Philip Morris

CEO of Proctors, Schenectady

Regressive Progressive


I have been having dreams of economic stimulus rebate checks flying into and out of thousands and millions of bank accounts. An electronic version of finding someone’s wallet full of cash but without identification, these rebate checks may pay for past splurges, create new splurges or help with the changing mix of costs associated with living an American lifestyle.

Millions of people finding wallets full of 300 bucks or 600 bucks. When you look up,  no one is around. No ID. Just cash.

If I put it in my pocket, is it stealing? Go ahead, take the money out and look through it.

Packed into the wallet with the money is a note printed so that it is not traceable to an owner. The note says, this is for you. It is a gift of sorts. If you made a real lot of money last year, you have less in this wallet than if you made less than a real lot of money. If you have kids, you may have some more than if you don’t.

Hmmm, not everyone is equal here. Whoever packed this wallet had a sense of progressive fairness. If you had less you got more. Well, not quite, but if you had more you definitely got less!

Interesting. With a progressive system, the more you make the higher the percentage you pay (not just the more you pay, the higher the percentage). This is the same idea, but in the reverse. The more you make, the less you get. But not really, cause the less you make doesn’t make any difference.

Maybe the less you make the more valuable the 600 dollars will really be? That doesn’t sound progressive does it. It sounds quite the opposite.

But all this seems opposite.  Progressive denial of full wallets of cash without ID. Of course the printed note, while not traceable exactly, is printed on government surplus paper. So, our government, which is so broke that each one of us, were we stockholders in USA, Inc, would owe over $30,000 to cover the debt. How could each of us, owing that much collectively, be dropping so many wallets full of cash?

I realize that the economy is more complicated than this. I also realize that collectively, as USA, Inc, we can afford to do a lot of things that would make no sense at the level of just you or just me.  I couldn’t afford to lose a wallet with 600 bucks in it.

But this does not feel like its part of a plan that includes how we finally get out of a growing national debt and national dilemma. This feels like a stop gap salve meant as much to get our minds off the real subject or subjects as it is trying to help through a rough spot.

We have taken a good idea, I am afraid, and turned it into a bad one. Just when there might have been enough pressure for many to make changes, we may be saying, “don’t worry about it.” All this, while our neighbors with less continue to slip economically.

I am going to put the cash in my pocket, but I am going to keep the printed note in a safe place.  I don’t want to forget what I was told in case the real owner of the money shows up some day to get it back.

Categories: General
Philip Morris

2 Responses

  1. Lecco Morris says:

    You pointed out that this governmental stimulus process was the inverse, essentially, of the taxation process…so do you therefore think that the process of proportional taxation is a good idea gone sour? It seems to me that if you find issue with one, since (given what you’ve said) the other seems the exact inverse, then it is within the very concept of proportional taxation (coupled with an income-bracket sliding percentage) that you are finding faulty reasoning.

    Essentially, I’m asking: Is proportionally bleeding us and proportionally bolstering us up any different, really?

  2. Part of my point is that it isn’t really proportional in the stimulus model. Folks who might benefit most are getting the same stimulus as folks who might need it less. While I get the theory behind the bolster, the souring idea is that it hides the underlying governmental dilemma of permanent overspending. I worry about the country we will be handing to you.