"What are you going to do to strengthen social security, medicare and medicaid without cutting benefits?"
To which Romney replied:
"I'm not going to raise taxes! That's my answer. I'm not going to raise taxes. And if you want somebody who's going to raise taxes, you can vote for Barack Obama!"
Fair enough. The hard line against raising taxes is all but a prerequisite for being a GOP contender in this election cycle with so many Republican lawmakers signing onto Grover Norquist's Taxpayer Protection Pledge making even the discussion of increasing government revenues by any means a taboo topic. But what really got me thinking was something Mitt Romney said a little late when referring back to this exchange:
From "the Economist" http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/crowd-control:
Mr Romney had been laying out the options for ensuring that Medicare and Social Security remain "promises we can keep." Referring back to the chanted demand to "scrap the cap", the candidate began his menu of choices: "One is raising taxes on people…" Those who had come to confront power immediately began yelling "Corporations!" as though it had suddenly occurred to them that raising payroll taxes might not be necessary after all. Corporations! Tax those. A less rattled Mr Romney might have observed that to "scrap the cap" is to raise taxes on a certain set of relatively well-paid people. He might have asked his vocal interlocutors if he was mistaken to think that was their idea. Instead, he said, with a note of sneering condescension, "Corporations are people, my friend."
When a mocking laugh went up, Mr Romney pressed on, "Of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people." More mocking laughs. "Where do you think it goes?"
Shouts: "Pockets!" "Into their pockets!" "Pockets!"
“Into whose pockets? People’s pockets. Human beings, my friend.”
Now I'm not going to claim to fully understand the economic implications of treating corporations as people - I am woefully unqualified to comment on the merits of economic policy but I do feel somewhat qualified to speak on the social and spiritual implications of treating anything but people as "people".
I remember back in my second year of Bible College a classmate in my public speaking class did a presentation on factory farms and animal rights - particularly based oh his experience at a chicken farm. I don't even remember where he came down on the issue anymore but I do remember one story he told about a lady and her chickens.
If I recall correctly this lady (who was unsurprisingly a crusader for animal rights - something more Christians I think should be concerned about) had two pet chickens that she kept as a part of the family. She treated those chickens like they were her own children. They ate good food, they got good care, I'm sure if chickens have the cognitive capacity for higher processing that they believed they were "people" like their owner. Well this lady was interviewed about her feelings on animal rights and brazenly declared that because her pets were "people" and more than that, her "family" that if her building was burning down and she had the choice to save a human stranger or her beloved poultry - the Chickens would not be getting roasted.
I think that for any well adjusted person out there (even if you are passionate about animal rights) this seems absolutely ludicrous; and for a Bible believing Christian it should be more than that - this idea is patently offensive. When God created the world (however you think that whole process shook down) he created humanity in a class by itself. Adam was made more than the trees of the forest or the fish of the sea, or the birds of the air or the beasts of the land - he was made in the Image of God.
God said, “Let the earth produce every kind of living thing: livestock, crawling things, and wildlife.” And that’s what happened. God made every kind of wildlife, every kind of livestock, and every kind of creature that crawls on the ground. God saw how good it was. Then God said, “Let us make humanity in our image to resemble us so that they may take charge of the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, all the earth, and all the crawling things on earth.”
God created humanity
in God’s own image,
in the divine image God created them,
male and female God created them.
Genesis 1:24-27 (CEB)
Note that there is nothing else in all creation, including all the angels and the heavenly beings to which Scripture ascribes the Image of God. Humanity is special and in a class by itself among all created things. What this does theologically is say that according to God's created order, chickens are important (God declared them "good" long before the Colonel's 11 herbs and spices) but no matter how much we want them to be - chickens are not "people"; only people are "people"
Which brings us back to Mitt Romney (and every other Republican candidate for the presidential nomination with perhaps the exception of Ron Paul) and his "corporations are people too" position. In the United States based largely on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment corporations hold many of the same rights as individuals. This is based on the inherent logic that corporations are made up of groups of people and that people when organised and assembled shouldn't be stripped of their rights. The history of the argument can be traced back to the landmark Supreme court decision in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad back in 1886. The argument was over whether the railroad had the same rights that individuals had in deducting mortgage expenses from the tax burden - it was a small and seemingly inconsequential case at the time but it ended up setting precedent that would shape all future applications of the 14th Amendment. The fallout from that decision meant that Corporations now enjoyed the same constitutional protections as ordinary citizens (with some exceptions being upheld like the 5th Amendment's right to not incriminate oneself) in short companies were now "people" in the same sense that any other citizen was, and since that ruling powerful corporations and special interest groups have continually found ways to exploit that designation to their benefit. In context, the comment by Romney was about raising taxes on corporations to help pay for social security, medicare and medicaid - and his distaste for such a move because corporations were "people" and just as he and his fellow candidates are opposed to raising the taxes on the wealthy (who actually are "people") they are also opposed to raising taxes on the engines that generate the wealth of the wealthy. So what's the problem with this?
Well there are several problems with Romney's assertions actually. The first is constitutional; it is clear historically that the authors of the 14th Amendment did not have corporations in mind when they drafted and ratified it. The purpose of the amendment was to ensure the equal application of rights to human beings in the Republic regardless of which state they resided in - especially with regards to racial inequality and segregation. It was designed to be a safeguard against the rich and powerful exploiting the poor and marginalized and although it was initially gutted by the courts in the development of the "separate but equal" doctrine which legitimized some States' policies of segregation - it eventually led to the abolishment of those practices in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education. The fact that corporations saw the benefit of the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment before minorities was a scathing indictment of a legislative and legal system that favoured keeping the powerful powerful and the impotent marginalized. In 1938 Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black said it best when he commented:
"The history of the amendment proves that the people were told that its purpose was to protect weak and helpless human beings and were not told that it was intended to remove corporations in any fashion from the control of state governments."
The second problem with Romney's position is ethical. The way that corporations are being afforded rights in this day and age is through powerful lobbying rights, unlimited political contribution rights, and persistent taxation evasion. It's a circular problem where corporations indirectly bankroll candidates through political action groups and provide the resources to win the media war (and usually the election) against their opposition for the privilege of that candidate remembering who their friends are when they get into office. That legislator then crafts legislation that favours the corporation or special interest group that got them elected (or conversely blocks legislation that may be harmful to their backers) which in turn gives the corporations greater rights and powers to influence and control the political process. The most heinous example that I have seen recently was the deadlock over raising the debt ceiling where the republicans in congress (led and pushed by the Tea Party caucus) refused to consider any tax increases as a way of reducing the deficit including - and this is the part that actually makes me angry - legislation that would close tax loopholes that currently allow some of the countries largest and wealthiest corporations to avoid paying nearly any of their tax burden through diverting revenue through off-shore and foreign holdings. The American political process is virtually owned now by the corporations and is manipulated for their sole benefit. How does this fall in line with legislators being elected to represent the people in their districts or states? Even if corporations are "people" why do a small number of wealthy individuals have more say than the hundreds of thousands or millions of other voices these legislators represent?
Which brings us back to Mitt Romney (and every other Republican candidate for the presidential nomination with perhaps the exception of Ron Paul) and his "corporations are people too" position. In the United States based largely on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment corporations hold many of the same rights as individuals. This is based on the inherent logic that corporations are made up of groups of people and that people when organised and assembled shouldn't be stripped of their rights. The history of the argument can be traced back to the landmark Supreme court decision in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad back in 1886. The argument was over whether the railroad had the same rights that individuals had in deducting mortgage expenses from the tax burden - it was a small and seemingly inconsequential case at the time but it ended up setting precedent that would shape all future applications of the 14th Amendment. The fallout from that decision meant that Corporations now enjoyed the same constitutional protections as ordinary citizens (with some exceptions being upheld like the 5th Amendment's right to not incriminate oneself) in short companies were now "people" in the same sense that any other citizen was, and since that ruling powerful corporations and special interest groups have continually found ways to exploit that designation to their benefit. In context, the comment by Romney was about raising taxes on corporations to help pay for social security, medicare and medicaid - and his distaste for such a move because corporations were "people" and just as he and his fellow candidates are opposed to raising the taxes on the wealthy (who actually are "people") they are also opposed to raising taxes on the engines that generate the wealth of the wealthy. So what's the problem with this?
Well there are several problems with Romney's assertions actually. The first is constitutional; it is clear historically that the authors of the 14th Amendment did not have corporations in mind when they drafted and ratified it. The purpose of the amendment was to ensure the equal application of rights to human beings in the Republic regardless of which state they resided in - especially with regards to racial inequality and segregation. It was designed to be a safeguard against the rich and powerful exploiting the poor and marginalized and although it was initially gutted by the courts in the development of the "separate but equal" doctrine which legitimized some States' policies of segregation - it eventually led to the abolishment of those practices in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education. The fact that corporations saw the benefit of the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment before minorities was a scathing indictment of a legislative and legal system that favoured keeping the powerful powerful and the impotent marginalized. In 1938 Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black said it best when he commented:
"The history of the amendment proves that the people were told that its purpose was to protect weak and helpless human beings and were not told that it was intended to remove corporations in any fashion from the control of state governments."
The second problem with Romney's position is ethical. The way that corporations are being afforded rights in this day and age is through powerful lobbying rights, unlimited political contribution rights, and persistent taxation evasion. It's a circular problem where corporations indirectly bankroll candidates through political action groups and provide the resources to win the media war (and usually the election) against their opposition for the privilege of that candidate remembering who their friends are when they get into office. That legislator then crafts legislation that favours the corporation or special interest group that got them elected (or conversely blocks legislation that may be harmful to their backers) which in turn gives the corporations greater rights and powers to influence and control the political process. The most heinous example that I have seen recently was the deadlock over raising the debt ceiling where the republicans in congress (led and pushed by the Tea Party caucus) refused to consider any tax increases as a way of reducing the deficit including - and this is the part that actually makes me angry - legislation that would close tax loopholes that currently allow some of the countries largest and wealthiest corporations to avoid paying nearly any of their tax burden through diverting revenue through off-shore and foreign holdings. The American political process is virtually owned now by the corporations and is manipulated for their sole benefit. How does this fall in line with legislators being elected to represent the people in their districts or states? Even if corporations are "people" why do a small number of wealthy individuals have more say than the hundreds of thousands or millions of other voices these legislators represent?
And the third (and this is where I'll end my rant) problem with Romney's position is theological. By arguing that corporations are "people" you devalue what God created on that sixth day by asserting that we have the power to create for ourselves organisations and institutions in the image of God. The Bible never gives rights to a group of people over an individual - even in situations where God favours a certain group (Israel and the Church being the obvious examples) the mandates and social codes given to those groups call for the protection of the individual, of the less fortunate, of the vulnerable and the poor. It would be accurate to say that the Bible does not address the issue of "corporations" per se but it does speak clearly and forcefully to power, to kingdoms, to empires and the like. To give corporations the same status as "people" is to go against the testimony of Scripture and the ethic of the Kingdom of God. With so many of these republican candidates professing to be Evangelical Christians (and yes I know that Romney is a Mormon - but while that puts him at odds theologically with Christians it places him on common ground morally and ethically) I'm left wondering why this is so universally ignored?
Okay, I'll finish here because I don't want to increase my blood pressure over another country's politics any further and because I've probably already exceeded most of my reader's attention spans and interest with my long winded musings.
Until next time,
Chris
thanks for this Chris
ReplyDelete