Food for thought from a political scientist for those who think fair=communism and believe in the myth of class warfare:
Few begrudge the right of an entrepreneur to make money. It is understood in a free market that risks deserve rewards. However, nobody makes their money on their own as they require workers to help them in the development and implementation of a good or service as well as a customer base to make use of the idea. The economic health of the business and country is more than just one man and there needs to be an underlying social contract where the entrepreneur's success is shared with others. This is all about what is fair. Companies have prospered in terms of profits to little effect on those who also contribute.
I am listing some facts concerning the myth of fairness in this country and how absurd it has gotten.
We often use the GINI index in social sciences to compare income equality across nations as it addressed ratios rather than absolute wealth. Our current ranking in income equality is the lowest in the developed world and is actually worse than Russia. We remain slightly more equal than Mexico. This has only gone up in recent years. Is it socialism or communism when the U.S. is comparable to countries famous for their have/have not demographics?
While the GDP per capita has risen steadily over the past decade, median income in the U.S. has actually dropped significantly. This means that as our economy grew, the fortunes of the person sitting at the 50th percentile of the nation has actually seen their situation worsen.
The minimum wage in 1968 was $1.60. Had this kept up with inflation alone, this would be $10.42 in 2011. Over the past 3 decades, the value of the minimum wage has severely eroded. The minimum wage was intended to be a base minimum to allow a working person to be reasonably able to support themselves. When raised from 5.25 an hour, the minimum wage was not a living wage in any county in the country.
Inflation is calculated by a miscellaneous basket of goods annually. This calculation is unable to reflect increases in fuel/energy, housing, health care and education, all of which have grown at a higher rate than inflation and much higher than personal incomes.
America was prosperous in the 1950s through 1970s with a system that featured high personal taxes and low business/corporate taxes. Today this is reversed and has fueled incentive for the pooling of money to the top rather than investment. In contrast, Canada has implemented our old tactics and has seen steady growth in recent years.
When people complain about the number of people not paying taxes, the reality is about 38% of tax units and 60% of them (nearly 24% of total) had income of under 20,000 in 2008. Instead of griping about them not paying taxes, may we ask why so many people are making so little? Do we really benefit from taxing the low income and the social security crowd?
The fair tax is a regressive tax as it disproportionately hits lower and middle classes as they must spend nearly all of their income. Such a tax would push millions more toward poverty. The wealthy, with their ability to save, pay a lower proportion despite the tax having a lower burden. Because of this fact, it is far more regressive than even the flat taxes of former communist nations in Eastern Europe.
Even in current times of the ultra-wealthy, consumption remains roughly 70% of the economy. While we focus on supply side economics and investments, consumer demand remains low. American corporations have outsourced all they could to workers in near slave conditions and given up on the American worker. Without a middle class, consumption of goods and services will grind to a halt and all will suffer.
The 99% is in the interests of the 1%. We need a fairness and a faith in the middle class to work and produce. We've never failed to support the economy and believe in the dream of hard work begetting gain. Don't turn away from us and we will work together to make a better nation.
07 October 2011
13 September 2011
Uninsured? Let Them Die says the Tampa GOP Debate Attendees
When CNN hosted a GOP debate in Tampa, there was no doubt that some of the fringe issues were abound to come out. The 2 hour sludgefest of slapping down Social Security and suggesting that the EPA would be best oversought by those 'abused' by them (you know, big oil, steel manufacturers etc). For two hours, each candidate did backflips to polish off those tea party credentials. When all was said and done though, the biggest losers were not any candidate but rather the audience, whose reactions demonstrated a lack of empathy and compassion usually only seen in sociopaths.
The question was one directed at Ron Paul in which a hypothetical situation involved a young 30 year old with a job and no health insurance befalls a tragedy and requires long term medical care. Being the most libertarian candidate, Paul's initial answer is focused on personal responsibility and bemoaning the expectation that the government would take care of him. When the moderator, Wolf Blitzer, follows up with the natural "would you just let him die?" Before Paul can even backstep and emphasize private charities' role etc, the audience can be hear loudly proclaiming "Yeah".
To put this into perspective: the audience in Tampa fell somewhere to the right of RON PAUL.
1 day after the 10th anniversary of 9-11 and the remembrance of lives lost, the vitriol directed at our fellow man returned with a vengeance at this debate and demonstrated the absolute worst in the American people. The fact that there are people who shun any degree of support for someone under the most extreme circumstances is perhaps a greater tragedy than what happened at 9-11. This kind of thinking is poisonous and frightfully infectious and is a sign of a society in decline. Given the high rate at which conservatives claim to be Christians, I urge them to go back through their New Testament and remember Jesus's stance toward compassion toward your fellow man. Even for non-Christians, the instructions to care for the infirm and be charitable should you have the means are moral lessons that transcends the boundaries of religion.
I am appalled that the audience acts so boorishly to a question that deserved nuance and understanding of the situation. Even if it was someone who made a choice not to purchase private insurance, it is not our place to be the judge jury and executioner. When someone's life is boiled down to mob mentality shouting, we have lost all sight of our priorities and are no better than the civilizations we thumb our noses at for their perceived barbarism.
The question was one directed at Ron Paul in which a hypothetical situation involved a young 30 year old with a job and no health insurance befalls a tragedy and requires long term medical care. Being the most libertarian candidate, Paul's initial answer is focused on personal responsibility and bemoaning the expectation that the government would take care of him. When the moderator, Wolf Blitzer, follows up with the natural "would you just let him die?" Before Paul can even backstep and emphasize private charities' role etc, the audience can be hear loudly proclaiming "Yeah".
To put this into perspective: the audience in Tampa fell somewhere to the right of RON PAUL.
1 day after the 10th anniversary of 9-11 and the remembrance of lives lost, the vitriol directed at our fellow man returned with a vengeance at this debate and demonstrated the absolute worst in the American people. The fact that there are people who shun any degree of support for someone under the most extreme circumstances is perhaps a greater tragedy than what happened at 9-11. This kind of thinking is poisonous and frightfully infectious and is a sign of a society in decline. Given the high rate at which conservatives claim to be Christians, I urge them to go back through their New Testament and remember Jesus's stance toward compassion toward your fellow man. Even for non-Christians, the instructions to care for the infirm and be charitable should you have the means are moral lessons that transcends the boundaries of religion.
I am appalled that the audience acts so boorishly to a question that deserved nuance and understanding of the situation. Even if it was someone who made a choice not to purchase private insurance, it is not our place to be the judge jury and executioner. When someone's life is boiled down to mob mentality shouting, we have lost all sight of our priorities and are no better than the civilizations we thumb our noses at for their perceived barbarism.
03 September 2011
Rick Perry Wants to Take a Sharpie to the Constitution
The moment Rick Perry (note: Not Parry with the A for IowA) entered his name in the hat for the presidential candidacy, he was immediately hailed as the darling on the right. With staunch conservative credentials and a cross on his sleeve, he was considered by many to be a fresh option in a field that has been battered by countless speech gaffs. Not waiting long to get bloodied, Perry's views have come to light and the more Americans hear the facts, the more Michelle Bachmann seems like a reasonable candidate.
For starters, Perry wants to make a few revisions to the Constitution: for someone who lauds the founding father and original intent in arguing for small government, he's quite unhappy with the constitution and effectively wants to redraw everything he finds to get in the way of his libertarian utopia. This is even better than most as he had a book come out last year co-written with not quite back from the dead politician Newt Gingrich to detail how he would take a sharpie to the constitution and remake it into a religiously libertarian utopia.
Of the most noteworthy changes would be a complete revamp of the Judicial Branch of government. In addition to ending lifelong appointment as designated in Article III, section I, he would like to permit for a super-majority (2/3rds vote) of Congress to override any decision made by the court. In fearing judicial activism, Perry and much of the Tea Party forget the reasoning for the founding fathers to establish the Court in such a manner. The reasoning, not entirely unsound, is that the role of a judge involves the interpretation and study of law in a highly controversial context. In allowing for the lifelong appointment of judges, the founding fathers sought to keep judges out of the political arena and remain capable of addressing concerns of law as scholars without the fear of repercussions. In the event of a greatly unpopular decision, Congress has always had the ability to draft an amendment to be passed by 2/3rds of Congress in addition to ratification by 3/4 of the states, rendering his argument of dealing with court actions moot. Perry's move would break that balance and hand more power to the arguably most powerful branch of government, the legislature. The federal court system would become the target of political posturing and based on the current climate turn into something dreadful.
The other change of great consequence being proposed is to abolish the 16th amendment to the constitution, best known as the income tax amendment. While this amendment was passed in 1913, it should be said that the concerns that an income tax would become necessary to deal with various national functions had been tossed around since the Civil War. Keeping in mind that in the early days of our country, states remained largely autonomous and our general stance toward isolationism limited the role of the federal government up until that point. Unfortunately with issues such as wars, the costs and complications necessitate a more centralized point of operations to perform with efficiency. From the Civil War onward we did a whole lot of fighting as well considering we were involved in the Spanish-American War, The rebellions in Philippines, Samoa and Hawaii as well as even having a presence in the Boxer's Rebellion over in China. These actions along with greater interaction in global affairs as a whole created a need for a federal pool of revenue and thus the income tax was ratified as an amendment.
Perry calls the income tax as the 'road to serfdom' with little regards to the vast improvement in the quality of life for most Americans, in part because of the taxes we all paid. The interstate highway system would have never developed with the speed and quality that it had without federal funds that ensured that cities and states would be interconnected even in areas in which building a road would not be economically feasible in the private sector. While originally intended for the movement of military equipment and personnel, it was a move that revolutionized entire regions of the country. Social spending allowed for small and/or poor communities, those that traditionally had limited access to education to have better footing. A university education became more accessible and the investment in those people proved advantageous in the rapid development of a skilled populace. And that goes without saying when you speak of the New Deal and Social Security....
Oh, he wants to get rid of that one too.
He calls Social Security a ponzi scheme and a failed social experiment. While there is a problem with the post war baby boom and subsequent baby bust from about 1965-1985, Perry uses words to portray it as a fraudulent program and wasteful. Yes, what a socialist scam to take care of your elderly in a manner that allows them to retire instead of working every day until death came as was the norm for most working class families prior to the program's establishment. Never does Perry address what he would do as an alternative for those senior citizens, many of whom live in poverty despite their meager checks. I know I am not alone in this rationale as polls consistently show the vast majority of the population (often around 80%) view Social Security as having a positive effect. Is reform needed to preserve this program for future generations? Certainly, but to say that we should eliminate the program and presumably leave the elderly to the whims of an unforgiving private market is appalling and unforgivable.
Okay, so it is socialist... does it really have to be such a negative thing when everyone benefits?
But he does remember to make mention of brushing up his religious credentials to state his wish to push through a marriage amendment to restrict who willing adults wed. He must be missing a copy of his New Testament, you know the books in which Jesus spent his life acting to the benefit of others, most notably the needy. I'm not Christian by faith, but I'm quite a fan of those who follow in his example. It's one of those lessons that should have universal appeal regardless if you think the guy is the son of God or not.
There's several others he depicts in the book he put out with Newt Gingrich (the moral god-fearing man who has left more than one wife under dubious conditions). The balanced budget amendment has already been deliberated a few days back. The repeal of the direct election of Senators is one that I find problematic, but not one that would irreparably alter the nation.
Of course, typical politician he is, has been trying to backtrack his stance on some of the things he wrote in his book. The Social Security issue has been a particular thorn in his side considering he needs to count on those senior citizen votes to win a number of states including electorate heavy Florida and Ohio. If the Pew poll is correct in that 87% of Americans consider the program to have a positive effect1 and 60%2 of Americans consider keeping benefits intact as a priority (32% said the deficit was more important), he's got a big foot to remove from his mouth. Of course, rather than being honest about his beliefs like Ron Paul (you know where he stands if nothing else), he has taken the road most traveled and use his spokesman to say how he merely wanted to put issues on the table (despite stating an outright issue with the ideology of Social Security). He's waffled on states rights concerning gay marriage in how he does not care what states such as New York decide upon while signing a document stating he would press the amendment if elected to the Presidency. It's this kind of sleezy, snake oil campaigning that galls me the most.
Listen, if you want to crumple up the constitution and begin anew, then say so. Better yet, if your state wants to be the guinea pigs for this experiment of a pure libertarian, state focused government, I'll be glad to see what Texas does. Just keep in mind it would mean no federal dollars, no asking for assistance in the event of a national disaster, and no backpedaling from explaining to countless constituents how their way of life is going to change drastically. If it works there, I'd be willing to bite. Until then, I'm calling a lot of this hot hair and showboating to show how much more conservative than thou Perry is from Bachmann or even Paul.
But don't toy with desecrating a document that was well thought out enough that it only needed 27 amendments in its time (one of which was to nullify another) and influenced the documents of many other modern democracies with petty politicking.
Link: Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich's Book, "Fed Up"
Link: Public Wants Changes in Entitlements, Not Changes in Benefits
Link: Pew Poll States 60% of Americans want Social Security Benefits Maintained
For starters, Perry wants to make a few revisions to the Constitution: for someone who lauds the founding father and original intent in arguing for small government, he's quite unhappy with the constitution and effectively wants to redraw everything he finds to get in the way of his libertarian utopia. This is even better than most as he had a book come out last year co-written with not quite back from the dead politician Newt Gingrich to detail how he would take a sharpie to the constitution and remake it into a religiously libertarian utopia.
Of the most noteworthy changes would be a complete revamp of the Judicial Branch of government. In addition to ending lifelong appointment as designated in Article III, section I, he would like to permit for a super-majority (2/3rds vote) of Congress to override any decision made by the court. In fearing judicial activism, Perry and much of the Tea Party forget the reasoning for the founding fathers to establish the Court in such a manner. The reasoning, not entirely unsound, is that the role of a judge involves the interpretation and study of law in a highly controversial context. In allowing for the lifelong appointment of judges, the founding fathers sought to keep judges out of the political arena and remain capable of addressing concerns of law as scholars without the fear of repercussions. In the event of a greatly unpopular decision, Congress has always had the ability to draft an amendment to be passed by 2/3rds of Congress in addition to ratification by 3/4 of the states, rendering his argument of dealing with court actions moot. Perry's move would break that balance and hand more power to the arguably most powerful branch of government, the legislature. The federal court system would become the target of political posturing and based on the current climate turn into something dreadful.
The other change of great consequence being proposed is to abolish the 16th amendment to the constitution, best known as the income tax amendment. While this amendment was passed in 1913, it should be said that the concerns that an income tax would become necessary to deal with various national functions had been tossed around since the Civil War. Keeping in mind that in the early days of our country, states remained largely autonomous and our general stance toward isolationism limited the role of the federal government up until that point. Unfortunately with issues such as wars, the costs and complications necessitate a more centralized point of operations to perform with efficiency. From the Civil War onward we did a whole lot of fighting as well considering we were involved in the Spanish-American War, The rebellions in Philippines, Samoa and Hawaii as well as even having a presence in the Boxer's Rebellion over in China. These actions along with greater interaction in global affairs as a whole created a need for a federal pool of revenue and thus the income tax was ratified as an amendment.
Perry calls the income tax as the 'road to serfdom' with little regards to the vast improvement in the quality of life for most Americans, in part because of the taxes we all paid. The interstate highway system would have never developed with the speed and quality that it had without federal funds that ensured that cities and states would be interconnected even in areas in which building a road would not be economically feasible in the private sector. While originally intended for the movement of military equipment and personnel, it was a move that revolutionized entire regions of the country. Social spending allowed for small and/or poor communities, those that traditionally had limited access to education to have better footing. A university education became more accessible and the investment in those people proved advantageous in the rapid development of a skilled populace. And that goes without saying when you speak of the New Deal and Social Security....
Oh, he wants to get rid of that one too.
He calls Social Security a ponzi scheme and a failed social experiment. While there is a problem with the post war baby boom and subsequent baby bust from about 1965-1985, Perry uses words to portray it as a fraudulent program and wasteful. Yes, what a socialist scam to take care of your elderly in a manner that allows them to retire instead of working every day until death came as was the norm for most working class families prior to the program's establishment. Never does Perry address what he would do as an alternative for those senior citizens, many of whom live in poverty despite their meager checks. I know I am not alone in this rationale as polls consistently show the vast majority of the population (often around 80%) view Social Security as having a positive effect. Is reform needed to preserve this program for future generations? Certainly, but to say that we should eliminate the program and presumably leave the elderly to the whims of an unforgiving private market is appalling and unforgivable.
Okay, so it is socialist... does it really have to be such a negative thing when everyone benefits?
But he does remember to make mention of brushing up his religious credentials to state his wish to push through a marriage amendment to restrict who willing adults wed. He must be missing a copy of his New Testament, you know the books in which Jesus spent his life acting to the benefit of others, most notably the needy. I'm not Christian by faith, but I'm quite a fan of those who follow in his example. It's one of those lessons that should have universal appeal regardless if you think the guy is the son of God or not.
There's several others he depicts in the book he put out with Newt Gingrich (the moral god-fearing man who has left more than one wife under dubious conditions). The balanced budget amendment has already been deliberated a few days back. The repeal of the direct election of Senators is one that I find problematic, but not one that would irreparably alter the nation.
Of course, typical politician he is, has been trying to backtrack his stance on some of the things he wrote in his book. The Social Security issue has been a particular thorn in his side considering he needs to count on those senior citizen votes to win a number of states including electorate heavy Florida and Ohio. If the Pew poll is correct in that 87% of Americans consider the program to have a positive effect1 and 60%2 of Americans consider keeping benefits intact as a priority (32% said the deficit was more important), he's got a big foot to remove from his mouth. Of course, rather than being honest about his beliefs like Ron Paul (you know where he stands if nothing else), he has taken the road most traveled and use his spokesman to say how he merely wanted to put issues on the table (despite stating an outright issue with the ideology of Social Security). He's waffled on states rights concerning gay marriage in how he does not care what states such as New York decide upon while signing a document stating he would press the amendment if elected to the Presidency. It's this kind of sleezy, snake oil campaigning that galls me the most.
Listen, if you want to crumple up the constitution and begin anew, then say so. Better yet, if your state wants to be the guinea pigs for this experiment of a pure libertarian, state focused government, I'll be glad to see what Texas does. Just keep in mind it would mean no federal dollars, no asking for assistance in the event of a national disaster, and no backpedaling from explaining to countless constituents how their way of life is going to change drastically. If it works there, I'd be willing to bite. Until then, I'm calling a lot of this hot hair and showboating to show how much more conservative than thou Perry is from Bachmann or even Paul.
But don't toy with desecrating a document that was well thought out enough that it only needed 27 amendments in its time (one of which was to nullify another) and influenced the documents of many other modern democracies with petty politicking.
Link: Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich's Book, "Fed Up"
Link: Public Wants Changes in Entitlements, Not Changes in Benefits
Link: Pew Poll States 60% of Americans want Social Security Benefits Maintained
02 September 2011
Writing Cleanup
Several posts were written in a hurried manner during breaks at work and now that I look at them, the writing is not up to my personal standard. Typically I write and revise at least twice before it goes public, but my time limitations left few options.
Going to tweak a few of them over the next couple days.
Going to tweak a few of them over the next couple days.
August Produces Statistically No New Jobs and Slipping Wages: Why Corporate America Needs to Bet on the American Worker and Stop Blaming the Government
The August national job report came in today and to say the reports are dismal is an understatement. The preliminary number is at approximately 17,000 jobs. That amounts to 350 per state. While much of the media is neglecting to report on how the numbers are a touch skewed by the Verizon strikes that involved somewhere in the vicinity of 40,000 employees (which was just resolved), it is not as though the revised numbers are bound to be impressive. And people are calling on the Fed and the President to act on it.
The only problem is that there is little the government can do.
Based on all current conditions we should be seeing an uptick in job creation. Even with the tumultuous stock market since the buildup to the debt ceiling increase, stocks have recovered much of the loss endured in 2008 and 2009 with the Dow Jones sitting close to where it was at the start of 2007, which had a rapid ramp up before busting 18 months later. The Fed has kept interest rates and nearly nothing, priming the business sector to invest and expand businesses. Congress has been reluctant to end subsidies for key industries despite the rising debt in fear that it would harm the economy. Private organizations saw record bailouts in 2008 and the states have received money to stimulate local economies. As we all know, corporate tax code is written in such a manner that highly profitable industries and companies pay a pittance of the stated rates. The health care bill has not gone into effect yet save a handful of provisions that are a minuscule impact on the industry. Company profits are up by and large and the private sector is said to be sitting on the largest quantity of cash at hand than any time memorable. Despite the attempts to create favorable conditions for job growth, the private sector has been exceptionally stingy on the matter.
It's easy to try to use President Obama as a scapegoat for such matters even if his impact on economic matters, particularly concerning the private sector, is low. Contrary to what many may believe, the Fed and Congress are most involved in economic policies and can really only attempt to create policies that encourage business production. If companies take those propitious conditions and still refuse to hire, there is little government can do to further entice them. Nor can the government force the banks to loan their money for start-up enterprises. It's a classic case of leading the horse to the trough.
The economic problems lie in the private sector and their continued emphasis on cost saving policies such as outsourcing and wage reductions/hiring at lower income levels (in the economic report, the average American wage slipped $.03 nationally in the month of August) to raise profits at the expense of the American middle class. It is understandable to see cost savings in times of hardship to preserve a greater number of jobs, but for many companies the idea has evolved to squeeze more work out of fewer workers at a lower pay so that the shareholders and top officials see increasing quarterly profits with each quarter. I am going to give one such example that I can express from a personal level to emphasize how irrational corporate cost savings have become:
I have a boyfriend who works for HP.... yes, the computer giant, through HP's acquisition of Ross Perot's company, EDS. In 2008 he saw a significant wage reduction despite making less than 25,000 a year (after 5 years) as a cost saving measure for a company that continued to post well north of 1 billion of profit per quarter. To contrast: the CEO had a compensation package that was over 33 million for fiscal year 2008. It took over 2 years and the ouster of CEO Mike Hurd for the reinstatement of most of the workers' previous wages. However, they have eliminated cost of living increases and moved toward strict 'merit' based increases. While he was one of the handful to merit a wage, most workers in his unit have not seen their wages move from 2007 levels. On an amusing note though, he was one of the few to receive a raise in his recent review when he admits that he was much less willing to go above and beyond on the job than he was prior to the wage decrease. While I never asked him, I have continued to question just how much productivity was reduced amongst his co-workers as a result of those two years. I doubt that their work confidence is returning any time soon.
This is becoming a large problem for many Americans as their wages have stagnated or the jobs they are finding on the market are largely low in compensation as there are many expenses that have increased in the past 4 years. Oil and gasoline remains volatile and rising with every concern on the commodities market. In a market that is turning back toward renting, the demand has raised the cost in many regions for units. Health care costs continue to increase in the vicinity of 10% annually with a greater portion of those costs being placed on workers. None of these things are counted when measuring inflation, meaning that even those who see those elusive cost of living increases are feeling poorer than ever. You can't eat electronics after all.
This is particularly sad given the fact that the American public have never failed to be good consumers of goods. When other countries have had concerns about the populaces saving too much and troublesome to lure out into a consumer economy, we have always been counted on to use our disposable income to the benefit of various businesses and producers. The growth of American wages through much of the 20th century, particularly from the 1950s-1970s, made us prosperous as we used our affluence to not only consume goods and services but to take our wages and invest in our own businesses and further expand the economy. At some point the tide changed and we decided that the average worker was no longer a significant player in the economy and the emphasis turned toward those already at the top of the ladder. We ended up investing in cheaper services and effectively bet against the American people.
Even more troubling is that there will become a point in which labor costs cannot be cut any further and the poor outlook of the worker, which doubles as most of the consumer market, will cause a rapid decrease in profitability that will not be easily rectified. By the time the wages have been cut and the jobs outsourced to India there will be no market left to make use of the services these companies offer. This kind of change can happen rapidly and the loss of the American market would have a devastating effect on the world market as a replacement would be needed for those corporations to continue conducting business. The development of the Indian and Chinese markets, the most likely candidates, are still uneven and the consumer classes in those countries still a small portion of their populations compared to developed countries. Cost cutting by corporations, if not held in check will eventually result in not just the shrinkage of the middle class, but jeopardize their own long term profitability by destroying their own market with 10 and 11 dollar an hour wages. Americans are currently seeing less of their paycheck and forced to re-balance a household budget to fit their dwindling purchasing power.
What needs to happen at this point is for companies to release the trillions of dollars they hold in reserves and to use it to expand the economy. This means not only job creation but readjustment in wages and compensation. The CEOs need to take some sensible risks and develop areas of their companies that have been neglected since the market crash and be willing to bet on better work conditions yielding higher profits. America needs to bet on the middle class and lure them out of their terrified state. Remember: it has never been the consumer who has failed this country. Business has always been a risk and companies have for too long sheltered themselves from any of them. In the long run we would likely see a stronger economic rebound as well as a stabilization of the stock market that has most of these people so spooked as of late.
Sure I don't make hundreds of thousands of dollars as a stockbroker, but sometimes being an outside observer has its benefits.
In the meantime, we need to stop looking to the government for answers on the private sector economic crisis. The interest rates can go no lower and we cannot afford further tax cuts that will, based on previous actions, have a major long term benefit. Sure the government could regulate, probably an action that ought to happen in some sectors, but would then open the perpetual debate of how much the government should intervene. We can't have it both ways by asking the government to make jobs when the private sector is hellbent on self-destructive behaviors. It is time to stop the misguided anger and start asking business why they have lost their faith in us.
The only problem is that there is little the government can do.
Based on all current conditions we should be seeing an uptick in job creation. Even with the tumultuous stock market since the buildup to the debt ceiling increase, stocks have recovered much of the loss endured in 2008 and 2009 with the Dow Jones sitting close to where it was at the start of 2007, which had a rapid ramp up before busting 18 months later. The Fed has kept interest rates and nearly nothing, priming the business sector to invest and expand businesses. Congress has been reluctant to end subsidies for key industries despite the rising debt in fear that it would harm the economy. Private organizations saw record bailouts in 2008 and the states have received money to stimulate local economies. As we all know, corporate tax code is written in such a manner that highly profitable industries and companies pay a pittance of the stated rates. The health care bill has not gone into effect yet save a handful of provisions that are a minuscule impact on the industry. Company profits are up by and large and the private sector is said to be sitting on the largest quantity of cash at hand than any time memorable. Despite the attempts to create favorable conditions for job growth, the private sector has been exceptionally stingy on the matter.
It's easy to try to use President Obama as a scapegoat for such matters even if his impact on economic matters, particularly concerning the private sector, is low. Contrary to what many may believe, the Fed and Congress are most involved in economic policies and can really only attempt to create policies that encourage business production. If companies take those propitious conditions and still refuse to hire, there is little government can do to further entice them. Nor can the government force the banks to loan their money for start-up enterprises. It's a classic case of leading the horse to the trough.
The economic problems lie in the private sector and their continued emphasis on cost saving policies such as outsourcing and wage reductions/hiring at lower income levels (in the economic report, the average American wage slipped $.03 nationally in the month of August) to raise profits at the expense of the American middle class. It is understandable to see cost savings in times of hardship to preserve a greater number of jobs, but for many companies the idea has evolved to squeeze more work out of fewer workers at a lower pay so that the shareholders and top officials see increasing quarterly profits with each quarter. I am going to give one such example that I can express from a personal level to emphasize how irrational corporate cost savings have become:
I have a boyfriend who works for HP.... yes, the computer giant, through HP's acquisition of Ross Perot's company, EDS. In 2008 he saw a significant wage reduction despite making less than 25,000 a year (after 5 years) as a cost saving measure for a company that continued to post well north of 1 billion of profit per quarter. To contrast: the CEO had a compensation package that was over 33 million for fiscal year 2008. It took over 2 years and the ouster of CEO Mike Hurd for the reinstatement of most of the workers' previous wages. However, they have eliminated cost of living increases and moved toward strict 'merit' based increases. While he was one of the handful to merit a wage, most workers in his unit have not seen their wages move from 2007 levels. On an amusing note though, he was one of the few to receive a raise in his recent review when he admits that he was much less willing to go above and beyond on the job than he was prior to the wage decrease. While I never asked him, I have continued to question just how much productivity was reduced amongst his co-workers as a result of those two years. I doubt that their work confidence is returning any time soon.
This is becoming a large problem for many Americans as their wages have stagnated or the jobs they are finding on the market are largely low in compensation as there are many expenses that have increased in the past 4 years. Oil and gasoline remains volatile and rising with every concern on the commodities market. In a market that is turning back toward renting, the demand has raised the cost in many regions for units. Health care costs continue to increase in the vicinity of 10% annually with a greater portion of those costs being placed on workers. None of these things are counted when measuring inflation, meaning that even those who see those elusive cost of living increases are feeling poorer than ever. You can't eat electronics after all.
This is particularly sad given the fact that the American public have never failed to be good consumers of goods. When other countries have had concerns about the populaces saving too much and troublesome to lure out into a consumer economy, we have always been counted on to use our disposable income to the benefit of various businesses and producers. The growth of American wages through much of the 20th century, particularly from the 1950s-1970s, made us prosperous as we used our affluence to not only consume goods and services but to take our wages and invest in our own businesses and further expand the economy. At some point the tide changed and we decided that the average worker was no longer a significant player in the economy and the emphasis turned toward those already at the top of the ladder. We ended up investing in cheaper services and effectively bet against the American people.
Even more troubling is that there will become a point in which labor costs cannot be cut any further and the poor outlook of the worker, which doubles as most of the consumer market, will cause a rapid decrease in profitability that will not be easily rectified. By the time the wages have been cut and the jobs outsourced to India there will be no market left to make use of the services these companies offer. This kind of change can happen rapidly and the loss of the American market would have a devastating effect on the world market as a replacement would be needed for those corporations to continue conducting business. The development of the Indian and Chinese markets, the most likely candidates, are still uneven and the consumer classes in those countries still a small portion of their populations compared to developed countries. Cost cutting by corporations, if not held in check will eventually result in not just the shrinkage of the middle class, but jeopardize their own long term profitability by destroying their own market with 10 and 11 dollar an hour wages. Americans are currently seeing less of their paycheck and forced to re-balance a household budget to fit their dwindling purchasing power.
What needs to happen at this point is for companies to release the trillions of dollars they hold in reserves and to use it to expand the economy. This means not only job creation but readjustment in wages and compensation. The CEOs need to take some sensible risks and develop areas of their companies that have been neglected since the market crash and be willing to bet on better work conditions yielding higher profits. America needs to bet on the middle class and lure them out of their terrified state. Remember: it has never been the consumer who has failed this country. Business has always been a risk and companies have for too long sheltered themselves from any of them. In the long run we would likely see a stronger economic rebound as well as a stabilization of the stock market that has most of these people so spooked as of late.
Sure I don't make hundreds of thousands of dollars as a stockbroker, but sometimes being an outside observer has its benefits.
In the meantime, we need to stop looking to the government for answers on the private sector economic crisis. The interest rates can go no lower and we cannot afford further tax cuts that will, based on previous actions, have a major long term benefit. Sure the government could regulate, probably an action that ought to happen in some sectors, but would then open the perpetual debate of how much the government should intervene. We can't have it both ways by asking the government to make jobs when the private sector is hellbent on self-destructive behaviors. It is time to stop the misguided anger and start asking business why they have lost their faith in us.
31 August 2011
When the Punchline Isn't Funny
 | |
| Not my brother... |
That said, the shirt itself wouldn't be half as bad if it was being marketed as a cheeky shirt for college girls. Except this shirt was on the market to be sold to girls from age 6-12.
Really?
For me this is particularly disheartening as I was raised in the late 80s and early 90s and was just reaching the end of general attitude that it was okay for girls to not understand math. Sally Ride was an icon for little girls as proof that a girl could accomplish any occupation. Even before we heard about the glass ceiling, we saw it cracking bit by bit.
Personally, it struck home even further given my roots in an urban poor area of Chicago with parents that failed to complete high school (my mum quit going to school regularly by about the 7th grade and is functionally illiterate) and was told on countless occasions that an education was the way to make it in today's economy. Even around 1990 everyone knew that the Iron Curtain was falling, China was growing and we would have to face an increasingly international world that would require an educated and skilled populace to compete.
Even Barbie had a job as I was growing up, rather impressive ones at that. I think I ruined her chances in the corporate world by chopping her hair into a mohawk and coloring her hair with markers, but eccentric kids seldom wait long demonstrate themselves.
 |
| Because we learned nothing from Sally Ride |
We're trying to liberate the women of Afghanistan so that they can be told that they're pretty little bimbos? It is baffling that something like this could not only be presented in a marketing meeting but approved, handed over to designers and make it as far as reaching store shelves and JC Penny's website and distributed on the internet before someone within the company sees anything wrong with the message presented?
I typically hold my tongue for the shirts bedazzled in rhinestones forming the words "princess" and the like as innocent, if misguided ideas. Of course I am increasingly seeing shirts in public such as this that seem to place value on kids who are "spoiled", "brats" etc. Pardon me for thinking that these kinds of messages might just influence a child's self perception.
I suppose it could be worse.... it could always be this one:
 |
| At least you know it's jailbait in this case |
At best this just further advocates the idea of the role of women as a sex symbol, but at worse is likely to attract the attention of the exact wrong sort of person. Pedophiles seldom are concerned about the fact a girl is underage before going after her and wearing clothing that suggests you're okay with this is just asking for a bad outcome.
Is it asking so much to have a touch of self worth? Make a crude joke amongst friends all you like, but can we at least let the kids grow up and find their own sense of personality before turning them into billboards for the anti-feminist movement. I can assure you that telling your little girl that she can work to accomplish something great is going to go a lot further than letting her out of the house with a shirt that advocates slacking off in school.
WHO Reports on Child Mortality and Health- U.S. gets a black eye.
One of the latest blurbs circulating the blogs and news reports are the recent reports by the World Health Organization concerning child health. Of the various rankings, none of which have the U.S. smelling like roses are the data concerning child mortality rates. With child mortality slipping on a global level, one of the prime indicators of child survival past age 5 has always been a nation's relative wealth and access to modern medicine. Somehow, the U.S. has managed to prove to be some form of an inversion of this or at least one hell of an outlier.
Of particular note are some of the countries that can boast a lower child mortality than us include all of the standard culprits in such health reports such as Canada, Japan, most of Western Europe, the entirely of Scandinavia etc. None of these are much of a surprise, but when looking a bit further down the list toward those countries still considered to be developing there is room for discussion. Our not really arch nemesis Cuba makes the list, as does Malaysia. After years of making jokes about "dumb Pollacks" over here, Poland somehow manages to avoid more child deaths than we do. So do most of the former communist countries currently in the EU including Slovakia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania. The per capita GDP of Poland, Estonia and Lithuania are under 20,000 and their health systems leave much to be desired, yet they are more capable of saving young lives than the supposedly best medical system in the world.
This world has gone topsy-turvy if the Poles can start mocking us.
To give an idea of where we sit, some of the countries that ranked dead even in child deaths per 1000 births included Chile and Latvia. For all of our righteous thumping about American health care, we are being eclipsed by portions of South America as well as one of the poorest and dysfunctional countries in Eastern Europe.
Already the excuses are trickling in on how certain countries record their birth rates differently so that there are different numbers as well as our being able to save problematic pregnancies and bring it to term and resulting in higher death rates. This becomes bunk considering that WHO does attempt to take data using the same criteria from its member nations. Some countries can be considered more trustworthy in their reporting than others, but given the fact that we are effectively trailing the entirety of the EU (which requires some degree of consistency in data reporting) as well as nearly every other developed country, we need to look at our health system and critically evaluate the reasons why we are unable to accomplish similar results to countries with a high comparative wealth.
This is one of those things that are far too complex to even attempt in a blog post and would actually make a good dissertation for a public policy PHD candidate.That said, it is yet another sign that we may need to be forced to shut up, stop making excuses and formulate some real solutions for our health care failures.
Link: World Health Statistics 2011
Of particular note are some of the countries that can boast a lower child mortality than us include all of the standard culprits in such health reports such as Canada, Japan, most of Western Europe, the entirely of Scandinavia etc. None of these are much of a surprise, but when looking a bit further down the list toward those countries still considered to be developing there is room for discussion. Our not really arch nemesis Cuba makes the list, as does Malaysia. After years of making jokes about "dumb Pollacks" over here, Poland somehow manages to avoid more child deaths than we do. So do most of the former communist countries currently in the EU including Slovakia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania. The per capita GDP of Poland, Estonia and Lithuania are under 20,000 and their health systems leave much to be desired, yet they are more capable of saving young lives than the supposedly best medical system in the world.
This world has gone topsy-turvy if the Poles can start mocking us.
To give an idea of where we sit, some of the countries that ranked dead even in child deaths per 1000 births included Chile and Latvia. For all of our righteous thumping about American health care, we are being eclipsed by portions of South America as well as one of the poorest and dysfunctional countries in Eastern Europe.
Already the excuses are trickling in on how certain countries record their birth rates differently so that there are different numbers as well as our being able to save problematic pregnancies and bring it to term and resulting in higher death rates. This becomes bunk considering that WHO does attempt to take data using the same criteria from its member nations. Some countries can be considered more trustworthy in their reporting than others, but given the fact that we are effectively trailing the entirety of the EU (which requires some degree of consistency in data reporting) as well as nearly every other developed country, we need to look at our health system and critically evaluate the reasons why we are unable to accomplish similar results to countries with a high comparative wealth.
This is one of those things that are far too complex to even attempt in a blog post and would actually make a good dissertation for a public policy PHD candidate.That said, it is yet another sign that we may need to be forced to shut up, stop making excuses and formulate some real solutions for our health care failures.
Link: World Health Statistics 2011
Several Myths of Progressive Agendas
When left to troll around the internet for any appreciable amount of time, it is near impossible to not get a whif of the perplexing myths that have arisen concerning anybody who still dares to call themselves by such shameful terms as progressive or liberal. Most of these myths are rewritten from their much more casual internet forms (a distinct dialect of English in itself) and evaluated. A lot of it is just talking points that get tossed around with little thought but are accepted as truth by many and stated over and over with the highest degree of conviction. Perhaps by giving an alternate explanation that is not so rooted in anger there can be a bit more understanding of why such ideas are not quite as absolute as many would believe.
Myth: Progressives just want to spend money and want to bloat government.
Reality: The bloat of government is something that is not unique to either conservatives or progressives. At this point, there are few from either side of the bullpen arguing against significant cuts in the budget. Debt is something that is necessary at times, but after the better part of thirty years of running up the bill, we are reaching a point in which we need to get the books in balance.
The debate is not on what should be cut, but rather where should the cuts come from. Tea Party representatives are under the impression that we could balance the budget simply by cuts, mostly to social programs that benefit the lazy, nonworking poor. They will throw out the numbers of international aid as waste, knowing that any time the average person hears the term "billions" that they will assume it to be a large portion of the budget when the reality is that most of these expenditures are more minor than most believe.
If there was more attention given to progressive discourse, there is talk of reducing government. Most of these discussions focus on issues such as reducing the nearly 1 trillion a year we spend in military expenditures and reducing the military footprint we leave on the planet (unparalleled to the military presence by any other nation). Given that we know that tens of billions of dollars have vaporized to dishonest contractors, corrupt government officials and inefficiencies in the past decade in the Middle East, most progressives would like to see better oversight of such funds as one way to reduce the budget.
Liberal government reductions would include reduction or elimination of federal subsidies to profitable industries, including the oil and natural gas industries with multi-billion dollar profits. Contrary to the belief of conservative pundits, our welfare is heavily focused on business and corporations and is contrary to the principles of capitalism.
That said, I am the first to acknowledge that there are wasteful social programs in government that should be eliminated. In many cases, there is redundancy and overlap in coverage that can be reduced. In the big scheme of things; however, this is not the largest area of government waste and while worthwhile to address, is not the most productive area to focus budget arguments.
Myth: The progressive agenda is to enable the lazy through entitlements who don't work or pay taxes.
Reality: Right now there are many people receiving aid in some form (unemployment, food stamps etc) because they don't have any other option. As someone who has recently finished university and with friends with various levels of education, I know of nobody who is simply sitting on their duffs and collecting benefits without trying to find their way to the next step. There are those who abuse the system and manipulate their incomes to obtain benefits they should not qualify for (my own estranged sister is one of them). That said, most of those obtaining benefits see it as something temporary and they have no desire to rely on aid for longer than necessary.
The age of welfare queens has largely passed with Clinton era reforms that limited the ability for families to collect aid from various sources and benefit by having more children. Most aid are not in monetary form but is given in the form of vouchers that can only be used for things such as food or housing. These benefits typically come contingent on some form of requirement and have time limits for which a person can collect.
The majority of Americans are industrious and independent by nature and there is a great deal of pride in maintaining self sufficiency. For them, benefits are something that allows them to get by under the worst of times and mitigate homelessness and starvation. In these economic times, it is a pity that we deride the truly needy and seek to take away the safety net that prevents the situation witnessed during the depression in which people drifted aimlessly in search of work and left with few means to reclaim their lives.
Myth: Liberals want to tax the rich to nonexistance
Reality: The tax burden is at the lowest point in modern history for all income levels, but the wealthy have disproportionately benefited from tax cuts in the 1980s and 2000s, largely from reductions in the capital gains tax that composes most of the revenue for those in the upper income brackets. With this shift, many of the wealthiest Americans have greatly reduced their tax burden. It is largely on account of these tax reductions that people like Warren Buffett pay a lower percentage of his income than many of his salaried workers under him.
Critics of tax increases argue that the United States already has one of the highest corporate rates in the world. This is admittedly true, but with the tax code written with a large number of deductions and exclusions, few major corporations are paying the states rates. Fortune 500 companies typically employ a large team of accountants year round to scan through tax law and find new deductions for the company's benefit. When it is all said and done, large corporations pay a pittance of the given rates and their taxes are not detrimental. On the contrary, it's the smaller corporations who get stuck with a disproportionate tax bill as they seldom have the ability or knowledge to make full use of the various loopholes.
It should not be considered class warfare to call for greater equality in the tax code. Given that the proportion of wealth held by the upper 2 percent of the population has grown significantly in the past thirty years, they should not be able to write off a large portion of their income while the middle class is willing to pay a certain percentage based on necessity.
Contrary to the believers in Reaganomics, taxes on the wealthy are not shown to have a direct negative correlation on economic health under most economic conditions. Currently our economy is not in the current rut due to taxes or a lack of business capital but a lack of consumer demand amongst the lower and middle classes. Some revision and simplification of the tax code would raise some revenue and perhaps even prompt some companies to use their record money on hand so they can call it an investment instead of profit.
Of course, I wouldn't mind lower corporate taxes if the loopholes were eliminated. If we had higher personal income tax rates and lower corporate rates it would perhaps encourage the wealthy to invest their money to avoid taxes. If they hire a few people or started a new business to knock themselves down a tax bracket or two, I'd be okay with giving them the lower rate as it at least would enrich someone other than themselves.
Myth: Liberals are Communists that will turn us into the Soviet Union.
Reality: This one is perhaps the most ridiculous, but one of the most frequent ones that I see floating amongst conservative circles. I've had to endure my boyfriend's father mutter such things, typically after listening to one of the talking heads on Fox News. More than the others, this one not only incorrect but actually a bit of an insult considering the number of people who endured real suffering as a result of Soviet mismanagement.
I suppose the logic goes along the lines that in calling for regulations on capitalist ventures, despite some of them being intended to protect consumers and the economy as a whole, a slippery slope begins in which private enterprise would be stymied and placed under the control of the government. The eventual end result of this would be a planned economy that resembles the Soviet system of production that became famous in the later years of the Union for its barren shelves and shortages of basic necessities.
Quite frankly, this is one of the most insulting given the fact that few progressives are communists or even pure socialists and the accusation shows a complete lack of understanding of the Soviet political machine. Marxist philosophy was far too idealistic and reliant on a post-industrial society, which was a rather poor fit for what was still agrarian societies like Russia, and Ukraine and even worse in regions of Central Asia where nomad customs were still present. What resulted in the Soviet Union was a series of dictatorships dominated by Russian leaders that manipulated its people and regions to subjugate large numbers of people. With millions having been relocated, executed or made to disappear over those years, it is dishonest to claim that we are bound to repeat those mistakes based on market reforms.
The reality is that few want to displace the system of free enterprise. We need innovation and the market is the most responsive vehicle to ensuring the right goods in the proper quantities enter the market. A planned economy, despite emphasizing how much hyperbole is present in the Soviet references, would be disastrous. There are many areas in which the government controls would be inefficient given the size of any national economy. That should not mean that there should be no regulations to prevent monopolies, ensure minimum safety standards and avoid the conundrum we faced when certain businesses became 'too big to fail' and needed to be bailed out on our future dimes.
I implore those who would compare us to the Soviet Union to do a bit of research on the history of that country. Look up the Ukrainian Famine of 1933, Gulags, Vilnius 1991, January Events of 1991, and the Katyn Massacre as starting points. I can assure you that if you bother looking at the facts that the comparison seems all the more absurd.
I was going to go into the flat tax, but I'm saving that for a bit later as that is a rather big issue in itself and requires a bit of digging into the specifics of Eastern European tax law (where flax taxes are in place).
Myth: Progressives just want to spend money and want to bloat government.
Reality: The bloat of government is something that is not unique to either conservatives or progressives. At this point, there are few from either side of the bullpen arguing against significant cuts in the budget. Debt is something that is necessary at times, but after the better part of thirty years of running up the bill, we are reaching a point in which we need to get the books in balance.
The debate is not on what should be cut, but rather where should the cuts come from. Tea Party representatives are under the impression that we could balance the budget simply by cuts, mostly to social programs that benefit the lazy, nonworking poor. They will throw out the numbers of international aid as waste, knowing that any time the average person hears the term "billions" that they will assume it to be a large portion of the budget when the reality is that most of these expenditures are more minor than most believe.
If there was more attention given to progressive discourse, there is talk of reducing government. Most of these discussions focus on issues such as reducing the nearly 1 trillion a year we spend in military expenditures and reducing the military footprint we leave on the planet (unparalleled to the military presence by any other nation). Given that we know that tens of billions of dollars have vaporized to dishonest contractors, corrupt government officials and inefficiencies in the past decade in the Middle East, most progressives would like to see better oversight of such funds as one way to reduce the budget.
Liberal government reductions would include reduction or elimination of federal subsidies to profitable industries, including the oil and natural gas industries with multi-billion dollar profits. Contrary to the belief of conservative pundits, our welfare is heavily focused on business and corporations and is contrary to the principles of capitalism.
That said, I am the first to acknowledge that there are wasteful social programs in government that should be eliminated. In many cases, there is redundancy and overlap in coverage that can be reduced. In the big scheme of things; however, this is not the largest area of government waste and while worthwhile to address, is not the most productive area to focus budget arguments.
Myth: The progressive agenda is to enable the lazy through entitlements who don't work or pay taxes.
Reality: Right now there are many people receiving aid in some form (unemployment, food stamps etc) because they don't have any other option. As someone who has recently finished university and with friends with various levels of education, I know of nobody who is simply sitting on their duffs and collecting benefits without trying to find their way to the next step. There are those who abuse the system and manipulate their incomes to obtain benefits they should not qualify for (my own estranged sister is one of them). That said, most of those obtaining benefits see it as something temporary and they have no desire to rely on aid for longer than necessary.
The age of welfare queens has largely passed with Clinton era reforms that limited the ability for families to collect aid from various sources and benefit by having more children. Most aid are not in monetary form but is given in the form of vouchers that can only be used for things such as food or housing. These benefits typically come contingent on some form of requirement and have time limits for which a person can collect.
The majority of Americans are industrious and independent by nature and there is a great deal of pride in maintaining self sufficiency. For them, benefits are something that allows them to get by under the worst of times and mitigate homelessness and starvation. In these economic times, it is a pity that we deride the truly needy and seek to take away the safety net that prevents the situation witnessed during the depression in which people drifted aimlessly in search of work and left with few means to reclaim their lives.
Myth: Liberals want to tax the rich to nonexistance
Reality: The tax burden is at the lowest point in modern history for all income levels, but the wealthy have disproportionately benefited from tax cuts in the 1980s and 2000s, largely from reductions in the capital gains tax that composes most of the revenue for those in the upper income brackets. With this shift, many of the wealthiest Americans have greatly reduced their tax burden. It is largely on account of these tax reductions that people like Warren Buffett pay a lower percentage of his income than many of his salaried workers under him.
Critics of tax increases argue that the United States already has one of the highest corporate rates in the world. This is admittedly true, but with the tax code written with a large number of deductions and exclusions, few major corporations are paying the states rates. Fortune 500 companies typically employ a large team of accountants year round to scan through tax law and find new deductions for the company's benefit. When it is all said and done, large corporations pay a pittance of the given rates and their taxes are not detrimental. On the contrary, it's the smaller corporations who get stuck with a disproportionate tax bill as they seldom have the ability or knowledge to make full use of the various loopholes.
It should not be considered class warfare to call for greater equality in the tax code. Given that the proportion of wealth held by the upper 2 percent of the population has grown significantly in the past thirty years, they should not be able to write off a large portion of their income while the middle class is willing to pay a certain percentage based on necessity.
Contrary to the believers in Reaganomics, taxes on the wealthy are not shown to have a direct negative correlation on economic health under most economic conditions. Currently our economy is not in the current rut due to taxes or a lack of business capital but a lack of consumer demand amongst the lower and middle classes. Some revision and simplification of the tax code would raise some revenue and perhaps even prompt some companies to use their record money on hand so they can call it an investment instead of profit.
Of course, I wouldn't mind lower corporate taxes if the loopholes were eliminated. If we had higher personal income tax rates and lower corporate rates it would perhaps encourage the wealthy to invest their money to avoid taxes. If they hire a few people or started a new business to knock themselves down a tax bracket or two, I'd be okay with giving them the lower rate as it at least would enrich someone other than themselves.
Myth: Liberals are Communists that will turn us into the Soviet Union.
Reality: This one is perhaps the most ridiculous, but one of the most frequent ones that I see floating amongst conservative circles. I've had to endure my boyfriend's father mutter such things, typically after listening to one of the talking heads on Fox News. More than the others, this one not only incorrect but actually a bit of an insult considering the number of people who endured real suffering as a result of Soviet mismanagement.
I suppose the logic goes along the lines that in calling for regulations on capitalist ventures, despite some of them being intended to protect consumers and the economy as a whole, a slippery slope begins in which private enterprise would be stymied and placed under the control of the government. The eventual end result of this would be a planned economy that resembles the Soviet system of production that became famous in the later years of the Union for its barren shelves and shortages of basic necessities.
Quite frankly, this is one of the most insulting given the fact that few progressives are communists or even pure socialists and the accusation shows a complete lack of understanding of the Soviet political machine. Marxist philosophy was far too idealistic and reliant on a post-industrial society, which was a rather poor fit for what was still agrarian societies like Russia, and Ukraine and even worse in regions of Central Asia where nomad customs were still present. What resulted in the Soviet Union was a series of dictatorships dominated by Russian leaders that manipulated its people and regions to subjugate large numbers of people. With millions having been relocated, executed or made to disappear over those years, it is dishonest to claim that we are bound to repeat those mistakes based on market reforms.
The reality is that few want to displace the system of free enterprise. We need innovation and the market is the most responsive vehicle to ensuring the right goods in the proper quantities enter the market. A planned economy, despite emphasizing how much hyperbole is present in the Soviet references, would be disastrous. There are many areas in which the government controls would be inefficient given the size of any national economy. That should not mean that there should be no regulations to prevent monopolies, ensure minimum safety standards and avoid the conundrum we faced when certain businesses became 'too big to fail' and needed to be bailed out on our future dimes.
I implore those who would compare us to the Soviet Union to do a bit of research on the history of that country. Look up the Ukrainian Famine of 1933, Gulags, Vilnius 1991, January Events of 1991, and the Katyn Massacre as starting points. I can assure you that if you bother looking at the facts that the comparison seems all the more absurd.
I was going to go into the flat tax, but I'm saving that for a bit later as that is a rather big issue in itself and requires a bit of digging into the specifics of Eastern European tax law (where flax taxes are in place).
23 August 2011
Follies of a Balanced Budget (Amendment)
One of the proposals being heavily touted by the Republican Party, particularly the far fringes aligned with the Tea Party in recent years, is the concept that we need an amendment to the constitution to reign in wasteful spending and reduce debt. Politicians have lobbed this idea about for quite some time with varying strictness as imposed with language. Quoted below is the text that is was proposed in the Senate in February of this year with all articles in its entirety.
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring that the Federal budget be balanced.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
`Article--
`Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year.
`Section 2. Total outlays shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending prior to the beginning of such fiscal year.
`Section 3. The Congress may provide for suspension of the limitations imposed by section 1 or 2 of this article for any fiscal year for which two-thirds of the whole number of each House shall provide, by a roll call vote, for a specific excess of outlays over receipts or over 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending prior to the beginning of such fiscal year.
`Section 4. Any bill to levy a new tax or increase the rate of any tax shall not become law unless approved by two-thirds of the whole number of each House of Congress by a roll call vote.
`Section 5. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless two-thirds of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide for such an increase by a roll call vote.
`Section 6. Any Member of Congress shall have standing and a cause of action to seek judicial enforcement of this article, when authorized to do so by a petition signed by one-third of the Members of either House of Congress. No court of the United States or of any State shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this article.
`Section 7. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
`Section 8. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States except those for repayment of debt principal.
`Section 9. This article shall become effective beginning with the second fiscal year commencing after its ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.'.
To many Americans, the idea of having a balanced budget is highly appealing because we have seen an entire decade of runaway debt fueled by tax cuts, unfunded wars and pork barrel spending by both parties in power. With our debt reaching the entirety of our nation's GDP there is growing alarm at the risk of the national debt not being reigned in. They are right, but this is not the answer.
The proposed amendment as it is written not only does little to address the matters of long term debt, but limits the tools of a government to raise the funds necessary to meet changing budgetary needs. Furthermore, as addressed by Dr. J.R. Kearl, a professor of economics, in a July article addresses the shortsightedness of not distinguishing operations expenditures from capital expenditures. He rightly compares capital expenditures to the kind of debt incurred by everyday citizens when they seek a mortgage for a house that is prohibitive to purchase outright but has significant added value.
Dr. Kearl, like virtually every other mainstream economist in academia also makes the point that there are occasions in which spending increases and debt are beneficial or even necessary for the function of government. As the Senate's bill is written, not only is there a limit on spending (outlays) in excess of revenues, but also limits such spending to 18% of the national GDP. The number itself is not at issue as it is a reasonable number in times of normal relations and economic conditions, but that having a rigid limit is harmful in the event of a catastrophe. Think 9-11, Hurricane Katrina, or the oh so likely event of a Canadian invasion causing a protracted war on our soil. Or how about times such as now in which high unemployment has created increased demand for basic aid programs such as food stamps and medicaid? The super majority necessary to go over the budget is problematic in highly politicized times such as ours as we have witnessed the standstill as a result of two sides refusing to come together. Even for an expenditure that could feasibly get the 2/3rds necessary to override, it would take time and negotiations that could result in a poor response to a major issue.
For those who would argue that welfare programs and social assistance is the kind of debt that we need to squelch, it is useful to use history as an example of debt as a necessity. Over the depression, the national debt rose significantly to stymie the loss of jobs across the nation and avoid some of the worst social ills that come with high unemployment and vagrancy. Such debt was further compounded with the entry of the United States in the Second World War, reaching a higher percentage of GDP than we are experiencing now. The vast majority consider that to be a just and necessary war and a worthwhile expenditure but out entry was debated and avoided until we were struck at Pearl Harbor. Same with some of the spending in the New Deal that is largely credited with at least stabilizing the American economy in the second half of the 1930s. Today it is the ability of the unemployed and poor to obtain food stamps to supplement their insufficient funds. Most of the New Deal and current social programming spending would not have Amendments to the constitution are the law of the land and supersedes all local, state and federal law are intended to improve the performance of government and meet long term needs. All this amendment would provide is provide roadblocks to things being done and give congress even more to bicker about.
So let's hope those Canadians keep those wants of a global empire hidden or that we can all agree to a budget if it ever came to fruition.
The other issue that comes into play with this amendment is the restriction on the government's ability to collect revenue. Any increase to tax revenues would require the 2/3rds super-majority of congress such as that required to overturn a presidential veto. Given that raising taxes is one of the quickest ways to commit political suicide, how often do you think that proportion of Congress is going to vote for an increase of revenue? Even when necessary?
Virtually every major recognized economist in the world has stated that the US debt needs to be resolved through a combination of budget cuts and tax increases. This amendment would, if passed, force the butchering of a variety of programs, including those that have a positive effect on the country and economy. The sudden loss or crippling of government would send us right back into a recession that would grip us for years to come. It is naive to think that by just waving an amendment around that we will instantly have a balanced budget, smaller government and economic prosperity in an instant.
The budget does need to be addressed in a timely manner as we cannot expect to continue to add to our debt forever, but this amendment is not the answer and only plays to the base fears of Americans who have been told for the past thirty years that government is always the problem. Government can be good for the people and economy and when we learn to differentiate beneficial spending from the waste will we come up with a rational solution.
I can guarantee this Tea Party ideology approach will only screw us all.
17 August 2011
This Shouldn't Surprise Me, But Seriously....
I don't make a point of watching Fox News for obvious reasons. It is misleading, the news anchors talk over those with dissenting views under the assumption that volume and preventing opposing arguments wins a debate. It's fear-mongering at its worst and its high ratings only serve to line the pockets of people who find benefit in playing Americans against one another.
That said, sometimes something is said that is so ridiculous that it deserves to be shared. The entire thing is absurdity, but it takes about fifteen seconds at most to get to the height of the stupidity.
Warren Buffet is a socialist? Because being the third wealthiest man on the planet and arguably one of the best investment minds in recent history is a socialist. All because he stated what has been known to many economists for years and a widely spread criticism of the Bush tax cuts in that the tax code has been rigged to benefit people like him.
You know what, I know there's people starving in Somalia at the moment, but since food aid seems to go directly from the aid plane to the black market I am going to propose a rather cheap charity to invest in. You probably have these things sitting unused in your home. Please, lets donate a dictionary and the 'S' book of the encyclopedia to all the anchors and writers at Fox so they can get the proper definition of what socialism IS. I know there's a conservative version of the Bible out there now as well and likely dictionaries, but those just won't do.
I can assure you that someone as wealthy as Buffet is is decidedly NOT a socialist.
Of course, the video continues from there with the classic talking points of how it is taxing the job creators (a bit of a myth in itself) as well as ignoring the point Buffet made so clear in that even if profits are taxed, any sensible businessman is going to try to get the potential profit out there. If profit is being taxed, it is still a profit and thus beneficial. If that isn't capitalist thinking, I don't know what it.
Then you get a rant about fair share and tossing around that ill quote that ill quoted number that nearly half of Americans pay no federal taxes. That number has been shown according to federal documents to only work if you count every man, woman and child individually. This includes substantial numbers of the retired. The real number when you consider tax units, meaning actual filers, be they single, joint or families, is closer to 38%. According to some data from 2008, roughly 60 percent of those with no tax liability have incomes under 20 thousand a year 1. While everyone is busy decrying how so many people fail to contribute, it hits me that when you calculate that number, roughly 23 percent of American households make less than 20 thousand annually.
Warren Buffet paid 17 and a half percent in federal taxes. Here we have folks sating how unfair it is that those in the 20k range of income ought to be paying more. It's false to say they pay no taxes as they pay all consumer based taxes in addition to property taxes (in these cases, mostly through rent) and for every service rendered. But yes, let's tax those poor folks trying to make ends meet on meager incomes so that those job creators on the top can hire a new maid for the home and treat themselves to a new luxury car or yacht.
And when the young gentleman tries to express that it IS fair that the lowest income earners not have to contribute further, he is cut off because it puts a damper on the fire and brimstone economics speech if those working poor come across as anything other than entitled whiners.
It is times like this where I seriously question my relationship with my own country. And here I was hoping to do a bit of comparative discussion today. Latvia is going to have to wait until I am not quite so enraged.
Link: Distribution of Tax Units with Zero or Negative Individual Income Tax Liability by Cash Income Level, 2009
That said, sometimes something is said that is so ridiculous that it deserves to be shared. The entire thing is absurdity, but it takes about fifteen seconds at most to get to the height of the stupidity.
Warren Buffet is a socialist? Because being the third wealthiest man on the planet and arguably one of the best investment minds in recent history is a socialist. All because he stated what has been known to many economists for years and a widely spread criticism of the Bush tax cuts in that the tax code has been rigged to benefit people like him.
You know what, I know there's people starving in Somalia at the moment, but since food aid seems to go directly from the aid plane to the black market I am going to propose a rather cheap charity to invest in. You probably have these things sitting unused in your home. Please, lets donate a dictionary and the 'S' book of the encyclopedia to all the anchors and writers at Fox so they can get the proper definition of what socialism IS. I know there's a conservative version of the Bible out there now as well and likely dictionaries, but those just won't do.
I can assure you that someone as wealthy as Buffet is is decidedly NOT a socialist.
Of course, the video continues from there with the classic talking points of how it is taxing the job creators (a bit of a myth in itself) as well as ignoring the point Buffet made so clear in that even if profits are taxed, any sensible businessman is going to try to get the potential profit out there. If profit is being taxed, it is still a profit and thus beneficial. If that isn't capitalist thinking, I don't know what it.
Then you get a rant about fair share and tossing around that ill quote that ill quoted number that nearly half of Americans pay no federal taxes. That number has been shown according to federal documents to only work if you count every man, woman and child individually. This includes substantial numbers of the retired. The real number when you consider tax units, meaning actual filers, be they single, joint or families, is closer to 38%. According to some data from 2008, roughly 60 percent of those with no tax liability have incomes under 20 thousand a year 1. While everyone is busy decrying how so many people fail to contribute, it hits me that when you calculate that number, roughly 23 percent of American households make less than 20 thousand annually.
Warren Buffet paid 17 and a half percent in federal taxes. Here we have folks sating how unfair it is that those in the 20k range of income ought to be paying more. It's false to say they pay no taxes as they pay all consumer based taxes in addition to property taxes (in these cases, mostly through rent) and for every service rendered. But yes, let's tax those poor folks trying to make ends meet on meager incomes so that those job creators on the top can hire a new maid for the home and treat themselves to a new luxury car or yacht.
And when the young gentleman tries to express that it IS fair that the lowest income earners not have to contribute further, he is cut off because it puts a damper on the fire and brimstone economics speech if those working poor come across as anything other than entitled whiners.
It is times like this where I seriously question my relationship with my own country. And here I was hoping to do a bit of comparative discussion today. Latvia is going to have to wait until I am not quite so enraged.
Link: Distribution of Tax Units with Zero or Negative Individual Income Tax Liability by Cash Income Level, 2009
16 August 2011
Warren Buffett Keeps Trying to Break the Myth of Taxes
Warren Buffet, despite having slipped a few slots in the richest man rankings, knows a few things about the economy and what fuels investment. He's effectively built a personal empire on his investments and if his pride is anywhere it seems to be in his awareness of opportunity. For years he has spoken on business matters and been one of the most sought out economic minds out there. And for not the first time, Buffett has called out the tax code for being too lenient in its coddling of the extremely wealthy and the negative effects, not only on the national debt but the economy as a whole. Ideology fights promptly ensued.
In particular, Buffett has been trying relentlessly to address the myth that began during the Reagan administration that taxation has a inherently negative effect on the economy and by taxing the wealthy, assumed to be the job creators, the benefits will eventually trickle down to the lower classes by means of increased investment that will lead to increased employment and wages. In the short term this has been debated, but with nearly thirty years of trickle down economics in effect, studies have proven this to actually become a fallacy as the amount of increased investment from the beneficiaries is not proportional to the increased income received. They money they save is largely added to their personal wealth, which is less likely to see consumer activity than the incomes of lower and middle class workers. This one reason (amongst many) that the disparity of wealth in this country has greatly increased despite the tax burden on Americans, rich or poor, has decreased.
To make his point, Buffett reiterated his previous statements concerning his own taxation, at approximately 17 percent of his income against those of many of his white collar employees, who on average paid 36 percent of their incomes, approximately half the rate as admitted by the third wealthiest man in the world. Of particular notoriety is the form of taxation on long term capital gains, which is not taxed like salaries and have a much lower percentage. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, aka George W. Bush's tax cut, focused heavily on this rate with it reaching 15% in 2003. This is in comparison to the 35% maximum tax rate on those who make in the 300-400k a year range.
To put this into further perspective, despite a number of tax cuts during the Reagan years, the maximum tax rate on capital gains was 28% at the beginning of the decade, cut to 20 percent in 1981 and reinstated to 28% in 1986. Yes, Reagan did have a few tax increases (mostly in the form of cleaning up loopholes in the tax code) during his tenure despite common touting of his conservative credentials.
In the years since then, investors have effectively blackmailed the nation into giving them preferential treatment in the tax code by arguing that their continued profits were dependent on low tax rates. The quote that Buffett stated that struck home the hardest was this:
In particular, Buffett has been trying relentlessly to address the myth that began during the Reagan administration that taxation has a inherently negative effect on the economy and by taxing the wealthy, assumed to be the job creators, the benefits will eventually trickle down to the lower classes by means of increased investment that will lead to increased employment and wages. In the short term this has been debated, but with nearly thirty years of trickle down economics in effect, studies have proven this to actually become a fallacy as the amount of increased investment from the beneficiaries is not proportional to the increased income received. They money they save is largely added to their personal wealth, which is less likely to see consumer activity than the incomes of lower and middle class workers. This one reason (amongst many) that the disparity of wealth in this country has greatly increased despite the tax burden on Americans, rich or poor, has decreased.
To make his point, Buffett reiterated his previous statements concerning his own taxation, at approximately 17 percent of his income against those of many of his white collar employees, who on average paid 36 percent of their incomes, approximately half the rate as admitted by the third wealthiest man in the world. Of particular notoriety is the form of taxation on long term capital gains, which is not taxed like salaries and have a much lower percentage. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, aka George W. Bush's tax cut, focused heavily on this rate with it reaching 15% in 2003. This is in comparison to the 35% maximum tax rate on those who make in the 300-400k a year range.
To put this into further perspective, despite a number of tax cuts during the Reagan years, the maximum tax rate on capital gains was 28% at the beginning of the decade, cut to 20 percent in 1981 and reinstated to 28% in 1986. Yes, Reagan did have a few tax increases (mostly in the form of cleaning up loopholes in the tax code) during his tenure despite common touting of his conservative credentials.
In the years since then, investors have effectively blackmailed the nation into giving them preferential treatment in the tax code by arguing that their continued profits were dependent on low tax rates. The quote that Buffett stated that struck home the hardest was this:
I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what's happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.
We have somehow forgotten in the face of talking heads that a profit is something gained that was not there before. Anybody who is sensible about business knows that of his dollar earned he may only get to keep 60 or 70 cents of it; however, that is still money that would not have existed if he had chosen to not invest it in some capacity. While it is true that there needs to be the incentive for profit and thus you cannot tax everything, we are kidding ourselves if we believe that money is not being made and that any tax increase is going to shut off investments.
Furthermore, the current tax situation has drained our coffers at a time when middle America is already being strained. Tax rates are lower than at any point in the lifetime of most Americans, yet we are not asking where the jobs that is supposedly made by these wealthy investor beneficiaries. The idea of extreme wealthy job creators is yet another myth perpetuated by the media right. If you look at job creation data, the glut actually comes from a couple notches down on the tax bracket in the form of small businesses by people of moderate means. With them strapped further and further and opportunity denied to them, they are being nudged out of the job creation market, thus helping the wealth further compound amongst the upper 5 percentile.
The reality is that cutting government services by such a level to balance the budget without tax increases would send the economy into recession. Roads would have poor funding leaving us with worse infrastructure and higher rates of joblessness. Teachers, already seeing their jobs cut on account of budget woes, would see larger classroom size, decreased benefits and less money allocated for necessities like textbooks. Military cuts would likely hit the VA first, leaving many of those damaged in American War for the past 50+ years with fewer means of treatment despite their sacrifices for this country. Generally good welfare programs such as WIC would likely be able to support far fewer poor children with food necessities like milk and bread. If it gets bad enough, programs for hospitals to treat the uninsured could be damaged leading to hard decisions on which of the unfortunate get treated in the ER. Government is enough of a business to create a gaping hole in growth if it is crippled. While there is plenty of waste to be consolidated and tossed aside, there's plenty out there that is probably best not left to the whims of big business. At some point, revenue has to go up to keep those essentials going.
When one of the wealthiest people on the planet says that he ought to be contributing more, could we put down that dog eared copy of Atlas Shrugged and consider it a bit? A billionaire has admitted that his tax rate is lower than most Americans making over 20k a year. While taxing them into oblivion would be a mistake, would it kill them to pay in the top tax bracket without weaseling their way out of it? If it happened, the stock market would bounce around for a few days and would recover as the Earth would continue turning and they opportunity of money would lure the investors back into the market despite them having to sacrifice getting that new Bentley for their kid's graduation.
Link: Warren Buffett New York Times Editorial Note.
Link: Warren Buffett New York Times Editorial Note.
15 August 2011
What the Iowa Straw Poll Says About the Primary Voters
I am sure that it is well known at this point that Michelle Bachmann is the hands down winner of the Iowa straw poll, often considered to be one of the first and more significant early polling options. This wasn't entirely unexpected, but she was rather closely followed by Ron Paul of all the candidates in this Republican clown circus.
Don't get me wrong, I actually respect Ron Paul in some ways in the same way I can appreciate someone like Chris Christie and Ross Perot. They have their political leanings that are rather far removed from my own, but they are not party mouthpieces. In an era when elections have become increasingly about patting your fellow party member on his back in the wake of corruption while spewing distortions of the opposite parties, the fact that Paul speaks his mind is a positive asset. At the very least he brings some much needed debate when he avoids his rambles.
Of course, the fact that he and Bachmann are moving toward being the mainstream candidates is proof that it is the fringes of a party that vote in the primaries rather than anybody who is sensible. The 'crazies' as Chris Christie might call them.
In a general election, these are two of the least electable candidates out of a wide array of candidates that lean so far right that Ronald Reagan is starting to look closer to Dennis Kusinich than the good old conservative hero. If this is the kind of people who determine the
Ron Paul is the type of Libertarian that would love to see government effectively done away with on the ideal that business could regulate itself. To him, any government interaction in the market place is an anathema that amounts to thievery. He's put his money where his mouth is in several situations including his rejection of the congressional pension plan he would be entitled to. This gives him some degree of appeal amongst his core followers who see his examples as proof of integrity. Even many of those who would like to see a decrease in government spending often realize that there are some realms that are best not left entirely to the whims of the free market and that government involvement in areas such as education, infrastructure and safety are for the most part a benefit to our nation. A good number of people would worry about huge cuts to programs that they see as essential to their daily lives and an assault on their way of life.To the middle American going to vote in the main election, Ron Paul takes his crusade against taxation and government to such an extreme that they will reject him.
Rational egoism works in peculiar ways that extends far beyond economics. Just don't tell the libertarians that.
And then there's the winner, Michelle Bachmann. I was willing to defend her against the Newsweek picture if only because it made her someone more relatable and drew attention away from her overall bad understanding of the economy and of her own platform. It's one thing to argue for the founding fathers' original intent in your campaign, but she has demonstrated to have a less than complete understanding of their actual positions given her strange inclusion of John Quincy Adams in the founding fathers (he was still a bay during the revolution) as well as her statement that they had fought to end slavery (which was certainly an issue of contention, particularly with Pennsylvania Quakers and slave owners in Virginia on south) show that she's not only uncertain of her own platform, but also of basic American history. Somehow this woman earned a law degree.
Equal parts Christian fundamentalist and quasi-libertarian Tea Party member, she never speaks in specifics of her policy but instead spews talking points that take an incredibly simplistic view of issues that cannot be adequately argued in a 5 second sound bite, or even a couple thousand word article. We've yet to really see her (or much of anyone besides Romney and Paul in previous elections) debate at the national level as the few meetings thus far have been substance free for the reality television audience.
Outside of the far reaches of the Republican Party, she is seen as incompetent in many of the same areas most people consider Sarah Palin unfit. Her extreme views, including a comment in which unemployment would virtually disappear if the minimum wage was eliminated (so we can compete with India), are off-putting to those who have already seen their wages shrink year after year to energy and health care cost increases. When she speaks of cutting taxes and eliminating entitlement programs, she evades the ways in which she or her direct family has benefited from a number of subsidies. We have yet to see a comprehensive plan for how she will reduce the budget without increasing taxes against the recommendation of most economists. Such simplicity is dangerous when put in action and her election more than most would put this country in a dire situation as her ideology would take center stage over any pragmatic need to actually negotiate. I heard that once upon a time democracy used this as a means to get things done and keep it all civil in spite of the differences.
I'm not saying the Democrats are any better in terms of getting the more reasonable individuals to come out in the primaries, but as this election cycle has an incumbent in the presidency there isn't a similar phenomenon to compare. That said, it is alarming that we are seeing the leaders of the party chosen from the fringe elements by the furthest reaches as will not produce the best candidates. Charisma and idealistic talking points are governing our election more than ever fueled by corporate money. Decisions are not being made by the average American and the selections in the past several elections have not really been in the best interests of the nation.
The Republican Party nomination may very well be determined by nutcases and I am sincerely hoping that the spectacle amounts to little more than a car crash that is gawked at for a moment before being forgotten with the next commercial break on the radio.
If not we may see a permanent shift in politics to the right and we can welcome the 1890s all over again.
Don't get me wrong, I actually respect Ron Paul in some ways in the same way I can appreciate someone like Chris Christie and Ross Perot. They have their political leanings that are rather far removed from my own, but they are not party mouthpieces. In an era when elections have become increasingly about patting your fellow party member on his back in the wake of corruption while spewing distortions of the opposite parties, the fact that Paul speaks his mind is a positive asset. At the very least he brings some much needed debate when he avoids his rambles.
Of course, the fact that he and Bachmann are moving toward being the mainstream candidates is proof that it is the fringes of a party that vote in the primaries rather than anybody who is sensible. The 'crazies' as Chris Christie might call them.
In a general election, these are two of the least electable candidates out of a wide array of candidates that lean so far right that Ronald Reagan is starting to look closer to Dennis Kusinich than the good old conservative hero. If this is the kind of people who determine the
Ron Paul is the type of Libertarian that would love to see government effectively done away with on the ideal that business could regulate itself. To him, any government interaction in the market place is an anathema that amounts to thievery. He's put his money where his mouth is in several situations including his rejection of the congressional pension plan he would be entitled to. This gives him some degree of appeal amongst his core followers who see his examples as proof of integrity. Even many of those who would like to see a decrease in government spending often realize that there are some realms that are best not left entirely to the whims of the free market and that government involvement in areas such as education, infrastructure and safety are for the most part a benefit to our nation. A good number of people would worry about huge cuts to programs that they see as essential to their daily lives and an assault on their way of life.To the middle American going to vote in the main election, Ron Paul takes his crusade against taxation and government to such an extreme that they will reject him.
Rational egoism works in peculiar ways that extends far beyond economics. Just don't tell the libertarians that.
And then there's the winner, Michelle Bachmann. I was willing to defend her against the Newsweek picture if only because it made her someone more relatable and drew attention away from her overall bad understanding of the economy and of her own platform. It's one thing to argue for the founding fathers' original intent in your campaign, but she has demonstrated to have a less than complete understanding of their actual positions given her strange inclusion of John Quincy Adams in the founding fathers (he was still a bay during the revolution) as well as her statement that they had fought to end slavery (which was certainly an issue of contention, particularly with Pennsylvania Quakers and slave owners in Virginia on south) show that she's not only uncertain of her own platform, but also of basic American history. Somehow this woman earned a law degree.
Equal parts Christian fundamentalist and quasi-libertarian Tea Party member, she never speaks in specifics of her policy but instead spews talking points that take an incredibly simplistic view of issues that cannot be adequately argued in a 5 second sound bite, or even a couple thousand word article. We've yet to really see her (or much of anyone besides Romney and Paul in previous elections) debate at the national level as the few meetings thus far have been substance free for the reality television audience.
Outside of the far reaches of the Republican Party, she is seen as incompetent in many of the same areas most people consider Sarah Palin unfit. Her extreme views, including a comment in which unemployment would virtually disappear if the minimum wage was eliminated (so we can compete with India), are off-putting to those who have already seen their wages shrink year after year to energy and health care cost increases. When she speaks of cutting taxes and eliminating entitlement programs, she evades the ways in which she or her direct family has benefited from a number of subsidies. We have yet to see a comprehensive plan for how she will reduce the budget without increasing taxes against the recommendation of most economists. Such simplicity is dangerous when put in action and her election more than most would put this country in a dire situation as her ideology would take center stage over any pragmatic need to actually negotiate. I heard that once upon a time democracy used this as a means to get things done and keep it all civil in spite of the differences.
I'm not saying the Democrats are any better in terms of getting the more reasonable individuals to come out in the primaries, but as this election cycle has an incumbent in the presidency there isn't a similar phenomenon to compare. That said, it is alarming that we are seeing the leaders of the party chosen from the fringe elements by the furthest reaches as will not produce the best candidates. Charisma and idealistic talking points are governing our election more than ever fueled by corporate money. Decisions are not being made by the average American and the selections in the past several elections have not really been in the best interests of the nation.
The Republican Party nomination may very well be determined by nutcases and I am sincerely hoping that the spectacle amounts to little more than a car crash that is gawked at for a moment before being forgotten with the next commercial break on the radio.
If not we may see a permanent shift in politics to the right and we can welcome the 1890s all over again.
12 August 2011
Birthdays and a Lost Generation
Today is my birthday and while still just shy of 30, I never envisioned that coming out of university with a degree and some knowledge would have me working just like I had when I was 18, in retail, on my feet every day and forced to suppress any thoughts or opinions not related to the latest diet or fashion trends. I didn't go to school for this much less go above and beyond to succeed and ensure a diverse skill set. An education was supposed to be my ticket to middle class living with some degree of job security, something that has never been an option. I never imagined that it would turn out like this.
Of course this is the reality of the potentially lost generation of Americans. Over-educated and under-employed, my friends, most of them between 25 and 35 years of age, are practically poster children for the current phenomenon of a work environment that is deathly afraid of hiring those who are beyond qualified for the entry level positions and are assumed to be on the way out as soon as they come in. This is how you get someone with a law degree ends up waiting tabled, or a holder of a masters in psychology working in a home for the mentally disabled for ten dollars an hour, still waiting for the opportunity to get the counciling hours he needs for his license. Even with a double degree in political science and mathematics, another friend has been unemployed for two years now and barely gets a call now.
I seem to have lucked out in getting something, but that did not come without a number of interviews in which someone openly marveled at why I would want to work THERE given my educational background and previous work history (a lot of management and teaching). Several of these interviews openly asked me a question along the lines of "do you think this job will hold you back?" Needless to say it was almost always over from there.
This is what young people have to look forward to in America now. An education in many cases feels like a dead end now as the assumptions trump anything you can say that you offer. If a two year degree will suffice, then why would someone want someone with a four year or greater degree that will likely want more money and substantial benefits. If they want a piece of paper as a weeding tool, they will gladly take the person who majored in beer pong as a minimally competent person over those with nonsense such as research and teaching ability,
Of course I've had to cringe at the job descriptions posted online and in the newspaper with all sorts of typos and syntax errors, all while asking for 'excelent communicaton skill' and it becomes easy for those of us who could easily perform such jobs to wonder just why we can't get a call much less the chance to prove that we could use some of the things we learned as an asset to any business?
I'd love more than anything to go to graduate school and work toward an eventual PhD studying the thing I love. At heart I am a researcher and a teacher and it is the type of thing I could see myself doing until my mind goes feeble. I actually enjoy reading those dry journal articles detailing social change in Asian or Eastern European countries and love sharing the more interesting tidbits with others. But I wonder upon seeing how we treat teachers and professors, particularly at public universities, like useless tax sucking scum and the resulting cuts to funding in education if there would even be a job there after my illustrious degree is hung on my wall. There'd be the satisfaction of having accomplished this, but that does little to put food on they table or a little money aside to assure I am not stuck on my feet all day until I cease to get out of bed in the morning.
It seems so strange as in most times of economic hardship it is the well educated with work experience and willing to go the extra mile that get ahead. The best and the brightest are typically the ones that would be most desired because of their diverse skills and a willingness to develop them. Instead, as several of my friends who snuck into entry level office work by lying about their educations know, it's all about being a drone with little thought and no aspirations other than to keep making that 10-12 dollars an hour.
It is my most sincere hope that we can see some of this change and we will stop considering education to be an elitist institution. Higher education may not be for everyone, but that doesn't mean it is not rewarding for those who enjoy. Having had to work through school, I can't help but think I'd be employable in some meaningful way. Heck, you'd think, given the international nature of business in this day and age that having international experience would be valued somewhere.
Instead I turn 28 and need to get ready to sell furniture until evening and drone out the talk of endless diets and hope that I won't turn into another one of this lost generation.
Of course this is the reality of the potentially lost generation of Americans. Over-educated and under-employed, my friends, most of them between 25 and 35 years of age, are practically poster children for the current phenomenon of a work environment that is deathly afraid of hiring those who are beyond qualified for the entry level positions and are assumed to be on the way out as soon as they come in. This is how you get someone with a law degree ends up waiting tabled, or a holder of a masters in psychology working in a home for the mentally disabled for ten dollars an hour, still waiting for the opportunity to get the counciling hours he needs for his license. Even with a double degree in political science and mathematics, another friend has been unemployed for two years now and barely gets a call now.
I seem to have lucked out in getting something, but that did not come without a number of interviews in which someone openly marveled at why I would want to work THERE given my educational background and previous work history (a lot of management and teaching). Several of these interviews openly asked me a question along the lines of "do you think this job will hold you back?" Needless to say it was almost always over from there.
This is what young people have to look forward to in America now. An education in many cases feels like a dead end now as the assumptions trump anything you can say that you offer. If a two year degree will suffice, then why would someone want someone with a four year or greater degree that will likely want more money and substantial benefits. If they want a piece of paper as a weeding tool, they will gladly take the person who majored in beer pong as a minimally competent person over those with nonsense such as research and teaching ability,
Of course I've had to cringe at the job descriptions posted online and in the newspaper with all sorts of typos and syntax errors, all while asking for 'excelent communicaton skill' and it becomes easy for those of us who could easily perform such jobs to wonder just why we can't get a call much less the chance to prove that we could use some of the things we learned as an asset to any business?
I'd love more than anything to go to graduate school and work toward an eventual PhD studying the thing I love. At heart I am a researcher and a teacher and it is the type of thing I could see myself doing until my mind goes feeble. I actually enjoy reading those dry journal articles detailing social change in Asian or Eastern European countries and love sharing the more interesting tidbits with others. But I wonder upon seeing how we treat teachers and professors, particularly at public universities, like useless tax sucking scum and the resulting cuts to funding in education if there would even be a job there after my illustrious degree is hung on my wall. There'd be the satisfaction of having accomplished this, but that does little to put food on they table or a little money aside to assure I am not stuck on my feet all day until I cease to get out of bed in the morning.
It seems so strange as in most times of economic hardship it is the well educated with work experience and willing to go the extra mile that get ahead. The best and the brightest are typically the ones that would be most desired because of their diverse skills and a willingness to develop them. Instead, as several of my friends who snuck into entry level office work by lying about their educations know, it's all about being a drone with little thought and no aspirations other than to keep making that 10-12 dollars an hour.
It is my most sincere hope that we can see some of this change and we will stop considering education to be an elitist institution. Higher education may not be for everyone, but that doesn't mean it is not rewarding for those who enjoy. Having had to work through school, I can't help but think I'd be employable in some meaningful way. Heck, you'd think, given the international nature of business in this day and age that having international experience would be valued somewhere.
Instead I turn 28 and need to get ready to sell furniture until evening and drone out the talk of endless diets and hope that I won't turn into another one of this lost generation.
10 August 2011
Jon Stewart Called It Right On This One
When Newsweek chose to print an article on Michelle Bachmann ad feature her on the cover, it there was no need for them to deliberately make the lady look crazy by choosing the most unflattering shot known to man. It undermines the principles of journalism being the act of reporting.
The woman has plenty of choice quotes that, even in context do the job of expressing her questionable intellect and knowledge of her own ass much less the American country she hopes to lead one day. The picture drew all the attention away from her policy and turned it all toward a picture that will rally her people against this kind of bias.
I'm no fan of Bachmann, in fact I feel ashamed that of all the women in the field of politics today, most of them just are not the brightest tools in the shed. I have my disagreements with Hilary Clinton and Condi Rice, but at the very least I can be assured that they have a good deal of understanding of the world and capable of at least arguing their different stances without sounding like one of those talking Barbie dolls that spew random vapid comments at the push of a button.
However, printing that picture is counterproductive and lacking any substance. Run an article about some of her comments over the past several years as well as her campaign platforms. If she's nuts (I personally am not sure on that one, but she certainly is not presidential material) then her words and actions should speak for itself in the article.
I mean.... she has some classic non-sequitur comments such as "I want the people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back." Such ill fitting combination of different issues is damn near a trademark for her and are quite amusing even if you know the actual meaning.
And of course you have ones such as "we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States," which is initially amusing until the realization hits you that she would have likely failed the third grade history question on 'Are You Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader.' It's even more absurd given that much of her platform seems to invoke the founding fathers, (which as we all were reminded recently includes John Adams, but NOT John Quincy Adams).
Sure there are those who will say that using such quotes repeatedly by the media is their attempt to marginalize her attempts to reign in big government and is somehow part of a liberal conspiracy, but she said it and it is thus fair game. I'd be willing to buy an occasional slip in speech as we are ultimately human, but she is pretty consistency contributing to her own quotes reel and it can't help but make a lot of people question how in the hell she managed to get a law degree.
A picture is worth a thousand words. A poorly angled shot front and center pretty much negates any meaning the words had and shifted all the talk away from all the reasons this woman is horrifically unqualified to become president.
The woman has plenty of choice quotes that, even in context do the job of expressing her questionable intellect and knowledge of her own ass much less the American country she hopes to lead one day. The picture drew all the attention away from her policy and turned it all toward a picture that will rally her people against this kind of bias.
I'm no fan of Bachmann, in fact I feel ashamed that of all the women in the field of politics today, most of them just are not the brightest tools in the shed. I have my disagreements with Hilary Clinton and Condi Rice, but at the very least I can be assured that they have a good deal of understanding of the world and capable of at least arguing their different stances without sounding like one of those talking Barbie dolls that spew random vapid comments at the push of a button.
However, printing that picture is counterproductive and lacking any substance. Run an article about some of her comments over the past several years as well as her campaign platforms. If she's nuts (I personally am not sure on that one, but she certainly is not presidential material) then her words and actions should speak for itself in the article.
I mean.... she has some classic non-sequitur comments such as "I want the people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back." Such ill fitting combination of different issues is damn near a trademark for her and are quite amusing even if you know the actual meaning.
And of course you have ones such as "we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States," which is initially amusing until the realization hits you that she would have likely failed the third grade history question on 'Are You Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader.' It's even more absurd given that much of her platform seems to invoke the founding fathers, (which as we all were reminded recently includes John Adams, but NOT John Quincy Adams).
Sure there are those who will say that using such quotes repeatedly by the media is their attempt to marginalize her attempts to reign in big government and is somehow part of a liberal conspiracy, but she said it and it is thus fair game. I'd be willing to buy an occasional slip in speech as we are ultimately human, but she is pretty consistency contributing to her own quotes reel and it can't help but make a lot of people question how in the hell she managed to get a law degree.
A picture is worth a thousand words. A poorly angled shot front and center pretty much negates any meaning the words had and shifted all the talk away from all the reasons this woman is horrifically unqualified to become president.
09 August 2011
The Ups and Downs of the Market as Common Sense
Ever since the last hour "compromise" by congress to elevate the debt ceiling and consequent downgrading of the United States' debt, the stocks have been in turmoil and for some reason this is a cause for panic, thus further plunging the stocks until the fed reassured them that the interest rates would remain at historic lows. Basically, we got held hostage by the stock brokers who used the guise of fear to get exactly what they wanted out of us.
Everyone seems puzzled as to this recent turmoil when a large piece (albiet not all of it given the complexity of the market) is common sense to anybody removed from that strange little world.
Quite frankly, a plunge in the stock market was a very necessary market correction as the stock recovery has existed in a bubble aside from every other economic factor. Since 2009 we have seen a fairly consistent bull market in play wherein the market recovered the losses and even getting the economy to limp forward. This has happened while consumer demand has remained stagnant or even negative depending on the region. This is unsurprising considering that official unemployment numbers have struggled to remain below double digits. We know we're grasping for straws when the good news is 9.1%. And this is just the official number... with no accurate means to evaluate the actual unemployment the speculation varies depending on the article, group conducting the study or what colors are in fashion. Those who remain employed have largely seen their salaries stagnate, which is a significant decline when you account for increases in fuel, food and health care, which incidentally are not counted in the calculations for inflation. In an economy that is based upon roughly 70% consumer spending these numbers should be of greater alarm than the possibility of yet another unsustainable bubble bursting.
Yet Wall Street marches on... for now.
Nobody wants their stocks to tank again like they had in 2008, yet the reality is that something needs to give. The bull market alongside cost saving measures (some with better foresight than others) had two years to raise the cash at hand of fortune 1000 companies and they have failed to reinvest their profits in any meaningful manner. This means that the stock numbers mean nothing to the 98% of Americans that rely primarily on their personal income or salary to survive.
The current trend goes against every other recession in the past century. Great Depression, the early 80s, the dot com bubble recession all had their recovery come not solely on stocks, but rather on the return of the average worker to gainful employment. The shareholders simply don't have the consumer clout to raise the economy try as they might.
We created a bubble over the past decade in the housing market by completely skewing supply and demand with a glut of ill advised loans at rates that should be considered usury. Houses were purchased rather than homes and artificially reduced the supply and helped with an overwhelming building response to meet what was an artificially pumped up demand. We paid for it and continue to pay for it and yet it seems as though we've simply moved on to the next bubble to exploit until it collapses under its own weight.
The longer the stocks fail to reflect the actual economic situation in this country and as long as we perpetuate this nonsense that we must appease the stockholders at every turn to avoid calamity, then we will become imprisoned by those who care more for personal wealth than the good of the economy as a whole. Even a place like Haiti has its millionaires.
Is this class warfare? Perhaps. Although I'm thinking there's a lot of people who are finally seeing that the direction of it might just be turned toward us. According to every measure, the disparity of wealth is at the greatest point since the 1920s and some even argue it goes as far as being as bad as the industrial era. This would be a great opportunity to make the claim of hyperbole, but I am struggling to find any numbers beyond blatantly slanted think-tanks that refute this. I personally look at this situation and cannot see what the average person has gained lately as our economy is allegedly growing. Those who have means and always have had it simply seem lost on the amount of harm that has been wrought.
I would like to believe that complete greed is not the complete basis on the current economic environment. It is easy to get caught up in that line of thinking and listen to the alarmists who see us plunging to third world status by the time the end of time on the Mayan calendar. Perhaps we've become too embroiled in the stock market where we have allowed it become the absolute stick by which we determine our economic outlook at the expense of so many other factors. It's easy to say, "just get a job" when the options are limited, even for the over-educated.
But for that reason, I would like for the market to cool down substantially for a bit and perhaps kick some of those companies into using some of that money they shoveled into the coffers to give something back to the people. It's not altruistic by any means as it would save their hides in the long term as well.
Note: I apologize for the rambling nature of this one. It's hard to stay on just one topic on something this complex without getting into a bunch of tedious statistics. I'm also in a bit of disbelief at the Federal Reserve for basically coming out to pacify Wall Street leading to a quick rally.
Everyone seems puzzled as to this recent turmoil when a large piece (albiet not all of it given the complexity of the market) is common sense to anybody removed from that strange little world.
Quite frankly, a plunge in the stock market was a very necessary market correction as the stock recovery has existed in a bubble aside from every other economic factor. Since 2009 we have seen a fairly consistent bull market in play wherein the market recovered the losses and even getting the economy to limp forward. This has happened while consumer demand has remained stagnant or even negative depending on the region. This is unsurprising considering that official unemployment numbers have struggled to remain below double digits. We know we're grasping for straws when the good news is 9.1%. And this is just the official number... with no accurate means to evaluate the actual unemployment the speculation varies depending on the article, group conducting the study or what colors are in fashion. Those who remain employed have largely seen their salaries stagnate, which is a significant decline when you account for increases in fuel, food and health care, which incidentally are not counted in the calculations for inflation. In an economy that is based upon roughly 70% consumer spending these numbers should be of greater alarm than the possibility of yet another unsustainable bubble bursting.
Yet Wall Street marches on... for now.
Nobody wants their stocks to tank again like they had in 2008, yet the reality is that something needs to give. The bull market alongside cost saving measures (some with better foresight than others) had two years to raise the cash at hand of fortune 1000 companies and they have failed to reinvest their profits in any meaningful manner. This means that the stock numbers mean nothing to the 98% of Americans that rely primarily on their personal income or salary to survive.
The current trend goes against every other recession in the past century. Great Depression, the early 80s, the dot com bubble recession all had their recovery come not solely on stocks, but rather on the return of the average worker to gainful employment. The shareholders simply don't have the consumer clout to raise the economy try as they might.
We created a bubble over the past decade in the housing market by completely skewing supply and demand with a glut of ill advised loans at rates that should be considered usury. Houses were purchased rather than homes and artificially reduced the supply and helped with an overwhelming building response to meet what was an artificially pumped up demand. We paid for it and continue to pay for it and yet it seems as though we've simply moved on to the next bubble to exploit until it collapses under its own weight.
The longer the stocks fail to reflect the actual economic situation in this country and as long as we perpetuate this nonsense that we must appease the stockholders at every turn to avoid calamity, then we will become imprisoned by those who care more for personal wealth than the good of the economy as a whole. Even a place like Haiti has its millionaires.
Is this class warfare? Perhaps. Although I'm thinking there's a lot of people who are finally seeing that the direction of it might just be turned toward us. According to every measure, the disparity of wealth is at the greatest point since the 1920s and some even argue it goes as far as being as bad as the industrial era. This would be a great opportunity to make the claim of hyperbole, but I am struggling to find any numbers beyond blatantly slanted think-tanks that refute this. I personally look at this situation and cannot see what the average person has gained lately as our economy is allegedly growing. Those who have means and always have had it simply seem lost on the amount of harm that has been wrought.
I would like to believe that complete greed is not the complete basis on the current economic environment. It is easy to get caught up in that line of thinking and listen to the alarmists who see us plunging to third world status by the time the end of time on the Mayan calendar. Perhaps we've become too embroiled in the stock market where we have allowed it become the absolute stick by which we determine our economic outlook at the expense of so many other factors. It's easy to say, "just get a job" when the options are limited, even for the over-educated.
But for that reason, I would like for the market to cool down substantially for a bit and perhaps kick some of those companies into using some of that money they shoveled into the coffers to give something back to the people. It's not altruistic by any means as it would save their hides in the long term as well.
Note: I apologize for the rambling nature of this one. It's hard to stay on just one topic on something this complex without getting into a bunch of tedious statistics. I'm also in a bit of disbelief at the Federal Reserve for basically coming out to pacify Wall Street leading to a quick rally.
Chris Christie and the Ongoing Crusade Against Disenfranchisement
At this point I am sure everyone with a passing interest in current events has heard about the uproar over Republican governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, appointing Sohail Mohammed, a Muslim, to the bench in his state. Rather than evade the public condemnation of his supposed plunging of a state into inevitable Sharia law, he has been characteristically vocal in calling the spade a spade and that such criticism comes from bigotry rather than a rational threat.
Of course he wasn't even that tactful with quotes such as "Ignorance is behind the criticism of Sohail Mohammed," as well as "Sharia Law business is just crap." In case his position was not quite clear enough, he also came and said what most progressives have been thinking since the emergence of the far right neocons at the turn of the century, "I’m tried of dealing with the crazies." I don't see eye to eye with the man on a number of issues, but the fact that he is forthcoming about his beliefs rather than hide behind the party lines makes him absolutely awesome and a true asset to American democracy.
But beyond simply addressing the exact words, at the heart of the matter is the reality that we wish to disenfranchise certain groups of Americans from political discourse and from entering positions of influence. With the hindsight of our past experiences with African Americans, Latin Americans, and even Catholic Americans, you would think that we would consider such discrimination against Muslims to be wrong in the same manner. Instead there are many in this country that somehow see Muslims as different than all of these other groups and somebody to be feared.
Most of the fear with the appointment of Mr. Mohammed is the assumption that he will decide cases based on Sharia, or Islamic law rather than upholding the laws of the state of New Jersey or of the constitution of the United States. Given the vows that any judge makes prior to taking office any judge should place his religion aside and make decisions based on the interpretation of law as it is written. Many cases concerning validity of law is made with multiple judges and thus one individual would not be able to impose his religious views and would quickly come under condemnation of his peers if his rational basis for judgments use religious dogma. The appeals system allows for further examination of a case and allow further decisions. A single Muslim on the bench, even if so inclined, would not be able to impose religious law.
Of course there is the assumption that all Muslims believe in Sharia law. It's always the extremists that make the news and their names linger on the tongues of the likes of Glen Beck and Bill O'Riley to reach the ears of millions of Americans. Muslims who come to the country, life peaceful lives and condemn the use of violence as a tool of conversion is simply not good ratings and tends to piss off the advertisers that pay good money to have a piece of those millions of entranced minds. Muslims want to kill us all..... buy a brand new Ford. The reality is though that most Muslims live amongst us like any other citizens. First generation immigrants often find ethnic enclaves where they can find companionship in a new world and gradually spread out across the country much like every other wave of immigration. The vast majority are peaceful individuals who keep their religion as a private matter and will interact with non-Muslims in their daily lives. They may condemn some of the actions of Israel, but don't wish for genocide against its people. Crime rates amongst Muslims are consistently low and many of those in the United States are educated and hard working.
The arguments we use against Muslims today are the same as those that we used with every wave of immigration when the balance changed from western European countries such as England, France, Germany, and Holland, to poorer and frequently non-protestant or even non-christian groups. In the mid to late 1800s, Irish, followed shortly by the Italians, fled famines and strife for the United States and quickly added to the Catholic population of cities such as New York, Boston and Chicago. World War I and the collapse of the Russian and Ottoman empires brought a huge influx of Easterners from the dominantly Catholic Poland, Hungary and Lithuania, as well as dominantly Orthodox nations such as Greece, Russia and Ukraine. From all of these countries came a large number of the Jews that have found their home in the United States in the last century. On the other shore, there were the beginnings of migration from various Asian countries. All of these groups were met with suspicion if not outright condemnation from those of the 'proper' god fearing American majority. They spoke odd languages, had strange customs and may or may not be controlled by a foreign power across the ocean.
One of the best, and often forgotten, examples we have from the past century was the election of John F. Kennedy to the presidency in 1960. A Catholic family of Irish ancestry, he was highly divisive, even amongst self identified Democrats, for his faith. There were serious articles in newspapers evaluating Kennedy's faith and the possibility that his election would be an impetus for the Pope to gain a foothold in American politics. The idea of a papal grab of power is silly in hindsight nearly a half century later, but this is the politics of fear that have gripped us. Instead of signs indicating "Irish need not apply" and any variation of signs indicating "Negros" were not welcome in certain establishments, we have a collective fear of our new Muslim populace
It's a matter of comfort levels and with change brings conflict. This is an ongoing matter and it is important when having that internal discussion about "is this guy a terrorist" it might be a good idea to consider your own background and that there is a very good chance that someone in your family was once one of those undesirables with little other purpose than to bring the country down. We moved past worrying about the Italians because a handful of them were in the Mafia, and we can move past this idea that all Muslims are terrorists seeking to impose their religious law on us.
Besides, didn't Oslo remind us that terrorists come in all shades of crazy.
Of course he wasn't even that tactful with quotes such as "Ignorance is behind the criticism of Sohail Mohammed," as well as "Sharia Law business is just crap." In case his position was not quite clear enough, he also came and said what most progressives have been thinking since the emergence of the far right neocons at the turn of the century, "I’m tried of dealing with the crazies." I don't see eye to eye with the man on a number of issues, but the fact that he is forthcoming about his beliefs rather than hide behind the party lines makes him absolutely awesome and a true asset to American democracy.
But beyond simply addressing the exact words, at the heart of the matter is the reality that we wish to disenfranchise certain groups of Americans from political discourse and from entering positions of influence. With the hindsight of our past experiences with African Americans, Latin Americans, and even Catholic Americans, you would think that we would consider such discrimination against Muslims to be wrong in the same manner. Instead there are many in this country that somehow see Muslims as different than all of these other groups and somebody to be feared.
Most of the fear with the appointment of Mr. Mohammed is the assumption that he will decide cases based on Sharia, or Islamic law rather than upholding the laws of the state of New Jersey or of the constitution of the United States. Given the vows that any judge makes prior to taking office any judge should place his religion aside and make decisions based on the interpretation of law as it is written. Many cases concerning validity of law is made with multiple judges and thus one individual would not be able to impose his religious views and would quickly come under condemnation of his peers if his rational basis for judgments use religious dogma. The appeals system allows for further examination of a case and allow further decisions. A single Muslim on the bench, even if so inclined, would not be able to impose religious law.
Of course there is the assumption that all Muslims believe in Sharia law. It's always the extremists that make the news and their names linger on the tongues of the likes of Glen Beck and Bill O'Riley to reach the ears of millions of Americans. Muslims who come to the country, life peaceful lives and condemn the use of violence as a tool of conversion is simply not good ratings and tends to piss off the advertisers that pay good money to have a piece of those millions of entranced minds. Muslims want to kill us all..... buy a brand new Ford. The reality is though that most Muslims live amongst us like any other citizens. First generation immigrants often find ethnic enclaves where they can find companionship in a new world and gradually spread out across the country much like every other wave of immigration. The vast majority are peaceful individuals who keep their religion as a private matter and will interact with non-Muslims in their daily lives. They may condemn some of the actions of Israel, but don't wish for genocide against its people. Crime rates amongst Muslims are consistently low and many of those in the United States are educated and hard working.
The arguments we use against Muslims today are the same as those that we used with every wave of immigration when the balance changed from western European countries such as England, France, Germany, and Holland, to poorer and frequently non-protestant or even non-christian groups. In the mid to late 1800s, Irish, followed shortly by the Italians, fled famines and strife for the United States and quickly added to the Catholic population of cities such as New York, Boston and Chicago. World War I and the collapse of the Russian and Ottoman empires brought a huge influx of Easterners from the dominantly Catholic Poland, Hungary and Lithuania, as well as dominantly Orthodox nations such as Greece, Russia and Ukraine. From all of these countries came a large number of the Jews that have found their home in the United States in the last century. On the other shore, there were the beginnings of migration from various Asian countries. All of these groups were met with suspicion if not outright condemnation from those of the 'proper' god fearing American majority. They spoke odd languages, had strange customs and may or may not be controlled by a foreign power across the ocean.
One of the best, and often forgotten, examples we have from the past century was the election of John F. Kennedy to the presidency in 1960. A Catholic family of Irish ancestry, he was highly divisive, even amongst self identified Democrats, for his faith. There were serious articles in newspapers evaluating Kennedy's faith and the possibility that his election would be an impetus for the Pope to gain a foothold in American politics. The idea of a papal grab of power is silly in hindsight nearly a half century later, but this is the politics of fear that have gripped us. Instead of signs indicating "Irish need not apply" and any variation of signs indicating "Negros" were not welcome in certain establishments, we have a collective fear of our new Muslim populace
It's a matter of comfort levels and with change brings conflict. This is an ongoing matter and it is important when having that internal discussion about "is this guy a terrorist" it might be a good idea to consider your own background and that there is a very good chance that someone in your family was once one of those undesirables with little other purpose than to bring the country down. We moved past worrying about the Italians because a handful of them were in the Mafia, and we can move past this idea that all Muslims are terrorists seeking to impose their religious law on us.
Besides, didn't Oslo remind us that terrorists come in all shades of crazy.
03 August 2011
When Did L!%#*@! Become Such a Fucking Dirty Word?
When the hell did liberal become an anathema to the American language in the same manner that we consider certain four letter words to be inappropriate in polite company? Even in every day speech it will likely get you far less grief to say how much you would love to "take a shit on those goddamn motherfuckers" working the drive through than to align yourself as politically liberal in public. With the venom you hear it muttered in conservative media or evaded in more centrist venues you would expect it to get bleeped by now. Fuck and shit the bitches all you would like, but don't you dare confess that you're one of those l!%#*@!$
I'll confess that I've done the same thing from time to time under the guise of tact. Moderate sounds far less inflammatory and leaves some room to question. I'm even willing to go as far as to say that I am not so much a liberal but a political pragmatist, but it doesn't change my views of where most of my views lie on the scale of conservative/progressive scale...
Ooops, pardon that word. I have a tendency to use foul language from time to time. If you're going to call yourself a progressive you might as well pack up your bags and get out the old hammer and sickle.
Of course if we really look at the hardliners such as the Tea Party, Libertarians and the Religious Right of today, conservative hero Ronald Reagan is looking mighty liberal given his spending tendencies and his illegal alien amnesty policy.
Humor aside, there has been a huge shift over time in political leanings. With 9-11 we had a return to the kind of fear tactics that had Americans ducking under desks as McCarthy rounded up those horrid commies that could either be dissenters or the harbingers of nuclear winter. We're approaching the 20th anniversary of the collapse of the Soviet Union and somehow we have re-anchored our beliefs so that liberal=progressive=left=socialist=communist. It's non-sequitur logic that brings all of these terms onto equal footing with no thinking of what any of these terms mean. Sure it sounds great to say liberals are socialist commies; but then how do you differentiate successive socialist countries such as Finland or Denmark with the corrupt reign of terror that marks most of Soviet history.
When liberalism and progressivism get marked in such a manner it makes for a great sound bite by a commentator on Fox News, but like soda pop has no substance beyond its label. As a nation we have dismissed an entire line of thought without considering the nuances that exist with any political issue. All because the language of such thinking is suddenly shameful and extreme.
It's time to stop backing down in the face of derision and make some points in favor of progressive policies that will improve this nation using facts instead of popular talking points. The internet is one of the greatest tools in freedom of information and we have poorly utilized it in favor of quick reads that have let those at the very top play us all for fools and pit us against one another. Instead of information bringing us access to knowledge, we have preferred to keep up on the latest celebrity happenings and pick up on just enough buzz words to float around in a conversation.
I am a rationalist and a pragmatist and believe that information is key to making points known and to argue for them. However, I AM a liberal and I refuse to treat it like a dirty word.
I'll confess that I've done the same thing from time to time under the guise of tact. Moderate sounds far less inflammatory and leaves some room to question. I'm even willing to go as far as to say that I am not so much a liberal but a political pragmatist, but it doesn't change my views of where most of my views lie on the scale of conservative/progressive scale...
Ooops, pardon that word. I have a tendency to use foul language from time to time. If you're going to call yourself a progressive you might as well pack up your bags and get out the old hammer and sickle.
Of course if we really look at the hardliners such as the Tea Party, Libertarians and the Religious Right of today, conservative hero Ronald Reagan is looking mighty liberal given his spending tendencies and his illegal alien amnesty policy.
Humor aside, there has been a huge shift over time in political leanings. With 9-11 we had a return to the kind of fear tactics that had Americans ducking under desks as McCarthy rounded up those horrid commies that could either be dissenters or the harbingers of nuclear winter. We're approaching the 20th anniversary of the collapse of the Soviet Union and somehow we have re-anchored our beliefs so that liberal=progressive=left=socialist=communist. It's non-sequitur logic that brings all of these terms onto equal footing with no thinking of what any of these terms mean. Sure it sounds great to say liberals are socialist commies; but then how do you differentiate successive socialist countries such as Finland or Denmark with the corrupt reign of terror that marks most of Soviet history.
When liberalism and progressivism get marked in such a manner it makes for a great sound bite by a commentator on Fox News, but like soda pop has no substance beyond its label. As a nation we have dismissed an entire line of thought without considering the nuances that exist with any political issue. All because the language of such thinking is suddenly shameful and extreme.
It's time to stop backing down in the face of derision and make some points in favor of progressive policies that will improve this nation using facts instead of popular talking points. The internet is one of the greatest tools in freedom of information and we have poorly utilized it in favor of quick reads that have let those at the very top play us all for fools and pit us against one another. Instead of information bringing us access to knowledge, we have preferred to keep up on the latest celebrity happenings and pick up on just enough buzz words to float around in a conversation.
I am a rationalist and a pragmatist and believe that information is key to making points known and to argue for them. However, I AM a liberal and I refuse to treat it like a dirty word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)