March 29, 2017

Thoughts on Copland’s 12-tone pieces: “Inscape” and “Connotations”

For the first time, I listened to Copland’s “Inscape”. This piece to my ear is stronger than “Connotations”, which was written 5 years earlier. Even though it’s not my favorite Copland, it is strong and bold (in the sense of Ruggles), and like Stravinsky, Copland maintains enough of his stylistic elements from the past to still sound like- Copland! In both these pieces, it is curious that the rhythms and meters are not nearly as complex as those elements his earlier works- even pieces like El Salon Mexico and Appalachian Spring (works in his popular tonal style)! Copland seems to concentrate in these 12 tone works entirely on sound, intervals, line, and color. What fascinates me is when tonal composers adapt to an atonal style, and visa versa! (Del Tredici, Rochberg, etc.) Indeed, music history is full of surprises!

Writing for the Voice

Over the years, one of my greatest pleasures in composing has been writing vocal music – operas, choral works, and lieder. The reason is my deep love of the singing voice. Orchestrating these pieces is a special pleasure, but I will save that for another posting.

Certainly every instrumentalist has his or her own musical personality, but these differences between singers are even stronger. No two voices sound the same, and I have never met two singers who have approached my music in exactly the same way. That is why it is a wonderful thing when a composer receives a commission to write for a SPECIFIC singer. This has not happened for me very often, but when it has, it really makes the job easier, as I can then hear and think about a specific voice and person as I am composing. An example is a song cycle I composed for soprano ERIE MILLS called “Images and Reflections”. I knew Erie’s voice well, and also knew her to be a top notch singer, both vocally and intellectually. Therefore I wrote her a rather challenging (read “difficult”) set of songs, knowing she would do a beautiful job with them – and she did. Her tone color, agility, and accuracy were all factors I kept in mind during the writing process. Of course, I made sure to include a fair share of high notes, as she is able to produce such extraordinarily beautiful sounds in the upper range – and she did!

Another example of writing for a specific voice is the song cycle “Five Love Songs”, which I composed for my longtime dear friend MARIA SPACAGNA. I have been listening to her sing since we grew up together in Providence, RI, and truly enjoyed writing this cycle with her lovely voice in mind. The gorgeous Italianate color of her sound is unique, and I wanted to write the most lyrical and melodic material I could to take advantage of that quality. A very intelligent and musical singer, she performed these pieces and made them sound as beautiful as could be.

As I said, it is not always possible to have the opportunity to compose music for a specific person. When a composer does not know who will perform his or her vocal work, the composer must at least consider the level of difficulty, and decide whether the music is being written for a highly trained professional, an undergraduate singer, etc. A good knowledge of vocal mechanics (range, tessitura, stamina, etc.) is most necessary to do this successfully, and spending a lot of time working with vocalists really helped me to acquire that knowledge. I have been blessed to work with wonderful singers over the years (especially when working at NYC Opera), and this was probably the best training I could have received.

I am happy to say that my website now contains a new SONG page, which gives details (and many musical representations) of all of my songs.

It’s true what they say: “The voice is the only instrument invented by God.”

Henry Mollicone

Composers Meeting at ‘Otello’

Mechem, Erickson, Wold, MolliconeKurt Ericson, Erling Wold, Kirke Mechem, and I all went to the excellent production of OTELLO at FESTIVAL OPERA in Walnut Creek, CA. Their lovely general director Sara Nealy noticed us chatting and took a picture.

How nice to see these friends at this performance of one of my very favorite operas: four opera composers paying tribute to the great master Verdi! The first three are all fine composers, and know how to write well for la voce (I can’t speak for the last guy).

As for the performance and production, it was excellent in all respects. The voices were wonderful: Cynthia Clayton as the lovely Desdemona sang beautifully, and portrayed the character in a very moving way (her high notes were “to die for”); David Gustafson was a powerful and strong Otello both vocally and dramatically; Phillip Skinner was pure evil as Iago – his powerful performance of the “Credo” gave me a chill; Michelle Rice, Adam Flowers, and Nadav Hart were likewise first-rate, and Daniel Helfgot’s production was powerful and skillful; sets and costumes were quite appropriate.

The chorus was excellent, and Maestro Michael Morgan and his fine orchestra brought it all to life with skill and musicality.

I truly love this great work, which Verdi finished when in his 70s, before composing his last opera, FALSTAFF. The poor man – he tried to retire in his fifties to spend more time working on his farm and philanthropic activities, but wife Giuseppina and librettist Boito lured him back to composing, bless their souls.

A fine night at the opera! Bravi to general directors Sara Nealy and Jose Luis Moskowitz (West Bay Opera) for making this a joint production.

Google

Gunther Schuller Autobiography

Anyone interested in classical music and/or jazz should not miss reading Gunther Schuller’s new book: GUNTHER SCHULLER, A LIFE IN PURSUIT OF MUSIC AND BEAUTY. It is the first book of a two-volume autobiography, but more than that, a historical account of 20th century classical music and jazz.

Schuller worked with most of the great jazz and classical musicians of the times, played in (as a fine horn player) and conducted most of the great orchestras, and was (is) a prolific composer. In fact, in his 80s, he is still composing lots of new music. The book, filled with so many interesting details and fascinating stories involving his friends who were important historical figures – from Stockhausen to Samuel Barber to Miles Davis, makes for an unforgettable read!

Having studied composition at Tanglewood with Schuller, I also had the opportunity in my student days at New England Conservatory to play orchestral piano under his baton, and observe him as a musician. He was and still is a great inspiration to me, and one of the most fascinating people I have ever encountered.

Google

The Librettist’s Fate

I just came across this interesting and somewhat humorous article written some years back by the librettist of my opera THE FACE ON THE BARROOM FLOOR and EMPEROR NORTON, my friend John S. Bowman. Truly, librettist’s do not get proper credit for their work, and Bowman manages to write about that with some good humor:

“One of the prices I have paid by being a “jack of all trades” is that, aside from being “master of none,” I have never established a reputation in any field. For example, only immediate family and old friends are aware that I had a minor career as an author of opera librettos. That’s another story. But in 1978, the one that has since enjoyed the most success, The Face (on the Barroom Floor) — that is, the opera by my collaborator-composer, Henry Mollicone – had its “world premiere” at the Central City (Colorado) Opera Festival.

I went out just to be present and after a short stay for the first couple of performances, took my return flight home. The first leg was from Denver to Chicago, and after we were airborne I got out some of the materials from the occasion and began to look at them more closely. I was on the aisle and at some point the woman in the middle seat spoke up: “Excuse me,” she said, “but I can’t help noticing that you’re reading a program from the Central City Opera Festival. Were you just there?” I said yes and she pursued her questioning, and after being asked if perhaps I had been a singer in the production, I felt I was justified in saying, “No, but I wrote the libretto.”

Well, that really got to her — imagine, meeting an opera librettist! True, she asked the question that everyone asks upon hearing that I have written an opera libretto: “So, tell me, after the composer has written all that music, how do you manage to fit the words to it?” And I patiently — and I hope modestly — explained that in fact the librettist writes the words first and the composer then sets them to music.

Anyway, the man on the window seat had been studiously avoiding appearing that he had any interest in this ongoing conversation, but the irrepressible lady in the middle now turned to him and said, “Imagine, this gentleman here has written an opera libretto!” The window-seat man acknowledged this without showing any particular interest, but the middle-seat lady was not to be deterred. “And what do you do for a living?”

Aha! I’m thinking — this unprepossessing gentleman, forced to confess that he sells widgets, is going to have to show some appreciation that he has been placed in a row with an opera librettist. Finally — recognition!

Instead he replies, “I’m a painter.”

“A painter!” she exclaims. “Really — what kind?”

“Watercolors,” he somewhat grudgingly admits.

Well, that did it. She lost all interest in me and now turned her full barrage on him, gradually forcing him to confess that he was, in fact, a watercolorist with a major reputation – Irving Shapiro, represented in many major museum collections and the teacher of generations of watercolorists in Chicago. (I confirmed this when I arrived home, And you need only google him to discover how many still pay tribute to him!)

The middle-seat lady did try to put me back on a pedestal by exclaiming at one point, “Just imagine, on an airplane in the 20th century, I’m sitting between an opera librettist and a watercolorist!” But it was quite clear: an opera librettist of no reputation, with only one short work in Central City, was trumped by a watercolorist with a national reputation. Fortunately she would never discover that I also wrote baseball books…

-JOHN S. BOWMAN

Google

Julius Rudel Memoir and New York City Opera

“First and Lasting Impressions”, the new memoir by Julius Rudel, is a wonderful read for anyone interested in the Maestro and in the NYC Opera. More than a memoir of NYC Opera, the book contains a lot of biographical material regarding Rudel’s early life, moving to America, and his international conducting activities after leaving NYC Opera.

For those interested in the wonderful things accomplished under Rudel’s leadership, this is the book to read. I was amazed myself (as a former member of the staff there) to read that prior to my arrival, Rudel had done some successful seasons consisting solely of new American Operas. Of course many of the most interesting behind-the-scenes details are detailed in the book.

So many of the great singers blossomed under Rudel’s reign: Sills, Carreras, Domingo, and Neblett just to name a few; he describes the golden days of the company, and the influence it’s policies and philosophy had upon other opera companies in America: the concept of an ensemble company (rather than a “star house”), the attention to new American operas (many commissioned by Rudel), and the Herculean energy Maestro Rudel had to make this all happen. (He was director of several other prominent organizations during the 70s while he was general director of NYC Opera, handling administration and conducting duties.) It’s an amazing story, and I myself am very saddened to see the difficult times this company is now going through.

Working with him on the music staff was an amazing experience. With all the stress that came with the job, he was always fair, and although prone to some justified anger (and in retrospect, he was always right in his criticisms), I have warm memories of working with this man, who was both kind and a strong leader. (With all of his duties, he was able to find time to show interest in my own music, and was responsible with Gunther Schuller for my receiving my first important opera commission).

Looking back at my time there in the 70s, I marvel: what a wonderful time it was! I had the chance to work with great singers, directors, and conductors – including Maestro Rudel, whose performances were often masterful and always musical and tasteful. How could I ever forget the wonderful new productions of Ginestera’s BEATRICE CENCI, Hoiby’s SUMMER AND SMOKE, Korngold’s DIE TOTE STADT, as well as Floyd’s SUSANNAH, and Menotti’s THE CONSUL, (not to mention the ongoing fine performances of standard repertoire)? As a composer/pianist, it was thrilling for me to work on so many operas – particularly the newer pieces, often with the composers present. I only wish that I was mature enough as a person fresh out of school to realize how great and unusual all of this activity was.

I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in opera and this wonderful conductor.

Google

Henry Mollicone & Leonard Bernstein: A Cold Day in Philadelphia (1600 Pennsylvania Ave)

A big influence in my own work is the music of Leonard Bernstein. Having grown up watching his “Young People’s Concerts” on TV as a boy, it was a thrill when I was in my 20s to work with him as a musical assistant on his show 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, which he wrote with Allen Jay Lerner. Sadly, the show was a flop, but working with the inspiring Maestro was still a great experience. I am often asked about this, and will tell one anecdote.

Personally, I found him always to be a gentleman, treating people with respect. At one point in the rehearsal process, the show was in Philadelphia in it’s pre-Broadway version. The choreographer asked me if I would write a new piece of dance music based on Bernstein’s tunes; I asked Bernstein, and he gave me the go ahead to do it. (I was thrilled).

When the piano score was completed, I brought it to his hotel in Philly and we sat together at the piano as I played it for him. (The show was in trouble, so the general atmosphere in rehearsals was tense). He liked what he heard (which made me very happy!), but said we need to work on a few things. So we stayed at the piano for about an hour and a half, as he made subtle changes here and there. Finally, after this “composition lesson” with the Maestro, he said it was ready to give to the orchestrators Sid Ramon and Hershy Kay.

It was a cold, snowy day in Philly, and as I was leaving his hotel ready to brave the elements, I said to him, “Well, Mr. Bernstein (I never called him “Lenny”), we worked hard on this. I certainly hope the choreographer likes it.” He was sitting down ready to make a phone call and looked up at me sadly, saying: “If he doesn’t like it, fuck ‘em”!  Having grown up thinking of him as a musical master, I was a bit amused at this and other similar incidents where he revealed himself to be a normal human being, susceptible to anger and frustration just like the rest of us!

Unfortunately, the failure of the show to have success on Broadway was very depressing to him; this is unfortunate, as it contains a lot of wonderful music and lyrics. Fortunately it has been “saved” by some of his musical assistants after his passing by putting a lot of the show’s best music into a work now called “A White House Cantata”. Check out the recording!

Google

THE PREMONITION: FREMONT SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA

Title: THE PREMONITION: FREMONT SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA
Location: Smith Center for the Performing ArtsOhlone College, Fremont, CA
Description: The Fremont Symphony Orchestra under music director David Sloss will perform a concert of film music. HM will be the piano soloist in music from CASABLANCA. As an encore, HM and the orchestra will perform the theme from THE PREMONITION, a feature film for which which HM composed the score.
Start Time: 20:00
Date: 2012-05-12

LA TERRA PROMESSA by Robert Frederick Jones

At one of Leonard Bernstein’s NORTON LECTURES at Harvard University in the 60s, the Maestro predicted that we would be soon approaching a great age of eclecticism in music. This was at a time when the avant garde was predicting something very different- that tonality as we knew it was certainly dying a fast death.  Alas, as the new century began, thanks to the “new romanticism”, the minimalists, and other strains, we realized that Bernstein was indeed correct.  One only has to look at the output of one of our finest living American composers, John Adams, to see how effectively a composer can combine different stylistic elements in his work. Another successful example of this is the work of the American Canadian composer Robert Frederick Jones, most recently in his new “symphony for soloists, chorus, and orchestra”, the twelve movement LA TERRA PROMESSA (The Promised Land), premiered in Montreal a few weeks ago at Vanier College.  The forces included the Vanier College Choir (Philippe Bourque, director) Le Chœur Saint-Laurent (Michael Zaugg, director), L’Orchestre symphonique de l’école Joseph-François Perrault (Richard Charron, director), and the soloists Tamara Vickerd (soprano), Erica Martin (mezzo-soprano), Sylvain Paré (tenor), and Clayton Kennedy (baritone), all conducted by Philippe Bourque.

The work is brilliant and beautiful from start to finish, and shows the large musical gifts of this composer, whose work I have had the pleasure of listening to for several years.  (Most amazingly, much of this hour-long work was composed at a time when the composer was in and out of the hospital with a serious illness.  I believe that he was too preoccupied with his musical vision to let that slow him down!)

Where to begin describing such a work, whose overall plan, to quote the composer,  depicts his vision of “how we are carried up the ‘chain of being’ from the formless void before creation, through inanimate nature (the tectonic and meteorological forces that shape the landscape of the planet), the live of the plants, of the animals, leading to the human condition, and ending with an ascent beyond the material world to the divine”?With a lesser composer, this could all turn into a huge piece of pretentious work; Jones, however, delivers the goods- his creation is a score of great skill and beauty.

The piece is sung in six languages (!), which coexist and flow together in a seemingly effortless way, opening with a wonderful sense of mystery at the start (depicting the void before creation).  Elements in the symphony are sometimes a bit reminicent of  Webern, Messian, and more traditional tonality; there are hauntingly beautiful melodic and harmonic materials, simple elegant choral writing, complex and intense musical textures, and much more.  All of it produces a language that is uniquely Jones.

This composer has always been a brilliant orchestrator, and uses his forces with great skill and contrast, sometimes creating spare textures with just a few instruments,  juxtaposing these with the big sound of his large forces, including very effective use of his full percussion section. In fact the contrasts in this work keep the listener attentive throughout.  One example: in movement five (Olympic Rainforest), there is majestic but appropriately dark music in the brass and an ongoing piano music that is foreboding; this is followed immediately with a lovely tonal setting of Blake’s “The Lamb”- simple and clean, and like a breath of fresh air in contrast to the intense previous movement.

The last movement (probably my personal favorite) is the final act in this dramatic journey through creation.  Called “La Rosa Celestiale” (the heavenly rose), it has the listener moving “among the petals of the celestial rose stopping here and there to savour the heavenly music”, which uses Christian prayer, a Sanskrit hymn, and Dante’s DIVINE COMEDY, showing us the souls of the redeemed in ultimate perfection.  It is quite beautiful, and a fitting finale to this grand piece.

LA TERRA PROMESSA is a mystical work, and comes from a very deep place .  It has an Eastern sensitivity in its concept that all paths to the divine are mingled into one stream. It’s honesty and beauty of execution should make it an appealing work to many, and I hope to see more performances of this grand effort in the future.

Henry Mollicone

Children in poverty

I was very moved by a sermon given by the minister at the church where I am music director. It is powerful and informative, and talks about the tragedy of American children in poverty. With Rev. Amy Zucker Morgenstern’s permission and without further comment, I am reprinting the sermon below:
===========================
Sermon given on December 5, 2010
at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto, CA
Rev. Amy Zucker Morgenstern

We’re not going to do that reading of David Huerta’s poem after all, today, because yesterday, after I’d already written my sermon, I changed my topic. Maybe it was because I’ve been listening to the news. Or maybe the music that was chosen for today was working on me unconsciously: William Luce’s words, set so beautifully to music by [UUCPA Music Director] Henry Mollicone, because there really are “demons who try to take away [people’s] childhood[s].” And then that great song of hope that Robin, Dave, and Mary sang, a vision of everyone sitting at the welcome table.
So I’ve saved the sermon I wrote on my computer, and I’ll give it some other time. I was going to talk about my childhood memories, and how our childhoods shape the people we are now. That’s what [the Worship Associates] Marianne and Peggy and I talked about as we planned this service. But then I kept thinking about the other children, the ones who suffer through childhood and grow into suffering adults. Not so much the ones here at UUCPA, where our children are mostly very well cared for, well fed, safe, and with doctors to check up on them regularly even before they get sick. They have access to good schools and safe playgrounds. But those children within our community and the many more outside it for whom childhood is a painful trial to be endured.
And I have been reading the news and feeling sick, and the more I wrote about childhood the sicker I felt. Because right now there is a war on in this country, and the most powerful weapons are aimed at children.
There are lots of different ways to organize an economy. None is value-neutral. There is an expression of values in what gets taxed—earning, investments, purchasing, property—and how much, and what loopholes and compensations exist. What kind of income is earned for what kind of work. Right there is a good example of just how much we really value children: with few exceptions, people who work with children are paid very badly. A teacher who teaches college is paid more than a high school teacher, is paid more than an elementary school teacher, is paid more than a preschool teacher. Or just look at our own congregational budget and the discrepancy between the salaries of a parish minister and a minister of religious education.
We have organized our national economy to benefit adults at the expense of children.
I want to say that again, more strongly. We have organized our economy to take money from children and the people responsible for their support, and give it to other adults. That is the value our system currently embodies. And I don’t need to convince anyone here that it contradicts all the values we hold as Unitarian Universalists.
One of the best indicators for whether a person will be poor in this country is his or her age. Non-senior adults, Americans 18-64 years of age, have a poverty rate of 11.7%, as of 2008 statistics. Seniors are doing a little better—only 9.7 percent of seniors are below the poverty threshold—but note that if Social Security benefits did not exist, that figure would leap to 44 percent. So if childhood poverty seems like a problem beyond solving, keep in mind what a successful program we have against poverty among seniors.
The worst off are children: 20.7 percent of children are poor. Every 32 seconds, a child is born into poverty –and that’s what happens, they don’t become poor, they are born poor. Fifteen percent of poor children are poor for 10 years or more. The number of extremely poor children under age 18 was 6.3 million, 8.5 percent.
Extreme poverty is a technical term, describing a certain level of income. So let me describe extreme poverty to you. It means you do not have a secure place to live. You can’t be sure whether you’ll have your next meal, and a full complement of meals is two a day. You probably have less money to spend each day than the cost of a bus ride. You or your parents have to decide whether to pay for light, heat, medicine, clothing and shoes, or transportation—or none of these, because food, water, and shelter take precedence. So you are hungry and cold all the time, you go to school in clothes that are ragged and shoes that are too small, and you never feel secure.
We think of extreme poverty as a third world phenomenon. Actually, it’s improving in most places—since 1981, the percentage of people living in extreme poverty around the world has been cut in half. In the United States, it is at its highest rate since 1975, the year we began keeping these statistics. So let me remind you again that over 6 million children in our country, yours and mine, woke up this morning in that situation and will go to bed in the same situation. And they’re kids. They can’t see an end to this nor do anything to earn any money, until they get old enough for a drug dealer or pimp to pay attention to them.
The United States is number one: of all the children in all the industrialized nations, ours have the highest poverty rate.
So how can we justify extending these tax cuts? Why are we even talking about cutting taxes for anyone but the desperately poor, but especially for the richest people in our country? The usual response is that it’s their money. When we talk about how much to tax them, we’re talking about taking away money that they earned and they have a right to it.
I’m a minister and this is a church, so I’m going to watch my language and not call that idea exactly what I think of it. Here’s another word for it: nonsense.
Again, there are a lot of ways to organize an economic system. Ours is currently organized to heavily favor those who make money from money instead of money from actually going out and earning it. So much for the Protestant work ethic. Remember those old Smith-Barney ads, with that tag line, in that great John Houseman voice, “We make our money the old fashioned way. We earn it.” That’s a bald-faced lie. They make money through gambling, and then they pat their clients on the back and assure them that they’re all working very hard, that they and their clients deserve this money.
Well, many of us do some of both. This is how the people who are promoting these tax cuts try to get us to have a sense of solidarity with the richest. They remind us that we have investments too; we, all of us, middle-class people too, have a stake in the stock market, but that’s ridiculous. For most of us, the vast majority of our income is from money we go out and earn, or have earned and then invested; it’s only the richest who make most of their money from money. They talk about the estate tax, trying to appeal to everyone who expects an inheritance, but that’s even more ridiculous. The estate tax doesn’t even apply to a spouse, or to someone receiving an inheritance of $900 or $9,000 or even $900,000. It is a tax on very rich people, plain and simple—one of our few such taxes, so of course Congress, 44% of whom are millionaires, wants to end it.
They talk about how $250,000, the proposed highest amount for people eligible for the administration’s proposed continued tax cuts (it’s $200,000 for an individual, $250,000 for a couple) really isn’t that much money, and to prove it, tell stories about people trying to live in midtown Manhattan. I know; I live in San Francisco, and living on that income, you can’t afford a mansion. Likewise in Manhattan. But you can afford a safe, comfortable home in a safe neighborhood. You can afford to buy the things you need and lots of the things you want.
No matter where you live in this country, if $250,000 a year isn’t enough for you and your partner, you are living beyond your means.
And if you want a tax break on that income, you’re asking other hardworking people to pay for it. You’re asking children to pay for it: hungry children, children who don’t go to the doctor when they’re sick, children who don’t have a playground nearby that hasn’t been surrendered to crack dealers. We have the money to deal with all of this, but we’re funneling it all to luxuries for the rich.
None of this is news. But it’s getting worse. In 1976 the richest 1 percent of Americans took home a little under 9 percent of the income. Now they take home almost 24 percent of income. And income is not the most relevant category for people who own so much property, so let’s add that important fact: the richest 1% hold 34% of the net worth of our population—more than everyone in the bottom 50% combined.
So, let’s see, we’re pretty full today, so what’s about one-third of the chairs?: back to here (point), well, all of those chairs are for just two people. Richard and Jack, they’re for you—no one else can sit there. Everyone else, you can cram into the seats that are left.
And what about the complaints from some political directions that close to 50 percent of Americans pay no taxes? Well, first of all, that ought to be a badge of shame—because it shows how many people earn so little money that their income isn’t even subject to taxes (or to be precise, the income taxes they do pay are wiped out by the Earned Income Tax Credit they receive). But it’s not really true, because of course it’s only talking about income tax, federal income tax. Poor people pay state taxes and local taxes and sales taxes and payroll taxes just like the middle and upper classes.
No, not like the middle and upper classes—because if you earn one dollar, 15.3 percent of it goes to Medicare and Social Security. (So, great, you’ve got about 85 cents left.) If you earn $200,000, only 9.5 percent of it does. And the more you earn, the lower that percentage drops. Earners of $500,000 pay only 5.5 percent of their income to FICA. Social Security is a powerfully regressive tax, and what is the bipartisan deficit control panel suggesting? Raising the limit so that people earning over $106,800 pay Social Security taxes on more of their income, maybe even (and here I’m going to say something really shocking) on all of it? No. They’re proposing that we cut Social Security benefits and raise the retirement age, and are getting bipartisan praise.
That latter proposal is particularly cynical because it proposes to have the first change, to 68, kick in in 2050, when most of today’s working adults will have already begun collecting their benefits. The next phase, which would raise the retirement age to 69, would not kick in until 2075, when most of us will be gone. These proposals are aimed at today’s children, in the cynical hope that those of us who are earning now will do the math, sigh with relief that our benefits will start rolling in at 67, and let the country’s children suffer the consequences.
Why are we not going out into the streets to demand that this stop?
Maybe because it isn’t our children? (I know it’s not my child—she’s provided for.) Because we’re reading the writing on the wall and quietly planning for private school because our state refuses to collect taxes for good public schools, creating 529s because there’s so much less public funding help for college, putting away extra retirement so that our kids won’t drown as this tide rises?
But I know you good people of this congregation, and I know you are not so cynical. I know that your hearts do bleed for other people’s children, and that you’re not content to teach yours to climb their way to comfort on the backs of others scrabbling in the dirt.
As the “Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength” point out—these are the folks who got a flurry of press a couple of weeks ago for advocating that their taxes be raised—this would not only be cynical, but naïve. We are trashing our own economy, and the little island of safety will get smaller and smaller, with fewer and fewer of us able to manage. We already see it here in this privileged community of Palo Alto and other surrounding towns, where people whose earnings should make them comfortable are instead stretched thin trying to pay, privately, for what used to be paid for from a public fund. That was back when the idea that all of us should pool our resources to ensure that all babies and children are healthy, safe and educated as they grow into the next generation of adults, was not considered socialism, but fairness and good sense.
And this is also getting worse. The Earned Income Tax Credit was created by a Republican, Richard Nixon, inspired by Milton Friedman, an icon of conservative economics. It was expanded by Ronald Reagan. And today, people who call it socialism receive serious attention instead of the scoffing laugh that assertion deserves.
So, what can you do? You probably already know this information and already agree with me. If not, I hope I’ve changed your mind. But your senators are going to oppose the extension of tax cuts to the richest 2% of Americans, and I don’t know who every person’s representative is, but with most of them around here, most likely they are too, so what can you do?
We can oppose tax cuts for middle-class people unless they are paired with policies that help end child poverty. Like the “Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength,” this gets press because it’s people refusing policies that financially benefit themselves.
We can do everything we can to refuse to benefit from unfair economics. If I ever earn more than the $106,800 that’s taxed for Social Security, I’ve pledged to give that 12.4 percent of that portion of my income to organizations that help people rise out of poverty. That ought to be the US government, but since they don’t want it, I’ll give it to someone who does.
We can pull our money out of the machine that turns money over to the rich. That doesn’t mean an end to investment, but it’s absolutely an end to usury: no making money off other people’s desperate need for a loan. (Your best bet, by the way, might be a Muslim bank: they take seriously their religion’s prohibition on overly-high interest.) And for other investments, let’s return to the basic idea behind investment: not a gamble that hopes to turn a dollar into more than a dollar, but a way to support worthy projects that need capital. We can find an entrepreneur who’s doing something worthwhile and lend them some money, and go ahead and take a reasonable dividend for our risk. A simpler start is to move our money to socially responsible funds—there are entire brokerages that deal only in such investments. I’m proud that the UU Ministers’ Association took its retirement money out of Fidelity. We had pressed them for years to take more socially responsible stances, but they wouldn’t budge, so we changed to TIAA-CREF. It’s only a halfway measure, but it’s giving the kind of signal investment companies understand. And it happened only because a few stubborn people kept insisting that it was not all right for Unitarian Universalist ministers to earn money off the things Fidelity was earning money from, like the genocide in Darfur.
There was a poor people’s campaign once, in this country. The man who was organizing it was Martin Luther King, Jr.—can you imagine what this country might be like today if this man had been able to lead the poor as he led African-Americans, to peacefully, insistently, unstoppably demand justice? There are people working to organize the poor today. We can support them with our dollars, with our time, and by voting as they urge us to.
We can tell the president and our members of Congress that if they don’t powerfully support a change in policy toward lifting children out of poverty, in 2012 we’ll back a candidate who does. They remember Ralph Nader. When he skimmed a few percentage points of the New Hampshire vote from Al Gore in 2000, it cost Gore four electoral votes that would have made notorious Florida completely irrelevant—he’d have won the election. Everyone but Nader himself acknowledges that this is true.
I’d like to close with a prayer for all kinds of children, written by Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children’s Defense Fund.
We pray for children
Who spend all their allowance before Tuesday,
Who throw tantrums in the grocery store and pick at their food,
Who like ghost stories,
Who shove dirty clothes under the bed and never rinse out the tub,
Who get visits from the tooth fairy,
Who don’t like to be kissed in front of the carpool,
Who squirm in church or temple and scream in the phone,
Whose tears we sometimes laugh at and whose smiles can make us cry.
And we pray for those
Whose nightmares come in the daytime,
Who will eat anything,
Who have never seen a dentist,
Who aren’t spoiled by anybody,
Who go to bed hungry and cry themselves to sleep,
Who live and move, but have no being.
In memory of our own childhoods, may we create a better world for all children