Day 333- The Freeze

Dear Mr, President,

When I began my time at Borders the company had a policy to evaluate employees on a yearly basis and to give out a modest raise based on that evaluation. (While we were discouraged from discussing the amount of these raises, word has a way of getting around. The last year that they were in place, raises were about $.03-.11/hr.) While there were always grumblings about the meanness of size of these wage increases, they could not begin to rival the uproar that taking them away entirely created. Citing very real financial troubles, the company chose to cut costs by cutting any merit increases for employees. I'd been in management positions before and after this decision and I noticed a distinct increase in apathy that I couldn't find the heart to condemn. The face of our company was not the executives who still lived with 6-figure incomes and yearly bonuses, but the employees who were making near-minimum wage and seeing cost of living increase while pay stagnated and benefits were slashed. Clearly, Borders has not presented a particularly happy face to the public ever since.

When I read about your decision to freeze wages for Federal Employees I was deeply unsettled. This strategy was not particularly effective for Borders, and I don't imagine it will be the miracle that deficit-concerned Americans are looking for when applied to Federal employees. Why is it that Federal employees can be forced to pay the the price of our deficit, but taxing the rich at pre-Bush-administration levels is tantamount to class warfare?

Also, while it may be crass to consider something as tangible as peoples' livelihoods a negotiating point, but it seems like poor political strategy to order this freeze without getting some concession or promise in return, like the expiration of Bush tax-cuts or the extension of unemployment benefits.

At Borders, while the employees grew unhappy, the wage freeze did little to solve the company's financial problems. Layoffs came next, and still the company struggles. I may have little expertise in economic matters, but I witnessed firsthand the way that punishing the anonymous laborers for the mistakes of the wealthy executives destroyed a company that once led the industry in the way it treated its employees. I would hate to see the same thing happen to our country. Yes, economic times are tough and we will all suffer the consequences of this, but those who are weathering the storm with the least inconvenience- the rich- will not be the ones to restore our economic stability. Recovery will come from the poor and especially from the middle class. Further inhibiting their buying power is only going to make things worse.

I understand you have tough choices to make and this was certainly not a decision you made lightly. I will keep faith in your good intentions and in the wisdom of your decisions, and hope that you find the courage to make sure that the burden of this recession is borne equally by the wealthiest Americans.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 323- In-flight entertainment, death panels and superheroes

Dear Mr. President,

While listening to my favorite song off of the new Kanye West album on continuous loop, I've been surfing internet news stories to find an appropriate topic for today's letter. While a number of stories caught my attention, nothing about them seemed significant enough to become subjects of a letter to the White House. What do you care about Superheroes patrolling the streets of Seattle? Or a couple getting married in the minutes their flight entered Canadian airspace? Or the way budget cuts in Arizona are resulting in low-income patients getting kicked off of lists for organ donations?

These stories so have something in common, and that, I think, is important to you. Or at least it should be. The theme today is about what happens when Government fails. My city government has failed to keep people safe. It's own budget cuts have prevented the manpower and training necessary for proper law enforcement. And so citizens with military and martial arts backgrounds are donning capes and masks, climbing in their KIA and fighting crime for free.

Your administration has failed the gay men aboard that flight, who cannot have their union legally recognized in their own country. You've failed to make this a front and center civil rights issue, to shame the opponents of same-sex marriage for imposing their hateful system of so-called values on the rest of the country. And so two citizens who want to commit to one another for life took to the skies, entered Canadian airspace, and wed.

And when governments fail, sometimes, as demonstrated by (but by no means confined to) the state of Arizona, citizens have no other option but early death. It is a tragic and unacceptable fact that in this country people die all the time from treatable conditions because they are too poor to afford treatment. It is a failure at all levels of government, and, while I should find solace and inspiration in the stories of those taking (criminal and social) justice into their own hands, I can't help but think about the cities cutting police officers (or unable to hire badly needed new ones) who don't have their own roving band of caped crusaders, or the gay couples who can't fly to a place where their marriage will be recognized. And while poverty will always exist, (and will, unfortunately, carry with it a much shorter life expectancy,) while people will always get sick and many will die when they might have been saved, that the wealth that might offset this disparity is concentrated in the richest 1% of our population is a difficult fact to ignore.

The government, as you are so fond of recalling President Lincoln reminding us, should only do for the people what they can not do better for themselves. I think the government is generally better at law enforcement. I think the government could bestow the basic rights same-sex couples deserve. And I think the government can ease the suffering of the poor and uninsured. But so many of us are still waiting for you to step up and show us how it's done.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 259-Good and Evil

Dear Mr. President,

I have a constant struggle between the parts of me that believe people are basically good and the part that believes people are selfish and amoral. I want the believe the best of people, in general. But my parents were cops, and the people they dealt with daily were murders, rapists and child molesters. People who are difficult, if not impossible, to forgive or to find redemptive goodness in. At work it is my job to catch shoplifters. This is a much smaller scale of badness than what my parents dealt with, but I often encounter individuals who challenge my belief in man's fundamental goodness. Today was one of those days. While it was ultimately a positive outcome, the incident has definitely made me reflect on what I believe.

The process of enforcing the law, on whatever scale it has to be done, requires a sort of reactionary mentality that isn't generally how I see myself. When I'm catching a criminal, I don't have time to think about the circumstances in a person's life that led to their crime. I don't have time to consider the societal problems that have forced them into the situation, or a long-term strategy for their rehabilitation. I have to react to what they do a the time they do it in whatever way I can best minimize the damage. I try to be respectful and always consider the humanity of the people I deal with. A person's humanity does not, of course, exempt them from mankind's more instinctive and animal-like impulses- fight or flight- and anticipating this while respecting the individual's humanity is one of the more challenging aspects of my job. I consider a number of circumstantial factors that combine to make a person desperate, and I don't think I have encountered any one I would actually call evil. Even when choosing fight over flight, I don't believe that a person can be judged by their worst and most desperate behavior. But this does not exempt them from responsibility for their choices, and that is why I have to react to the situation and not to the big picture.

You don't have that luxury, unfortunately. You were, after all, the one who ran for President. You knew what you were getting into when you applied for the job. So while I do the best I can to deal with the situation at hand, to stop criminals without losing my compassion for them, you've got to think about the greater problem. I deal with crimes. You worry about Crime, an abstract, complex concept that affects and is affected by everything from economics to education to social values. I'd be incredibly happy to be put out of a job, to have all crime stopped by some massive national policy that magically makes us a peaceful, crime-free society. Living, as I unfortunately must, in the real world, I'm not too worried about my job security. That being said, budget shortfalls in my state are leading to fewer police officers and certainly also to an increase in crime rates. Today I chased down a shoplifter and was assaulted in the process. That's part of my job. Today the federal government spent more than $410 million on our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the year 2011, Seattle taxpayers alone will contribute $36.9 million to these two wars- enough to pay for more than 4,000 police officers, or 48,000 university scholarships. These wars were started- and continue to be waged- under the pretext of fighting "evil". I may not believe in evil the same way that many people seem to, but I think much more good might be done with that money, in my city, in Iraq or in Afghanistan. Making the tough decisions about how this money is spent is your job, Mr. President, and I think it is one area with plenty of room for improvement. You can't make people good, or even ensure that they always make good choices. Mistakes and bad judgement and selfishness are unfortunate realities that no government can solve. However, there is a lot more we could do to make our society healthier and safer, and these wars don't seem to be doing much of either.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 109- Who's afraid of April 19th?

Dear Mr. President,

Today was a good day. I was off work, I observed my one weekly holy day, Pancake Monday, with my best friend. We walked around a lake bantering about gun control with a republican friend, discussing our plans to go to Africa and ogling cute dogs. We went to the grocery store and spent way too much money on food, but then, as my friend wisely noted, you have to treat yourself, sometimes. This is our life; we work, we sleep, we make pancakes. This isn't particularly important, or even, I'd imagine, interesting, but I wanted to provide some context. April 19th, as a significant date, may have passed largely unobserved by all but those still mourning lost relatives from Oklahoma city, or the protesters along the Potomac, but it has made me pause, a moment, to reflect on my own feelings about government.

I often disagree with my government's policies and actions. During the years under President Bush, I even wondered at the legitimacy of his election in 2000. I see anti-government sentiment even more these days, from the Tea Party, to the birthers, to the absurdity of elected officials speaking out against the census. My libertarian friends are often quick to rail against taxes, gun control, and, of course, government health care. Maybe I idealize government, believing that it can change, it can grow more flexible and wise and just, that as it grows it can represent and include more of us. I'm not afraid of my government, because I believe I can change it. Am I arrogant? Am I deceived? Should I be stockpiling ammunition? Of course not.

I don't understand the rhetoric that depicts the people and the government as opposing forces. As though government were an independent entity that imposes its will upon us, and not our own representatives, our own elected leaders who are meant to be of us, by us and for us. When did we decide it was too much work? To show up at the polls, to write letters to the editor, or to congress, or to the White House, to run for office and keep our integrity? When did it become easier and more expedient to hold up signs and stock up on weapons, to treat fellow citizens like enemies? The disconnect between those with power and those with none has often bred violence, which is why our government is structured the way that it is. It's funny, I think, that those historically left behind, even assaulted by their own government- African Americans and other ethnic minorities, women, the poor, gay and lesbians; have little presence in the Tea Party or other anti-government groups. Why is it that the white, male, upper-middle class, the one constituency that's controlled and counted on the government's protection for the entirety of American history, makes up the majority of those groups calling for secession and insurrection? If any one has to fear their government, shouldn't it be those who've been enslaved, interred, ignored, or disenfranchised?

It seems as though the decrease in our injustice toward marginalized groups corresponds to the rise in anti-government sentiment; as though granting more freedom to those who had none makes every one else less free. I suppose there is some truth to this argument; the 13th amendment curtails my freedom to enslave another human, the 19th reduced the voting power of the male population to solely decide elections; but I don't think even the craziest of the Tea Party would call for a repeal of either of these extensions of government. I don't think that arguing with the anti-government protesters will change their mind; I think accepting the dichotomy of their accusations is granting them too much power. It isn't the people vs. the government, its the people who are willing to work for change vs. the people who'd be willing to see it all burn down to keep the cold consolation of being right from the start.

The government isn't all well-intentioned and it isn't always right. But the government is still my own, for better or worse, it represents me, and I represent it. I'm responsible for its actions, and it is responsible to me, as an informed and politically active citizen. Why can't that be enough? Our government is big and slow and frustrating and imperfect. But it keeps us safe and it keeps us free. Today should be a day when we're reminded of the power that we have, without violence, to make it better.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 106- The price we pay

Dear Mr. President,

The city of Seattle is contemplating a new law, proposed by one of our more conservative city councilmen, to create a $50 fine for aggressive panhandling. This idea is a poor one for several reasons, the most obvious of which being that those who beg for change on the streets don't exactly have the $50 to avoid jail. It punishes the poor for being poor and then helps to keep them poor. That a better way to mitigate the problem of homelessness might be an increase in assistance programs, shelters, police presence and other public services seems to escape the people who support this measure- many of whom also oppose existing social services and the taxes that fund them.

I'm not as compassionate as I ought to be. I don't give money to people on the street (be they homeless or the clip-board wielding WASHPIRG pests) and I generally don't enjoy being asked. (I, as the Lyndon LaRouche-supporting morons can attest, can often be impolite about this if caught in the wrong mood, especially by libertarians.) My vague annoyance, however, is not grounds for a fine. This law is designed to win the council favor with local business and encourage tourism (though, for the life of me, I can't imagine that there are a number of people who long to visit Seattle but don't because of the homeless.) When I worked at the downtown bookstore, homeless patrons were often problematic, however, if business owners don't want to deal with the inconvenience, than they ought to be willing to contribute to solving the larger problem, not just punishing its symptoms.

This whole debate contrasts sharply with the national debate about financial regulation. The role of the government, in my opinion, should be to protect the interests of the people, especially those who can't protect themselves. In regulating the financial industry, the government is doing just this; looking out for the people in the face of powerful organizations, companies and industries guided by self-interest. The city of Seattle, meanwhile, is trying to do the opposite; attempting through redundant and overly-broad legislation to protect the wealthy and powerful from the desperate and poor. Both homelessness and wall-street reform are important issues, and ones that will require us to determine where we want the government to intervene and who we really want it to protect us from.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 101- Immigration reform

Dear Mr. President,

Yesterday, in Seattle, more than five thousand people rallied for immigration reform. I was just getting off of work, when I passed through a crowd in Pioneer Square. Congressman Jim McDermott was among those in attendance, and, at first impression, the crowd seemed more like a jovial gathering than a political protest- I saw people of all ages and races, some angrily chanting, some silently holding up signs, more than a few children running around laughing and waving flags. I think it was uplifting to see so many Seattlites come together and stand up for the rights of illegal immigrants across the country.

Once, while sitting on a plane from Boise to Seattle, I was telling the woman next to me that I studied Arabic in school, and wanted to travel to the Middle East. She warned me not to expect "people over there" to accommodate me, the way we accommodate people over here. She went on to explain that, in America, we make it so easy that people don't even have to speak English, while the rest of the world insists on making people speak the native language. I've heard this mind-boggling rhetoric many times since; from old acquaintances on facebook who post things like "Welcome to America, press 1 for English, press 2 to hang up and learn English," as well as from coworkers who grow frustrated at customers who don't communicate easily in English. In DC one morning, I watched as an old woman yelled at a Hispanic McDonald's employee for denying a homeless white man free coffee, insisting that the employee, as a "non-American" was the reason the man was homeless in the first place. I try to imagine the logic behind a worldview that affords basic dignity and respect only on the basis of a shared language and place of birth, but I just can't do it. It's an ugly sense of entitlement that I just can't empathize with.

Unfortunately, I don't have to understand this kind of racism to be complicit in it. Things like this rally give me hope, even as they deepen my disappointment in myself for not being more actively involved. Just the other day, an old woman on my bus stormed off in protest after the driver angrily berated an elderly Chinese couple for not following his request to make more room quickly enough. I kept my seat; I was late for work, and I didn't want to walk in the rain, but the shame of staying silent while the woman stood up for two strangers, alone, stayed with me all day. It's up to all of us to stand up against discrimination, whenever we can, and I am too often content to look the other way if it is inconvenient for me to act.

Our government needs to do its part, as well. Immigration reform that offers a clear path to citizenship for those living in this country illegally cannot wait another year. We must make a clear demonstration that we value and respect the contributions immigrants make to our society, how essential they are to the character of America. We do not gain anything by forcing millions of people to live outside of the law; they suffer because of it, and our country suffers because of it. While comprehensive immigration reform will likely be even more difficult to pass than health care reform, it is long past time and well worth the fight. I hope that your administration begins an aggressive campaign to see that this becomes a reality.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 94- For you, Isaac

Dear Mr. President,

Today children around the country are looking for dyed eggs and discovering what the Easter Bunny brought them. According to the AEB, 75 billion eggs are produced in our country each year. Much of these come from huge factory farms, where chickens are given no room to move, no access to fresh air or sunlight, and are often mutilated to facilitate such living conditions. Mr. President, I know there are very few, if any, votes to be had in issues of animal rights. Supporters of animal rights have been railing against the practices of the agricultural industry for decades; and not without good reason. Birds, especially, are not protected by the same humane slaughter statutes that affect Cows and other livestock.

Certainly consumers are empowered to make better choices when it comes to buying animal products; we can often choose to pay more for products that involve less suffering in the production process. Often times, however, we are not given the choice unless we seek it out. 2008's Proposition 2 in California demonstrates that there is considerable political will to change the system entirely; that people want their food to come from animals that aren't mistreated and harmed. The problem with Prop 2 is that, as a state law, it may have more of an effect on where egg production takes place, rather than how. Were similar legislation to be enacted at the national level, moving production out of state wouldn't be an option; American companies would have to adopt humane practices.

I don't know how important it is to you, or to other Americans, for that matter, that the suffering of animals be avoided or minimized, even if the consequences of doing so are inconvenience and higher cost. This can only be done by effectively altering the entire system. We have the power to abuse and mistreat animals all we want; they have little legal protection and no political recourse to address their situation. We can relentlessly pursue lower prices and more efficient systems at the expense of these living creatures that supply our food. We can impose upon them darkness, disease, and disfigurement. However, I think people know better. I think people recognize that there is a link between the health of the animals and the health of those that consume the food they provide or become. I think people recognize that the dignity we accord these weak and unprotected creatures reflects upon our own humanity. I think that small farms will always be important enough to Americans to be worth protecting, as well.

Enacting federal protection for farm animals is an essential step toward ensuring that our agricultural practices are in line with our values and best interests. I hope that your administration will work to ensure that this happens.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 92- Breaking up with JP Morgan Chase

Dear Mr. President,

I joined a Credit Union today. As soon as my account is set up, I'm closing my old account with Chase. This decision was based on a number of factors, but the business practices of the Credit Union, which by nature is not for profit, has no shareholders, and does not wreak havoc on the financial system through unscrupulous lending and manipulative financial practices. I say this as a complete layman; economic issues are not my strong point, at all. I'm terrible with money, terrified of investing or even saying the word "stocks" and I generally only check my bank account balance after an immense inner struggle about how much I really want to know about my finances. I was finally able to extricate myself from credit card debt, and now that I have some degree of confidence in my financial stability, I want to put my money where my mouth (not to mention personal belief) is. I don't make anywhere close to $30,000 a year, and the money I do make can go to much better things than the profit margins of Chase Bank.

Perhaps it is my ignorance about most financial matters, but I find the kind of gimmicks Chase (and other banks like it) use to attract customers truly off-putting. Keep using your debit card, because you never know when we're going to give you a free purchase! The misleading way that their "overdraft protection service" has been advertised in the last few months is a perfect example of this. With this "service", customers are allowed to spend more than they have- at $31/transaction. A card without this "protection" will merely be declined if more money than is present in the account is charged. This makes sense. This alerts people to when their account balance isn't what they think it should be- always an indication that something, either their calculations or their charges, is wrong. Chase decided to wage an ad campaign to encourage people to keep being charged not to know their account was overdrawn- likely because overdraft fees made up a significant portion of the company's profits. It seems as though Chase is directly targeting vulnerable consumers who don't realize they're being taken advantage of by advertising this fee as some kind of protection.

Anyway, I feel that the Credit Union I joined today is much more honest in its practices and works to serve its members and its community, not its bottom line. That's important to me as a consumer, but not nearly as important as the work that went into making this decision. I've made a conscious effort to learn more about the financial system, the way banks and credit unions work, and the way I budget, spend, and save my own money. The absolute best way to avoid being taken advantage of by the powerful is through education and awareness, and I feel that today was a step in that direction. I will not be hoodwinked by slogans and PR; I will not be sucked in by gimmicks and games; my financial health is too important for me to trust it to others. It is my future, my freedom, and my security, as an independent individual, and I will not allow it to be threatened by my own ignorance.

I feel that this kind of financial information would be a valuable addition to basic high school education. We should prepare students for the realities of the financial decisions they'll be making; decisions about student loan debt and credit cards and responsible use of bank accounts. Preparing students, giving them all the information they need to make informed decisions and to protect themselves against manipulation is an important aspect of education, and this latest financial crisis clearly demonstrates how urgently this awareness is needed.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 72

Dear Mr President,

Revising the requirements laid in in No Child Left Behind, is an essential step to making students college and career ready. I think our system places too great an emphasis on standardized testing, but I recognize that, absent hard data, it is difficult to point to successes and areas needing improvement in our schools. As a student, I took the WASL, the ITED, the levels tests, the Hi-cap test, the PSAT, the SAT, 3 AP tests and the ACT. I don't mean to brag or anything, but I rock at standardized tests. Unfortunately, this skill isn't exactly something I can put on my resume. I also had amazing teachers; one took students interested in education and had us intern for a week in the classroom. Another created a scavenger hunt that took us all over town using GPS and practical cryptography. One had us pick books without cliff notes available and write our own. These were all experiences that helped me develop important skills, and used practical experience to give us a better understanding of the concepts we were required to learn. None of them appeared on a standardized tests.

I suppose my point is that we can require testing in reading and math skills every year, but my guess is we're going to do more to improve our test-taking skills than anything else. And, don't get me wrong, having test-taking skills is not a bad lot in life. But I think, rather than being tested every year, my educational experience would have been most improved by a longer school year, teacher who were more adequately compensated (and, in some cases, better prepared to teach their subjects,) and a community that recognized the value of higher education. I don't think that all of those are things the Federal government can necessarily provide, but certainly steps should be taken in this direction. The preliminary suggestions from your administration for improving education look promising, and I hope that they are better received by the public than health care reform has been.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey