If I'd been the son of Sam

by David Grand
October 14, 2004

No, I'm not referring to David Berkowitz's MO in leaving letters at the scene of his six murders in 1978 in New York City signed "I'm the Son of Sam" (who's a SOB to New Yorkers). But rather to the founder of Wal-Mart Sam Walton, whose five kids are now worth $18 billion each according to Forbes 23rd listing of the 400 richest Americans.       

And if I had been his sixth child born and raised in that chicken-plucking state of Arkansas with "a silver spoon in my mouth," I'd lived a life of leisure and self-indulgence, and never would've sweated like a coolie working in the steel mills in Gary, Indiana as a teenager, and having to wait until I was 18 to save enough money to buy a used car, eating at hamburger joints, getting into gang fights, or having to worry about being drafted during the Korean War. But I'm sure you know I'm only joshing, for I wouldn't have exchanged my parents and growing up in that rough and tumble town for anything, not even winning the Powerball lottery.

But I must say, I didn't cry crocodile tears in finding that Martha Stewart was not on this year's list of billionaires. However, she could rebound if she saves that 12 cents an hour she's making over the next four months working in prison, and perhaps a few bucks more teaching other inmates how to prepare gourmet meals, fancy pastries and dress eloquently.       

And I couldn't help but wonder how those on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder would view (without puking) the fact that just over one percent of the population (250 billionaires, 25,000 multi-millillionaires, 6.2 millionaires) control over 50 percent of the country's entire personal wealth? Where the richest 20 percent earn 48.5 percent of the income and the poorest 20 percent merely 5.2 percent? And where since 1980, real income for the bottom fifth of families has fell $1,500 while rising to nearly $60,000 for the top fifth? They must think they're living on a different planet.      

A few other disconcerting stats I came across were: that the number of Americans living below the poverty line (which for a family of four is $18,810 and $12,015 for two people) increased by 1.3 million last year, for a total of 35.8 million or 12.5 percent of the population; that in 2002, the top fifth of those making an average of $116,666 a year paid 19 cents in federal, state and local taxes for every dollar of income, while the lowest fifth paid 18 cents on the dollars of incomes averaging $7,946; and that more than a million U.S. corporations and individuals have registered as citizens of Bermuda to avoid taxes, and although the exact number is unknown, the IRS estimates that "tax motivated expatriation" drains at least $70 billion a year from the U.S. Treasury.       

And the rancid icing on the cake is that over the past three years the United States has lost between 2.5 and 3 million manufacturing and service jobs through outsourcing, with domestic employers expected to move 3.3 million white-collar service jobs overseas in the next 15 years, which would result in federal, state and local tax receipts declining by as much as $34 billion.      

So, what if anything can be done by Congress and state legislatures to turn the tide on the growing loss of jobs to foreign countries? Well, at least 31 legislatures have introduced measures banning state agencies from entering into contracts with companies that would send those jobs outside the country, and the U.S. Senate has passed a bill that would, if signed into law, prohibit states from using federal money to secure state procurement contracts fulfilled outside the country.       

But to quote Hamlet, "ay, there's the rub." For isn't it right to spend taxpayers dollars overseas when it means savings to the states, or is it the responsibility of lawmakers to ensure tax money stays in the United States? Talk about being between a rock and a hard place!