Frequent viewers of the network news stations may have become aware of the recent "I'm an Energy Voter" ads that have started popping up in support of domestic coal energy. The ads capitalize on public discontent with large petroleum companies, then dangle coal power in front of the viewer as a sort of magical fix to all of America's energy concerns. By using the attention grabber of "Coal: America's Power," and by saying increasing coal production will "create jobs," the commercials brush over environmental and health concerns, acting as though coal production would bring nothing but good to everyone. This is simply not the case.
Coal is an extremely dirty source of energy, and is the exact opposite of the sort of energy we should be pursuing. For example, in 2006, coal accounted for 49% of US energy production, but was responsible for 83% of CO2 emissions by energy production, meaning the ecological impact of coal is many times greater than other sources of power. Less than half of domestic energy production accounted for over four fifths of CO2 emissions, yet large energy companies are pushing for increased coal production. If coal production accounted for an even greater share of domestic energy production, the environmental impact would be vast, and irreversible. It isn't only in carbon emissions that coal falls short of safety expectations, it also puts out dangerous quantities of sulfur dioxide and mercury, both of which are extremely hazardous to our health and the well-being of ecosystems near to the plants. This is not just a climate change issue - coal is one of the largest culprits of smog creation, primarily composed of poisonous sulfur oxide and nitrous oxides. There is nothing that effects everyone so broadly as air quality, and nothing that is more important to protect.
Around the same time that I began noticing the coal advertisements, I also started hearing more and more about the benefits of natural gas. Large companies, like Shell, are touting their natural gas interests because it has "50% fewer emissions than coal," and represents a clean and sustainable source of power for years to come. While natural gas is certainly a better energy choice than coal, one method of extraction which has gained a lot of attention in the news lately, hydraulic fracking, is environmentally devastating. Fracking is the process of shooting large quantities of high-pressure water into the ground in order to unearth natural gas supplies that are otherwise unreachable. There are widespread concerns of atmospheric and groundwater contamination, with residents reporting undrinkable or flammable water near most large fracking sites. The natural gas industry denies these claims, arguing that there has not been any direct causal relation between the actual fracking process and groundwater contamination. But that is precisely where the industry's verbal sleight of hand may go unnoticed. They claim that the actual fracking process, or the injection of the water into the soil, has not yet been linked to environmental damage, and the science is still unclear on the matter. There are, however, many associated processes that go along with fracking, such as construction, operation, flowback (when the fracking fluid and natural gas comes flowing back out of the earth), and frequent blowouts in the distribution pipes, all of which have been linked to severe environmental damage by independent researchers. The most recent study (2012) commissioned by the EPA initially held that fracking was a dangerous process, before industry lobbying caused the EPA to narrow their scope to the water injection process. This is dishonest, and unfair. Residents of counties near hydraulic fracking operations have reported undrinkable, sometimes even flammable, water, and the ecological impacts will only become known in the years to come. The hydraulic fracking process also releases dangerous methane gasses, carbon dioxide, and other hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is 20 times as harmful as CO2 in trapping atmospheric heat. The fracking process has been shown to release from 4-8% of the extracted methane into the atmosphere, which would have a devastating impact on global climate change. What is more disturbing about the whole affair is that court documents related to the fracking suits are sealed after the suits are resolved. Taking the evidence as a whole, there is more than reasonable suspicion that the gas industry is aware of enivonmental effects of fracking, yet is suppressing this information in the name of profit. In light of similar scandals in other corporate-dominated industries (BP underreporting scope of Deepwater Horizon leaks, LIBOR scandals in London, Big Pharm suppression of life-saving drugs), I believe that the natural gas industry is wilfully ignoring the health of residents so they can reap even greater profits.
Beyond the environmental impacts, pursuing greater coal and natural gas production will not serve the interests of the American people. New technologies allow further distribution of natural gas by liquifying it, then shipping it around the world. The market for natural gas abroad is very profitable, with prices per ton sometimes 4 or 5 times as high as they are domestically. The largest and most profitable market is in Asia. If energy industry lobbyists get their way, all that will happen is a great increase in energy exports, a fattening of industry executives' pocketbooks, and ecological havoc across this great nation. Similarly with the Keystone XL pipeline. Even if you don't believe in global warming, (although nearly every credible scientist does) the Keystone pipeline won't do you a lick of good, and likely will do a lot of bad. Everyone should have the right to clean air and water. Nothing should be supreme to that right, not even electricity production, and especially not profit. The answer to America's energy problems is not more of the same, but a complete and total green revolution. But that deserves a post in its own right, so I guess I'll just leave it at that.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
On U.S. Military Primacy
The United States holds a special place in world politics, that of the strongest global power - economically, politically, and militarily. This position, however, is not revered by the rest of the world, but resented; not lauded, but despised. It is time for the United States to relinquish her stranglehold upon the world. I urge this not only in view of the antagonized world, but also as a matter of national self-interest.
To oversimplify history, the 18th century was the birth of the idea of the United States, while the 19th and 20th were the failed actualizations thereof. Americans gloriously cast off the tyranny of one empire, then immediately donned the mantel of empire themselves. In the 19th century, rich white men exploited natives, robbing them of life and land, Africans, removing them from their homeland in slavery, and women, by refusing them enfranchisement and education. This was a systematic process designed to retain the status quo: wealthy Caucasians perched upon the backs of the repressed lower classes. After fully colonizing the mainland, the American empire set its sights abroad. The frontier was proclaimed "closed." In other words, the natives had been dispossessed of their land, and there was nobody remaining on the mainland to steal land from.
The 20th century was a procession of ever-increasing imperial dominance, all under the guise of democracy and freedom. The Spanish-American War of 1898 was the precursor to this sort of imperial conquest. Much of the scholarship around the war has been done on the Yellow Journalism of the time that may have whipped up the war fever. This journalism vilified the Spanish for their atrocities against the Cuban revolutionaries, and painted the American soldiers as heroic protectors of liberty against a repressive regime. This formula of journalism and vilification would remain mostly unchanged until today, only with ever greater perfections of the exact recipe. American imperialism did not slow after this first sortie, but rather accelerated. The United States took interest in the Philippines, opposing popular revolt there, attempted to install a puppet government in Cuba, stole Hawaii from the natives, and claimed sole possession of the Western Hemisphere in the Monroe Doctrine. This is not to mention the clandestine actions taken in Central and South America by the CIA and other secret government arms. These actions were all taken either to create business opportunities or to protect those already illegally and immorally fashioned. And all of this was done under the auspices of liberty and democracy.
Then there was WWI. America, citing isolationism as the political paradigm, while maintaining a Western Hemisphere empire, claimed neutrality in the war. This ostensible neutrality is undermined by the American dollars flowing to both sides of the conflict in Europe. Quite simply, we were hedging our bets. Loaning out huge sums of money to both Germany and Britain seemed like the best way to ensure profit. It was only when Britain, where the preponderance of American money way, was poised to lose, that the United States intervened in the war. American armed forces entered the conflict, using the sinking of the Lusitania as a pretext, to protect their business interests. We entered the war a small nation and emerged a global power.
Turning to WWII, there was a clear moral action to be taken. There can be no denial that Hitler and the Nazis were immoral, aggressive and evil. Thus, the United States had a moral obligation to come to the defense of the attacked nations. This, however, is not how it happened. Instead, we practically begged the Japanese to attack us, giving a pretext for further United States domination of East and South-East Asia. Japan made it clear to both the United States and the international community that they were being squeezed industrially and militarily by Western Colonial powers. They felt the pressure of ABCD: Americans, British, Chinese and Dutch economic interests. Instead of placating the Japanese's concerns, we vigorously pursued further colonization of the Philippines in particular and of the entire Pacific in general. We ignored warnings from the Japanese, much as we ignored German warnings that the Lusitania would be sunk if it came into German waters, then acted shocked when the warnings were actualized. Then, of course, the United States war machine was reinstituted to bring us out of the Great Depression.
The Cold War will be remembered by posterity as one of the darkest events in American history. Much as how terrorism provides pretext for war and infringement of civil liberties today, communism was vilified in all apparitions, real of manufactured. I only need to mention McCarthyism to show the end result of the route we are on again today. However, as appalling as McCarthyism was from a civil liberties perspective, it pales in comparison to the havoc we wrecked abroad. Wars of attrition in Vietnam and Korea were waged with no conceivable end gain. We came in bearing the banner of democracy, yet instituted wars and regime change against the will of the people. How is that democracy? Instituted military action against the will of a people is the most fundamentally undemocratic action a nation can take, and the United States used the pretext of Communism to take this action many times in the Cold war. War can only be justified if the moral benefits outweigh the costs. There is no possible argument that can support Cold War military actions on moral grounds. Similarly, clandestine actions in South and Central America, creating America-friendly regimes and puppet governments, were disgusting and wrong. They were not enacted to defend Capitalism as a bringer of wealth nor the free market as a method for freedom and self-determination, but rather to protect specific American corporate interests. We murdered thousands, wasted American lives and resources, overthrew sovereign nations, and forever blighted our reputation abroad, all in the aim of defending corporate profits. Colonialism per se had been replaced by corporationism.
The question, then, is "why?" Why would a nation undertake, so often and so avidly, such immoral actions? It is all in the name of profit. Not even profit for many, but profit for few. A massive invested capital interest in was in WWI, and the profits reaped led to the Roaring Twenties. The Roaring Twenties were not, however, a time of great prosperity for all Americans. It was a time of fabulous profits and speculating on Wall Street, which did little else than sow the seeds of its own demise when the stock market inevitably crashed. The Great Depression that ensued left many Americans unemployed, and putting men in uniform and women in factories provided a perfect employment solution. If poor men died in combat for a rich man's war, then that was actually good for the system, as there would be less expense in veteran's benefits and one fewer person seeking employment upon coming home. Once this gigantic war machine was set in motion, it needed ever-increasing conflicts to sustain itself. With the gradual ceding of sovereign powers back to Axis powers after WWII, American soldiers were no longer explicitly needed abroad. This would mean a massive homecoming of workers and a vast reduction of arms and munitions production. Thus, the economy would suffer doubly. The solution, find an enemy, and do so quickly.
The solution was ingenious in that it provided an enemy that was an idea, not a place or people. Not only was this enemy a military threat, it was an economic, ideological, theological and secretive threat. The secrecy of the Kremlin fueled the fears over what exactly the Russians were doing and how far their influence really spread. The logic of the times was to always assume the absolute worst scenario, regardless of how improbable that may be. The constant klaxon call was that Communism was threatening to come to America. Thus, the free market was threatened at a paradigmatic level. So it was in the interest of the United States economy to defeat Communism as an idea as well as a foreign force. It was also profitable to produce munitions for what was labeled a moral struggle, and it was better to keep young men away from home, in the military, where they could learn discipline and unquestioning obedience of superiors.
Regardless, the Cold War is over, and logically the United States war machine should have shut down. However, American military spending has continued to increase even in the absence of any superpower enemy. What has now been substituted as the face of the enemy are terrorists: people so foreign to the bible-thumping, good-ole American perspective that they are easily vilified. This is a beautiful model as far as the military-industrial complex is concerned. This is not a war of equally matched superpowers clashing on the battlefield; it is a ridiculous struggle of hopelessly out-matched guerilla warriors, who are defending what is held most sacred to them. They cannot win, but neither can we - and therein is the crux of the plan. It is the perfect model of endless military consumption. Bombs explode in the desert, bullets pepper the landscape, tanks and military vehicles endlessly traverse the desert, and every action increases the profit margin of the military industrial complex.
This is a never-ending sustainable conflict. The enemy can always fade into the shadows providing the military with ever more need to develop new scouting and tracking devices, to launch more surveillance missions, and above all to hold a constant military presence worldwide. Military researchers and developers are happy, industrial producers are happy, fat cat politicians with defense industry-funded campaigns are happy, but hundreds of people lose their lives. This is all done in the name of spreading democracy and in the sacred American national security.
The plan is flawless from the perspective of the military industrial complex. However, from the point of view of the American people, the so-called "War on Terror" is the most detrimental action, whether analyzed morally, economically or politically. As stated before, a war is only justified if the moral benefits outweigh the moral consequences. Consider for example, how many Iraqi and Afghani citizens have been killed in order to protect American "national security." Why is our national security supreme to their sovereignty? We have invaded two sovereign nations preemptively, illegally, without world support, and with little regard toward collateral damage. The message sent to the world, and the one received by the Middle East, is one of hypocrisy and arrogance.
Economically this war is bankrupting the government in order to sustain the military industrial complex. If military spending were cut to a fraction of its current turgid state, education, police, health care, and welfare could all easily be paid for. There would be no need for a partisan discussion of a welfare state or a descent into socialism, because the services would be covered by the surplus. It is only in times where money is scarce that such humanitarian projects are objected to.
Politically the "War on Terror" has destroyed America's reputation worldwide. Not only in the Middle East, but all across the world, nations are calling for an end to war. They call the wars illegal, immoral, and wrong. In today's ever-increasing globalization, we cannot afford the censorship of our historical allies, or the preclusion of emerging allies, based on our marriage to a faulty military system and ill-advised wars. Demilitarization and an immediate end to warfare are the only solutions to save face on the global scope.
Ironically, even from a national security perspective, our actions abroad are counterproductive. Recent polls have shown a lack of knowledge in the young Afghan population about the attacks on 9/11. This means that these people have no knowledge of even the pretext used as to why their homes are being destroyed. The perception from the region, rightfully so, is that the United States is a repressive foreign power exercising its might in the region in pursuit of self-interest. This broad-based belief, coupled with civilian casualties and constant military presence will of course breed unrest. There need be no mastermind behind the scenes pulling the strings of the Middle East to brew unrest, because the seeds of unrest are constantly being sown by the occupying power. A surge or further military action represents America's lack of confidence in the people to govern themselves as well as poses a security risk to the civilians. If a foreign standing army was in the United States, regardless of how well-intentioned they would claim to be, American people would revolt, and rightfully so.
There are currently over 700 active American military bases worldwide. This includes tens of bases in Japan, where war has been finished for well over half a century. While the United States maintains such a large military base abroad, there are zero foreign military bases on American soil. Why? Because a foreign military base on American soil would be an affront to American sovereignty. This shows the supreme arrogance and hypocrisy of the American military.
The solution is simple: demilitarization. This would reduce expenditures, release the stranglehold the military-industrial complex has had over our nation, and save face internationally. The only way we can lead arms reductions talks is by enacting arms reductions ourselves. Other nations have laid the conditions that they will disarm only if the United States does so first. So the solution is simple: disarm. Be a leader through action, not through empty promises. The road to peace is never through war. Let us cast down our military might, and welcome a more secure and peaceful age.
It is difficult for other nations to accede to American demands when the United States does so as if from on high and rarely takes the same actions herself. The route to smoother international relations, and hence a greater, not lesser, geopolitical role, is to renounce supremacy and end the hypocrisy. America will remain the most powerful and richest nation on earth, but will not do so despite the international community, rather, with the support thereof. America will not need to defend her interests through military actions, but rather through strengthened cooperation among her allies. I call for an immediate end to war and disbanding of military bases abroad, as well as a substantial arms reduction. The protection of American interests by the rifle is self-destructive and immoral. Protect the nation morally and lawfully at the negotiation table, not on a fabricated battlefield.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Job-killing Regulations
Jobs have, understandably, been the primary focus of politics in America for the past few years, but at what cost? Are there instances where, with our economic blinders on, we forget about the other important roles of government beyond job creation? I am very tired of hearing each side of the political spectrum accuse the other of promoting "job-killing" legislation; in particular, the Republican attack has been relentless. In fact, nearly every policy President Obama or Democratic legislators have proposed has been labeled "job-killing," if not socialist and atheist as well. I'd like to argue that the loss of some jobs is worth it, and may be even necessary to our survival in some instances.
Let's take the EPA as an example, which has become a favorite punching bag of politicians as an example of broken government. The EPA is billed as "anti-business," a "job-killer," and as a classic example of bloated national government, without taking into account the necessary purpose of the agency. The most obvious argument for the continued existence of the EPA is the mounting climate change crisis. It is unfortunate that the most obvious argument for the EPA can be derided by some as environmentalism (as if that is a dirty word), or liberal tree-hugging. Protecting the environment is not some selfless act, undertaken simply because one loves those verdant greens; rather it is an act of self-preservation. When the environment deteriorates, where the hell else are we supposed to live? It is not as though the decimation of forestland and ecosystems solely affects vegetation, we are also intimately connected to our surrounding ecosystems. For a capitalist society with a fetish for self-interest, environmentalism should be a no-brainer. Perhaps we should turn our creative energy (which is vast, and mostly wasted) to a collective goal: a real, tangible, and broad response to global climate change. Doing so would serve both collective and individual interests, and, if done properly, could create, rather than destroy, jobs. More on that later, back to the climate change for now. It is absolutely stunning to me that we can still have so many climate change deniers, who vehemently proclaim that man has no part to play in the warming process, or, conversely, that we are absolutely powerless to stop it. The evidence in support of man's effect on the global climate is staggering, while skeptics provide evidence that is insubstantial, irrelevent, or outright false. For a list of climate change deniers' claims and the scientific rebute, visit http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Apart from the selfish arguments for environmentalism as self-preservation, we have a moral obligation to lead the charge against man's decimation of Earth's natural resources. Small island nations are literally faced with a ticking time bomb, because rising ocean levels threaten their very existence. For example, the Maldives, a collection of low-lying islands in the Indian ocean, is in immenent threat of being swallowed by the sea. As CO2 emissions accelerate the melting of Arctic ice, which is melting at an exponential rate, ocean levels are predicted to rise. This would have disasterous effects globally, not only in the major coastal metropolises (think London, New York, LA, and countless others), but also for millions of people in less-developed areas. Many south-east Asian countries and island nations would be particularly devestated by a rise in ocean level, not to mention the well-documented correlation between climate change and natural disasters like hurricanes and tsunamis. As the world's leading country in CO2 emissions per capita, and with the second-highest gross CO2 emissions, it is incumbent upon us in the developed world to make great strides in reducing our carbon output. I am not suggesting that the EPA alone can accomplish this goal, rather that the EPA is an important piece of the puzzle that cannot be discarded in the name of economic exigency.
What I'm proposing is a lot more regulation and a carbon tax, which I see as the only viable measure to bring down carbon emissions in a meaningful way. I'm fully aware that this is the exact opposite of what business leaders and many politicians will fight for - I'm also not worried about the next election cycle and can entertain more honest and objective solutions. We have seen, time and time again, that self-regulation does not work in private businesses. The profit motive trumps all, especially when regulation would fly directly in the face of that profit motive. Therefore, I propose expansion of the EPA to make it into a meaningful regulatory body, with real punitive force if violations are uncovered. Currently, energy companies dominate the political landscape, and have cemented the claim that "regulations kill jobs," despite all evidence to the contrary: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/14/367539/american-electric-power-ceo-epa-regulations-will-create-new-jobs/. What they really mean is that regulations will stop the reckless and dangerous exploitation of land and natural resources taking place every day across the country. A more powerful regulatory body would create jobs in both the private and public sectors, by opening new positions in the EPA as more inspectors are needed and more research is being conducted, as well as in industries that are striving to meet the new standards. Mike Morris, the CEO of American Electric Power, put it bluntly: "We have to hire plumbers, electricians, painters, folks who do that kind of work when you retrofit a plant. Jobs are created in the process - no question about that." Furthermore, a carbon tax would redirect dollars from wealthy executive pockets toward the kind of work we can all agree on: funding police and other emergency services, providing for education, and paying for health care and social security. To say that a 1% tax on carbon emissions is not worth the additional education or public safety dollars is a moral failing, in my opinion. It represents the worst evils of the capitalist system, like blind pursuit of profit, and a wilful neglect of consequence.
Even if environmental regulations did kill jobs, they are still worth it. The food we eat, the air we breath, and the water we drink should all be central concerns to all Americans (and no, the solution is not to buy bottled water. Apart from the wasted plastic, it's more likely that chemicals leaching into the water from the plastic will harm you than drinking filtered water.) If one person dies from water poisoning that could have been prevented by stronger regulations, how many jobs is that worth? If I proposed regulation that could save ten lives, yet cost hundreds of jobs, is it worth it? In the current political climate, the answer is tragically no. We so blindly pursue job growth that we forget the real human costs of capitalist ventures. Time and time again companies act against the health concerns of residents, one need only look at the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf, hydraulic fracking in the Appalachians, drilling in native lands in Alaska, or countless other instances where energy companies act against the interests of inhabitants. And no, BP's nifty little Gulf coast tourism campaign does not make up for their past failures. The EPA was tragically ill-equipped to deal with that disaster due to its lack of well-trained regulators. Sounds like a good place to create some new jobs to me.
Let's take the EPA as an example, which has become a favorite punching bag of politicians as an example of broken government. The EPA is billed as "anti-business," a "job-killer," and as a classic example of bloated national government, without taking into account the necessary purpose of the agency. The most obvious argument for the continued existence of the EPA is the mounting climate change crisis. It is unfortunate that the most obvious argument for the EPA can be derided by some as environmentalism (as if that is a dirty word), or liberal tree-hugging. Protecting the environment is not some selfless act, undertaken simply because one loves those verdant greens; rather it is an act of self-preservation. When the environment deteriorates, where the hell else are we supposed to live? It is not as though the decimation of forestland and ecosystems solely affects vegetation, we are also intimately connected to our surrounding ecosystems. For a capitalist society with a fetish for self-interest, environmentalism should be a no-brainer. Perhaps we should turn our creative energy (which is vast, and mostly wasted) to a collective goal: a real, tangible, and broad response to global climate change. Doing so would serve both collective and individual interests, and, if done properly, could create, rather than destroy, jobs. More on that later, back to the climate change for now. It is absolutely stunning to me that we can still have so many climate change deniers, who vehemently proclaim that man has no part to play in the warming process, or, conversely, that we are absolutely powerless to stop it. The evidence in support of man's effect on the global climate is staggering, while skeptics provide evidence that is insubstantial, irrelevent, or outright false. For a list of climate change deniers' claims and the scientific rebute, visit http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Apart from the selfish arguments for environmentalism as self-preservation, we have a moral obligation to lead the charge against man's decimation of Earth's natural resources. Small island nations are literally faced with a ticking time bomb, because rising ocean levels threaten their very existence. For example, the Maldives, a collection of low-lying islands in the Indian ocean, is in immenent threat of being swallowed by the sea. As CO2 emissions accelerate the melting of Arctic ice, which is melting at an exponential rate, ocean levels are predicted to rise. This would have disasterous effects globally, not only in the major coastal metropolises (think London, New York, LA, and countless others), but also for millions of people in less-developed areas. Many south-east Asian countries and island nations would be particularly devestated by a rise in ocean level, not to mention the well-documented correlation between climate change and natural disasters like hurricanes and tsunamis. As the world's leading country in CO2 emissions per capita, and with the second-highest gross CO2 emissions, it is incumbent upon us in the developed world to make great strides in reducing our carbon output. I am not suggesting that the EPA alone can accomplish this goal, rather that the EPA is an important piece of the puzzle that cannot be discarded in the name of economic exigency.
What I'm proposing is a lot more regulation and a carbon tax, which I see as the only viable measure to bring down carbon emissions in a meaningful way. I'm fully aware that this is the exact opposite of what business leaders and many politicians will fight for - I'm also not worried about the next election cycle and can entertain more honest and objective solutions. We have seen, time and time again, that self-regulation does not work in private businesses. The profit motive trumps all, especially when regulation would fly directly in the face of that profit motive. Therefore, I propose expansion of the EPA to make it into a meaningful regulatory body, with real punitive force if violations are uncovered. Currently, energy companies dominate the political landscape, and have cemented the claim that "regulations kill jobs," despite all evidence to the contrary: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/14/367539/american-electric-power-ceo-epa-regulations-will-create-new-jobs/. What they really mean is that regulations will stop the reckless and dangerous exploitation of land and natural resources taking place every day across the country. A more powerful regulatory body would create jobs in both the private and public sectors, by opening new positions in the EPA as more inspectors are needed and more research is being conducted, as well as in industries that are striving to meet the new standards. Mike Morris, the CEO of American Electric Power, put it bluntly: "We have to hire plumbers, electricians, painters, folks who do that kind of work when you retrofit a plant. Jobs are created in the process - no question about that." Furthermore, a carbon tax would redirect dollars from wealthy executive pockets toward the kind of work we can all agree on: funding police and other emergency services, providing for education, and paying for health care and social security. To say that a 1% tax on carbon emissions is not worth the additional education or public safety dollars is a moral failing, in my opinion. It represents the worst evils of the capitalist system, like blind pursuit of profit, and a wilful neglect of consequence.
Even if environmental regulations did kill jobs, they are still worth it. The food we eat, the air we breath, and the water we drink should all be central concerns to all Americans (and no, the solution is not to buy bottled water. Apart from the wasted plastic, it's more likely that chemicals leaching into the water from the plastic will harm you than drinking filtered water.) If one person dies from water poisoning that could have been prevented by stronger regulations, how many jobs is that worth? If I proposed regulation that could save ten lives, yet cost hundreds of jobs, is it worth it? In the current political climate, the answer is tragically no. We so blindly pursue job growth that we forget the real human costs of capitalist ventures. Time and time again companies act against the health concerns of residents, one need only look at the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf, hydraulic fracking in the Appalachians, drilling in native lands in Alaska, or countless other instances where energy companies act against the interests of inhabitants. And no, BP's nifty little Gulf coast tourism campaign does not make up for their past failures. The EPA was tragically ill-equipped to deal with that disaster due to its lack of well-trained regulators. Sounds like a good place to create some new jobs to me.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Are we even speaking the same language, here?
A lot of times in political discourse it feels like neither party is speaking the same language, because there seems to be no real communication going on. Individuals of different political persuasions seem to talk past each other, unable to even agree on the most basic of concepts. I believe that the primary reason we have such a vast communicative disconnect is that many of the basic concepts and policy areas at the hearts of political debates can be viewed from so many different angles. For example, depending on your background and ideological bent, the word government regulation can evoke completely opposite emotions and thought processes. If you are an individual who feels that the government has mistreated them, the idea of more government regulation will likely feel wrong, whereas a person who depends upon government assistance will understand a very different connotation. This fundamental chasm of connotation and meaning is central to the bloodthirsty nature of modern political discourse. Instead of free exchange of ideas, we have shouting matches of stock phrases; instead of political parties coalesced around a collection of ideas, we have warring clans. When the very words of the debate have divergent meanings for each party, we can have no dialogue, just two simultaneous soliloquies.
It's amazing how two different definitions of a concept can coexist that agree in most situations, but diverge greatly in policy matters. I think that an individual's conception of what "the economy" is shapes their opinion on how to fix it. The economy is an interesting concept: everyone agrees that it is broken, everyone agrees that unemployment has run rampant, and everyone agrees that we cannot afford to continue at our current rate of entitlement spending, but there is almost no agreement on what to do. I think this is because conservatives primarily view the economy as business while liberals primarily view the economy as labor. The two concepts frequently overlap - usually what's good for business is also good for labor, and vice versa. (As Mitt Romney put it, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander.") For instance, when businesses see increased profits, they can expand revenues, hire more workers, develop new technologies, etc. This is all great news for labor, because there are more available jobs, likely higher wages, lower prices for consumers, etc. This is great for the government too, because it expands the tax base (by creating new jobs, thereby creating new taxpayers), and adds directly to revenue by increasing the taxable revenue of the business and the income of the owners. So in many cases, pro-business policies translate to the greatest good for the masses. This is the conservative thinker's solution to the economic crisis: all we have to do is spur on growth, and the deficit problem will be eradicated through a broader tax base and increased private-sector profits. They argue that taxes are merely taking money out of the hands of investors who would use that money to accelerate growth, thus taxes are anti-growth, in the mind of a conservative. (I've never understood exactly where they think the tax money goes... does it magically just disappear into the IRS?)
Liberals understand the economy very differently. They see the millions of unemployed and know the economy is broken without having to glance at GDP growth or stock indexes. It is not simply a game of numbers, where we need to get the nation into the black, it is a game of human lives and suffering. The losers in the competitive market game are not seen as drains on society, but rather as victims of a systemic illness. All throughout this crisis, we have seen the profits of large corporations and banks rise, while real human damage is being done all across America. The unemployed and the dispossessed are giving up, while the upper class is widening the income gap. I see this as a fundamental failure of pro-growth economics, it fails to take into account the real human pain that occurs when programs and spending are cut, even if growth occurs. Think about what is more important: if you have a job, or if you have food. I understand that food assistance programs and subsidized housing have a negative effect on our economy, but the economy simply does not matter that much. To me, the health of the economy is never more important than the health of the citizenry, and this includes the most impoverished among us. It is not ethical to argue that the destructive nature of the capitalist system we have in place is counterbalanced by the increased profits of businesses. We must consider policy in terms of its human impact, not solely in terms of its economic impact.
This brings me to my fundamental point. Conservatives argue about strategies to improve the economy, and they mean strategies to help businesses, which invariably results in making the rich richer. What we need to consider instead are strategies to eradicate homelessness, ensure that every man, woman, and child has enough to eat every day, promise our elderly that they will always have social security, and provide jobs to our legions of unemployed, regardless of the economic impact. If a policy would hurt oil profits in the name of providing prison beds, I'm all for it. If big pharmaceutical companies lose profits so that new road construction can start, so be it. The wealth of the nation does not always correspond to the wealth of its inhabitants. All I'm saying is to look past the numbers and look at the people. You may have the most efficient plan to balance the federal government (although I don't believe their pro-growth policies will amend the deep imbalances inherent to the system), but the effect it has on the people of the nation is not mere collateral damage. Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid are not "savings," but are tragic losses to many people. These are life or death matters to the people who need these government programs, not a question of profits or losses. It's pretty hard to care about the debt crisis if your family is starving, isn't it?
It's amazing how two different definitions of a concept can coexist that agree in most situations, but diverge greatly in policy matters. I think that an individual's conception of what "the economy" is shapes their opinion on how to fix it. The economy is an interesting concept: everyone agrees that it is broken, everyone agrees that unemployment has run rampant, and everyone agrees that we cannot afford to continue at our current rate of entitlement spending, but there is almost no agreement on what to do. I think this is because conservatives primarily view the economy as business while liberals primarily view the economy as labor. The two concepts frequently overlap - usually what's good for business is also good for labor, and vice versa. (As Mitt Romney put it, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander.") For instance, when businesses see increased profits, they can expand revenues, hire more workers, develop new technologies, etc. This is all great news for labor, because there are more available jobs, likely higher wages, lower prices for consumers, etc. This is great for the government too, because it expands the tax base (by creating new jobs, thereby creating new taxpayers), and adds directly to revenue by increasing the taxable revenue of the business and the income of the owners. So in many cases, pro-business policies translate to the greatest good for the masses. This is the conservative thinker's solution to the economic crisis: all we have to do is spur on growth, and the deficit problem will be eradicated through a broader tax base and increased private-sector profits. They argue that taxes are merely taking money out of the hands of investors who would use that money to accelerate growth, thus taxes are anti-growth, in the mind of a conservative. (I've never understood exactly where they think the tax money goes... does it magically just disappear into the IRS?)
Liberals understand the economy very differently. They see the millions of unemployed and know the economy is broken without having to glance at GDP growth or stock indexes. It is not simply a game of numbers, where we need to get the nation into the black, it is a game of human lives and suffering. The losers in the competitive market game are not seen as drains on society, but rather as victims of a systemic illness. All throughout this crisis, we have seen the profits of large corporations and banks rise, while real human damage is being done all across America. The unemployed and the dispossessed are giving up, while the upper class is widening the income gap. I see this as a fundamental failure of pro-growth economics, it fails to take into account the real human pain that occurs when programs and spending are cut, even if growth occurs. Think about what is more important: if you have a job, or if you have food. I understand that food assistance programs and subsidized housing have a negative effect on our economy, but the economy simply does not matter that much. To me, the health of the economy is never more important than the health of the citizenry, and this includes the most impoverished among us. It is not ethical to argue that the destructive nature of the capitalist system we have in place is counterbalanced by the increased profits of businesses. We must consider policy in terms of its human impact, not solely in terms of its economic impact.
This brings me to my fundamental point. Conservatives argue about strategies to improve the economy, and they mean strategies to help businesses, which invariably results in making the rich richer. What we need to consider instead are strategies to eradicate homelessness, ensure that every man, woman, and child has enough to eat every day, promise our elderly that they will always have social security, and provide jobs to our legions of unemployed, regardless of the economic impact. If a policy would hurt oil profits in the name of providing prison beds, I'm all for it. If big pharmaceutical companies lose profits so that new road construction can start, so be it. The wealth of the nation does not always correspond to the wealth of its inhabitants. All I'm saying is to look past the numbers and look at the people. You may have the most efficient plan to balance the federal government (although I don't believe their pro-growth policies will amend the deep imbalances inherent to the system), but the effect it has on the people of the nation is not mere collateral damage. Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid are not "savings," but are tragic losses to many people. These are life or death matters to the people who need these government programs, not a question of profits or losses. It's pretty hard to care about the debt crisis if your family is starving, isn't it?
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Basic Needs
Humans are animals. For all our vanity and pretense, we are animals to the core. Especially in the Western tradition, we are fond of envisioning ourselves as embodied minds - the mind is the higher plane of existence, whereas the body is merely something to be sustained. I would like to posit instead that we are thinking bodies: the body does more than house the mind, but sustains, informs, and grows the mind. Shifting one's perspective from embodied minds to thinking bodies moves the emphasis from rationality to corporeality, from logic to sensuality. And this brings us to food.
Even if that last distinction seems arbitrary to you, I'm sure you can admit the central importance in life of food. Most of my everyday life is concerned with food, whether that is reminiscing about the delicious breakfast I had that morning, or (more likely) daydreaming about my next meal. I am incredibly fortunate, and I try to keep my blessings at the forefront of my mind every day. I have never gone a day in my life where I haven't been able to eat to my satisfaction, and there is perhaps no greater privilege I can ask for. My certainty in sustenance has allowed me to focus my life on everything but my basic needs. I have been able to pursue music, academics, athletics, friendships, and countless other activities that would have taken the back seat to hunger, had I not been as fortunate. Satisfaction of hunger, the most basic primal need, always comes first. I have been unbelievably lucky, and for that I am thankful.
For many Americans, however, this is simply not the case. Imagine that you are a mother, unable to provide for her children and herself, who forgoes dinner so that her kids can eat. This is the greatest sacrifice: denial of basic needs for one's self in order to serve her children. Imagine that you are a child who worries each night whether he or she will go to bed hungry, who worries if he or she will be able to eat a lunch at school. How important can math class seem when your stomach is growling? When you are hungry, your biology is urging you to pursue food however possible. The pursuit of food rarely coincides with studies of trigonometry or European history. Poverty and hunger are the central issues that define our failed educational system. It is incumbent upon those of us lucky enough to enjoy privilege to provide for those who cannot enjoy the same liberties. Life is simply not the same when you body is screaming for food, when your children ask you if there will be dinner on the table that night. It is unreasonable and immoral to hold those families to the same standards that we hold well-nourished families. It shows a complete misunderstanding of our animal and basic nature.
Perhaps this last point needs further elaboration. One popular archetype spread about in the right wing is that of the welfare queen. Reagan popularized the term (without basis in reality, I might add) during his candidacy and presidency. The idea is that there are countless women out there (almost always imagined as black or Hispanic, another issue deserving attention), who are taking advantage of the welfare system. I've even heard arguments that low-income women are out there "just having babies" for the social security benefits. Really? I don't even know where to start with this argument: it is too misinformed, too xenophobic, too vain, too envious to even tackle in a systematic nature. I'll start with the idea that people are having children for the social security benefits. Have you ever witnessed a pregnancy? Labor may be the greatest pain a human being can go through in their life - I don't buy the argument that many low-income women are just popping out babies left and right for a few extra bucks. The insinuation that they are doing illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how difficult pregnancy is. It is also a disservice to lower-income and minority women, the implication being that they don't love their children, but view them as a means for profit.
Furthermore, it's not as though the social security benefits and welfare we provide for low-income individuals outweighs the cost of raising a child. A child places immeasurable strain on a family, as well as great pressure on the budget. This strain is scarcely alleviated by the pittance we allow these young mothers. Additionally, we cannot allow a few bad apples to ruin the batch. I'm sure there are a few women out there who do take advantage of the system in whatever way possible. This may be true, and it does cost American taxpayers money. But the solution is not to dissolve and destroy the whole system, because that unduly punishes the families who were doing things the right way. Plenty of good, hardworking individuals use welfare to provide for the families in ways they otherwise would not be able to. To rob them of this assistance in order to punish that small minority who is taking advantage of the system would be criminal. Let me repeat this: to punish those who are suffering in order to level justice against a few cheaters is a crime against humanity. The last point about welfare that I would like to make is that the children have no choice in the matter. Whether my parents are good and honest people or evil and dishonest people is no choice of mine. I was "created equal," just like everyone else. So why should my peers live in the lap of luxury, while my parents' benefits are slashed left and right in the name of efficiency? If I am a child, what do I care about the efficiency of the economy, or the fairness of the system? All I know is that my stomach is screaming for sustenance and I am not receiving it. Even if a "welfare queen" somehow popped out five kids "just for the benefits," that family deserves to receive government assistance. The children did not choose to be born into that circumstance, they are just struggling to survive. To deny assistance to children, based on no actions of their own, is undemocratic, unamerican, and immoral. This should be a fundamental question that is held in mind on all public policy issues: how does this policy affect the children? Regardless of the actions of the parents, if you believe in the values of the Declaration of Independence, you must recognize the necessity of providing for our nation's youth.
This brings me to a recent congressional vote about food stamp benefits. In our frenzy about budget deficits and debt, we are cutting many programs that should not be cut. A recent bid to preserve $4.5 billion in SNAP (food stamps) assistance failed the Senate by a margin of 33-66. This shows how out of touch our Senate has become. By a two-thirds margin, the senate decided to cut necessary funds that would put dinner on the table for many innocent and unknowing children. In this article:Food Stamp Vote in Senate, it is noted that "the decrease would amount to about $90 a month for an affected family, representing a quarter of its food budget." This is a quarter of a family's food budget who already qualifies for food assistance. This is kicking a man while he is already down. The family is struggling to make ends meet and provide for their children, and we want to remove another quarter of their food budget? This disgusts me in the most basic way. How can we, on the one hand, expect our children to succeed in schools, expect the parents to just "go out and get a job," when they are starving? The reality that most congressional deals are brokered over expensive Washington dinners is a tragic and cruel irony, especially when they adopt policy that robs many Americans of basic necessities. The national debt is not because of welfare, but because of stupidly low tax rates (the lowest they've been in 80 years except for a brief year and a half period in the Reagan years), because of higher-than-Cold War levels of defense spending, and because of a global economic depression that has taken its toll on all developed nations. To cut welfare in the interest of national debt is clear class warfare - not the imagined variety that "job creators" scream and whine about. The total government spending in this year is about $3.7 trillion, and this policy would save about $4.5 billion dollars. That is a grand savings of .1%. Are point one percent savings worth the immeasurable pain this would put on many already-struggling Americans? Budgets are all about priorities, and to cut food for such a microscopic savings demarcates exactly where our lawmakers' priorities are. And it is made all too painfully clear to many hungry Americans where our politicians priorities are not. Food assistance should be made a priority. It is really hard to care about anything else when you are starving. I propose a society where the right to food is held alongside the other fundamental and inalienable American rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's pretty damn hard to pursue happiness when you are starving.
Even if that last distinction seems arbitrary to you, I'm sure you can admit the central importance in life of food. Most of my everyday life is concerned with food, whether that is reminiscing about the delicious breakfast I had that morning, or (more likely) daydreaming about my next meal. I am incredibly fortunate, and I try to keep my blessings at the forefront of my mind every day. I have never gone a day in my life where I haven't been able to eat to my satisfaction, and there is perhaps no greater privilege I can ask for. My certainty in sustenance has allowed me to focus my life on everything but my basic needs. I have been able to pursue music, academics, athletics, friendships, and countless other activities that would have taken the back seat to hunger, had I not been as fortunate. Satisfaction of hunger, the most basic primal need, always comes first. I have been unbelievably lucky, and for that I am thankful.
For many Americans, however, this is simply not the case. Imagine that you are a mother, unable to provide for her children and herself, who forgoes dinner so that her kids can eat. This is the greatest sacrifice: denial of basic needs for one's self in order to serve her children. Imagine that you are a child who worries each night whether he or she will go to bed hungry, who worries if he or she will be able to eat a lunch at school. How important can math class seem when your stomach is growling? When you are hungry, your biology is urging you to pursue food however possible. The pursuit of food rarely coincides with studies of trigonometry or European history. Poverty and hunger are the central issues that define our failed educational system. It is incumbent upon those of us lucky enough to enjoy privilege to provide for those who cannot enjoy the same liberties. Life is simply not the same when you body is screaming for food, when your children ask you if there will be dinner on the table that night. It is unreasonable and immoral to hold those families to the same standards that we hold well-nourished families. It shows a complete misunderstanding of our animal and basic nature.
Perhaps this last point needs further elaboration. One popular archetype spread about in the right wing is that of the welfare queen. Reagan popularized the term (without basis in reality, I might add) during his candidacy and presidency. The idea is that there are countless women out there (almost always imagined as black or Hispanic, another issue deserving attention), who are taking advantage of the welfare system. I've even heard arguments that low-income women are out there "just having babies" for the social security benefits. Really? I don't even know where to start with this argument: it is too misinformed, too xenophobic, too vain, too envious to even tackle in a systematic nature. I'll start with the idea that people are having children for the social security benefits. Have you ever witnessed a pregnancy? Labor may be the greatest pain a human being can go through in their life - I don't buy the argument that many low-income women are just popping out babies left and right for a few extra bucks. The insinuation that they are doing illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how difficult pregnancy is. It is also a disservice to lower-income and minority women, the implication being that they don't love their children, but view them as a means for profit.
Furthermore, it's not as though the social security benefits and welfare we provide for low-income individuals outweighs the cost of raising a child. A child places immeasurable strain on a family, as well as great pressure on the budget. This strain is scarcely alleviated by the pittance we allow these young mothers. Additionally, we cannot allow a few bad apples to ruin the batch. I'm sure there are a few women out there who do take advantage of the system in whatever way possible. This may be true, and it does cost American taxpayers money. But the solution is not to dissolve and destroy the whole system, because that unduly punishes the families who were doing things the right way. Plenty of good, hardworking individuals use welfare to provide for the families in ways they otherwise would not be able to. To rob them of this assistance in order to punish that small minority who is taking advantage of the system would be criminal. Let me repeat this: to punish those who are suffering in order to level justice against a few cheaters is a crime against humanity. The last point about welfare that I would like to make is that the children have no choice in the matter. Whether my parents are good and honest people or evil and dishonest people is no choice of mine. I was "created equal," just like everyone else. So why should my peers live in the lap of luxury, while my parents' benefits are slashed left and right in the name of efficiency? If I am a child, what do I care about the efficiency of the economy, or the fairness of the system? All I know is that my stomach is screaming for sustenance and I am not receiving it. Even if a "welfare queen" somehow popped out five kids "just for the benefits," that family deserves to receive government assistance. The children did not choose to be born into that circumstance, they are just struggling to survive. To deny assistance to children, based on no actions of their own, is undemocratic, unamerican, and immoral. This should be a fundamental question that is held in mind on all public policy issues: how does this policy affect the children? Regardless of the actions of the parents, if you believe in the values of the Declaration of Independence, you must recognize the necessity of providing for our nation's youth.
This brings me to a recent congressional vote about food stamp benefits. In our frenzy about budget deficits and debt, we are cutting many programs that should not be cut. A recent bid to preserve $4.5 billion in SNAP (food stamps) assistance failed the Senate by a margin of 33-66. This shows how out of touch our Senate has become. By a two-thirds margin, the senate decided to cut necessary funds that would put dinner on the table for many innocent and unknowing children. In this article:Food Stamp Vote in Senate, it is noted that "the decrease would amount to about $90 a month for an affected family, representing a quarter of its food budget." This is a quarter of a family's food budget who already qualifies for food assistance. This is kicking a man while he is already down. The family is struggling to make ends meet and provide for their children, and we want to remove another quarter of their food budget? This disgusts me in the most basic way. How can we, on the one hand, expect our children to succeed in schools, expect the parents to just "go out and get a job," when they are starving? The reality that most congressional deals are brokered over expensive Washington dinners is a tragic and cruel irony, especially when they adopt policy that robs many Americans of basic necessities. The national debt is not because of welfare, but because of stupidly low tax rates (the lowest they've been in 80 years except for a brief year and a half period in the Reagan years), because of higher-than-Cold War levels of defense spending, and because of a global economic depression that has taken its toll on all developed nations. To cut welfare in the interest of national debt is clear class warfare - not the imagined variety that "job creators" scream and whine about. The total government spending in this year is about $3.7 trillion, and this policy would save about $4.5 billion dollars. That is a grand savings of .1%. Are point one percent savings worth the immeasurable pain this would put on many already-struggling Americans? Budgets are all about priorities, and to cut food for such a microscopic savings demarcates exactly where our lawmakers' priorities are. And it is made all too painfully clear to many hungry Americans where our politicians priorities are not. Food assistance should be made a priority. It is really hard to care about anything else when you are starving. I propose a society where the right to food is held alongside the other fundamental and inalienable American rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's pretty damn hard to pursue happiness when you are starving.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Competition and Cooperation
I was tempted to title this post "competition vs. cooperation," because it is all too easy to think in terms of opposition and division, but that would have run counter to my point - that competition simply cannot explain everything. Competition is the central focus of our society: we idolize athletes who compete at the highest levels, we push our children into competitive sports at earlier and earlier ages, we educate our students to succeed in a competitive market economy, and we praise the "free" market for maximizing competition. It is as if competition, in and of itself, is an intrinsic virtue that can solve all problems. In fact, Mitt Romney has recently been praising privatization in higher education, a venture with dubious results, as this article points out:http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/06/when-privatization-doesnt-work.html. But this blog post is not really about the private-public divide, but more about our mindset and understanding of how the world works.
If all your life has been spent in competitive ventures, it is very difficult to extricate yourself from those mental confines. All of your life has been reduced to a mad dash to the top, where your social relations are divvied into winners and losers, your accomplishments have been tallied as victories and defeats, and each success is merely the launching pad for your next battle. This is essentially the model of the world that we are teaching our children. It is reflected in every level of our society, and is fundamentally undemocratic, un-American, and oppressive. Consider the so-called solutions to our broken education system over the last decade: Bush proposed a "No Child Left Behind Act," which had the brilliant idea of penalizing struggling schools and rewarding successful schools. Thus, kids are driven to succeed on standardized tests, even at the expense of their own education, in order to procure funding for their school district. Kids are being taught every day that the only reason they are learning their material is to pass some stupid test that some bureaucrats decided would measure how "smart" they are. This "solution" has been excoriated in the literature on educational methodology, due to the increased emphasis on measurement and the lack of emphasis on real learning, cooperation, growth, or education. As long as we redefine academic success to meet some sort of metric, we can fool ourselves into believing that our educational system isn't broken. But it is.
Worse yet, what does President Obama do with his educational reform? He essentially doubles down on Bush's policy, extending the benefits for succeeding school and worsening the penalties for those who are struggling. We have a fractal pattern of competition in education, and it doesn't work on any level. In each classroom, students fight to be the top of the class, to get that A+, to be the teacher's pet, because that is all they are ever taught to do. Within a school, teacher's are being assessed on the abilities of their students; hence, teachers are encouraged to teach to the test, to cheat, to do whatever it takes to make their students appear the best. They are not incentivized to teach the best, just to appear the best. Among schools, principals fight for ratings and designations of success, because they know that is where the money comes from. The districts compete for fewer and fewer state resources, and the states are so strapped for cash that they all come crawling to the federal government. The federal government's solution is to exacerbate the causes and worsen the problem at every level. Teaching competition as the only mode of thought encourages superficial learning, rote memorization, teacher appeasement, cheating and dishonesty. One only needs to look at the rampant cheating scandals that have surfaced in Chicago, Boston, LA, NY, and other major metropolises to see the effects of merit-based education. It simply does not work.
This is the same model that Mitt Romney is praising in higher education. It is dangerous, it does not work, and it simply robs our students of the very thing they believe they are receiving: an education.
It is not only in education that competition is a dangerous paradigm; its effects are much more pervasive than that. In prisons and in health care, competition leads to a denial of service, rather than improved service. It is a more profitable, therefore a more competitive, business model to provide the least service at the lowest cost to the most people possible. This business model may provide the best results to the most people in certain industries, like manufacturing or technology, but surely one can see how it would fail in prisons or in health care. The health care firm that denies coverage to an individual is improving their competitiveness, but at what cost? While the health care company is avoiding a loss in their pocketbook, they are prolonging or worsening real pain and suffering for an individual. This is literally sickening. The most competitive health package is one that provides the illusion of grandeur, but drops the client at the first sign of an expensive health condition. Turning now to prisons, I cannot see how it is a good idea to turn over the incarceration system to private incentives and private hands. Doing so represents a complete disavowal of our duties to our citizenry, prisoner or free. Cost-cutting procedures in a private incarceration facility do not keep public safety at the forefront of thought, but focus on the bottom line. To compensate, prisoners are held in more vicious and restrictive conditions, which seems to me to be a clear infringement upon their constitutional rights. The state should be the steward of all of its citizens, whether or not they have committed a criminal infraction. The idea that a person should make a profit off of another's incarceration is base and immoral. It is akin to slavery: the more people that are not free, the more profitable a business for the prison owner. This is disgusting.
Yet many still persist in their idolatry of competition, despite of all the "collateral" damage. I recently watched an interview Jon Steward did with Edward Conard, who was infuriating if only for his obstinacy. The premise of Conard's argument is that America must provide incentives for innovation, and that competitive free market incentives are the only method for doing so. Despite many arguments to the contrary, he persisted in his view that financial incentives are the only effective incentive for engendering innovation. His myopic view of the world is formed by a life spent in the financial sector - where all is profit and loss, winners and losers, boom and bust. The problem with a competition-based economy is that there are exponentially more losers than winners, by the very nature of the game. He claims that innovation and the improved commodities we now over-produce outweigh the massive human loss of the market economy. I disagree. I do not see how an I-pod is worth the life of a worker in China, or how my Nike basketball shoes are worth hundreds of times the wages factory workers receive in the Philippines. I reject the idea that having Microsoft and Boeing as successful American corporations is worth the millions of Americans who are out of work, underemployed, hungry, unhappy, and struggling. The despair of millions is not outweighed by the trendy baubles we grow so attached to.
Competition spurs alienation, isolation, anxiety, and causes a host of extraneous problems that are often forgotten about in conventional economic analysis. Competition is great at creating vast holdings of wealth that are kept in a small circle of plutocrats and oligarchs. This translates to economic data that shouldn't be read as representative of national prosperity, such as GDP growth or stock prices. The reality is this: I don't give a shit if GDP grows by one half or one percent, and I don't care if the NASDAQ falls another 100 points. What matters to me, and to the vast majority of Americans outside of the investment class, is how the economy serves me locally. Are there enough teachers employed in our schools? Are there enough police officers on the streets? Are there enough fire fighters and emergency workers? Are our hospitals amply employed? Do we have infrastructure growth and development? Can I find a job without sacrificing my ethics or individuality? None of these questions can be answered by looking at the health of the national economy. It is simply because of the myopic view of the top as the best: and the financial sector, being the focus of our economy, is frequently misconstrued as the most important. The financial sector is the pinnacle of competitive energy, and is also the source of the most waste and human damage. Competition must not be taught as a paradigm, nor held up as some sort of economic fix-all. It is only through concerted effort - which can only be accomplished together - that America can overcome this crisis. We must ask ourselves if the system we live in is representative of the values we claim to uphold. In my view, it clearly falls short.
If all your life has been spent in competitive ventures, it is very difficult to extricate yourself from those mental confines. All of your life has been reduced to a mad dash to the top, where your social relations are divvied into winners and losers, your accomplishments have been tallied as victories and defeats, and each success is merely the launching pad for your next battle. This is essentially the model of the world that we are teaching our children. It is reflected in every level of our society, and is fundamentally undemocratic, un-American, and oppressive. Consider the so-called solutions to our broken education system over the last decade: Bush proposed a "No Child Left Behind Act," which had the brilliant idea of penalizing struggling schools and rewarding successful schools. Thus, kids are driven to succeed on standardized tests, even at the expense of their own education, in order to procure funding for their school district. Kids are being taught every day that the only reason they are learning their material is to pass some stupid test that some bureaucrats decided would measure how "smart" they are. This "solution" has been excoriated in the literature on educational methodology, due to the increased emphasis on measurement and the lack of emphasis on real learning, cooperation, growth, or education. As long as we redefine academic success to meet some sort of metric, we can fool ourselves into believing that our educational system isn't broken. But it is.
Worse yet, what does President Obama do with his educational reform? He essentially doubles down on Bush's policy, extending the benefits for succeeding school and worsening the penalties for those who are struggling. We have a fractal pattern of competition in education, and it doesn't work on any level. In each classroom, students fight to be the top of the class, to get that A+, to be the teacher's pet, because that is all they are ever taught to do. Within a school, teacher's are being assessed on the abilities of their students; hence, teachers are encouraged to teach to the test, to cheat, to do whatever it takes to make their students appear the best. They are not incentivized to teach the best, just to appear the best. Among schools, principals fight for ratings and designations of success, because they know that is where the money comes from. The districts compete for fewer and fewer state resources, and the states are so strapped for cash that they all come crawling to the federal government. The federal government's solution is to exacerbate the causes and worsen the problem at every level. Teaching competition as the only mode of thought encourages superficial learning, rote memorization, teacher appeasement, cheating and dishonesty. One only needs to look at the rampant cheating scandals that have surfaced in Chicago, Boston, LA, NY, and other major metropolises to see the effects of merit-based education. It simply does not work.
This is the same model that Mitt Romney is praising in higher education. It is dangerous, it does not work, and it simply robs our students of the very thing they believe they are receiving: an education.
It is not only in education that competition is a dangerous paradigm; its effects are much more pervasive than that. In prisons and in health care, competition leads to a denial of service, rather than improved service. It is a more profitable, therefore a more competitive, business model to provide the least service at the lowest cost to the most people possible. This business model may provide the best results to the most people in certain industries, like manufacturing or technology, but surely one can see how it would fail in prisons or in health care. The health care firm that denies coverage to an individual is improving their competitiveness, but at what cost? While the health care company is avoiding a loss in their pocketbook, they are prolonging or worsening real pain and suffering for an individual. This is literally sickening. The most competitive health package is one that provides the illusion of grandeur, but drops the client at the first sign of an expensive health condition. Turning now to prisons, I cannot see how it is a good idea to turn over the incarceration system to private incentives and private hands. Doing so represents a complete disavowal of our duties to our citizenry, prisoner or free. Cost-cutting procedures in a private incarceration facility do not keep public safety at the forefront of thought, but focus on the bottom line. To compensate, prisoners are held in more vicious and restrictive conditions, which seems to me to be a clear infringement upon their constitutional rights. The state should be the steward of all of its citizens, whether or not they have committed a criminal infraction. The idea that a person should make a profit off of another's incarceration is base and immoral. It is akin to slavery: the more people that are not free, the more profitable a business for the prison owner. This is disgusting.
Yet many still persist in their idolatry of competition, despite of all the "collateral" damage. I recently watched an interview Jon Steward did with Edward Conard, who was infuriating if only for his obstinacy. The premise of Conard's argument is that America must provide incentives for innovation, and that competitive free market incentives are the only method for doing so. Despite many arguments to the contrary, he persisted in his view that financial incentives are the only effective incentive for engendering innovation. His myopic view of the world is formed by a life spent in the financial sector - where all is profit and loss, winners and losers, boom and bust. The problem with a competition-based economy is that there are exponentially more losers than winners, by the very nature of the game. He claims that innovation and the improved commodities we now over-produce outweigh the massive human loss of the market economy. I disagree. I do not see how an I-pod is worth the life of a worker in China, or how my Nike basketball shoes are worth hundreds of times the wages factory workers receive in the Philippines. I reject the idea that having Microsoft and Boeing as successful American corporations is worth the millions of Americans who are out of work, underemployed, hungry, unhappy, and struggling. The despair of millions is not outweighed by the trendy baubles we grow so attached to.
Competition spurs alienation, isolation, anxiety, and causes a host of extraneous problems that are often forgotten about in conventional economic analysis. Competition is great at creating vast holdings of wealth that are kept in a small circle of plutocrats and oligarchs. This translates to economic data that shouldn't be read as representative of national prosperity, such as GDP growth or stock prices. The reality is this: I don't give a shit if GDP grows by one half or one percent, and I don't care if the NASDAQ falls another 100 points. What matters to me, and to the vast majority of Americans outside of the investment class, is how the economy serves me locally. Are there enough teachers employed in our schools? Are there enough police officers on the streets? Are there enough fire fighters and emergency workers? Are our hospitals amply employed? Do we have infrastructure growth and development? Can I find a job without sacrificing my ethics or individuality? None of these questions can be answered by looking at the health of the national economy. It is simply because of the myopic view of the top as the best: and the financial sector, being the focus of our economy, is frequently misconstrued as the most important. The financial sector is the pinnacle of competitive energy, and is also the source of the most waste and human damage. Competition must not be taught as a paradigm, nor held up as some sort of economic fix-all. It is only through concerted effort - which can only be accomplished together - that America can overcome this crisis. We must ask ourselves if the system we live in is representative of the values we claim to uphold. In my view, it clearly falls short.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Job Creators
I heard an argument over the weekend that has never made sense to me, although I've heard it time and time again. It goes something like this: "We can't afford to tax job creators, because then they will just stop working as hard, or they will find loopholes and other measures to avoid the higher taxation." The latter claim is ludicrous and defeatist. It is admitting that because there are dishonest people out there who will evade taxation that we should stop trying to tax them at all. Try to apply that same logic to any other situation and it will seem ridiculous. Take a sports example: it is like saying that we can't enforce steroid regulation in major league baseball because players will abuse other dangerous drugs, so we shouldn't enforce drugs at all. Or, we can't levy heavier penalties for helmet-to-helmet hits in football because players will find another way to play dangerously anyway. The fact that loopholes exist is an argument for higher taxation, rather than against, because you have a certain amount of illegal and dishonest people diverting tax revenues. After all of the exceptions and loopholes, the actual tax rate would drop to near what it was intended in the first place. There is an astounding amount of tax theft occurring in this country - a far greater injustice than any sort of mythical "welfare queen."
I'm not sure I understand the first claim either, that "job creators" will simply stop working if they are taxed at a higher rate. Pundits scream that higher tax rates "punish success," and would lead to lowered productivity among skilled workers. Let me try to parse out the logic here. Within this conservative paradigm, it is understood rich people work hard and deserve the vast wealth they currently control in our favorable tax climate, thus we should continue to promote this brand of success. If we tax the wealthy at a higher rate, they argue, this removes the incentive to work hard, because high-earning individuals would receive lower returns on their investment and labor. I've always wondered why someone would take a double loss when presented with only a slight change in tax rates. To elaborate, if money is the sole incentive (or at least the main one) to pursue profit, and successful individuals desire money, they will continue to work for profit regardless of the marginal tax rate. Take this simple example: if you earn $10 million a year, and are taxed at the current rate of 35%, you're still clearing $6.5 million a year. If the federal government makes the move to increase that tax rate to around 40% (as is scheduled to occur in 2013), you're still left with $6 million. And then people are arguing that the wealthy will voluntarily work less, thus bringing their annual incomes much lower? If I raise the tax rate on someone, and they prize money, why would they decide to lose money on two fronts? If these paragons of business are supposed to be our economic saviors, why would they cut and run in the face of some economic "hard"-ship?
Historically, we have a very low tax rate on our top earners. The top marginal tax rate was as high as 90% until the '60s and did not drop below 70% until 1981. The same year US GDP growth experienced a sharp drop, followed by a short spike, and another deep decline. When the marginal tax rate was above 70%, the US economy was flourishing, the middle class was alive and well (not a mythical demographic like today), and GDP growth was steady. What we have seen borne out in recent history is a slashing of tax rates on high earning individuals with little to no benefit to the rest of Americans. I believe that America is a democracy, and should tax democratically. This requires an open conversation about the benefits of taxation without the emotionally driven and factually void arguments of punishing success, or disincentivizing profit. The fact of the matter is that the wealthier you are, the greater benefit you derive from the federal government, whether this be in better education systems, better public health and safety, nicer transportation and infrastructure near your home, or countless other externalities the private sector saddles the federal government with. The true job creators are the consuming and the laboring class. Do not let the vanity of the rich fool you, they aren't John Galts.
I'm not sure I understand the first claim either, that "job creators" will simply stop working if they are taxed at a higher rate. Pundits scream that higher tax rates "punish success," and would lead to lowered productivity among skilled workers. Let me try to parse out the logic here. Within this conservative paradigm, it is understood rich people work hard and deserve the vast wealth they currently control in our favorable tax climate, thus we should continue to promote this brand of success. If we tax the wealthy at a higher rate, they argue, this removes the incentive to work hard, because high-earning individuals would receive lower returns on their investment and labor. I've always wondered why someone would take a double loss when presented with only a slight change in tax rates. To elaborate, if money is the sole incentive (or at least the main one) to pursue profit, and successful individuals desire money, they will continue to work for profit regardless of the marginal tax rate. Take this simple example: if you earn $10 million a year, and are taxed at the current rate of 35%, you're still clearing $6.5 million a year. If the federal government makes the move to increase that tax rate to around 40% (as is scheduled to occur in 2013), you're still left with $6 million. And then people are arguing that the wealthy will voluntarily work less, thus bringing their annual incomes much lower? If I raise the tax rate on someone, and they prize money, why would they decide to lose money on two fronts? If these paragons of business are supposed to be our economic saviors, why would they cut and run in the face of some economic "hard"-ship?
Historically, we have a very low tax rate on our top earners. The top marginal tax rate was as high as 90% until the '60s and did not drop below 70% until 1981. The same year US GDP growth experienced a sharp drop, followed by a short spike, and another deep decline. When the marginal tax rate was above 70%, the US economy was flourishing, the middle class was alive and well (not a mythical demographic like today), and GDP growth was steady. What we have seen borne out in recent history is a slashing of tax rates on high earning individuals with little to no benefit to the rest of Americans. I believe that America is a democracy, and should tax democratically. This requires an open conversation about the benefits of taxation without the emotionally driven and factually void arguments of punishing success, or disincentivizing profit. The fact of the matter is that the wealthier you are, the greater benefit you derive from the federal government, whether this be in better education systems, better public health and safety, nicer transportation and infrastructure near your home, or countless other externalities the private sector saddles the federal government with. The true job creators are the consuming and the laboring class. Do not let the vanity of the rich fool you, they aren't John Galts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)