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."
Thursday, February 21, 2013
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.
Friday, October 26, 2012
The King of Debt
The only consistant theme throughout Romney's presidential candidacy has been his unwitting descent into irony. He argues vehemently that he is a fiscal conservative who will get the country's fiscal house in order and that he will stop borrowing money from China. He argues that the pending debt crisis is not merely an economic issue, but a moral one, for we should not saddle our children with the debts of our generation. On the other hand, it is apparently perfectly moral to slash public funding, which creates the jobs and opportunities of today, in order to perpetuate some anti-tax, pro-growth pledge.
First of all, public spending does create jobs. After the stimulus bill was passed, the trend of job losses was reversed. No, the economy did not make an abrupt about-face and grow at a rate above 3% of GDP, but that is a wholly unrealistic expectation. I get the feeling that there were no possible gains that would have been high enough to satisfy the unbridled rage of the conservative right. Obama was dealt a terrible hand, managed to keep the ship afloat for four years, and now has the difficult task of convincing voters that it would have been much worse had he not acted.
And it would have been. This is not a "blame-Bush" argument, although there is much that he should be blamed for. What I ask is that people view the Obama presidency and the Obama economy in light of what occurred before. When the economy is shedding jobs at record rates, the housing market collapses, and the global credit and banking industries utterly fail, how can one president rectify the situation in only four years? The only possible answer when the private sector fails is for the public sector to step in and insure that the system doesn't fall apart completely.
Here's the thing: Mitt Romney has fulfilled this role of financial savior many times in the past - in fact, it's what he has built his fortune upon. His fortune, nearly a quarter of a billion dollars, is built almost entirely upon debt. Instead of running on this expertise, however, Romney is hamstrung by the radical right to pledge not to increase taxes or the debt. If Romney wanted to run an honest candidacy based upon his real experience, he would highlight how he has successfully used public funds and debt to turn around failed enterprises. He borrowed hundreds of millions to right the Salt Lake City Olympics, used millions of dollars as governor of Massachusetts, and skillfully used leveraged buyouts at Bain Capital.
But that is not what he is running on. The image that Romney is running on is a lie, albeit a very hazy one. Any time that an issue is staked out clearly, Romney shakes his Etch-A-Sketch one more time and shifts his position. He should run on his experience with leveraging debt, but he is afraid to alienate a base that refuses to listen to basic tenets of economics, biology, physics, or philosophy. Instead, he has adopted a message that offers no solutions, only criticisms.
Remember this: it is always easier to critique than it is to offer your own, better solutions. Obama came into a country that was failing on nearly every account. Health care costs were skyrocketing (yes, before Obamacare), public education was failing, the private sector economy self-imploded, and I don't even need to mention our abysmal foreign policy. Four years later, the country has not descended into socialism, is not being run by a radical Muslim, and Christmas is still very much alive. The hyperbolic commercials about "1000 years of darkness" and "not being able to survive 4 more years of an Obama presidency" are way off. Obama has not made things worse, he has just been unable to live up to the unreasonably high expectations he set for himself.
The bottom line is that when the United States can borrow money for less than the rate of inflation, this is free money. It is not a debt crisis. Lendors are literally giving us free money, because the United States is the driver of the world economy. It is in their best interest to keep the US afloat, because without us, their economies would also fail. They are also betting that we will eventually grow our way out of this crisis, and they are giving us the money to use. Romney could have ran on a platform of sensible debt management, and argued that his business experience uniquely qualified him for the position. Instead, he is running a campaign solely of criticism and generalities, and I see no reason to believe things would improve under his stewardship. If he is not going to use the free money that is being provided to the federal government, I do not want him in the White House.
Mr, Romney, you are wrong. We do need more firemen, police officers, teachers, and other public employees. Those are jobs, just like any private sector position. And those jobs are created by public funds. So don't try to convince me of your myopic view of the nation, where John Galtian millionaires create every last bit of fortune that they have out of thin air. The answer is clear: borrow money, at the absurdly low rates it is being offered, and hire public sector workers. I find it appalling that we would cut education and social welfare funds in the name of some self-imposed fiscal cliff. That is a moral choice, and it affects our kids. Perhaps if they stay uneducated, then they will buy this big lie that the neo-cons are offering. Maybe they're just playing the long game. I don't see any other way that their policies or politics make sense.
First of all, public spending does create jobs. After the stimulus bill was passed, the trend of job losses was reversed. No, the economy did not make an abrupt about-face and grow at a rate above 3% of GDP, but that is a wholly unrealistic expectation. I get the feeling that there were no possible gains that would have been high enough to satisfy the unbridled rage of the conservative right. Obama was dealt a terrible hand, managed to keep the ship afloat for four years, and now has the difficult task of convincing voters that it would have been much worse had he not acted.
And it would have been. This is not a "blame-Bush" argument, although there is much that he should be blamed for. What I ask is that people view the Obama presidency and the Obama economy in light of what occurred before. When the economy is shedding jobs at record rates, the housing market collapses, and the global credit and banking industries utterly fail, how can one president rectify the situation in only four years? The only possible answer when the private sector fails is for the public sector to step in and insure that the system doesn't fall apart completely.
Here's the thing: Mitt Romney has fulfilled this role of financial savior many times in the past - in fact, it's what he has built his fortune upon. His fortune, nearly a quarter of a billion dollars, is built almost entirely upon debt. Instead of running on this expertise, however, Romney is hamstrung by the radical right to pledge not to increase taxes or the debt. If Romney wanted to run an honest candidacy based upon his real experience, he would highlight how he has successfully used public funds and debt to turn around failed enterprises. He borrowed hundreds of millions to right the Salt Lake City Olympics, used millions of dollars as governor of Massachusetts, and skillfully used leveraged buyouts at Bain Capital.
But that is not what he is running on. The image that Romney is running on is a lie, albeit a very hazy one. Any time that an issue is staked out clearly, Romney shakes his Etch-A-Sketch one more time and shifts his position. He should run on his experience with leveraging debt, but he is afraid to alienate a base that refuses to listen to basic tenets of economics, biology, physics, or philosophy. Instead, he has adopted a message that offers no solutions, only criticisms.
Remember this: it is always easier to critique than it is to offer your own, better solutions. Obama came into a country that was failing on nearly every account. Health care costs were skyrocketing (yes, before Obamacare), public education was failing, the private sector economy self-imploded, and I don't even need to mention our abysmal foreign policy. Four years later, the country has not descended into socialism, is not being run by a radical Muslim, and Christmas is still very much alive. The hyperbolic commercials about "1000 years of darkness" and "not being able to survive 4 more years of an Obama presidency" are way off. Obama has not made things worse, he has just been unable to live up to the unreasonably high expectations he set for himself.
The bottom line is that when the United States can borrow money for less than the rate of inflation, this is free money. It is not a debt crisis. Lendors are literally giving us free money, because the United States is the driver of the world economy. It is in their best interest to keep the US afloat, because without us, their economies would also fail. They are also betting that we will eventually grow our way out of this crisis, and they are giving us the money to use. Romney could have ran on a platform of sensible debt management, and argued that his business experience uniquely qualified him for the position. Instead, he is running a campaign solely of criticism and generalities, and I see no reason to believe things would improve under his stewardship. If he is not going to use the free money that is being provided to the federal government, I do not want him in the White House.
Mr, Romney, you are wrong. We do need more firemen, police officers, teachers, and other public employees. Those are jobs, just like any private sector position. And those jobs are created by public funds. So don't try to convince me of your myopic view of the nation, where John Galtian millionaires create every last bit of fortune that they have out of thin air. The answer is clear: borrow money, at the absurdly low rates it is being offered, and hire public sector workers. I find it appalling that we would cut education and social welfare funds in the name of some self-imposed fiscal cliff. That is a moral choice, and it affects our kids. Perhaps if they stay uneducated, then they will buy this big lie that the neo-cons are offering. Maybe they're just playing the long game. I don't see any other way that their policies or politics make sense.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Elmer Fudd Politics
I am sick and tired of hearing over and over again that Obama is the most divisive president in American history. Like most things for which he is blamed, Obama holds little responsibility for the divisiveness in American politics but makes an easy and convenient scapegoat. The reality is that the electorate is more divided than it has been since the Civil War, because it is more profitable and politically convenient to sow the seeds of derision than it is to govern.
It is always easier to disagree with someone than it is to offer a better alternative, and this has been the weapon of choice of the GOP since 2010, when the Tea Party revolution hit Washington. In fact, Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority leader (who bears a striking resemblence to a turtle), came up with this whopper: "Our top priority is making sure President Obama is a one-term president." The top priority was not bipartisanship, nor was it entitlement reform, regulatory reform, foreign policy, education reform, or anything that is useful. To McConnell, the idea of Obama is so terrible and terrifying that there is nothing more important or pressing than to deny him a second term.
Indeed, here's McConnell on bipartisanship: "We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off those proposals. Because we thought - correctly, I think - that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the 'bipartisan' tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there's a broad agreement that that's the way forward."
To offer a course of complete non-cooperation as the best course for the American people is insulting. Politicians campaign over and over again (as Obama did in 2008) that they will change the tone in Washington, focus less on partisan bickering, and discuss the "real issues." How can we have a real discussion when one side threatens every bill with fillibuster, and refuses to even get its "fingerprints" on any policy proposal? Perhaps we would have had improved legislation from this failed Congress if Republicans had been willing to work their ideas into a Democratic plan. Presenting a bill as bipartisan does not mean there wasn't disagreement, it just means that the call to action is stronger than ideological ties.
Few people have been as critical of President Obama as Rush Limbaugh, whose fire and brimstone doomsday speeches border on madness. To Limbaugh, anyone, literally anyone, would make a better president than Obama in his second term. As he put it, "We are voting against Obama, Mitt Romney might as well be Elmer Fudd." Elmer Fudd is so incompetant that he can't catch a rabbit he has been hunting for decades, yet, according to Rush, he would do a better job of running this country than Obama. I'd turn his comment around and say that I'd much rather have Elmer Fudd as president than Mitt Romney, because I think that incompetance would be a better alternative than wilfully destroying the social safety net.
I don't support Obama on everything that he is done, and I think that he has screwed up in a number of places. For many people, their reality today is not as rosy as it was four years ago, due to the recession and painful recovery. But - and this is a huge but - he was handed a situation that was impossible to solve in only four years. When the stock market crashed in 2008, housing prices came crashing down, incomes fell, and millions lost their jobs. Obama naively set himself higher expectations than he could possible hope to accomplish in one term, yet that is a sin nearly every politician is guilty of. Mitt's purposeful mendacity is on a completely different plane than Obama's failed campaign promises.
The saddest thing of it all is that the GOP's chosen course of Elmer Fudd politics has succeeded. America's two party system consists of a center-right Democratic party and a far-right Republican party that crowd out any hope for a substantive policy discussion. Obama has bent so far to the right in an attempt to appease his detractors that he has alienated a good portion of his supporters. Compared to Bush, Obama has drilled for more oil, coal, and natural gas, assessed fewer EPA fines, continued No Child Left Behind's accountability measures, championed charter schools, kept Guantanamo open, stayed in Afghanistan, and extended the Bush tax cuts for all wage brackets. Whatever his secret intentions may be, Obama's record shows him to be anything but the radical socialist that conservative pundits make him out to be.
Of course, after slandering him for being a socialist, fascist, atheist, anti-American, Muslim, the talking heads turn around and call him divisive too. And that's why I watch Fox News: the incredible irony of it all.
It is always easier to disagree with someone than it is to offer a better alternative, and this has been the weapon of choice of the GOP since 2010, when the Tea Party revolution hit Washington. In fact, Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority leader (who bears a striking resemblence to a turtle), came up with this whopper: "Our top priority is making sure President Obama is a one-term president." The top priority was not bipartisanship, nor was it entitlement reform, regulatory reform, foreign policy, education reform, or anything that is useful. To McConnell, the idea of Obama is so terrible and terrifying that there is nothing more important or pressing than to deny him a second term.
Indeed, here's McConnell on bipartisanship: "We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off those proposals. Because we thought - correctly, I think - that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the 'bipartisan' tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there's a broad agreement that that's the way forward."
To offer a course of complete non-cooperation as the best course for the American people is insulting. Politicians campaign over and over again (as Obama did in 2008) that they will change the tone in Washington, focus less on partisan bickering, and discuss the "real issues." How can we have a real discussion when one side threatens every bill with fillibuster, and refuses to even get its "fingerprints" on any policy proposal? Perhaps we would have had improved legislation from this failed Congress if Republicans had been willing to work their ideas into a Democratic plan. Presenting a bill as bipartisan does not mean there wasn't disagreement, it just means that the call to action is stronger than ideological ties.
Few people have been as critical of President Obama as Rush Limbaugh, whose fire and brimstone doomsday speeches border on madness. To Limbaugh, anyone, literally anyone, would make a better president than Obama in his second term. As he put it, "We are voting against Obama, Mitt Romney might as well be Elmer Fudd." Elmer Fudd is so incompetant that he can't catch a rabbit he has been hunting for decades, yet, according to Rush, he would do a better job of running this country than Obama. I'd turn his comment around and say that I'd much rather have Elmer Fudd as president than Mitt Romney, because I think that incompetance would be a better alternative than wilfully destroying the social safety net.
I don't support Obama on everything that he is done, and I think that he has screwed up in a number of places. For many people, their reality today is not as rosy as it was four years ago, due to the recession and painful recovery. But - and this is a huge but - he was handed a situation that was impossible to solve in only four years. When the stock market crashed in 2008, housing prices came crashing down, incomes fell, and millions lost their jobs. Obama naively set himself higher expectations than he could possible hope to accomplish in one term, yet that is a sin nearly every politician is guilty of. Mitt's purposeful mendacity is on a completely different plane than Obama's failed campaign promises.
The saddest thing of it all is that the GOP's chosen course of Elmer Fudd politics has succeeded. America's two party system consists of a center-right Democratic party and a far-right Republican party that crowd out any hope for a substantive policy discussion. Obama has bent so far to the right in an attempt to appease his detractors that he has alienated a good portion of his supporters. Compared to Bush, Obama has drilled for more oil, coal, and natural gas, assessed fewer EPA fines, continued No Child Left Behind's accountability measures, championed charter schools, kept Guantanamo open, stayed in Afghanistan, and extended the Bush tax cuts for all wage brackets. Whatever his secret intentions may be, Obama's record shows him to be anything but the radical socialist that conservative pundits make him out to be.
Of course, after slandering him for being a socialist, fascist, atheist, anti-American, Muslim, the talking heads turn around and call him divisive too. And that's why I watch Fox News: the incredible irony of it all.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)