minimum wage and provided housing at a Disney compound. The rent for this housing is deducted from their paychecks. While the interns are theoretically guaranteed thirty hours of work a week, scheduling mistakes often reduced this number to the point where a weekly check could be as little as two dollars (after the rent deduction). According to numerous former interns almost all earnings go toward rent and basic expenses. Interns are required to sign up for the program without knowing what their exact jobs will be and without knowing the compensation. The program has a 20 to 30% dropout/termination rate.

The benefits of this program to Disney World are obvious. The park receives a large labor force that isn’t subject to the union contracts of regular employees. In fact, regular employees who retire or quit are often replaced by interns. The benefits to the college students who enter the program are less clear. In many ways their existence differs from an indentured servant in that they can leave whenever they want, but considering that this program runs year round this is probably not an attractive option for students who can’t immediately return to their regular classes and may have difficulty finding a replacement job.

This program is equally problematic from a moral standpoint. First of all is the issue of wages. The Catholic tradition is clear that all people who work in wage-earning jobs are entitled to a just wage (defined as a wage that is sufficient to provide what is necessary for a dignified life). Wages that barely cover rent and food do not qualify as such. Nor does the fact that interns agree to such conditions when they sign their contracts affect this right. As the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church states:

The simple agreement between employee and employer with regard to the amount of pay to be received is not sufficient for the agreed-upon salary to qualify as a “just wage”, because a just wage “must not be below the level of subsistence” of the worker: natural justice precedes and is above the freedom of the contract. (302)

In other words the right to a just wage precedes any contractual agreements and cannot be abrogated by such contracts. To fail to offer such wages is a grave moral trespass on the part of an employer.

The second moral problem with this setup is its effects on the communities that depend on Disney World for their economies. Disney World is the largest employer in the area and the large number of interns the company uses, along with other cost saving measures, has significant ripple effects on the local economy; these include job losses, depressed wages, and lower tax revenues for local governments. Disney is both abusing its interns and hurting the local economy, even as ticket prices continue to rise (by over 100% since 1990).

The lesson here is that despite its family friendly image Disney World is just like any other large corporation. It’s focus is on maximizing its profits by any and all means possible. While Disney’s internship program is legal it is definitely not moral. Disney World’s motto may be “The happiest place on Earth,” but it does not extend to the interns who slave away there to make such an experience possible.