July 11, 2011
Rick Vasquez remembers how traffic used to be on the 110 Freeway. At one time it seemed like a sea of stalled cars puffing out gray smoke was a necessary torture he had to endure every morning to get from Norwalk to Downtown LA where he worked at Cal Trans.
He almost misses being stuck sometimes, especially since he’s learning Arabic on NPR 4 and his car—a plug-in Hybrid—uses as much energy as a boom box when it’s idling. But there’s no traffic at 2 PM when Rick and ten percent of Cal Trans commute in. There’s not even traffic at 8 AM when another ten percent of Cal Trans begins their workday.
Skewed work schedules were just a small part of the 2009 Energy Independence bill, and only government agencies were offered the grant money to implement it. But like many of President Obama’s ideas, the concept of ending the senseless monopoly of the 9-5 monotony caught fire. Traffic, like poverty and war, was something we’d almost gone out of our way to create, Rick tells anyone who’d listen.
And people listen to Rick, not just because he’s soft-spoken and warm. Rick is sort-of famous or well know, and not by choice. His son was the last US soldier to die in Iraq.
Sgt. Anthony Sanchez, a helicopter pilot, was the only causality of a crash outside Mosul in November 2009. His quick thinking was credited with saving the lives of every man in the craft and a family of Iraqis on the ground. The Iraqis who helped evacuate the craft had since named a school playground after Anthony Sanchez. But Rick doesn’t talk about that much. He likes to talk about “change” instead. Even though the word still sounds forced and oily in his ear.
Rick was a skeptic. He told his neighbors with their Obama signs that they were high on hope. We knew needed to stay in Iraq to win—even if Anthony, his son who was serving in Iraq, didn’t agree. If we didn’t finish the job, Americans would be sending their boys over there for decades. Where was the hope in that? Electing Obama would be like electing Jimmy Carter again but without the executive experience, Rick said a million times that election season. Yet when the election was over and Obama’s landslide shed light on the GOP’s efforts to clear the voter roles of minorities, he gave hope a chance—only because he didn’t have a choice.
Change didn’t come immediately, not in LA. But Anthony told him that in Iraq you could feel instantly. It was in the air on November 5th. Pop, They just don’t think we’re here to conquer them anymore, he wrote in an email in December. I’m praying we’ll be able to move on to Afghanistan to fight some real Qaeda by summer.
When Rick’s younger son Rick Jr. lost his job in the summer of 09, his boy was one of the first the be able to buy into the same health care plan Congress gets, just like Obama promised. By then the economy had stabilized and Rick Jr. found other work but he decided that he should finish his BA first, something his dad had been after him to do forever. “I can’t resist,” Rick Jr. said. “The student loan rates are too damn low.”
Like a bad commercial for Obama’s reelection, Rick Sr. pointed out that he might never have to pay those loans back if he ended up doing some public service the way he planned. “That’s change I can believe in,” Rick Sr. found himself saying aloud. And there was only a jab of irony in his voice.
Rick Jr. had voted for the first time in his life for President Obama. He’d also worked on the Obama campaign, phoning swing states every night of the week for months. He’d done it for his brother. That’s what he said.
By fall of 2009 the withdrawal from Iraq was nearly complete. Iran and Israel were meeting in Geneva for the first time. North Koreans were demonstrating in the streets for reunification. And we were closing in on Bin Laden. Of course, Rick didn’t know it at the time. Tony never said it directly. But Rick could tell in the tone of his emails that he was more eager than ever to get to Afghanistan. I want to be where it’s at, Pop, he wrote in October of 09, before it happens.
But Anthony wouldn’t live to see Bin Laden captured or Al Qaeda run out of Pakistan. “He’d joined the Army the day after 9/11,” Rick found himself saying into the phone directly to President Obama on that morning, the worst morning of his life. Two officers had appeared at his door just after eight AM. They told him that the President would be calling. Still the sound of the President’s steady voice on the end of the line compounded the shock. He felt woozy. He had to sit.
“God bless him,” President Obama said. “His heroism will not be forgotten. I can promise you that.”
After that came “the blur.” That’s what the other parent’s in the support group called it. Rick’s blur was punctuated by the strange absurdity of seeing himself on TV, in print, saying things like, “I canceled my son’s vote. I voted for McCain. But Tony was right, and he knew it. I just wish I’d told him that.”
People—reporters, strangers, everyone—would tell him over and over, he knows. Anthony knows how you feel. But that wasn’t how Rick saw things. Death was death. And that wasn’t bad. It was good. It reminded him to live, to put everything but what was most important aside—the way his son did.
It took too long, but Rick was finally going to make his own change. July 11, 2011 was his last day at Cal Trans. He was joining Teach for America, the oldest recruit in the nation at sixty-four years old. There were inner-city kids, too many of them, that he could help by just being around, by caring. He believed that.
And if he was good at it, he might go teach abroad. Maybe one day he’d even see the playground named after his son. He laughed at himself when told people his plans. He’d turned into one of them—a hope guy. And he almost wasn’t embarrassed about it anymore.
But it wasn’t his hope. It was his son’s.
Pop, Anthony had written in his last email home, the day before he died. You know I’m jealous of you getting to spend another sunshiny day in Obamaland. But I’m glad you’re there, the way I was glad you were there every night when I was a kid. You were our home security system. But I hope you don’t feel too bad now about how things have worked out now that a year has gone by. If you do, you should take some of your tax cut and give to someone earning over $250,0000.
But seriously, Pop, I don’t care what we agree and disagree about. I just want to thank you for always hearing me out, because that’s what I remember, not the arguments or the disagreements. Just you being there, listening to me. I’ll always remember that. I love you, Pop. And don’t forget it even when you’re old and more senile. You promise?
Rick’s life had become his promise, because hope—the kind of hope his son had—could never die.
Pete Nicely is destroying America one lame blog article at a time
Browse Timeline
Comments ( 17 )
Ellen Groves | Oct 27 2008 at 6:57 pm |I LOVE this story! Thank you for making my hope concrete, and for turning it into art.
scott | Oct 28 2008 at 2:39 pm |“If you do, you should take some of your tax cut and give to someone earning over $250,0000.”
I’ve actually tried to decide what would be the best way to do this, as the money isn’t mine to take.
I’m not a lazy socialist shithead.
Obama’s just another bum begging for change rather than waking people up to the fact that this is America and anyone can do anything. And now rather than getting society’s leaches off welfare we’re going to put the whole country on it. I can’t think of a faster way to get rid of innovation and good work ethics.
“I just wanna tax the crap out of the country’s best and brightest” -Obama (interpretation)
I make under 250K, not because 250K is beyond my reach but because I’m not willing to invest the time and work needed to reach that level of income. I’ve always enjoyed the thought that if I changed my mind and decided to become a serious earner I could, guess I still can as long as I’m willing to give Uncle Obama his cut.
You should run alongside him next go around. Pete Nicely - Nicely destroying America one lame blog article at a time.
Wade | Oct 28 2008 at 6:38 pm |Yeah… SO many people making over 250K a year really worked their fingers to the bone. I’m sure that none of them just skated into a super high paying job thanks to Dad’s cronies or anything…
DK | Oct 28 2008 at 8:23 pm |> From scott:
> I make under 250K, not because 250K is beyond my reach but because [...]Yeah, and I can quit smoking any time I want.
Scott | Oct 28 2008 at 8:40 pm |Actually 80-90% of this country’s rich are first generation rich.
Hell even if they weren’t, even if they were born with silver spoons in their mouths, how does taking their money - just because they’ve got it - make any sense? How is that any different from a group of thugs breaking in and robbing their house.
What if you wake up with a genius business plan tommorow and start killing more than 250K, wouldn’t you like to leave your children something?
My household makes 56K, what if they decide tomorrow that 50K is rich and decide to take mine? What if they drop it to 12K and decide to take yours? I can only assume that by backing thug socialism that you must be someone who doesn’t work hard enough to make much more than that.
Your attitude is the attitude of a poor man, not financially poor, just poor. People who are broke don’t have money, people who are poor have lazy/crappy - they’ve got it I want it greedy attitudes.
Wade | Oct 28 2008 at 10:01 pm |If 12K a year is ever considered wealthy, I’ll gladly pay more taxes.
And it’s not like “thugs taking money”
Most wealthy people (who aren’t greedy a–holes) really don’t mind giving away some of their money. How much does one person really need?
Adam | Oct 29 2008 at 12:32 am |“Actually 80-90% of this country’s rich are first generation rich.”
Can I get a source on this please? I’m having a hard time buying that.
Scott | Oct 29 2008 at 10:30 am |“Most wealthy people (who aren’t greedy a–holes) really don’t mind giving away some of their money. How much does one person really need?”
I have two issues with that statement. First where are the statistics showing that any number of wealthy people are greedy a-holes. Don’t get your view of rich people from Hollywood, they’re wrong about most things. Ruthless, cut throat, rich bastards make for good TV, average Joe’s don’t.
Second I agree, most don’t mind giving away some of their money, (some do, see the first link below) but like me they want to be the ones to give that money away. I can see where my dollars are needed, why do I need uncle obama to take my money and give it to some lazy welfare bum who isn’t even required to get a drug test? When I can see that the poor widows down the street really do need the help.
“If 12K a year is ever considered wealthy, I’ll gladly pay more taxes.”
You miss a lot of points don’t you? What if the govt. decides tomorrow that you only need two cars per family, mine has three because I work my butt off and wanted a third. They should be able to just take it?
But just for the record even at 12K you might just get your chance, under Bill Clinton who also waved the 250K banner the definition of “rich” quickly fell to 42K, I’m betting that obama can “one-up” him.
In all truthfulness I once shared the view that people with money should be forced to give a little more, I held on to that Hollywood view of rich people. A lot has changed over the past couple of years, I stopped being a victim of finances, took control of the money I do have, and began living within my means. My family is working hard to get out of debt, we haven’t eaten fast food in a year, the satellite and blockbuster online are gone, we’re driving rough vehicles, and we’ve paid off 20K of credit card and consumer debt this year alone. Assuming there are no emergencies we will continue this way and have the house paid off in just over two years. Our determination and drive have increased our income 7K over the past year. Nobody owes me ANYTHING, I’m living in the greatest country on earth and can achieve anything as long as I don’t get dragged down by a poor man’s attitude. You should check out DaveRamsey.com, Dave Ramsey is a rich man who has been rich twice the first time was a house of cards, the second time he did it right. You don’t have to buy anything, I haven’t - there is plenty of free information on his site. Just might change your views on some things.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-12-biden-financial_N.htm
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4217
http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/cms/butt_scratching_and_bass_fishing_10192.htmlc?ictid=htlnk
http://www.dailypress.com/sns-yourmoney-1217spending,0,6407605.story
I apologize for any spelling or grammarical mistakes and my horrible overuse of commas.
april | Oct 29 2008 at 12:21 pm |Scott, I can see that you mean well, but you might be distorting this a bit:
“Ruthless, cut throat, rich bastards make for good TV, average Joe’s don’t.” Most people who care about this issue wouldn’t necessarily call these people ruthless and cut throat but truthfully the division between rich and poor in this country is widening.
“uncle obama” What exactly is this supposed to mean?
“give it to some lazy welfare bum who isn’t even required to get a drug test?” Most people in this country are NOT on welfare and many who are - are not lazy, drug addled people. Come on now. Isn’t this an overgenralization of an issue? This country is full of hardworking people who work more than 40 hours a week and don’t even make half of 250k.
“Bill Clinton who also waved the 250K banner the definition of “rich” quickly fell to 42K, I’m betting that obama can “one-up” him.” Source please?
“I stopped being a victim of finances, took control of the money I do have, and began living within my means.” Well, good. Me, too. I also work for my money and live way below my means. I purposefully don’t own a car, etc. No one is suggesting that people owe you or me anything. But I do know that a third of my pay goes directly to taxes. A decrease even in the one digit percentage range would mean something to me. I can only imgine what it would mean to families with children.
I read your links and they have nothing to do with this. We are not talking about making rich people pay for everything. We are talking about giving a bit of a break to the majaority of middle class hard working Americans. That’s it. There aren’t that many people who fit into the 250k+ tax bracket and even if they do - the increased tax plan isn’t going to exactly put them in the poor house.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/17/155050/40/844/633782
Statistics:
1.9% of U.S. households make $250,000+ a year
98.1% of U.S. households are below $250,000 a year
The median income is $50,223 a household that makes $250,000 a year makes 5 times the median income…
Even if a household make only $100,000 a year…you are in the top 20% and that is on top of the 80% below you.The taxes represent individual’s taxable income NOT business taxes. Whether it is from owning a business or working for one doesn’t make a difference because not all of a business’ income is take home pay for the owner. These things are taxed differently. Different kinds of income get taxed differently, too. If most of your personal income comes from stock investments, then you can easily be paying little more than 15% income tax. Warren Buffet, perennially one of the 3 richest men in the world has admitted he pays little more than 15% in taxes because almost all of it comes from his investments. His own assistant who makes about $80K/year gets taxed something like 30% - he’s a big proponent of lowering middle-class taxes and raising those for his own bracket - and on those who invest, like himself.
More Statistics:
Taxes paid by highest incomes
* The top 1% pay 22.7% of taxes.
* The top 10% pay 50% of taxes.
* The top 20% pay 65.3% of taxes.
* The top 40% pay 84.3% of taxes.Taxes paid by lowest incomes
* The bottom 20% pay 1.1% of taxes.
* The bottom 40% pay 6.1% of taxes.
Scott | Oct 29 2008 at 1:06 pm |I love that last set of statistics, that would show a rational person that obamas plan will only make something currently unfair even worse. Fair is fair no matter the numbers.
“A decrease even in the one digit percentage range would mean something to me. I can only imgine what it would mean to families with children.” I have two children but that is beside the point. There doesn’t have to be a decrease of even one percent. It’s obama’s giant stack of new plans that is causing the need for new taxes.
Maybe the majority of Americans will see what a slippery slop it is between socialism and communism.
I see that you can’t argue with a socialist.
Good day.
april | Oct 29 2008 at 1:37 pm |A socialist? Do you think for yourself or do you just spout out rhetoric? This socialist crap is really, really dumb. Please don’t tell me you are going to cop out with that? yikes.
Barack Obama is more enthusiastic about “spreading the wealth around” than his Republican rival. But that does not make him a “Socialist.”
The last statistic:
I don’t adhere to one parties ideologies blindly - BUT i failed to mention that it the figures probably relate to the percentage of disposable income paid in tax, rather than the percentage of all tax each group represents. That figure is next to meaningless without data about the relative incomes of each group. The point is that those people paying those high tax rates have most of the money. Income Inequality 101. The bottom line is that most people WILL NEVER achieve the 250k income bracket in their lifetimes - no matter how hard they WORK. That is a fact. A fact. AND the people pushing for the tax increase? Obama and Buffett for example…make well over 250k a year. The proposed tax increase is 36% to 39%. People in the middle class range will get a tax break.
Here is a good article:
“If Barack Obama’s a socialist, what’s George W. Bush?”http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/10/obama-socialist.html
april | Oct 29 2008 at 1:56 pm |There is a pattern in this. The last time I started a civil conversation with a Republican I ended up being called a Muslim. So now — I am a communist AND a Muslim. What a great country that we live in where people like you exist to box everyone who disagrees with you into categories. I am an American. Period. Remember: I am allowed to disagree with you. You don’t have to resort to childish name calling.
bruce | Oct 29 2008 at 4:46 pm |it’s funny how a few weeks ago republicans didn’t even know the meaning of the word “socialist”, but now that someone on the tv said it, they throw it out like nothing.
it’s really sad that we are powerless against such stupidity.Pete, unlike scott’s servile comment of you destroying america, i will–for once–be geniune. it’s fiction like this that will save america someday.
Scott | Oct 29 2008 at 5:53 pm |Whoa, whoa, whoa glad I swung back by. Who ya’ll calling a Repub? I thought you were above name calling.
I’m a capitalist.
And I don’t really think the word servile worked there bruce.
[socialism - a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.]
Yeah, sounds about right to me, glad I looked it up so that now when I’m running around “repeating” it I’ll be sure to use it correctly.
This is my last visit friendly commies, have a lovely day, enjoy the freedom while it’s still around.
april | Oct 29 2008 at 6:11 pm |Good riddance!
“how do you know if you’re a socailist?
Generally, it involves espousing government control over a country’s basic industries, like transportation, communication and energy, while also allowing some government regulation of private industries.
“Obama is about as far from being a socialist as Joe The Plumber is from being a rocket scientist,” said Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution. “I think it’s hard for McCain to call Obama a socialist when George Bush is nationalizing banks.”
And this from Bruce Carruthers, a sociology professor at Northwestern University: “Obama is like a center-liberal Democrat, and he is certainly not looking to overthrow capitalism. My goodness, he wouldn’t have the support of someone like The Wizard of Omaha, Warren Buffet, if he truly was going to overthrow capitalism.”
Bottom line: pure capitalism and socialism can be a difficult mix.
Which hits at the heart of the problem. Right now, with the economy in the tank, the idea of a little wealth sharing doesn’t sound so bad to people whose 401k plans are worth less than the contents of their coin jars.”
bruce | Oct 29 2008 at 6:54 pm |scott, you’re not a capitalist, you’re “poor”. which means real capitalist don’t give a shit about you, they just want you to keep buying their products. but you’re not coming back, so whatever.
these people will never learn, April. try to tell them 2+2=4 and they call you a commie because bill o’riley says basic math is a form of guerrilla warfare fought by the economically unprivileged.