Ferris, thanks for commenting, man. You raise a bunch of good issues, and it is probably fair to say that I created a straw man while arguing against the use of straw men. I agree that a slow, unwitting march to a dystopian future is more likely than some nefarious back room cabal, but I don't see gun rights as a fundamental right, nor a cornerstone of our freedom. Let me just reiterate a few points and bring up a new one.
First, people have a right to protect themselves and a right to protect their homes. Similarly, people have a reasonable expectation that passerby on the street aren't packing heat. I see the two rights in a balance, a freedom to bear arms as well as a freedom from those bearing arms. Because these rights are in a balance, there must be regulations and laws to ensure that citizens know when and where to expect guns as well as in which situations they are legal. This is why I see it as absolutely essential that every gun owner pass a background check as well as a gun safety course. This ensures that the laws regarding firearm possession and use are known and reduces the chances that gun accidents will occur. When you wish to enter into a potentially dangerous activity, such as owning a gun, driving a car, or operating heavy machinery, you should have to register, undergo some sort of background check, and have some training.
Statistically speaking, it is more dangerous to own a gun than it is to not. Possessing firearms can escalate situations that may have ended less violently, and self-inflicted gunshot wounds are a common problem with gun ownership. Rather than thinking of government regulation as tyrannical overreach, gun owners should receive free gun safety classes from the government. The government has a responsibility to ensure public safety, and educating gun owners is a natural extension of that responsibility. By providing services to gun owners, instead of simply penalizing them, the conversation can shift from an antagonistic debate to one where all citizens are stakeholders. Everyone should be engaged in preventing gun violence, even those like you and me, who have no desire to possess or use firearms. Gun violence is someone else's issue until it affects someone in your life. Attacks like the Clackamas Town Center shooting remind us that heinous acts of violence can occur anytime, anywhere.
Second, I agree that the bill of rights has been snipped away at the corners for years. The problem is that gun rights have become, for some, emblematic of the entire bill of rights. For example, some of the same people who decry universal background checks as an assault upon the liberties of law-abiding citizens were the same who enacted the Patriot act, which legalized spying upon millions of law-abiding citizens. The Patriot act, which treats all Americans as potential terrorists and threats, is a direct violation of constitutional rights, whereas universal background checks can be defended as constitutionally valid under the commerce clause, or the "well-regulated militia" clause of the second amendment. You cannot cry wolf when the government asks to know the reason for purchasing a firearm if you stand idly by when they conduct warrant-less wiretapping, or other (il)legal forms of spying. The use of drones in America, whether for surveillance or otherwise, is a more disturbing overreach of government power than the restriction of firearm possession, yet it is sanctioned in the name of "national security." Isn't keeping the streets clear of guns also a job for national security?
If you want to talk about a dystopian future with a tyrannical government, I am much more concerned at the conduct of law enforcement officers surrounding the Occupy and similar protest movements of the last few years. Examples of police brutality and violations of civil rights were sanctioned in the name of keeping the order and allowing traffic to pass. The conduct of police officers in California universities, on the streets of New York, and in Oakland is deplorable. It is a much more direct assault upon civil liberties to restrict the right to protest and to violate the rights against search and seizure, arrest without a warrant, and to physically attack protesters. If an infringement upon the second amendment represents the eroding of American values, nothing should be more important than protecting the first, fourth, and fifth amendments.
Lastly, this isn't 1776, and the people's right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with protecting citizens from government armies. Even if you are armed to the teeth, you simply do not stand a chance against the US armed forces. As has been made abundantly clear by Holder and the justice department, the use of drones against American citizens is not illegal, so long as those citizens are deemed "enemy combatants." Go ahead and buy all the assault rifles you want, good luck taking on the guy sitting in a room in D.C. who is piloting a drone. My point is that quibbles over which types of guns are legal to purchase and use is a moot point. No matter what sort of firearms you own, technology has progressed to such a point that it is not a level playing field. An individual's right to bear arms is not protection against government tyranny. On the other hand, my interpretation of the second amendment, that it protects a collective right to arms, is an effective safeguard against governmental tyranny. Until the last few decades, that was the accepted reading of the second amendment: it protects the people's right to bear arm in a militia, not an individual's right to own firearms.
To sum up, restricting an individual's right to bear arms should be treated as a public health and safety concern. Research should be done into the causes of gun violence and possible means of protection. When lobbying organizations stand in the way of research into gun violence, as the NRA has done since the 90's, they are standing in the way of progress. If research into gun violence can prevent even a single gun murder, it is a good thing. If one more person will be left standing because of assault weapons or high capacity magazine bans, then they should be enacted. You may have the right to bear arms, but I have the right to life. The latter should be protected, even at the expense of the former.
And Go Pacers.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Education is an Investment
I've always dreamed of becoming a teacher, and I graduated last spring with that dream in mind. Since graduation, I've been presented with a number of conflicting opportunities, all of which are more profitable than teaching, but none of which particularly appeal to me beyond their salaries. The practical side of me says the smart thing is to jump straight into the workforce, make as much money as I can, then hopefully become a teacher in the next 5 years or so. The other, more personal side of me knows I wouldn't be happy as a business analyst, or in an office job. I need to be working with people, helping others, striving to make the world a better place. Those are the reasons that, although it is much more expensive and less profitable, I'm going to graduate school to become a teacher.
The sad thing about this country is that it is so difficult to become a teacher compared to other professions, when education is the foundation for one's future. I've received tons of offers to sell insurance, study economics or financial mathematics, or pursue some other graduate degree, each offer coming with significant financial incentive. When it comes to paying for an education degree, however, the offers are much less juicy. There are scholarships and grants available, but they are fiercely competitive and do not cover the price of tuition. Even in my best estimates, all of my financial aid can only defray the cost of tuition, not pay for it all.
Why is it that in a time of record profits for Wall Street, in a time when we have more millionaires and billionaires than ever before, in a time of drawbacks in two wars, that we cannot find the money to properly fund education? How is it that education is included in that umbrella category of "discretionary spending?" I cannot think of a single service that the federal government provides that is more integral to how society functions than public education. An educated populace is a more productive, happier, healthier, and better society. Education is not discretionary, it is necessary.
The most maddening thing about budget debates is that we know that cutting education spending does not do anything to alleviate the deficit or the long-term debt. Cutting education spending exacerbates the debt, by reducing the productivity of future generations. It also kills jobs in the present, slowing down economic activity and forcing thousands of public workers to work part-time or lose their jobs altogether. Since the recession hit, the private sector has consistently added jobs, while the public sector has shed jobs year after year. There is no economic difference between public and private sector jobs - both are real jobs, held by real people, and both allow individuals to participate in the economy.
There is no more effective stimulus than education spending. Every dollar spent on education pays for itself, several times over, in future productivity, teacher spending, and community engagement. Good schools make good communities, lessen crime, increase parent involvement. There is not a negative to public education spending, whether we consider head start programs or higher education funding. Here's a pretty quick read on what head start provides. Head start provides child care services to lower-income parents, allowing them to return to the workforce or seek employment. It is not just an opportunity for the children, it is a service for the parents, too.
Finally, it should not be such a difficult decision for college students to choose a career in education. Education should be the shining city on the hill - the destination that every bright graduate wishes to reach. There are programs that are working to make education careers more appealing: Teach For America, Blue Engine, and many other private/public partnerships. These programs are great, but they are extremely competitive and difficult to join, and can only serve parts of the country. It should be a national initiative to provide energetic, qualified, and passionate instructors to every single child across the country. The only way to do this is to change the national discourse around education. Educational dollars are not to be bandied about in budgetary discussions, and simply privatizing education is not a realistic solution to a nationwide problem. If the national debt is a danger to future generations, an educational deficit is much more frightening, and much more damaging. Stimulate education: it's good for the economy, good for the debt, and good for children. The last point is all that should matter.
The sad thing about this country is that it is so difficult to become a teacher compared to other professions, when education is the foundation for one's future. I've received tons of offers to sell insurance, study economics or financial mathematics, or pursue some other graduate degree, each offer coming with significant financial incentive. When it comes to paying for an education degree, however, the offers are much less juicy. There are scholarships and grants available, but they are fiercely competitive and do not cover the price of tuition. Even in my best estimates, all of my financial aid can only defray the cost of tuition, not pay for it all.
Why is it that in a time of record profits for Wall Street, in a time when we have more millionaires and billionaires than ever before, in a time of drawbacks in two wars, that we cannot find the money to properly fund education? How is it that education is included in that umbrella category of "discretionary spending?" I cannot think of a single service that the federal government provides that is more integral to how society functions than public education. An educated populace is a more productive, happier, healthier, and better society. Education is not discretionary, it is necessary.
The most maddening thing about budget debates is that we know that cutting education spending does not do anything to alleviate the deficit or the long-term debt. Cutting education spending exacerbates the debt, by reducing the productivity of future generations. It also kills jobs in the present, slowing down economic activity and forcing thousands of public workers to work part-time or lose their jobs altogether. Since the recession hit, the private sector has consistently added jobs, while the public sector has shed jobs year after year. There is no economic difference between public and private sector jobs - both are real jobs, held by real people, and both allow individuals to participate in the economy.
There is no more effective stimulus than education spending. Every dollar spent on education pays for itself, several times over, in future productivity, teacher spending, and community engagement. Good schools make good communities, lessen crime, increase parent involvement. There is not a negative to public education spending, whether we consider head start programs or higher education funding. Here's a pretty quick read on what head start provides. Head start provides child care services to lower-income parents, allowing them to return to the workforce or seek employment. It is not just an opportunity for the children, it is a service for the parents, too.
Finally, it should not be such a difficult decision for college students to choose a career in education. Education should be the shining city on the hill - the destination that every bright graduate wishes to reach. There are programs that are working to make education careers more appealing: Teach For America, Blue Engine, and many other private/public partnerships. These programs are great, but they are extremely competitive and difficult to join, and can only serve parts of the country. It should be a national initiative to provide energetic, qualified, and passionate instructors to every single child across the country. The only way to do this is to change the national discourse around education. Educational dollars are not to be bandied about in budgetary discussions, and simply privatizing education is not a realistic solution to a nationwide problem. If the national debt is a danger to future generations, an educational deficit is much more frightening, and much more damaging. Stimulate education: it's good for the economy, good for the debt, and good for children. The last point is all that should matter.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Slippery Slopes
The most tired and overused rhetorical argument is to create a straw man - in other words to distort your opponent's position to the point that no sane person would agree with him or her. The "slippery slope" argument is nothing more than a variation on this straw man argument, where it is frequently used in defense of present and real oppressions by playing on fears of dystopian futures. The argument goes something like this: "If we allow the passage of this law, then what is next? It is only one small step away from (insert dystopian vision here)." This sort of argument is diversionary; it shrugs the issues at hand and plays upon listeners' emotions. Lately, the slippery slope argument has been used in the gun control debate, thereby distorting the issue at hand.
I am tired of the argument that if the government restricts gun rights (something that governments do, and always have done) that suddenly America will turn into a dark socialist/fascist/communist wasteland. Gun rights are not sacred, nor inviolable, nor have they ever been. It is currently the case that individuals cannot own all types of firearms, and further restrictions upon gun ownership are not a new and unheard of infringement upon citizen's rights. New gun control measures are necessary as part of large-scale action to reduce gun violence, and are not the first step toward fascism or dictatorship.
Here is how the argument plays out. Gun control advocates propose legislation that is reasonable and fair: ban assault rifles that have no sporting use, require universal background checks on gun sales (something that I had assumed was already the case), limit high capacity magazines, etc. The NRA replies that if we ban assault rifles that it is only a hop, skip, and a jump away to tyranny and government take-over. Rather than arguing over the merits of the gun control proposal, the NRA diverts the discussion to a shouting fest. Essentially, they paint gun control advocates as proponents of tyranny and enemies of liberty, instead of as concerned citizens fighting for greater public safety.
What sacred right do these proposals violate? The second amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." To me, the letter and spirit of the law are explicit: within a regulatory framework, the right to bear arms for the express purpose of security is inviolable. The well-regulated militia clause permits the government to restrict the ownership, use, and sale of certain types of firearms. It is plainly ridiculous to argue otherwise: individuals cannot legally possess rocket launchers, grenade launchers, or a host of other weapons. It is only recently that regulatory frameworks have been discarded in the name of "freedom." In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment really didn't mean the "well regulated Militia" part of the clause and that individuals can own firearms for any purpose that can be justified as self defense. This seems a more frightening modification of the law than a high-capacity magazine or assault rifle ban.
In fact, the slippery slope has been slanted toward gun rights for decades. Government agencies used to be able to collect information on gun ownership for the purpose of research, treating gun violence as a public health and public safety issue. The NRA fought against this research for years and won their case. Assault weapons were banned previously, now they are not. Handguns were illegal in DC, now they are not - and the Supreme Court that overturned the handgun ban greatly increased the rights of gun owners. So tell me, which way is the slippery slope going? Are we headed toward a tyrannical society where no individual has the right to defend themselves, or are we headed toward a modern wild west society where no gun control is acceptable?
Gun violence is a serious problem across America - hundreds of people die from it every year, far more than many other issues to which we devote a lot of time and energy. Although a tragedy, the Benghazi attack claimed the lives of 4 individuals and congressional Republicans have played an obstructionist role ever since. If they would bring a proportionate amount of vigor and passion to curbing gun violence, hundreds of lives could be saved every year. Gun violence should be treated, like vehicular accidents are, as a public health issue. It should be approached holistically, and many different, complementary steps should be taken.
Obviously, legislation cannot stop all wrongdoing. For example, murder is illegal, but people still murder. Does this mean that governments should legalize murder, because it is not a perfect fix? The argument that no legislation is sufficient, therefore no legislation is necessary is a logical fallacy. It would be like referees in sports declaring that "players break the rules anyway, so I'm just going to throw away my whistle." Governments must legislate, to the best of their ability, and hope that this legislation can provide a partial solution to the problem.
Laws cannot do everything, and gun violence is a complex problem. Yes, mental health is a big issue. Thus, we should require universal background checks on the purchase and sale of guns, in order to keep them out of the hands of dangerous or unbalanced individuals. We should also better fund initiatives to help the mentally ill, and conduct research into the causes of gun violence and the effects of gun ownership. These arguments are not objections to legislation, but should be undertaken along with legislation to combat violence from all sides. Your right to a gun is not supreme to the inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
I am tired of the argument that if the government restricts gun rights (something that governments do, and always have done) that suddenly America will turn into a dark socialist/fascist/communist wasteland. Gun rights are not sacred, nor inviolable, nor have they ever been. It is currently the case that individuals cannot own all types of firearms, and further restrictions upon gun ownership are not a new and unheard of infringement upon citizen's rights. New gun control measures are necessary as part of large-scale action to reduce gun violence, and are not the first step toward fascism or dictatorship.
Here is how the argument plays out. Gun control advocates propose legislation that is reasonable and fair: ban assault rifles that have no sporting use, require universal background checks on gun sales (something that I had assumed was already the case), limit high capacity magazines, etc. The NRA replies that if we ban assault rifles that it is only a hop, skip, and a jump away to tyranny and government take-over. Rather than arguing over the merits of the gun control proposal, the NRA diverts the discussion to a shouting fest. Essentially, they paint gun control advocates as proponents of tyranny and enemies of liberty, instead of as concerned citizens fighting for greater public safety.
What sacred right do these proposals violate? The second amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." To me, the letter and spirit of the law are explicit: within a regulatory framework, the right to bear arms for the express purpose of security is inviolable. The well-regulated militia clause permits the government to restrict the ownership, use, and sale of certain types of firearms. It is plainly ridiculous to argue otherwise: individuals cannot legally possess rocket launchers, grenade launchers, or a host of other weapons. It is only recently that regulatory frameworks have been discarded in the name of "freedom." In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment really didn't mean the "well regulated Militia" part of the clause and that individuals can own firearms for any purpose that can be justified as self defense. This seems a more frightening modification of the law than a high-capacity magazine or assault rifle ban.
In fact, the slippery slope has been slanted toward gun rights for decades. Government agencies used to be able to collect information on gun ownership for the purpose of research, treating gun violence as a public health and public safety issue. The NRA fought against this research for years and won their case. Assault weapons were banned previously, now they are not. Handguns were illegal in DC, now they are not - and the Supreme Court that overturned the handgun ban greatly increased the rights of gun owners. So tell me, which way is the slippery slope going? Are we headed toward a tyrannical society where no individual has the right to defend themselves, or are we headed toward a modern wild west society where no gun control is acceptable?
Gun violence is a serious problem across America - hundreds of people die from it every year, far more than many other issues to which we devote a lot of time and energy. Although a tragedy, the Benghazi attack claimed the lives of 4 individuals and congressional Republicans have played an obstructionist role ever since. If they would bring a proportionate amount of vigor and passion to curbing gun violence, hundreds of lives could be saved every year. Gun violence should be treated, like vehicular accidents are, as a public health issue. It should be approached holistically, and many different, complementary steps should be taken.
Obviously, legislation cannot stop all wrongdoing. For example, murder is illegal, but people still murder. Does this mean that governments should legalize murder, because it is not a perfect fix? The argument that no legislation is sufficient, therefore no legislation is necessary is a logical fallacy. It would be like referees in sports declaring that "players break the rules anyway, so I'm just going to throw away my whistle." Governments must legislate, to the best of their ability, and hope that this legislation can provide a partial solution to the problem.
Laws cannot do everything, and gun violence is a complex problem. Yes, mental health is a big issue. Thus, we should require universal background checks on the purchase and sale of guns, in order to keep them out of the hands of dangerous or unbalanced individuals. We should also better fund initiatives to help the mentally ill, and conduct research into the causes of gun violence and the effects of gun ownership. These arguments are not objections to legislation, but should be undertaken along with legislation to combat violence from all sides. Your right to a gun is not supreme to the inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Monday, January 21, 2013
Some Thoughts on MLK Day
Today is Martin Luther King Jr. Day, a national holiday to honor one of our nation's greatest spiritual and moral leaders. Many remember MLK as a champion of civil rights, as a crusader against injustice, and as a paragon of virtue. Many remember his "I have a dream" speech, and remember his commitment to non-violent resistance. His crusade against injustice and oppression was not confined to issues of race, however, but extended to any iniquity that is perpetuated by man. Those who feel that America has lived up to MLK's dream have a shallow understanding of that dream and do not understand how deeply King understood oppression, whether overt or otherwise.
I will lead with a quote that is particularly apropos considering the present economic state of things: "One day we must ask the question, 'Why are there forty million poor people in America?' And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy... You begin to ask the question, 'Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that is two-thirds water?'"
Economic inequality is a very real and present danger, and poverty is more rampant today than it was during King's time. Never before have so few owned so much, and so many gone without. Here's a simple pie chart summing up the issue. The bottom 80%, the vast majority of Americans, possess a mere 12.8% of the wealth in the country. If there is one economic law that everyone agrees on, it is that it takes money to make money. If the bottom 80% control only a third of what the top 1% possesses, is it really any wonder that income inequality continues to worsen?
King was by no means a socialist. He rejected it as a social philosophy because it made no mention of God or spirituality, which were central to King's code of ethics. Nevertheless, he acknowledged the critiques that socialism makes of the capitalistic-colonial system. While the solutions for which socialism advocates may not be the correct solutions, one cannot ignore its critique of the iniquities inherent to capitalism. Capitalism may be the most efficient socio-economic system in terms of producing wealth for some, but it is surely not the most democratic, nor the most egalitarian.
King's questions raise the specter of that American taboo: redistribution of wealth. Why is redistribution such an ugly word? No politician or civic leader dares to mention redistribution, for to do so is political suicide. Redistribution of wealth has come to be viewed as synonymous with outright theft and oppression. If the present distribution of wealth and power is oppressive, however, is this not the pot calling the kettle black?
Redistribution of wealth does not need to be absolute, it does not need to be theft, and it is not necessarily communistic. Sure, it is socialism, but it is socialism that expands the access to basic necessities to millions more people. Currently, there are very few people who are doing very well, and very many who cannot subsist on their own. Is it really so evil to propose redistribution of wealth to address the wrongs of generations of inequality? To put it another way, is the right to property supreme to the right to food? Or the right to water? Or shelter?
In my view, there are few truths that are universally accepted. One statement that is often bandied about in the Beltway is that everyone is entitled to certain basic rights, and "among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Earlier drafts had the right to property included among these inalienable rights, but this clause was stricken in later revisions. The right to property is not enshrined in America's founding documents; the right to life is. But if the right to life is fundamental, inalienable, and universal, how can we continue to support a system of commerce and government that allows citizens to starve, freeze, and die on the streets? Are not food and shelter the preconditions necessary to sustain life? Then is it not morally incumbent upon the nation to provide for the poor, regardless of their work ethic or net worth?
King's quote questions the righteousness of ownership, especially of something so basic as water. Who is so arrogant as to proclaim himself the owner of a basic resource, something which the land offers up for free? Man needs water to survive; water is not free in America; therefore it is not free to live. For those who proclaim redistribution runs counter to economic freedom, I argue that the present distribution runs counter to the freedom to live. Which is more fundamental, the right to life, or the right to property? This is the question that King, and socialists in general, have posed again and again.
To those who argue that America is a nation of bootstrappers, I ask: how can a man pull himself up by his bootstraps if he cannot afford the leather itself?
I will lead with a quote that is particularly apropos considering the present economic state of things: "One day we must ask the question, 'Why are there forty million poor people in America?' And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy... You begin to ask the question, 'Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that is two-thirds water?'"
Economic inequality is a very real and present danger, and poverty is more rampant today than it was during King's time. Never before have so few owned so much, and so many gone without. Here's a simple pie chart summing up the issue. The bottom 80%, the vast majority of Americans, possess a mere 12.8% of the wealth in the country. If there is one economic law that everyone agrees on, it is that it takes money to make money. If the bottom 80% control only a third of what the top 1% possesses, is it really any wonder that income inequality continues to worsen?
King was by no means a socialist. He rejected it as a social philosophy because it made no mention of God or spirituality, which were central to King's code of ethics. Nevertheless, he acknowledged the critiques that socialism makes of the capitalistic-colonial system. While the solutions for which socialism advocates may not be the correct solutions, one cannot ignore its critique of the iniquities inherent to capitalism. Capitalism may be the most efficient socio-economic system in terms of producing wealth for some, but it is surely not the most democratic, nor the most egalitarian.
King's questions raise the specter of that American taboo: redistribution of wealth. Why is redistribution such an ugly word? No politician or civic leader dares to mention redistribution, for to do so is political suicide. Redistribution of wealth has come to be viewed as synonymous with outright theft and oppression. If the present distribution of wealth and power is oppressive, however, is this not the pot calling the kettle black?
Redistribution of wealth does not need to be absolute, it does not need to be theft, and it is not necessarily communistic. Sure, it is socialism, but it is socialism that expands the access to basic necessities to millions more people. Currently, there are very few people who are doing very well, and very many who cannot subsist on their own. Is it really so evil to propose redistribution of wealth to address the wrongs of generations of inequality? To put it another way, is the right to property supreme to the right to food? Or the right to water? Or shelter?
In my view, there are few truths that are universally accepted. One statement that is often bandied about in the Beltway is that everyone is entitled to certain basic rights, and "among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Earlier drafts had the right to property included among these inalienable rights, but this clause was stricken in later revisions. The right to property is not enshrined in America's founding documents; the right to life is. But if the right to life is fundamental, inalienable, and universal, how can we continue to support a system of commerce and government that allows citizens to starve, freeze, and die on the streets? Are not food and shelter the preconditions necessary to sustain life? Then is it not morally incumbent upon the nation to provide for the poor, regardless of their work ethic or net worth?
King's quote questions the righteousness of ownership, especially of something so basic as water. Who is so arrogant as to proclaim himself the owner of a basic resource, something which the land offers up for free? Man needs water to survive; water is not free in America; therefore it is not free to live. For those who proclaim redistribution runs counter to economic freedom, I argue that the present distribution runs counter to the freedom to live. Which is more fundamental, the right to life, or the right to property? This is the question that King, and socialists in general, have posed again and again.
To those who argue that America is a nation of bootstrappers, I ask: how can a man pull himself up by his bootstraps if he cannot afford the leather itself?
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Schools Should Be Modern Buildings
Although most of the problems in today's society are complicated and controversial, there is one fix that should be undertaken nationwide: updating and refitting public buildings. Furthermore, this is a solution that can be done unilaterally by individual states, counties, or municipalities, because we all know the federal government is unlikely to get it done. Currently, public buildings are bleeding tax dollars away because of inefficient heating or cooling, improper insulation, outdated electrical and plumbing systems, and a host of other deficiencies. Simply put, refitting public buildings with state of the art architecture and infrastructure will save millions of dollars over the long term, create thousands of jobs in the short term, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is a proposal everyone should be on board with, regardless of political bent.
Because of the large deficit and debt, spending has become a dirty word in Washington, unless it is accompanied by "cuts." This is the primary impediment to smart reforms that would make government drastically more efficient. As any businessman knows, you've got to spend money to make money, and public policy is no different. Were the government run like a business, it would incur short term debts (especially considering the favorable borrowing rate) in order to trim costs in the long term. In fact, this is exactly what occurred with the stimulus packages passed by Bush and Obama. The stimulus bills incurred short term debts and averted a deep depression, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Therefore, it is logical to spend again in order to avert the second recession that is predicted to occur after the fiscal cliff.
Nevertheless, a large stimulus is not on the table, nor is it likely to make it through Washington's gridlock. The $50 billion dollar stimulus that Obama included in his latest proposal to Boehner and the GOP is not being taken seriously by conservatives, who view it as an overreaching bargaining chip rather than a pragmatic solution to underemployment. The stimulus I am proposing is even more modest, pays for itself within a few years, and creates jobs immediately.
There are thousands of public buildings across the nation, so in order to simplify the discussion, I'll only discuss hard numbers with respect to public schools. There are, of course, many things that could be done to improve the efficiency of all public buildings, but schools are the hearts of their communities and are the best place to start. The utility savings can be passed directly on to the students, whose schools are woefully underfunded, without sacrificing a dollar in educational spending.
First, simply bringing in engineers to public schools to analyze waste and suggest efficiency reforms can save thousands of dollars annually. The process is known as commissioning, which brings in private contractors to assess the school's energy use. For the average public school, commissioning saves $14,000 annually, with an initial cost ranging from $5,000 to $40,000, depending on the conditions of the school. Poorly constructed schools have a higher commissioning cost, and would likely lead to higher annual energy savings. Even assuming high initial cost and low average savings, the cost of commissioning is fully paid off in 3-4 years.
The previous example also stimulates the economy, by creating good, high-paying jobs that did not exist before. The next example is quite obvious, and does not require much of an initial investment from the schools: change your lightbulbs. Changing outdated incandescent lights to modern fluorescent lights saves thousands of dollars, at an average rate of $20 per lamp, per year. At that rate, the initial investment is paid back in 1-3 years.
Other quick and easy solutions include adding weather stripping to windows and doors, adding a second pane to windows to reduce energy loss, and painting the roofs of schools a lighter, more reflective color to reflect sunlight and reduce the need for cooling. Repainting the roofs of schools saves, on average, 15-20% of a school's cooling costs for the year. These last three suggestions can be done during routine maintenance. For example, if a window breaks or is scheduled to be replaced, insuring that it is replaced with a more energy efficient window is an easy way to slowly phase in the savings, without much of an initial investment. Similarly, if the roof is old and needs repairs or replacement, do so with reflective paint. The savings on the cooling bill will pay for the paint within the next few years.
I see no reason why we should not immediately and aggressively institute these reforms. The costs are so low compared to the major drivers of the deficit and debt, yet the benefits are very high with respect to those costs. Furthermore, these benefits compound upon themselves as time goes by: every year that passes causes inefficient construction to become more inefficient, thereby wasting more and more money. The sooner we act, the greater savings we gain. Refitting public schools creates jobs in the construction sector, which is still struggling after the housing bubble collapsed, as well as creates architecture and engineering jobs. The savings accrue nearly instantaneously, and the environmental impact of reducing our carbon footprint cannot be overstated. Students will attend schools that are properly heated and ventilated, and can take pride in knowing that their school is part of the solution, and not the problem, when it comes to global warming. Refitting schools is something that every school district should do - it saves them money - regardless of what occurs at the county, state, or federal level. It's a no-brainer, and the kind of common sense solution we really need.
Because of the large deficit and debt, spending has become a dirty word in Washington, unless it is accompanied by "cuts." This is the primary impediment to smart reforms that would make government drastically more efficient. As any businessman knows, you've got to spend money to make money, and public policy is no different. Were the government run like a business, it would incur short term debts (especially considering the favorable borrowing rate) in order to trim costs in the long term. In fact, this is exactly what occurred with the stimulus packages passed by Bush and Obama. The stimulus bills incurred short term debts and averted a deep depression, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Therefore, it is logical to spend again in order to avert the second recession that is predicted to occur after the fiscal cliff.
Nevertheless, a large stimulus is not on the table, nor is it likely to make it through Washington's gridlock. The $50 billion dollar stimulus that Obama included in his latest proposal to Boehner and the GOP is not being taken seriously by conservatives, who view it as an overreaching bargaining chip rather than a pragmatic solution to underemployment. The stimulus I am proposing is even more modest, pays for itself within a few years, and creates jobs immediately.
There are thousands of public buildings across the nation, so in order to simplify the discussion, I'll only discuss hard numbers with respect to public schools. There are, of course, many things that could be done to improve the efficiency of all public buildings, but schools are the hearts of their communities and are the best place to start. The utility savings can be passed directly on to the students, whose schools are woefully underfunded, without sacrificing a dollar in educational spending.
First, simply bringing in engineers to public schools to analyze waste and suggest efficiency reforms can save thousands of dollars annually. The process is known as commissioning, which brings in private contractors to assess the school's energy use. For the average public school, commissioning saves $14,000 annually, with an initial cost ranging from $5,000 to $40,000, depending on the conditions of the school. Poorly constructed schools have a higher commissioning cost, and would likely lead to higher annual energy savings. Even assuming high initial cost and low average savings, the cost of commissioning is fully paid off in 3-4 years.
The previous example also stimulates the economy, by creating good, high-paying jobs that did not exist before. The next example is quite obvious, and does not require much of an initial investment from the schools: change your lightbulbs. Changing outdated incandescent lights to modern fluorescent lights saves thousands of dollars, at an average rate of $20 per lamp, per year. At that rate, the initial investment is paid back in 1-3 years.
Other quick and easy solutions include adding weather stripping to windows and doors, adding a second pane to windows to reduce energy loss, and painting the roofs of schools a lighter, more reflective color to reflect sunlight and reduce the need for cooling. Repainting the roofs of schools saves, on average, 15-20% of a school's cooling costs for the year. These last three suggestions can be done during routine maintenance. For example, if a window breaks or is scheduled to be replaced, insuring that it is replaced with a more energy efficient window is an easy way to slowly phase in the savings, without much of an initial investment. Similarly, if the roof is old and needs repairs or replacement, do so with reflective paint. The savings on the cooling bill will pay for the paint within the next few years.
I see no reason why we should not immediately and aggressively institute these reforms. The costs are so low compared to the major drivers of the deficit and debt, yet the benefits are very high with respect to those costs. Furthermore, these benefits compound upon themselves as time goes by: every year that passes causes inefficient construction to become more inefficient, thereby wasting more and more money. The sooner we act, the greater savings we gain. Refitting public schools creates jobs in the construction sector, which is still struggling after the housing bubble collapsed, as well as creates architecture and engineering jobs. The savings accrue nearly instantaneously, and the environmental impact of reducing our carbon footprint cannot be overstated. Students will attend schools that are properly heated and ventilated, and can take pride in knowing that their school is part of the solution, and not the problem, when it comes to global warming. Refitting schools is something that every school district should do - it saves them money - regardless of what occurs at the county, state, or federal level. It's a no-brainer, and the kind of common sense solution we really need.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Taxes and Income Inequality
In today's political discourse, it is rare that we find areas of widespread agreement. Surprisingly, one thing most people agree on is an economic issue: economic growth is the best way to reduce the debt and deficit. Frustratingly, this consensus in goals has not led to any consensus in policy, mostly because politicians are too busy arguing whether or not wealthy people deserve 65 or merely 60% of their annual income. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why keeping top marginal tax rates low is still an issue, much less a priority, in the tough economic times that we are in. If the government has a budget shortfall to the point where it can no longer operate, then it is time to raise taxes. The argument that raising taxes on "job creators" will tank the economy does not hold water. Here are two graphics to illustrate my point:
The first is simple: a chart that maps national GDP growth and top marginal tax rates from 1946 until 2011. Simply put, there is no correlation between tax rates and GDP growth. The GDP (marked in red) bounces up and down irrespective of the marginal tax rate. When taxes were at their peak in the 1950's, economic activity was more robust than it is today. The argument that raising taxes on the wealthy will destroy the economy is unhistorical. Another way to put that: it's a flat out lie.
The second chart is a little more intimidating, but it isn't too bad. It maps top marginal tax rates (MTR) against the portion of income that the richest 1% earn annually. The black lines represent the share of annual income held by the richest 1% and the red lines show the top marginal tax rate. The two lines are in inverse correlation to each other: when tax rates are high, income inequality is low. When tax rates are low, as they were in the antebellum period before WWII and as they are now, income inequality skyrockets.
These two graphs give historical evidence that we should, just like was done in "traditional America," raise tax rates on the wealthy. When tax codes were more progressive, prior to the Reagan years, economic inequality was low, but economic activity was booming. As the tax code was reformed to become more regressive, the economy continued to grow, but fewer and fewer dollars trickled down to the masses.
How bad is it now? Income inequality is still burgeoning, despite the economic slowdown. This chart shows how income distribution changed from 2010-2011, illustrating that the richest among us continue to get richer, while the rest of the population sees their incomes decline. To put a historical perspective on it, this chart shows the annual incomes of families, broken down into quintiles and the top 5%. Things have steadily gotten worse, and the gap between rich and poor is still growing.
This data suggests that trickle-down economics do not work for the people. Trickle-down economics only serves Wall Street fatcats who are adept at making money out of money. It is anti-democratic to argue that the best possible economic system is one in which we entrust our homes and savings to a set of oligarchs; furthermore, it is not supported by facts or history. Since the recession, corporations have frequently posted record profits and passed on the gains to their executives (presumably for doing such a good job at blowing up the economy and cutting jobs). If raising taxes on the wealthy will make these greedy bastards quit working as they claim, then that is all the more reason to do so. They have been wrong in their economic predictions in the past, and the smart money says that they will be wrong again. Raise taxes. It's the right thing to do.
The first is simple: a chart that maps national GDP growth and top marginal tax rates from 1946 until 2011. Simply put, there is no correlation between tax rates and GDP growth. The GDP (marked in red) bounces up and down irrespective of the marginal tax rate. When taxes were at their peak in the 1950's, economic activity was more robust than it is today. The argument that raising taxes on the wealthy will destroy the economy is unhistorical. Another way to put that: it's a flat out lie.
The second chart is a little more intimidating, but it isn't too bad. It maps top marginal tax rates (MTR) against the portion of income that the richest 1% earn annually. The black lines represent the share of annual income held by the richest 1% and the red lines show the top marginal tax rate. The two lines are in inverse correlation to each other: when tax rates are high, income inequality is low. When tax rates are low, as they were in the antebellum period before WWII and as they are now, income inequality skyrockets.
These two graphs give historical evidence that we should, just like was done in "traditional America," raise tax rates on the wealthy. When tax codes were more progressive, prior to the Reagan years, economic inequality was low, but economic activity was booming. As the tax code was reformed to become more regressive, the economy continued to grow, but fewer and fewer dollars trickled down to the masses.
How bad is it now? Income inequality is still burgeoning, despite the economic slowdown. This chart shows how income distribution changed from 2010-2011, illustrating that the richest among us continue to get richer, while the rest of the population sees their incomes decline. To put a historical perspective on it, this chart shows the annual incomes of families, broken down into quintiles and the top 5%. Things have steadily gotten worse, and the gap between rich and poor is still growing.
This data suggests that trickle-down economics do not work for the people. Trickle-down economics only serves Wall Street fatcats who are adept at making money out of money. It is anti-democratic to argue that the best possible economic system is one in which we entrust our homes and savings to a set of oligarchs; furthermore, it is not supported by facts or history. Since the recession, corporations have frequently posted record profits and passed on the gains to their executives (presumably for doing such a good job at blowing up the economy and cutting jobs). If raising taxes on the wealthy will make these greedy bastards quit working as they claim, then that is all the more reason to do so. They have been wrong in their economic predictions in the past, and the smart money says that they will be wrong again. Raise taxes. It's the right thing to do.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Balanced Deficit Reduction
The most crippling aspect of American politics is that policy proposals are treated as negotiations rather than as rational plans for a road forward. For example, both political parties claim they are championing a "balanced" approach to deficit reduction because both have adopted mutually disagreeable policy concessions. This view neglects the fact that policy is not an "either-or" situation and that there is a multitude of other options on the table that are not even part of the discussion.
First off, cuts to Social Security should not even be part of the discussion. Although income tax rates have fallen to historic lows over the past few decades, for many middle and low income workers the payroll tax (which funds Social Security) has made up the difference in their tax burden. As a result of the increased payroll tax, Social Security is financially sound until 2033, even after factoring in the stagnant world economy and sluggish recovery. Social Security may make up a large portion of government spending, but it is not a driver of the deficit or the debt. The people have paid for this program, and it should not be cut. Deficit hawks who propose cuts to Social Security would turn it into a Ponzi scheme and rob future retirees of their benefits.
Therefore, if Republicans want to bargain with Social Security cuts, they must advance a rational position as to why slashing Social Security spending would be good for the country as a whole. If the program is paid for, it is not a driver of long term debt, and should not be on the negotiating table. Democrats should ignore this red herring and hold strong to their positions. Abandoning an irrational policy proposal should not count as a concession; it is simply what reasonable lawmakers should do. It is what they are elected to do.
On the other side, raising the top marginal tax rate is something that Republican lawmakers will not accept. The idea that the rich are the job creators and the drivers of our economy is an idea that I detest and thoroughly disagree with. Nevertheless, it is a foundational tenet of conservative economics, and is not a position they will retreat from. Grover Norquist's despicable pledge and the reelection hopes of Republican Congressmen further complicate the issue. The fact of the matter is that Republicans will not retreat from a tax policy that favors the wealthy, because they fervently believe that such a tax policy is best for all Americans.
And this is where the talking heads and politicians are stuck. Democrats will not give up cuts to Social Security, and Republicans will not give up historically low tax rates for high-income individuals. Because of the myopic view that politics is a dichotomy, politicians claim that a balanced approach must involve concessions on both of those points. That view is consigning ourselves to a policy that no person will fully support, and that will likely fail.
There are other options on the table that both conservatives and liberals should agree upon that would lead us out of the financial crisis, but they are not being discussed. For instance, the tax code is horribly complicated and biased toward special interest groups and lobbyists. We now have a bipartisan consensus that removing loopholes and simplifying the tax code would be good for the country, and in the process could raise revenues. Opt for tax reform rather than raising the tax rates. Although most liberals would prefer the latter approach, political reality makes that move impossible. So take the next best thing and remove the many tax breaks that only the wealthy can enjoy, like carried interest, off-shore hiring incentives, and tax havens like the Cayman islands and Delaware. (Many large corporations claim their center of operation is in Delaware because of the preferential tax code there, even though their stated address is most often only a PO box. This policy robs every other state of valuable tax revenue and is just plain stupid. Corporations should pay the taxes of the state in which they operate, not where they collect their mail.)
As for ways to cut spending, there are many. First, prison reform would save billions of dollars every year. Literally billions. Currently there is a major push, especially in the south, to privatize prisons, which leads to worse conditions for prisoners and higher costs for taxpayers. Imprisonment is not a profitable enterprise, and should not be subject to free market pressures. It is immoral to make money off of another's incarceration; doing so is simply modern slavery. America is the most incarcerated country in the world, home to only 5% of the world's population, but 25% of its prisoners. That does not sound like the "land of the free" to me.
A second, related strategy would be to end the war on drugs. Federal law currently classifies marijuana as a schedule 1 drug, which lumps it in with meth and heroin. When questioned on whether marijuana is as dangerous as other schedule 1 drugs, the DEA chief could only respond with the line "We believe that all illegal drugs are dangerous." This is stupid, and leads to hundreds of thousands of drug arrests a year - destroying the future employment chances of many otherwise-successful individuals. Many employers will not hire a felon, regardless of how qualified he or she may be. The fact of the matter is that marijuana is not a dangerous substance, has medical benefits, and is not a gateway drug. Legalization (or at least decriminalization) would save billions of dollars a year in law enforcement costs. It would also help to curb the power of Mexican drug cartels, because marijuana could be purchased through safer, legal channels. Legalization also creates another taxable commodity, rather than leaving all of the profit in the black market. The reality is that people will smoke pot regardless of its legal status, so failing to tax it is just leaving money on the table. I see no benefit in marijuana prohibition, and I see great gains in its legalization and taxation.
Another avenue to save money is to reduce America's imperial footprint abroad. We have over 150 active military bases worldwide, while no foreign country boasts such a privilege inside our borders. This costs taxpayers billions of dollars annually in operational costs and does not make us any safer. We can begin the process of closing these bases and finally realize that the Cold War ended 20 years ago. It's time to come home, and start some nation building in the USA.
There are many other proposals that I have read that do not involve raising marginal tax rates or deep cuts to entitlement programs, but the conversation is stuck on that one point. What needs to occur is public pressure to change the discussion, because both sides have dug their heels in so far on this particular issue that no progress can be made. Take the modest concession of tax reform and run with it, then cut federal spending in ways that do not impact the elderly, the disabled, the poor, or the infirm. To me, prison and drug reform is a no-brainer that saves millions of dollars and keeps families and communities more stable. Similarly, reducing the imperial presence of America abroad reduces our negative image and saves billions of dollars. It is hard to characterize America as the "Great Satan" if we turn our sights inward and work to build a better country. There is perhaps no move that would improve homeland security so much as bringing the troops home - and there is a lot of nation building to be done stateside. Let's get out of this ridiculous back and forth on tax rates and start discussing a path forward. The tax code isn't everything, and there is a lot of other work to be done.
First off, cuts to Social Security should not even be part of the discussion. Although income tax rates have fallen to historic lows over the past few decades, for many middle and low income workers the payroll tax (which funds Social Security) has made up the difference in their tax burden. As a result of the increased payroll tax, Social Security is financially sound until 2033, even after factoring in the stagnant world economy and sluggish recovery. Social Security may make up a large portion of government spending, but it is not a driver of the deficit or the debt. The people have paid for this program, and it should not be cut. Deficit hawks who propose cuts to Social Security would turn it into a Ponzi scheme and rob future retirees of their benefits.
Therefore, if Republicans want to bargain with Social Security cuts, they must advance a rational position as to why slashing Social Security spending would be good for the country as a whole. If the program is paid for, it is not a driver of long term debt, and should not be on the negotiating table. Democrats should ignore this red herring and hold strong to their positions. Abandoning an irrational policy proposal should not count as a concession; it is simply what reasonable lawmakers should do. It is what they are elected to do.
On the other side, raising the top marginal tax rate is something that Republican lawmakers will not accept. The idea that the rich are the job creators and the drivers of our economy is an idea that I detest and thoroughly disagree with. Nevertheless, it is a foundational tenet of conservative economics, and is not a position they will retreat from. Grover Norquist's despicable pledge and the reelection hopes of Republican Congressmen further complicate the issue. The fact of the matter is that Republicans will not retreat from a tax policy that favors the wealthy, because they fervently believe that such a tax policy is best for all Americans.
And this is where the talking heads and politicians are stuck. Democrats will not give up cuts to Social Security, and Republicans will not give up historically low tax rates for high-income individuals. Because of the myopic view that politics is a dichotomy, politicians claim that a balanced approach must involve concessions on both of those points. That view is consigning ourselves to a policy that no person will fully support, and that will likely fail.
There are other options on the table that both conservatives and liberals should agree upon that would lead us out of the financial crisis, but they are not being discussed. For instance, the tax code is horribly complicated and biased toward special interest groups and lobbyists. We now have a bipartisan consensus that removing loopholes and simplifying the tax code would be good for the country, and in the process could raise revenues. Opt for tax reform rather than raising the tax rates. Although most liberals would prefer the latter approach, political reality makes that move impossible. So take the next best thing and remove the many tax breaks that only the wealthy can enjoy, like carried interest, off-shore hiring incentives, and tax havens like the Cayman islands and Delaware. (Many large corporations claim their center of operation is in Delaware because of the preferential tax code there, even though their stated address is most often only a PO box. This policy robs every other state of valuable tax revenue and is just plain stupid. Corporations should pay the taxes of the state in which they operate, not where they collect their mail.)
As for ways to cut spending, there are many. First, prison reform would save billions of dollars every year. Literally billions. Currently there is a major push, especially in the south, to privatize prisons, which leads to worse conditions for prisoners and higher costs for taxpayers. Imprisonment is not a profitable enterprise, and should not be subject to free market pressures. It is immoral to make money off of another's incarceration; doing so is simply modern slavery. America is the most incarcerated country in the world, home to only 5% of the world's population, but 25% of its prisoners. That does not sound like the "land of the free" to me.
A second, related strategy would be to end the war on drugs. Federal law currently classifies marijuana as a schedule 1 drug, which lumps it in with meth and heroin. When questioned on whether marijuana is as dangerous as other schedule 1 drugs, the DEA chief could only respond with the line "We believe that all illegal drugs are dangerous." This is stupid, and leads to hundreds of thousands of drug arrests a year - destroying the future employment chances of many otherwise-successful individuals. Many employers will not hire a felon, regardless of how qualified he or she may be. The fact of the matter is that marijuana is not a dangerous substance, has medical benefits, and is not a gateway drug. Legalization (or at least decriminalization) would save billions of dollars a year in law enforcement costs. It would also help to curb the power of Mexican drug cartels, because marijuana could be purchased through safer, legal channels. Legalization also creates another taxable commodity, rather than leaving all of the profit in the black market. The reality is that people will smoke pot regardless of its legal status, so failing to tax it is just leaving money on the table. I see no benefit in marijuana prohibition, and I see great gains in its legalization and taxation.
Another avenue to save money is to reduce America's imperial footprint abroad. We have over 150 active military bases worldwide, while no foreign country boasts such a privilege inside our borders. This costs taxpayers billions of dollars annually in operational costs and does not make us any safer. We can begin the process of closing these bases and finally realize that the Cold War ended 20 years ago. It's time to come home, and start some nation building in the USA.
There are many other proposals that I have read that do not involve raising marginal tax rates or deep cuts to entitlement programs, but the conversation is stuck on that one point. What needs to occur is public pressure to change the discussion, because both sides have dug their heels in so far on this particular issue that no progress can be made. Take the modest concession of tax reform and run with it, then cut federal spending in ways that do not impact the elderly, the disabled, the poor, or the infirm. To me, prison and drug reform is a no-brainer that saves millions of dollars and keeps families and communities more stable. Similarly, reducing the imperial presence of America abroad reduces our negative image and saves billions of dollars. It is hard to characterize America as the "Great Satan" if we turn our sights inward and work to build a better country. There is perhaps no move that would improve homeland security so much as bringing the troops home - and there is a lot of nation building to be done stateside. Let's get out of this ridiculous back and forth on tax rates and start discussing a path forward. The tax code isn't everything, and there is a lot of other work to be done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)