Step right up and greet the Mets

(The title of this post has absolutely nothing to do with what it's actually about; I was simply thinking about how long the Mets can keep up this charade that they in fact won't have a season ending implosion.)

I was reading a piece in the Globe this morning called Seeing Through Obamanomics. And it's obviously a popular piece; it's the #1 most e-mailed story on Boston.com. for those of you too lazy to click, it’s basically a rip on Obama’s tax plan, a tax plan which I’m not particularly crazy about either.

But the thing that kills me about all this talk of and focus on taxes during this election is the fact that it trivializes the problem of the economy to a purely technical problem; that if we just shift the numbers in the right way, all this malaise will go away. Never mind the fact that two major banks went under last weekend, or the fact that the average American Household with at least one credit card has almost $10,000 in debt, you need those extra $50 in your paycheck, dammit!

Actually, no, you don’t.

This perspective misses the problem entirely, in my opinion. The problem isn't that you need that extra $50 in your pocket because you're living paycheck to paycheck, the problem is that you have grown accustomed to a lifestyle which your income cannot support. That’s why you’re living paycheck to paycheck.

And for those of you compelled to argue that you don't have a lifestyle, and you still are just scraping by, just can it. Can it right now, because you're lying to yourself. ‘Lifestyle’ is not synonymous with ‘glamorous.’ If you're not on welfare, you have a lifestyle. End of story. Do you have a nice watch? How about jewelry? Do you buy organic food? fancy cooking utensils? Pay $3 every morning for a cup of coffee? Do you smoke? Drink? Eat out at a restaurant? Drive when you could walk, or take Public Transportation? How many pairs of shoes do you have? How many cable/satellite TV channels? You have a lifestyle. And if you have credit card debt, then every time you spend cash on something, ANYTHING, you are spending borrowed money. And not only that, but you’re spending it on things which have no long-term value, and certainly will never INCREASE in value.

The way to get out from the paycheck-to-paycheck mindset is not to clamor for the right policy from a politician. McCain and Obama both have never and will never experience anything close to what you and I experience day in and day out, McCain especially; holding out for that next paycheck to get you over the hump; anxiously hoping your account will fatten in time to pay your cell phone bill; cringing when you hand the rent check to your landlord. They don’t even KNOW the problem is, so how can you reasonably expect them to know how to FIX the problem? They say they know what it is, but the sense of urgency on them is practically Nil. If their darling policies fail, and we get squeezed even tighter, well their $400,000/year salary, plus a $50,000 expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account, and $19,000 entertainment account are all probably safe, don’t you think? (And for the record, only two presidents in the history of the office have not accepted the office’s salary; George Washington refused it, and JFK donated his to charity in its entirety.)

And what kills me even more is how wholly paycheck-to-paycheck people buy into this tax-anchored way of thinking. We eat it up, we love it!

Today, I will receive my first paycheck from my new job. Which means I am now officially living paycheck to paycheck. But I'll be damned if I place an ounce of my faith in John McCain OR Barack Obama to fix that problem; how can they? If I don't want to live paycheck to paycheck (and I don't know many people who do) then I should probably take the time to be realistic about minimizing my expenses and maximizing my worth. That’s another rant for another day, though.

The burden of ‘solving’ the problem of paycheck-to-paycheck living falls squarely on the shoulders of those who are in fact living paycheck-to-paycheck. This is not a popular opinion at all, which is why you will never hear a politician profess it, but it’s true. Because solving the problem for ourselves involves a shift in thinking; we need to adapt our lives to a new set of circumstances, which is something we would much rather not do. We would rather drive our country, the country to which every single one of us owes a tremendous amount, further and further into debt so we can all have that extra $50/week in our pockets. Because that takes the burden off of us; we’re no longer liable for coming up with a solution. Except now, our country is in debt and 40% of the population is STILL living paycheck to paycheck. And so, in our frustration, we turn on the leader we chose, because they didn’t solve the problem we entrusted them to solve, even though they were never in a position to actually solve it, and couldn’t solve it even if they were.

We’re not bad people for thinking this way; it’s a totally reasonable perspective to take. Living on a wire is scary business, and tax cuts provide an easy, convenient solution which requires no change on our part. We’d be stupid not to demand it, right?

It’s only when we realize that measures like tax cuts and ‘economic stimulus packages’ are merely changes in routine, and do not address the more embedded issue of American families living a lifestyle which is not commensurate with their income level, that we must demand more of our elected officials.

The urgency is there; everyone knows this is a problem. What we need is someone capable of moving it from the individual to the generalized. Someone unafraid to NOT shoulder the burden of the problems of the people, but who instead will empower the people to develop solutions for themselves, and give them the tools to do so.