After a lively class discussion regarding Wynton Marsalis' "Supercapitalism" and the idea of American society as a construction, I heard a fascinating piece on the radio about current Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney and his father, George, the former governor of Michigan. 
While the younger Romney has recently received quite a bit of attention over his current tax rate (13.9%), it's instructive to consider why his rate is what it is, and how our government can often pick winners and losers simply by constructing policies, laws, and regulations that reward some Americans and shortchange others. For example, although Mitt has publicly released one year of his tax returns, his father, in an effort to be completely transparent, released twelve years of records, giving us an insight on how tax policies change over time. I have to say I was a bit shocked to discover that George Romney paid anywhere from two to three times the tax rate of his son, topping out at 44% (back in 1963). Why was this the case? Be patient with me here. One reason is a difference in what is called the "top marginal tax rate". In the 1950s, the tax rate was as high as 91%, while by the Lyndon Johnson 1960s, it had dropped to 70%. By the 1970s, it was 50%, and under Reagan in the 1980s, it was set just under 30%. Yet another reason has to do with how people earn their income. While most Americans draw their income from a paycheck, far fewer citizens (like Mitt Romney) earn money primarily via investments ("capital gains"). The latter source of income has also seen a major change in how it is taxed by the IRS. At one point in our history, regular income tax rates and capital gains tax rates were equal, but no longer: today, the latter is taxed at just half of the top marginal tax rate (15% vs 30%). Are you still with me after all of that economic blather? Why does the government construct policies that reward some hard-working Americans over others? Does that seem democratic to you?
While the younger Romney has recently received quite a bit of attention over his current tax rate (13.9%), it's instructive to consider why his rate is what it is, and how our government can often pick winners and losers simply by constructing policies, laws, and regulations that reward some Americans and shortchange others. For example, although Mitt has publicly released one year of his tax returns, his father, in an effort to be completely transparent, released twelve years of records, giving us an insight on how tax policies change over time. I have to say I was a bit shocked to discover that George Romney paid anywhere from two to three times the tax rate of his son, topping out at 44% (back in 1963). Why was this the case? Be patient with me here. One reason is a difference in what is called the "top marginal tax rate". In the 1950s, the tax rate was as high as 91%, while by the Lyndon Johnson 1960s, it had dropped to 70%. By the 1970s, it was 50%, and under Reagan in the 1980s, it was set just under 30%. Yet another reason has to do with how people earn their income. While most Americans draw their income from a paycheck, far fewer citizens (like Mitt Romney) earn money primarily via investments ("capital gains"). The latter source of income has also seen a major change in how it is taxed by the IRS. At one point in our history, regular income tax rates and capital gains tax rates were equal, but no longer: today, the latter is taxed at just half of the top marginal tax rate (15% vs 30%). Are you still with me after all of that economic blather? Why does the government construct policies that reward some hard-working Americans over others? Does that seem democratic to you?
via npr.org
via bear71.nfb.ca
via npr.org
In her book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, legal scholar Michelle Alexander writes that many of the gains of the civil rights movement have been undermined by the mass incarceration of black Americans in the war on drugs. She says that although Jim Crow laws are now off the books, millions of blacks arrested for minor crimes remain marginalized and disfranchised, trapped by a criminal justice system that has forever branded them as felons and denied them basic rights and opportunities that would allow them to become productive, law-abiding citizens.
The title of this post is intentionally ironic. Of course we are away from school today because Dr. Martin Luther King is commemorated by name with a national holiday. And just about everyone alive is familiar with King's "I Have A Dream" speech. However, as we finish the semester, having recently explored the writings of another notable civil rights activist, Frederick Douglass, we invite you to think about what you have previously learned about Dr. King as a younger student, in light of this particular speech. The subject of the talk was the Vietnam War, in an excerpt from a sermon given at Ebenezer Baptist Church, on April 30, 1967. Consider the public response to his words back then:
...after giving the speech...King was dropped from Gallup’s annual list of the most admired Americans and was ridiculed by the New York Times, among too many others. Soon after, he was murdered (Robert Scheer, Truthdig.com).
Although it is over 20 minutes long, you are encouraged to listen to as much of it as you can (it's audio only). We know what amazing multitaskers you are. Press PLAY and have it on in the background as you IM your friends and surf the net ;) Ask yourself the following questions:
- Why is this post titled, "The Forgotten King"?
- Why was this speech so controversial?
- How does it relate to our course themes?
- Can you make connections to today?
A full text version of this speech is available HERE.