• featured
  • featured
  • featured

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Taxed to Death – Plus a Green Day Review

By Jack Sanders
Thursday, July 9th, 2009

In the spring of 2009, nationwide polling in the United States indicated that approximately the same number of people identify themselves as Republicans as support a socialist economic system over capitalism: 20%. It is certainly a difficult time to identify oneself as a member of the Republican Party, while party leaders vocally oppose civil rights, support and defend torture and applaud violence and war – long after their own misguided justifications have faded. But something more significant is happening here in America – something that will not be undone anytime soon.

Certain areas of private life must be subject to the “intrusion” of government.  The roads are paved, licenses are issued, water is tested for toxins before it reaches families. Minimum safety requirements are placed on companies who make products like medicine, food, and automobiles. As a society we recognize that the companies that create the poisons cannot be relied on to determine what amount of poison can enter the water supply before it becomes a public danger.

In 2008 and into 2009, large banking institutions looked to the government  to take a step further, and insure economic stability by providing direct government support to banks, insurance companies and financial institutions; all of this in order to avoid what was widely believed would be a complete economic meltdown. Government assistance extended beyond these institutions to large corporations, which received direct subsidies from the United States Government.

In October 2008 Clinton Administration Secretary of Labor Robert Reich stated what many were thinking about the manner in which these billions of dollars in government funds were being allocated:

We have socialism for the rich, and capitalism for everyone else.

But as the large corporations apply for government aid to survive, the nation’s attitude towards so-called “socialism” has begun to change. Less than a generation ago, the idea of universal government healthcare was opposed by many who called it “socialized medicine.” They cited concerns about the quality of care, the availability of treatment options, and the costs of funding a first-payer government funded health care system. When this ideology – publicly funded by professional doctors organizations and large pharmaceutical companies – won, Americans suffered.

Now, every 30 seconds a person in America goes into bankruptcy due to their inability to pay heath care costs. In almost every European country as well as Canada, Japan, Cuba and Iraq – where health care is subsidized by the government – no one is ever forced to make a decision choosing between bankruptcy and lifesaving medical treatment. Here, medical problems are estimated to cause over 60% of all personal bankruptcies.

78% of those people had medical insurance at the start of their illness or medical issue. Even more surprising is that most of these people were living a middle-class lifestyle before their lives were changed by medical bills; over 60% were people that owned homes and had college educations.  Laissez-faire Reganomics and the selective politics of personal responsibility – for the struggling working and middle classes only with bailouts for the rich – have literally had a crushing effect.

The prospects of the next generation re-growing the middle class are dim.  People who are now in their twenties who bought into the myth of middle class prosperity by borrowing student loans from educational funding services, with high interest rates and impossible demands, face an unfavorable job market and with no health insurance and mountains of debt that their parents and grandparents can only imagine.

Young students who attempt college come away with student loans the size of home mortgages.  A whole generation of former students, saddled with a capitalist system of education, have come away owing the prior generations who created and endorsed the system – and will pat with years of salary from their early working lives.  The Republicans endorsed this system, actively looking the other way while the student loan industry was rife with corruption.  As early as 2001, the incoming Bush Administration was warned that lenders were trying to improperly influence college financial aid offices.

The American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers’ Barmak Nassirian put it this way:

The day Bush was elected was the beginning of the gilded age for the loan industry.

After years of the financial services industry donating heavily to the campaigns of Republican members of the House Committee on Education and Labor – including leading donor Sallie Mae – who donated a staggering but not surprising three-quarters of its campaign contributions to Republicans.  Ohio Republican Congressman John Boehner – who served as a chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor – has received over $170,000 in combined campaign contributions between direct donations and donations to his “leadership” PAC.  While buying a home can’t be a 10-year goal for young people who are already saddled with repayment of enormous loans, Boehner told a group of Sallie Mae executives a 2004 fundraiser to “Know that I have all of you in my two trusted hands.”

The net result is an entire generation that has only known war and debt, and is ready to accept the virtues of a government-provided health care system.  For every Meghan McCain living on a cloud, spouting rhetoric but never having to worry about money, responsibility or going without, there are thousands of young people who are well educated but who have nothing else – including the prospect of one day living without debt. For many, it will have been more profitable to be less educated and less burdened with high interest loans. Average Americans who are not heiresses now have a financial incentive to avoid being educated or educating their children. That’s the capitalist form of education.

They are living in another world, or living in denial. In the same Rasmussen Poll where 20% of those polled said that socialism was superior to capitalism, adults younger than 30 were essentially evenly divided between socialism and capitalism.

As of 2007, the economic inequality in Atlanta, New Orleans Washington and Miami is similar to that of Nairobi, Kenya and Ivory Coast. The “civil unrest alert line” is used by the United Nations to warn governments when economic inequality is likely to have a “destabilizing effect on societies.”

Republican policy, Reganomics, and Bush-Era Deregulation – which fought against government intervention, and for the financial industry, big business and the rich who got richer – has locked America’s children into debt. Not just the debt that the teabag-swinging screamers echo through the Republican party, but personal debt in a way that the wealthy among us will never understand; and which those who claim concern for the debt load on young people have completely and totally ignored.

Beyond the bankruptcies; beyond the alienated and ignored youth; in America, where over 10% of the population (more than 40 million people) have no medical insurance -  that 10% contains absurdly disproportionate numbers of minorities. That number also ignores the 12 million undocumented people within the U.S. who face real fear of deportation and open hostility should they seek care at a hospital. For uninsured people, every preventable illness or accidental injury represents a potential economic life sentence to poverty.

20% of African Americans and 30% of Hispanics in America have no health insurance. Both of these groups comprise the fastest growing demographics of the American population despite the fact that the life expectancy of African American people in the United States is roughly equal to the rates in much poorer countries where premium health care services are not available – places like China, and certain states in India.

American minority women have higher rates of diabetes, heart disease, AIDS and obesity, and in general are more likely to be in fair or poor health.

If Census Bureau projections are correct, by 2050 the number of Hispanics in the United States will double proportionally to the rest of the population.  Where Latinos comprise 15% of the population now, that number will grow to 30%. In two generations, as the population of Hispanics and other minorities, including African-Americans, grows, non-Hispanic whites will be a minority.

As these demographics change, an educated and hopelessly indebted class emerges. And widespread dissatisfaction with the quality and availability of medical care in the U.S. has already soured the country to arguments advanced by doctors and insurance companies that “socialized medicine” will not work.  This dissatisfaction is well founded when the United States’ ranking in areas like infant mortality is 29th in the world in 2008 – well below Japan, Sweden, Netherlands, France, and Canada where medical care is provided by the government.

It is clear that “for profit” medical treatment has not kept the country healthy.  Strong lobbying groups funded by doctors, insurance companies and multinational pharmaceutical corporations are less concerned with the overall health of the nation and patient care than they are with the health of profits. The very idea that insurance companies which exist because of capitalism are relied on to provide the basic human necessity of medical treatment for an entire country is untenable. Not only is it untenable, it is irresponsible. Medical care should not be subjected to a capitalist model, where the rich can afford the best care, and the poor rely on minimal emergency care or treatments which plunge them into debt and bankruptcy.

When 10% of the country has no medical insurance coverage, the emergency treatment centers bear the brunt of unpaid services. Hospitals around the country are closing, leaving fewer options for people in need of care; this weighs most heavily upon those neighborhoods of poor who receive their medical care solely from emergency rooms. The net result is an increase in unemployed and uninsured people who must rely on emergency rooms for all of treatment they receive.

From a pragmatic standpoint, it would seem that the best way to keep one’s massive wealth would be to protect it by sacrificing some wealth to promote widespread growth, economic equality and social stability rather than by hoarding wealth and promoting civil unrest.  While the UN understands that high levels of inequality lead to “negative social, economic and political consequences that have a destabilizing effect on societies,” they do not see this.

Even in difficult times they see growth through inequality, the consolidation of massive wealth, and the continued growth of massive corporate institutions.  The rich get richer, get education, get health care and get access to congressmen to have a say in how the government administers the social programs and regulations for everyone else.  They fight against raising the minimum wage, expanding the availability of healthcare and creating restrictions on the maximum rate that credit card companies can charge.  They believe they deserve this control because their hard work is more valuable than the hard work of everyone else.  It should not be surprising that their response to calls for “change” has been paternalistic vitriol damning any solution incorporating economic balance as “utopian delusions”.

The real delusion is held by a group of people who believe that, by clinging to “values” which are on the verge of extinction, they can revive the influence of failed and outdated ideas. The real delusion is believing that the public call for change represents a “shift,” rather than what it really is: social and political evolution.

Tags: , , , ,

Older Post
Newer Post

6 Responses to “Taxed to Death – Plus a Green Day Review”

  1. milena Says:

    Great blog John! I’m hoping for healthcare reform. Its been long overdue, and as people struggle more and more financially, the need is vital. The time is now!

    P.S. Green Day tapped into a formula for writing songs that sell well with preteen kids. If it works, why change (even if they end up remaining stuck). As their fans grow up and expect more, there will always be a new preteen market ready to buy.

  2. Milena P Says:

    Great blog John! Can you believe we STILL don’t have universal healthcare? With so many people struggling financially, the time for healthcare reform is now. We are all a sickness or unpaid medical bill away from falling through the cracks. And Green Day? I think they’ve tapped into a formula for writing songs that sell well to pre-teen kids. If it works, why change? (even if they remain stuck artistically). As their fans grow up, change, and expect more, there will always be a new pre-teen market ready to buy. . .it kinda makes you wonder: can you be successful as a “punk rock” band and make $$ in a capitalist market or are those concepts mutually exclusive?

    I really enjoyed this – keep up the great work John!

  3. Milena P Says:

    I mean Jack! To me, you are the “John” Sanders I knew from way back when . . .

  4. Laura Says:

    I disagree with almost all of the Green Day review.

    To start, it’s not aimed at teenagers. In fact, this is the first time my DAD has cared about a Green Day album.

    It’s also not about “growing up” in a post-Bush America. It’s about LIVING in a post-Bush America.

    Green Day were never throwaway pop, either. While their lyrics have become more of a social commentary than about girls and drugs, their older music wasn’t any less good. They were just restraining themselves because they were trying to fit into a stereotype. I’m just glad they finally started making the music THEY wanted to make instead of what they thought their fans wanted to hear and what would get them the most cred in the punk community.

    And what do you mean, defending themselves by saying they were never really punk rock? They never were! Gilman Street wouldn’t let them play until they had John in the band. John had street cred from Isocracy. That’s the only reason they ever were allowed to play in there. Gilman Street may be where they got their start, and that may be the “scene” they came from, but that doesn’t mean their music was ever punk. I do believe they have punk ideals and may live the lifestyle, but their music never was. There’s some punk influence, but they’re barely punk enough to even be considered POP-punk.

    The ONE part of the review that I agree with is that they’ve evolved to understand what punk is about. They’ve DEFINITELY evolved to understand that the ideals are more important than the music, not to say that the music isn’t. In their earlier years they were trying to hard to fit into a stereotype, but have evolved to make the music they want to make without regards to what their audience wants to hear. As I said, they may have gotten their start at Gilman, but it was never loyal to them. Gilman never wanted them in the first place for the most part. And as soon as they signed to a major label, they disowned them, even though their indie label couldn’t support the demand for their albums at the time and it was 100% necessary if they wanted to continue making music. Insomniac was a retaliation to that whole situation and all the backlash they got. After that, they stopped caring about their supposedly “punk” image. In Nimrod they really started to expand on their style. They finally released Good Riddance, which had been written YEARS before. It was the farthest thing from punk they’d ever written, but it was a good song that they enjoyed, so they finally put it out. When Warning came out, they’d already had three successful albums and had more to lose than they had to gain. They started writing more about social issues than personal issues, and further expanded on their sound. The change could have been seen as selling out…had they not already had such an established fan base. It was a risk, and it flopped. I respect them for that. American Idiot was also a risk, what with having such a strong concept, and having nine minute songs. It was still very Green Day, but it was also very different. In hindsight, it was a very steady progression leading them to where they are now.

    Many people see it as them betraying their original scene and style and catering to the public, but if you know anything about them, you know that it’s the opposite. They were catering to an audience when they started, and they grew up and realized how stupid that was and started to make music for themselves and really found what they wanted to do. They realized what an impact they could make with their music.

    A lot of people think American Idiot, and now 21st Century Breakdown is somewhat “preachy” and seems a bit like propaganda. However, the message in American Idiot is quite clear: Don’t listen to what the media force-feeds you. Find the truth for yourself. They may make statements, but nothing too blatant or in-your face. Most of their opinions are presented as such. They don’t want to tell anybody WHAT to think…they just want people TO think, and for THEMSELVES. Personally, I think that’s a pretty good message.

    Also, I personally think 21st Century Breakdown is more mature than American Idiot both musically and in subject matter. American Idiot was too concerned with the story and the concepts. The loose themes and conceptual ambiguity makes 21st Century Breakdown feel much more natural. And less preachy. I don’t necessarily agree with everything said in their music, but they aren’t shoving it in your face.

    As for the comment(s?) saying that they have a formula, I would like to know where they’re getting this. They have songs ranging from 30 seconds to over nine minutes. They have some minimalist songs with just an acoustic guitar and vocals. They have purely instrumental songs. They use a wide variety of instruments, including: guitar, bass, drums, piano, harmonica, mandolin, farfisa, trumpet, saxophone, accordian, etc. They have fast songs. They have slow songs. They have songs about everything from girls, to religion, to drugs, to cross-dressing, to moving, to sex, to dealing with death, to being a parent, to growing up, to the fashion industry, to politics. They draw influence from many genres. Punk, classic rock, ska, blues, pop, and even polka, for Pete’s sake.

    With each album, they expand on their previous sound. Keep it the same at heard, but with a complete overhaul in how it’s presented. They change everything from their instrumentation to the formula of each song (because it is different for each song) and the lyrical content.

    They’ve spent 20+ years evolving. There’s no formula. Yeah, they’re still the same Green Day at heart, but they’ve definitely changed and grown as they’ve grown up. It’s not like they’ve put out the same album eight times…it’s always something new and refreshing, but you’re still getting the same band you loved before.

    Anybody who thinks they have a set formula CLEARLY is not familiar with anything outside of their singles. And clearly not even familiar with those very well considering Jesus of Suburbia was a single.

    Green Day have the most variety of just about any band I know. Calling them formulaic is just about the most untrue thing anybody could possibly say about them.

    I am a fan in it for the long haul. They’ve never disappointed me. They’re always maturing, and definitely not looking for a teenage audience. In fact, I saw them in concert last night, and it was one of the most diverse crowds I’ve ever seen. There were young children there, with parents who had probably grown up listening to them. There were people in their 30s, 20s, and teens. I’m pretty sure I even saw some white haired elders there. Green Day are a culturally relevant band that appeal to everybody. They have such a wide variety in their repertoire that if one can’t find a single thing to like about them, it’s rather sad.

  5. Ronen Says:

    Clearly the LONGEST comment this website has ever inspired.

    That said, many legit points here. I’d love to see Jack respond! I love Insomniac, but after that, I’m sad to say much of Green Day’s music has left me wanting more. My general sense is that the bulk of what I don’t like about much of their recent material has to do with the production. Ginormous production just makes everything sound the same to me. The new record is a slightly mixed bag. I like some of the songs, LOVE the “Viva la Gloria” track (which somehow makes me think of My Chemical Romance) and flatly can’t stand a few tracks. “21 Guns” has a great message – like all of Green Day’s music, especially the later catalog – but for me is the song equivalent of watching C-Span. I still love Green Day as a band – why can’t I love their records? Someone help.

  6. Laura Says:

    I can understand the production affecting your liking of their music. I used to be the same way…only opposite. Before, if it didn’t have ginormous production quality, it all sounded the same to me, and it sounded…bad. I think part of the reason I never got into Green Day when I was younger was the production quality. I mean, I liked the Green Day songs I heard on the radio, but never enough to go out and buy their albums. Not that I really bought music back then… but anyway, I got into them with Warning, and I ended up looking into their older stuff and loved it all. I credit Green Day with broadening my horizons, and looking past production quality, and to look at the song itself. It really expanded my tastes in music, and let me learn to love a lot of music I never would have even given a chance to before.

    Personally, there are a lot of great things about their older music, and there are a lot of great things about their newer music. They’re different, but not THAT different. The main differences are that their newer music is more complex, using more instruments, the production quality, and the lyrical content.

    People always talk about “old” Green Day and “new” Green Day. I can never decide which I like more. (I take old Green Day to mean 1039/SOSH through either Insomniac or Nimrod, and new Green Day either Nimrod or Warning through now.) It all depends on my mood. I split it where I split it because, as far as production goes, that would split after Nimrod. But where they started expanding musically, that would be before Nimrod.

    Anyway, I realize I’m somewhat biased. In my eyes, they’ve almost done no wrong. But at the same time, I am informed about the band, and plenty familiar with their music.

Leave a Reply


 Powered by Max Banner Ads 
This text will be replaced

Subscribe

The podcast:
iTunes iTunes Enhanced
RSS Audio Add to My Yahoo Add to Google
IO Video:
RSS Video YouTube

Get new episodes in your inbox!

Latest Tweets

Reader Reaction

snmaster.idx: "who can tell me the downloading address?"

joey: "i guess im already on this list. i dont get any news or new issues or swag or love. what..."

Neal Conner: "It’s no suppose give direction. Punk rock never offers answers, It focuses..."

Recent Photos

BRIAN FAIR (SHADOWS FALL) on ISSUE ORIENTED
JUSTIN BRANNAN on Issue Oriented
JOE STEINHARDT on Issue Oriented
COBRA SKULLS on Issue Oriented
THE KOMINAS on Issue Oriented
DAVID MOORE on Issue Oriented
book @ Hopeless