Living in John Carpenter's Nightmare

Have you ever felt there is a greater entity at play in our economy? Ever felt that the rich and powerful hold all the cards and you’re left with a pair of twos? That the upper class is subjugating the underprivileged to the point that we are little more than chattel? The infamous director John Carpenter has an answer, though it may be more sinister than we could ever imagine. In his 1988 cult classic They Live, starring former pro wrestler Roddy Piper and Keith David, Carpenter creates a dystopian reality in modern day Los Angeles where the rich and powerful truly are a different species. These bug eyed blue skinned monsters blend seamlessly into our society using T.V. and mass media to broadcast a subliminal signal hiding the truth. That truth being all signs, magazines, every single bit of advertisement and media is meant to get us to consume, worship, obey, and sleep while they live. The kicker in all this is that the secret weapon our hero Piper stumbles upon is not some device of destruction, but a simple pair of sunglasses that show the world for what it truly is.

Filled with campy tongue-in-cheek lines, yet the points made by They Live were oddly similar to the concerns many have today. In Carpenter's world companies are closing, jobs are drying up, and homeless are swarming to the major cities. In this hopeless world where it's hard to get ahead I noticed one thing: LA looks better than I’ve ever seen it. There is less traffic, the homeless seem to be confined to limited areas, and the job centers look organized and pleasant. Thirty years later Los Angeles has grown into a mecca of suburbs and industry centers spanning up and down the coast. Sadly that isn’t the only thing that’s changed. Today you can’t walk a block without coming across a transient, it takes an hour to go more than five miles, rent prices are close to the highest in the country, and if you want a job better to look elsewhere. So in this country where humanity isn’t a term in our President’s vocabulary I wonder what has changed since Carpenter's cult classic hit theaters.

Using the short story “Eight O'clock in the Morning” by Ray Nelson as the vehicle to create They Live, Carpenter sought to exact his bloody revenge on the upper class bourgeoisie that he felt were ruining our society.[1] The initial cause for this movie was simply that Carpenter was angry. Angry with what Reagan was doing to America: closing homeless shelters, poor tax policies, corporate takeovers, and shady businessmen like Michael Milken and Barry Minkow. Lucky for us as viewers, 1988 wasn’t just any year but one ripe with scandal and the road to these scandals was paved with the intentions of the Republican Party.

Reaganomics is a term I have heard my entire life but knew very little about until recently. We are all familiar with the concept of trickle down economics as it was explained to my sixth grade self. Tax the wealthy less so they can in turn employ more and spend more to stimulate the economy and create growth. To their credit it worked! They took our negative GDP growth of -2.5% from 1980 and raised it to 7.2% in 1984 before it dropped to 4.2% by the late 80’s. At its height, this was the best growth we had seen since the start of World War Two. This may sound good but it came at a cost. In this eight year span our national debt rose from $997 Billion to $2.85 Trillion, a 285% increase.[2] Though this is concerning, what Carpenter felt was his last straw was that on top of this Reagan increased Department of Defense spending from $267 billion to $393 billion and dropped the top marginal tax rates from 70.1% to 50% and then again to 28.4%.[3]

All of these changes were enough to tick off liberals and the underclass for the next thirty years. Despite that, what I found disturbing is what happened to the tax brackets while taxes on the wealthy were reduced so drastically. Before Reagan, in 1981, there were seventeen individual tax brackets going all the way up to 70% tax on those that made more than $108,300 as an individual. The system was complicated and a difference in tax brackets could range anywhere from two thousand dollars to twenty thousand in what separated each bracket.[4] This then simplified down to twelve brackets in 1982 with the the highest rate being 50% on single incomes over $41,500. The rate remained over the next few years while the incomes began to expand shifting around with the uppermost section rising to fifty five $55,000 in ‘83, $81,000 in ‘84, $85,000 in ‘85, and finally $88,000 in ‘86 when the infamous Tax reform act of 1986 came into effect. This took that twelve brackets and reduced them to five in 1987--the highest bracket at 38.5% for an income of only $54,000 once again.[3]

So in the name of simplification and stimulating the economy, we arrive at the final and most drastic shift in 1988. The five brackets were reduced to two at a rate of 15% for all those under $17,850, and 28% for all those over, but don’t worry there were were some exceptions in the name of the “rate bubble.” This is best explained by the New York Times in a 1990 article where they give helpful examples.[5] The “bubble” is a provision where the very wealthy end up paying lower rates than those that are less affluent. The exact wording is:

“A 33% "rate bubble" applied between $71,900 and $149,250 for married filing jointly, between $35,950 and $113,300 for married filing separately, between $43,150 and $89,560 for singles, and between $61,650 and $123,790 for heads of households, the purpose being to recapture the revenue that upper-income taxpayers had saved by applying the 15% rate.”[5]

So a family filing separately with over $37,000 or jointly with $71,000 pay a 33% rate while a single individual filing with $90,000 or a married couple filing jointly with $150,000 pay a 28% rate. This farce of a income tax policy continued into 1991. Though one would hope that such policies don’t persist in our current economy may be forgetting the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.[6] This bit of legislation didn’t affect individuals but was aimed at a corporate level of tax reform. Not only did it create another “bubble” for corporations with an income of over eighteen million, granting them 3% reduction to 35% from the bracket below them, but it also allowed corporations to repatriate income from overseas at a rate of 5.75%. This means corporations, like IBM, could bring income back to America from foreign countries at a severely reduced rate, which they did. In 2005 with their declared $9.5 billion in income from overseas they paid a measly $160 million. Luckily this “bubble” would also only last three years.[7]

That brings me back to Carpenter who is now living in this “bubble” of 1988. The prior year ZZZZ Best run by Barry Minkow had collapsed with charges of racketeering, fraud, money laundering, embezzlement, tax evasion, and bank fraud costing investors $100 million.[8] ZZZZ Best started as a simple carpet cleaning company and quickly grew to the top of the stock market through an elaborate ponzi scheme lead by Minkow. Minkow literally tried to “fake it until you make it,” attempting to take his company public and planning to sell a million shares in January of 1988 in order to pay off his debts and make the company legitimate. Instead Minkow found himself in front of a federal grand jury in January of 1988 ending with a prison sentence of 25 years.[8]

This was then shortly followed by the father of all stock scandals, Michael Milken the “Junk Bond King”, who appeared before Congress in April 1988.[9] He was known for his time at Drexel Burnham Lambert, where he perfected the trade of high-yield bonds and insider trading raking in an estimated $5 million a year by 1976. By the late 1980s, his compensation for a four year period was estimated at over $1 billion. The SEC formally sued Drexel in 1988 and upon investigation of Milkens actions, he entered a guilty plea to stock parking and manipulation later that year. This led to Milken’s indictment in 1989 and eventually a fine of $600 million and ten years in prison. Despite all this Milken was still valued at $2 billion in 2010. November 4, 1988 amidst the reform, scandal, and outrage They Live was released just a month before Drexel Burnham Lambert’s guilty plea.[10]

They Live 1988

These shady business dealings and lopsided tax policies show the underbelly of corruption and collusion Carpenter felt was going on throughout the 80’s. Yet, I am sorry to say that these pale in comparison to actions taken by our government today in a much less subtle manner. It comes as no surprise that our current government has made some questionable actions and announcements since the inauguration earlier this year. There are far too many indiscretions and actions to discuss in comparison to the scandal and corruption of the Reagan administration so we shall focus on a few points that are forward most in the public eye: the federal budget and healthcare.

The administration has put forth their budget for the next year and is currently in their second iteration of a new healthcare bill to repeal the current medicaid program. To start, this healthcare plan predicts to create 10% lower premiums across the board by 2026.[11] This sounds good to start but the side effects may leave a worse taste in your mouth. Ignoring that this unbalanced plan favors the young and healthy adults for health care, takes away health care for children, as well as excludes birth control and blatantly sexist changes, the sheer numbers that go with this plan seem unreal.

The immediate effect of the the bill would be 14 million would lose coverage instantly. Over the following year we are expected to see premiums rise 15% to 20%. Back to their 2026 projections we should expect to see 22 million that would have been covered in the current plan be left out in the cold.[12] For some perspective, the greater Los Angeles area has a population of approximately 18 million. This bill will essentially cause the equivalent of one of the largest cities in the United States to lose health care. This is sadly just scratching the surface on how this bill will affect Americans and as much as I’d love to go much further into it I found the budget for the coming year to be a more immediate threat.

First, it comes as no surprise this budget proposes wide-ranging cuts and changes. This proposed budget has been called “cruel”, “heartless”, and “inhumane” by Representative Rosa DeLauro, “inhumane...should be dead on arrival” by Representative Val Demings, “an immediate threat to my neighbors, families, and small business owners” by Representative Kathy Castor, and “fiscally irresponsible and morally repugnant” by Representative Charlie Crist. This all may sound a bit drastic yet any one section of this budget could be referred to in this way, there is no shortcoming of evil and stupidity to be found. So let’s begin from the bottom and go up, starting with children.

According to NPR, the budget proposes a $9.2 billion reduction in education ranging from kindergarten all the way up to college loans.[13] First, a $2.3 billion program for teacher training and class size reduction, a $1.2 billion after school program serving 2 million children, and a $190 million literacy program will be cut entirely. Next, programs within schools will possibly lose $4 billion for vision screening, speech therapy, and other special needs programs that will lose funding or reimbursements as they are tied to Medicaid. Don’t worry though, if your school loses these programs in poorer communities you can just move your child to another school and take your funding with you. This comes in the form of $1 billion that would be dedicated to a program for poor students to leave their schools for better public schools, taking that funding away from poorer communities. Finally, to add insult to injury to the public school system the budget allots $250 million and $167 million for private schools and charters schools respectively in new vouchers.

The next to feel the effects of this budget will be college students. The government will begin to stop subsidizing student loans to the tune of $1 billion in the next year affecting lower-income graduates most. Last but not least is my favorite budget cut that quite literally shoots the government itself in the foot. Currently there is a program known by public service loan forgiveness. This program forgives the student loans after 10 years of working for either in a government position or a non-profit. This program especially benefits those with graduate degrees such as lawyers, doctors, and teachers. This program that currently benefits almost half a million will be phased out.[13]

Not only do these changes affect the entire nation but specifically target the underprivileged and children is extremely “disturbing”, to quote Representative Maxine Waters. It is the next cut that resonated with me, as it directly affects both my future and many of my professors, peers, and friends all of which have spent their life making art. The National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for Humanities, and the Corporation for Public Broadcast which have been around since the 60’s are all set to be eliminated. Currently both the NEA and the NEH each receive $148 million a year and the CPB receives $445 million a year coming up to about $741 million for all the programs combined.[14]

In 2012, the ACPSA, a partnership of the NEA and the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, did an in depth analysis of what the arts contribute to our economy. The findings showed that $698 billion comes from the arts, roughly 4% of our GDP. Furthermore the Americans for the Arts state that this also supports 4.8 million jobs as well as $26 billion in trade surplus annually. All this is supported by $148 million in government funding from only one of these three programs.[15]

This may seem like a fair amount of money being spent for the sake of art and well being, yet in comparison with a few of the areas of the budget that are set to see an increases in spending it is merely a drop in the bucket. Despite slashing health care as well as schools and arts, the budget calls for a 6.2% increase for Homeland Security and 10.1% increase for the Department of Defense. This would raise the Homeland Security budget $2.8 billion to a total of $44.1 billion, and raise Department of Defense by $52.8 billion for a total of $574.5 billion. If you consider only the the Homeland Security increase, the entire budget for these three programs is 26% of the proposed $2.8 billion.[13]

Info graphic by National Endowment for the Arts [15]

As we sit on the eve of all of these reforms, looking back at what sparked Carpenter’s outrage, the shuffled tax brackets and millions of dollars in corrupt dealing seem like small potatoes. Carpenter was concerned that our government was weighing the system against the poor and less fortunate while growing their power and military. Currently our government is actively taking millions out of public education, arts, and healthcare while we see a rise in military spending. Preventing children and families from receiving the education, healthcare, and opportunities needed to better the communities they are in. So I encourage everyone who is feeling angry, taken advantage of, or just plain disturbed to take a moment and watch Carpenter's cult classic. Maybe you too will wonder whether or not these white haired men in D.C. and those in control of the major conglomerates that monopolize our country are truly human, or something more sinister. If you find yourself in this situation, get yourself a pair of sunglasses.

1. Nelson, R. F. (n.d.). Ray Nelsons eight o’clock in the morning: the inspiration for John Carpenters film They Live! Place of publication not identified: Publisher not identified.

2. Niskanen, W. A. (1990). Reaganomics. Retrieved June 02, 2017, from http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Reaganomics.html

3. Krugman, P. (2004, June 07). The Great Taxer. Retrieved June 30, 2017, from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/opinion/the-great-taxer.html

4. http://insurancequotes2day.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal.pdf

5. Here's How the 'Tax Bubble' Works. (1990, September 24). Retrieved June 30, 2017, from http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/25/us/here-s-how-the-tax-bubble-works.html

6. Browning, L. (2008, June 24). One-time tax break saved 843 U.S. corporations $265 billion. Retrieved June 30, 2017, from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/business/worldbusiness/24iht-24tax.13933715.html

7. Leder, M. (2006, April 13). 2005's most appalling corporate tax giveaway. Retrieved June 30, 2017, from http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2006/04/the_104_billion_refund.html

8. Akst, D. (1988, January 18). ZZZZ Best Founder Minkow Indicted on Racketeering And Fraud Charges. Retrieved June 30, 2017, from https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122651435543121217

9. Cohan, W. D. (2017, May 02). Michael Milken invented the modern junk bond, went to prison, and then became one of the most respected people on Wall Street. Retrieved June 30, 2017, from http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-milken-life-story-2017-5

10. Services, F. T. (1990, November 21). Milken Gets 10 Years : Must Serve One-Third of Sentence. Retrieved June 30, 2017, from http://articles.latimes.com/1990-11-21/news/mn-4764_1_michael-milken

11. Mangan, D. (2017, March 14). 24 million would lose health insurance coverage under GOP's Obamacare replacement by 2026. Retrieved June 30, 2017, from http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/13/cbo-says-millions-lose-health-insurance-under-gop-obamacare-replacement.html

12. Kaplan, T., & Pear, R. (2017, March 13). Health Bill Would Add 24 Million Uninsured but Save $337 Billion, Report Says. Retrieved July 03, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/us/politics/affordable-care-act-health-congressional-budget-office.html

13. Kamenetz, A. (2017, May 22). President Trump's Budget Proposal Calls For Deep Cuts To Education. Retrieved July 03, 2017, from http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/05/22/529534031/president-trumps-budget-proposal-calls-for-deep-cuts-to-education

14. Naylor, B. (2017, March 16). Trump's Budget Plan Cuts Funding For Arts, Humanities And Public Media. Retrieved July 03, 2017, from http://www.npr.org/2017/03/16/520401246/trumps-budget-plan-cuts-funding-for-arts-humanities-and-public-media

15. National Endowment for the Arts. (n.d.). Retrieved July 03, 2017, from https://www.arts.gov/news/2015/surprising-findings-three-new-nea-reports-arts

16. Krieg, G., & Mullery, W. (2017, May 23). Trump's budget by the numbers: What gets cut and why. Retrieved July 03, 2017, from http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/23/politics/trump-budget-cuts-programs/index.html

Editor: Shannon Schroeder