As I have been looking for a positive vision of what I would like our country to be like, rather than merely focusing on the negatives of our current situation, I am more and more drawn toward the ideas put forth in Britain and elsewhere about happiness. In essence, the concept is that government should, in addition to protecting us from threats both foreign and domestic, make it more possible to pursue happiness over the long-term.
While Roger Cohen has an op-ed in today's NYT on this subject, I first came across it through TED.com. Nic Marks has a TED.com video and a related Kindle Single, The Happiness Manifesto. Marks' thesis is that governments - and western societies in general - judge our national progress by measuring production, usually GDP, while we should be measuring it by our well-being and our ability to sustain that well-being. In other words, are we happy and are we living in such a way that our children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy the same happiness. Happiness - or well-being - and the sustainability of it. Makes sense to me. I really don't give a crap if our GDP is growing if most of the wealth created ends up in the hands of the few most wealthy Americans and the rest of us struggle to pay our bills, keep our jobs, find a job, keep our homes, send our kids to college, etc. Most Americans don't need a McMansion or a Mercedes. We don't need expensive clothes or fancy jewelry. We just need to be able to keep our home, pay the bills, have adequate health care, send our kids to college, and support ourselves in retirement. Maybe take a vacation every once in a while. And we need to be able to do that without working two or more jobs or so much overtime that we have neither the time nor the energy to spend time with our families and enjoy our friends. Oh, and we want to know that our kids will be able to be as happy as we are. That's not too much to ask, is it?
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Sunday, February 13, 2011
"We can do everything!" The Real Lesson of Egypt
As I was watching This Week on ABC this morning, they had a brief clip of a woman in Tahrir Square after Mubarak stepped down. She said, jubilantly, "We can do everything!" For me, that may be the biggest lesson from the 18 days of protest that toppled the former autocratic ruler and US ally.
All too often, we are limited by what we believe to be possible. But those limiting beliefs are self-fulfilling prophesies. If we believe something is impossible, then it is. We fail to attempt it or put in a half-hearted effort, convinced that failure is inevitable. So it is. Indeed, it becomes our excuse for not even trying. We find comfort in believing that we saved ourselves from disappointment and wasted effort. But it is a coward's alibi for inaction and complicity.
My own life is full of wonderful examples of people telling me, over and over again, that something is impossible, only to find out that it is, indeed, possible. Sometimes, I even found that it was relatively easy. It seems that once we reach and cross over that tipping point where something that seemed impossible now seems possible, we realize it is actually the status quo that is fragile and impossible to maintain. Change is inevitable, and the momentum shifts toward the change we now believe in.
People told me I couldn't go to college a year early, after my junior year in high school. But I did.
People told me I couldn't pass the Foreign Service exam, and certainly not on the first try. But I did. (By one point!)
People told us we couldn't get the US House of Representatives to pass legislation lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia. But we did - a mere six months after forming the American Committee to Save Bosnia and less than five months after starting our advocacy campaign. And a year later, we passed it in both houses of Congress by veto-proof 2/3 majorities!
I am proud of these achievements, but they pale in comparison to those of countless other people who have truly accomplished the previously unthinkable.
People said when I was growing up that the Iron Curtain would never fall. But it did. I was fortunate enough to witness the collapse of Communism first hand from my posting in Moscow. even got to help tear down the Berlin Wall with my own two hands and was an election monitor in the first free and fair elections ever in the history of the Soviet Union. I saw the people of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union stand up and demand their freedom. With the exception of Romania, each revolution was peaceful and relatively swift.
People said we would never elect an African American to be President of the United States - but we did.
And, now, after people said for decades that the Mubarak regime could never be toppled, the people of Egypt took to the streets for less than three weeks and showed, like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., before them, that non-violent protest can achieve the impossible.
So when we talk in this country about how it seems impossible to stop a genocide in Darfur or the Congo, or to fix our inadequate education system, or to take back control of our political system from the big corporations and wealthy Americans who currently dominate it, or to reduce our federal budget deficit or fix Medicare and Social Security, or to solve the climate change crisis, let us remember the people of Egypt and Tunisia. They accomplished something "impossible" by believing they could and then doing it.
We really can do everything!
All too often, we are limited by what we believe to be possible. But those limiting beliefs are self-fulfilling prophesies. If we believe something is impossible, then it is. We fail to attempt it or put in a half-hearted effort, convinced that failure is inevitable. So it is. Indeed, it becomes our excuse for not even trying. We find comfort in believing that we saved ourselves from disappointment and wasted effort. But it is a coward's alibi for inaction and complicity.
My own life is full of wonderful examples of people telling me, over and over again, that something is impossible, only to find out that it is, indeed, possible. Sometimes, I even found that it was relatively easy. It seems that once we reach and cross over that tipping point where something that seemed impossible now seems possible, we realize it is actually the status quo that is fragile and impossible to maintain. Change is inevitable, and the momentum shifts toward the change we now believe in.
People told me I couldn't go to college a year early, after my junior year in high school. But I did.
People told me I couldn't pass the Foreign Service exam, and certainly not on the first try. But I did. (By one point!)
People told us we couldn't get the US House of Representatives to pass legislation lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia. But we did - a mere six months after forming the American Committee to Save Bosnia and less than five months after starting our advocacy campaign. And a year later, we passed it in both houses of Congress by veto-proof 2/3 majorities!
I am proud of these achievements, but they pale in comparison to those of countless other people who have truly accomplished the previously unthinkable.
People said when I was growing up that the Iron Curtain would never fall. But it did. I was fortunate enough to witness the collapse of Communism first hand from my posting in Moscow. even got to help tear down the Berlin Wall with my own two hands and was an election monitor in the first free and fair elections ever in the history of the Soviet Union. I saw the people of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union stand up and demand their freedom. With the exception of Romania, each revolution was peaceful and relatively swift.
People said we would never elect an African American to be President of the United States - but we did.
And, now, after people said for decades that the Mubarak regime could never be toppled, the people of Egypt took to the streets for less than three weeks and showed, like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., before them, that non-violent protest can achieve the impossible.
So when we talk in this country about how it seems impossible to stop a genocide in Darfur or the Congo, or to fix our inadequate education system, or to take back control of our political system from the big corporations and wealthy Americans who currently dominate it, or to reduce our federal budget deficit or fix Medicare and Social Security, or to solve the climate change crisis, let us remember the people of Egypt and Tunisia. They accomplished something "impossible" by believing they could and then doing it.
We really can do everything!
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Tackling the Big Oil Subsidies: The Numbers
Some numbers to ponder as we wait to see if President Obama's call to end big oil subsidies by the federal government (borrowed from our kids' future earnings/taxes) has any chance of becoming reality:
- The oil and gas industry spent $111,839,931 on lobbying in 2010, paying for 744 lobbyists (or 1.7 oil and gas industry lobbyists for every member of the House). That followed a record year of $175 million in 2009.
- The oil and gas industry gave almost $18 million in contributions to congressional campaigns in 2010 and almost $23 million in 2008!
- Speaker Boehner received over $100,000 in campaign contributions from oil and gas companies in 2009-10.
- President Obama received almost $900,000 in contributions from oil and gas companies for the 2008 campaign, out of $5,637,348 total industry donations to presidential candidates (28% to Democrats, 71.9% to Republicans; McCain got well over double what Obama received.)
- Exxon Mobil gave over $1.4 million to federal campaigns in 2008.
So what do all these donations get the oil and gas industry?
- The US government spends (well, borrows...) $36.5 billion each year to subsidize the oil and gas industries.
- According to the New York Times, the oil industry alone gets about $4 billion in tax breaks each year.
Not a bad return on their investment, is it?
Obama: The best we can hope for... and that's not good enough!
President Obama's State of the Union speech the other night was symbolic of how I feel about his presidency in general. Overall, I liked the speech. I thought he delivered it well, it hit some broad, positive themes I agree with and care about (infrastructure, education, new energy, etc.). He even mentioned wanting to end subsidies for oil companies! [Did you notice how dour Boehner looked as he refused to clap for that line?]
But I also felt like the speech was a good example of how Obama falls short of expectations and the hopes of many of his supporters, including me. He did not mention campaign finance reform, climate change, or gun control. His specific goals - a million electric cars by 2015, 80 percent of the country living near high-speed rail within 35 years - are good and important, but not worthy of a "Sputnik" moment. [By the way, what percentage of Americans could tell you what Sputnik was? For those who could, to what extent does it still resonate with them?] How about eliminating our dependence on foreign oil in 10 years? Increasing the high school graduation rate to 90 percent in 10 years? [According to one report, it was 75% in 2008, up from 72% in 2001.] Let's have some audacious goals that, if we really bust our butts and put our best and brightest to work on them, we just might achieve.
Like many people who voted for him in 2008, I have been both proud of and frustrated by President Obama during his first two years in office. I have come to realize, however, that he is merely the best president we can hope for, given the current realities of our political system. Given those realities, what he has accomplished is nothing short of miraculous. But, because of those realities, we can neither expect nor hope for much more, and that is unacceptable.
In two years, Obama has managed to prevent a second Great Depression, seemingly saved a large part of the US auto industry, passed a stimulus bill that saved or created millions of jobs, passed health care reform and the most significant financial reform bill in decades, won ratification of a new arms control treaty with Russia, and secured passage of a bill ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That's the most impressive list of achievements of any president during his first two years in office since LBJ.
Still, he he couldn't get a major energy or climate change bill passed, both health care and financial reform fell short of important goals (reducing health care costs and eliminating the threats presented by moral hazard and "too big to fail" banks in the financial industry). A second stimulus, which many economists deemed necessary and current unemployment and state budget numbers would seem to demand, was a non-starter.
We are not likely to see Obama tackle some of the greatest and most urgent challenges facing our country today because of the biggest threat to our democracy: campaign financing. Let's face it: Obama
ran for president promising "change we can believe in," but the reality is that he has achieved all that he has by making back-room deals with the big players in health care, on Wall St., and in the GOP. Cap and trade is off the table. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were extended. Lobbyists still rule DC. His Administration seems like it has a revolving door of employment with Wall St. Moreover, according to the number two Democrat in the Senate, Wall St. "owns" Capitol Hill. So what hope do we have that Obama - or anyone else - will successfully tackle the growing income inequality in this country? Or climate change? Or military spending and the privatization of the military and intelligence services? Or government subsidies for big oil and the corn industry?
In the end, I like President Obama. I am proud of my vote for him in 2008. I will, in all likelihood, vote for him again in 2012. But I have lowered my expectations for him.
I keep coming back to one thing: campaign finance reform. Without it, Obama will do the best he can - better than most. But that's no longer good enough.
But I also felt like the speech was a good example of how Obama falls short of expectations and the hopes of many of his supporters, including me. He did not mention campaign finance reform, climate change, or gun control. His specific goals - a million electric cars by 2015, 80 percent of the country living near high-speed rail within 35 years - are good and important, but not worthy of a "Sputnik" moment. [By the way, what percentage of Americans could tell you what Sputnik was? For those who could, to what extent does it still resonate with them?] How about eliminating our dependence on foreign oil in 10 years? Increasing the high school graduation rate to 90 percent in 10 years? [According to one report, it was 75% in 2008, up from 72% in 2001.] Let's have some audacious goals that, if we really bust our butts and put our best and brightest to work on them, we just might achieve.
Like many people who voted for him in 2008, I have been both proud of and frustrated by President Obama during his first two years in office. I have come to realize, however, that he is merely the best president we can hope for, given the current realities of our political system. Given those realities, what he has accomplished is nothing short of miraculous. But, because of those realities, we can neither expect nor hope for much more, and that is unacceptable.
In two years, Obama has managed to prevent a second Great Depression, seemingly saved a large part of the US auto industry, passed a stimulus bill that saved or created millions of jobs, passed health care reform and the most significant financial reform bill in decades, won ratification of a new arms control treaty with Russia, and secured passage of a bill ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That's the most impressive list of achievements of any president during his first two years in office since LBJ.
Still, he he couldn't get a major energy or climate change bill passed, both health care and financial reform fell short of important goals (reducing health care costs and eliminating the threats presented by moral hazard and "too big to fail" banks in the financial industry). A second stimulus, which many economists deemed necessary and current unemployment and state budget numbers would seem to demand, was a non-starter.
We are not likely to see Obama tackle some of the greatest and most urgent challenges facing our country today because of the biggest threat to our democracy: campaign financing. Let's face it: Obama
ran for president promising "change we can believe in," but the reality is that he has achieved all that he has by making back-room deals with the big players in health care, on Wall St., and in the GOP. Cap and trade is off the table. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were extended. Lobbyists still rule DC. His Administration seems like it has a revolving door of employment with Wall St. Moreover, according to the number two Democrat in the Senate, Wall St. "owns" Capitol Hill. So what hope do we have that Obama - or anyone else - will successfully tackle the growing income inequality in this country? Or climate change? Or military spending and the privatization of the military and intelligence services? Or government subsidies for big oil and the corn industry?
In the end, I like President Obama. I am proud of my vote for him in 2008. I will, in all likelihood, vote for him again in 2012. But I have lowered my expectations for him.
I keep coming back to one thing: campaign finance reform. Without it, Obama will do the best he can - better than most. But that's no longer good enough.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
The Suburban American's Dilemma
Tell me if this rings true or not...
You feel lucky. You won the birth lottery: you were born in America. You live the American dream. [Cue John Boehner crying...] You live better than your parents did: nicer car, bigger house, much bigger TV, you've traveled more, etc. Sure, you work long hours to afford that lifestyle. You have a tiring commute and, unlike your parents' or, at least, your grandparents' generation, you and your spouse both have to work just to make ends meet. You worry about how to pay for daycare, how to save for your kids' college and your retirement, and still make your mortgage payments. You spend your weekends feeling like a taxi driver, ferrying your kids to soccer practices and play dates, coaching the little league team, buying the groceries and doing the laundry. It's an exhausting lifestyle. But, still, you are living proof that we live in a great country - the greatest country - in the world, with the best type of government available.
Sure, the system is flawed and doesn't always work great, but it works. And, in spite of your exhausting life, you do your civic duty and vote. Well, maybe not in every election, but in most of the presidential ones and even some of the others. And in 2008, you even stepped it up a notch: you donated a little money to a candidate, signed up for his mailing list online, maybe even made a few calls to help get out the vote. Mission accomplished, right?
Um... no. Sorry. Because we didn't actually get "change we can believe in." We got a really smart, earnest president who has accomplished an amazing amount in just two years, not the least of which was saving us from a possible Great Depression Part 2. But it seemed like everything he did was done in a way that reminded us just how little Washington has changed, just how dirty the political process seems, and just how beholden to big business our elected representatives - including our president - really are these days. Because they depend on campaign donations from the wealthiest individuals and corporations in America to get elected and reelected, that's who they really work for. Not us. They spend so much time raising money for the next campaign, they have less and less time for actually governing and legislating.
So as much as we'd like to think that we can continue to limit our involvement in our political system to a vote here or there, every two or four or six years, we can't. Not anymore. Somehow, in the midst of our busy lives, we need to find a way to do more. We desperately need to tackle the urgent challenges of our day - education reform, our dependence on oil, climate change, exploding health care costs, potentially crippling federal and state budget deficits, a crumbling and antiquated infrastructure - and we can't do it unless and until we free our government from the grip of big money and free our elected representatives from the need to perpetually fund raise.
For starters, we need to change the way we finance political campaigns, and we need to do it now. But it won't happen until people like you and me demand that change. No, we won't have to quit our day jobs. We won't have to chain ourselves to the White House fence. But we need to do more than just vote every so often, choosing between two candidates who represent a status quo we can't accept anymore. For some, it might mean writing letters, sending emails, or attending rallies; for others it might mean making some phone calls or meeting with congressional staffers. But if we all do something, it will all add up. If we don't, then we will cede control of our political system to the extremists in both parties and those who use their wealth to buy access, influence and control in Washington. This isn't just a liberal or conservative issue. And while I titled this post "The Suburban American's Dilemma," this is truly the dilemma for the working class American living in the city and for the small business owner trying to stay afloat in rural America. This affects all of us. We all lose if we don't fix this.
Now, as I write this, I'm beat. I get up at 5 am every day, and it seems like there's little, if any, downtime most days. But I've got to find a way to make a difference here and now. This blog is one small step. It's my humble call to see if there are kindred spirits who will raise their voices with mine. What comes next? I'm not sure, yet. But as busy and tired as I am, I now have to admit that I have to do something.
This is our country. It has given many of us wonderful opportunities and great freedoms. But, as my parents and teachers taught me when I was a kid, those privileges come with responsibilities. It's time to turn those words into action.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Tipping Points
I found the comment on my last post to be quite thought-provoking. It is shocking, at times, that we have not reached a tipping point. But I think most Americans are either too busy struggling to get by or too busy and tired.
So what will it take for the middle and working classes in America to reach a tipping point and demand action? Rising oil/gas prices might. The growing state and local government debt crisis might. So might a national debt crisis, if and when it comes. But you would have thought the housing/financial crisis and accompanying Great Recession would have done it. And there was a backlash, though much of it was ill-informed or misdirected. Most of the outrage got directed at the government, and the Democrats paid the biggest price. People seemed more pissed off at the government for "bailing out" Wall Street than for Wall Street screwing over millions of Americans and walking away, in general, richer for it. People were more pissed off at Obama "bailing out" the auto companies than they were at the auto companies for decades of bad decisions and mismanagement. And lots of people were pissed off at the stimulus bill - which saved millions of jobs - because they thought it was the part of the bank bailout. And lots of people did not understand that the bank bailout, the auto bailout and the stimulus bill were necessary to keep us from the Great Depression II, or worse. Lots of people don't understand that the government will get back much of the money from the bailouts, and may even turn a profit. Tea partiers and others complain about taxes being too high, but they are taxed less under Obama.
Part of the problem is that the media ain't what it used to be. People have too many options now for getting their "news," and a lot of it sucks. TV news is all about ratings and image - and in some cases, about furthering a specific political ideology or agenda. And people are more distracted - fewer read newspapers, more watch reality TV, surf the web, play Farmville on Facebook, etc.
But part of the problem is that so many Americans have lost faith in their government, especially in Congress. So what if I think income inequality is a problem? So what if my standard of living os stagnating or declining? So what if the earth is warming and the climate is changing? So what if big business - especially the banking industry - think they own Congress? All too many Americans don't believe the government can or will fix the problems.
More and more, I think the wedge issue is campaign finance reform. People across the political spectrum agree that we need to get big money out of politics. If we did, then that might be an important first step in restoring some faith and confidence in government. And, in all likelihood, we'd see some politicians courting voters with as much enthusiasm and energy as they currently do their campaign donors. We might start to see some real legislation passed that would address the core needs and desires of the majority of voters.
This is a tough question. I'm no longer willing to give in to my cynicism. There will be a tipping point. I'd like it to come sooner rather than later. But I want it to be a catalyst for action that will put us on a healthier, positive path to the future, not a spark for violence or political extremism in American politics and government. That means that good, smart people who "get it" now need to start working together.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, that may mean some kind of serious campaign on campaign finance reform - maybe for a constitutional amendment - or a third party.
So what will it take for the middle and working classes in America to reach a tipping point and demand action? Rising oil/gas prices might. The growing state and local government debt crisis might. So might a national debt crisis, if and when it comes. But you would have thought the housing/financial crisis and accompanying Great Recession would have done it. And there was a backlash, though much of it was ill-informed or misdirected. Most of the outrage got directed at the government, and the Democrats paid the biggest price. People seemed more pissed off at the government for "bailing out" Wall Street than for Wall Street screwing over millions of Americans and walking away, in general, richer for it. People were more pissed off at Obama "bailing out" the auto companies than they were at the auto companies for decades of bad decisions and mismanagement. And lots of people were pissed off at the stimulus bill - which saved millions of jobs - because they thought it was the part of the bank bailout. And lots of people did not understand that the bank bailout, the auto bailout and the stimulus bill were necessary to keep us from the Great Depression II, or worse. Lots of people don't understand that the government will get back much of the money from the bailouts, and may even turn a profit. Tea partiers and others complain about taxes being too high, but they are taxed less under Obama.
Part of the problem is that the media ain't what it used to be. People have too many options now for getting their "news," and a lot of it sucks. TV news is all about ratings and image - and in some cases, about furthering a specific political ideology or agenda. And people are more distracted - fewer read newspapers, more watch reality TV, surf the web, play Farmville on Facebook, etc.
But part of the problem is that so many Americans have lost faith in their government, especially in Congress. So what if I think income inequality is a problem? So what if my standard of living os stagnating or declining? So what if the earth is warming and the climate is changing? So what if big business - especially the banking industry - think they own Congress? All too many Americans don't believe the government can or will fix the problems.
More and more, I think the wedge issue is campaign finance reform. People across the political spectrum agree that we need to get big money out of politics. If we did, then that might be an important first step in restoring some faith and confidence in government. And, in all likelihood, we'd see some politicians courting voters with as much enthusiasm and energy as they currently do their campaign donors. We might start to see some real legislation passed that would address the core needs and desires of the majority of voters.
This is a tough question. I'm no longer willing to give in to my cynicism. There will be a tipping point. I'd like it to come sooner rather than later. But I want it to be a catalyst for action that will put us on a healthier, positive path to the future, not a spark for violence or political extremism in American politics and government. That means that good, smart people who "get it" now need to start working together.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, that may mean some kind of serious campaign on campaign finance reform - maybe for a constitutional amendment - or a third party.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
A "Do No Harm" Foreign Policy - a response
I loved the comment to the original post, asking if it was too idealistic to think that we could actually ween our political system off the big money. Is it idealistic? Yes. Guilty, as charged. But so have been a lot of other reforms in our country's history, until they became necessary or the people demanded them. Women's suffrage. Direct election of senators. The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Brown v. Board. Trust-busting. Social Security. Medicare. The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Heck, even the US intervention in Bosnia (sorry, couldn't resist...).
If we don't fix campaign financing, we're screwed.
But I think it's the kind of issue that real Americans from both sides of the aisle could eventually support. Everyone's hurt by the status quo, except those funding the campaigns and buying the influence.
I guess my theme lately has been to reject my own jaded, dark view of things and to, once again, believe that anything is possible. There are lots of people out there who want real change, who thought they were voting for it in 2008.
I also think the addiction to oil is another issue that should appeal to the left and right. What middle class, conservative American wants his or her gas money funding bin Laden & Co.?
The more I hear something is impossible, the more it makes me want to try!
If we don't fix campaign financing, we're screwed.
But I think it's the kind of issue that real Americans from both sides of the aisle could eventually support. Everyone's hurt by the status quo, except those funding the campaigns and buying the influence.
I guess my theme lately has been to reject my own jaded, dark view of things and to, once again, believe that anything is possible. There are lots of people out there who want real change, who thought they were voting for it in 2008.
I also think the addiction to oil is another issue that should appeal to the left and right. What middle class, conservative American wants his or her gas money funding bin Laden & Co.?
The more I hear something is impossible, the more it makes me want to try!
A "Do No Harm" Foreign Policy
As a former US diplomat and someone who advocated for the US to help stop the genocide in Bosnia, I've been a strong internationalist my whole life. I have believed that the US should use its role as a superpower to help others, to support human rights and make the world a safer, better place whenever possible. That didn't mean I thought we should intervene in every conflict or genocide around the world, or that supporting human rights in, say, China, was more important than every other US national interest. But I thought we should be actively engaged and helping out whenever possible. We did a lot of good during the Cold War promoting human rights in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and those efforts helped support and encourage the people who eventually toppled those regimes two decades ago.
But I am starting to wonder. Yes, we should care about others. But I think we pay a lot of lip service these days to "human rights" while ignoring the considerable harm we do, intentionally or not, every day. And I think we over-promise and overextend ourselves, and we can no longer afford to do so.
So my new foreign policy paradigm is that we should "do no harm" while getting our own house in order.
Getting Our House in Order
First off, we should make sure we complete our military withdrawal from Iraq this year, while fully funding the State Department's expanding operations intended to build on our success to date. Second, we should withdraw from Afghanistan. I fear that we will be there forever, but I don't think the investment of blood and treasure is paying off or will pay off. In terms of long-term, vital US interests, there are better ways to invest our money and use our military than battling the Taliban and trying to turn the Karzai government into a stable government for that country.
I am sick and tired of the Middle East being the most important region in the world, just because we're addicted to oil and have refused for decades to do anything serious about it. While President Obama has significantly increased government investments in new energy technology, it's not enough. Let's be audacious and invoke a little bit of JFK's magic: let's rid ourselves of our oil addiction by 2020. Don't tell me it's impossible. We went to the moon in less than a decade - over 40 years ago! Don't tell me it's not important - how many Americans have died, and how much money has been wasted, just because of this addiction? How can we go to the pump and pay for gasoline that came from Saudi Arabia, when some of that money will end up financing terrorists trying to kill Americans and other innocent civilians around the world? Yes, the Middle East will always matter because Israel's security will always matter to us, but let's remove oil as the primary reason.
We also should examine ways to make more cuts in our defense budget. I've always been a defense hawk, but we can't afford the military budget we have right now, and we're clearly not willing to pay for it. We are willing to borrow from our kids and grandkids, but if we don't fix the budget deficit soon, our fiscal calamity will force even more draconian cuts later on. Now, we still need a military that can project power around the world and protect our vital interests, but right now the military-industrial complex is running wild. We have real and potential threats we need to defend against - North Korea and Iran come to mind - and we need to make sure that every defense dollar is spent actually making us safer. Sometimes, I think we just look at the hundreds of billions going toward defense each year and assume we must be really safe because we spend so much. That's a dangerous assumption.
In addition, drawing down in Iraq and Afghanistan hopefully will allow us to drastically reduce our dependence on military contractors, which has cost us untold billions. We need to make sure that we restructure our military so that contractors like Blackwater are no longer hired as mercenaries to take the place of our professional soldiers. You want contractors to handle building and staffing the mess hall - fine. But we should not be using contractors to fight our wars. We should not be using US tax dollars to finance the creation of private armies. Period.
Fixing the budget deficit isn't rocket science. It just requires us to act like responsible adults. It means agreeing that, except in recessions or extraordinary economic crises (like the last two years), we will all agree to pay for our government and to expect only the government we are willing to pay for. I have addressed - and will again - this challenge elsewhere on this blog, but suffice it to say that some relatively minor tweaks will fix Social Security, while additional healthcare reforms will be needed to slow the growth of Medicare. And we will need to raise taxes - primarily on the wealthy and, probably, on consumption, through a value added tax of some kind.
We also need to shift our spending priorities. Say goodbye to oil and corn subsidies, hello to rebuilding and modernizing our infrastructure. As mentioned earlier, we need even more investments in new energy. We need to change how we fund our schools as we try to make them more effective. We need to rebuild America as we reinvent it for the 21st Century and beyond.
Do No Harm
We talk a lot about other people's human rights. During the current state visit by China's president, the Obama administration is struggling to defend its record on human rights in China. Now, I do want people in China to have more freedoms, and I want the people of Tibet to have their rights and autonomy restored. But while we talk a lot about those issues and accomplish relatively little (other than ticking off the Chinese government), we do a lot of harm collectively and individually every day.
We buy mutual funds that invest in companies doing business in Sudan, effectively funding the genocide in Darfur. We buy cell phones and computers that use materials mined in eastern Congo, effectively funding the worst crimes against humanity on the planet. We do little to stem the use of illicit drugs bought in the US by our kids, which buys the guns used by Mexican drug gangs to kill thousands each year in a war that is turning Mexico into a failed state and is threatening our own national security. We buy clothes manufactured in sweat shops employing children and underpaid laborers, often working in dangerous conditions around the world. Largely because of our oil addiction, though partly to protect Israel, we spend billions propping up corrupt regimes in the Middle East that deny their own citizens fundamental human rights. We avoid serious efforts to reduce carbon emissions that are warming the planet and changing the climate to the point that people are dying and millions more are threatened.
If we just decided to do no harm, not expecting to be perfect but striving to be better, every day, we would do more good than all the lip service to human rights seems to be doing. Sure, if there seems to be a diplomatic solution or path to helping out (like Obama's efforts in southern Sudan of late), that's great. But, overall, let's focus first on not being part of the problem. Let's divest from companies doing business in Sudan and anywhere else where the money funds genocide. Let's insist that electronics be certified "conflict-free." Let's buy fair trade products whenever possible (that may also help protect US jobs against unfair competition from abroad to some extent). Let's figure out how to drastically reduce the use of illicit drugs that come from or through Mexico while using a combination of tighter gun control measures and border control checks to reduce the number of guns going from the US to Mexico. Let's adopt a cap and trade system - or if there's a better way to reduce emissions, let's do that. And let's make our oil addiction a mistake of the last century, not this one.
These shifts could potentially save thousands or even millions of lives. That's a much better return on our investment than Afghanistan or Iraq got us.
So my bottom line is that we should focus on rebuilding and reinventing America for the new century while trying to reduce the harm we do elsewhere. If we could show our kids that these changes are possible, think about the kind of America - and the kind of world - they could help shape during their lifetimes?
I welcome your thoughts and comments - this is a significant shift for me. If you've got some hard evidence or persuasive arguments that I'm way off course, I'd love to see them.
But I am starting to wonder. Yes, we should care about others. But I think we pay a lot of lip service these days to "human rights" while ignoring the considerable harm we do, intentionally or not, every day. And I think we over-promise and overextend ourselves, and we can no longer afford to do so.
So my new foreign policy paradigm is that we should "do no harm" while getting our own house in order.
Getting Our House in Order
First off, we should make sure we complete our military withdrawal from Iraq this year, while fully funding the State Department's expanding operations intended to build on our success to date. Second, we should withdraw from Afghanistan. I fear that we will be there forever, but I don't think the investment of blood and treasure is paying off or will pay off. In terms of long-term, vital US interests, there are better ways to invest our money and use our military than battling the Taliban and trying to turn the Karzai government into a stable government for that country.
I am sick and tired of the Middle East being the most important region in the world, just because we're addicted to oil and have refused for decades to do anything serious about it. While President Obama has significantly increased government investments in new energy technology, it's not enough. Let's be audacious and invoke a little bit of JFK's magic: let's rid ourselves of our oil addiction by 2020. Don't tell me it's impossible. We went to the moon in less than a decade - over 40 years ago! Don't tell me it's not important - how many Americans have died, and how much money has been wasted, just because of this addiction? How can we go to the pump and pay for gasoline that came from Saudi Arabia, when some of that money will end up financing terrorists trying to kill Americans and other innocent civilians around the world? Yes, the Middle East will always matter because Israel's security will always matter to us, but let's remove oil as the primary reason.
We also should examine ways to make more cuts in our defense budget. I've always been a defense hawk, but we can't afford the military budget we have right now, and we're clearly not willing to pay for it. We are willing to borrow from our kids and grandkids, but if we don't fix the budget deficit soon, our fiscal calamity will force even more draconian cuts later on. Now, we still need a military that can project power around the world and protect our vital interests, but right now the military-industrial complex is running wild. We have real and potential threats we need to defend against - North Korea and Iran come to mind - and we need to make sure that every defense dollar is spent actually making us safer. Sometimes, I think we just look at the hundreds of billions going toward defense each year and assume we must be really safe because we spend so much. That's a dangerous assumption.
In addition, drawing down in Iraq and Afghanistan hopefully will allow us to drastically reduce our dependence on military contractors, which has cost us untold billions. We need to make sure that we restructure our military so that contractors like Blackwater are no longer hired as mercenaries to take the place of our professional soldiers. You want contractors to handle building and staffing the mess hall - fine. But we should not be using contractors to fight our wars. We should not be using US tax dollars to finance the creation of private armies. Period.
Fixing the budget deficit isn't rocket science. It just requires us to act like responsible adults. It means agreeing that, except in recessions or extraordinary economic crises (like the last two years), we will all agree to pay for our government and to expect only the government we are willing to pay for. I have addressed - and will again - this challenge elsewhere on this blog, but suffice it to say that some relatively minor tweaks will fix Social Security, while additional healthcare reforms will be needed to slow the growth of Medicare. And we will need to raise taxes - primarily on the wealthy and, probably, on consumption, through a value added tax of some kind.
We also need to shift our spending priorities. Say goodbye to oil and corn subsidies, hello to rebuilding and modernizing our infrastructure. As mentioned earlier, we need even more investments in new energy. We need to change how we fund our schools as we try to make them more effective. We need to rebuild America as we reinvent it for the 21st Century and beyond.
Do No Harm
We talk a lot about other people's human rights. During the current state visit by China's president, the Obama administration is struggling to defend its record on human rights in China. Now, I do want people in China to have more freedoms, and I want the people of Tibet to have their rights and autonomy restored. But while we talk a lot about those issues and accomplish relatively little (other than ticking off the Chinese government), we do a lot of harm collectively and individually every day.
We buy mutual funds that invest in companies doing business in Sudan, effectively funding the genocide in Darfur. We buy cell phones and computers that use materials mined in eastern Congo, effectively funding the worst crimes against humanity on the planet. We do little to stem the use of illicit drugs bought in the US by our kids, which buys the guns used by Mexican drug gangs to kill thousands each year in a war that is turning Mexico into a failed state and is threatening our own national security. We buy clothes manufactured in sweat shops employing children and underpaid laborers, often working in dangerous conditions around the world. Largely because of our oil addiction, though partly to protect Israel, we spend billions propping up corrupt regimes in the Middle East that deny their own citizens fundamental human rights. We avoid serious efforts to reduce carbon emissions that are warming the planet and changing the climate to the point that people are dying and millions more are threatened.
If we just decided to do no harm, not expecting to be perfect but striving to be better, every day, we would do more good than all the lip service to human rights seems to be doing. Sure, if there seems to be a diplomatic solution or path to helping out (like Obama's efforts in southern Sudan of late), that's great. But, overall, let's focus first on not being part of the problem. Let's divest from companies doing business in Sudan and anywhere else where the money funds genocide. Let's insist that electronics be certified "conflict-free." Let's buy fair trade products whenever possible (that may also help protect US jobs against unfair competition from abroad to some extent). Let's figure out how to drastically reduce the use of illicit drugs that come from or through Mexico while using a combination of tighter gun control measures and border control checks to reduce the number of guns going from the US to Mexico. Let's adopt a cap and trade system - or if there's a better way to reduce emissions, let's do that. And let's make our oil addiction a mistake of the last century, not this one.
These shifts could potentially save thousands or even millions of lives. That's a much better return on our investment than Afghanistan or Iraq got us.
So my bottom line is that we should focus on rebuilding and reinventing America for the new century while trying to reduce the harm we do elsewhere. If we could show our kids that these changes are possible, think about the kind of America - and the kind of world - they could help shape during their lifetimes?
I welcome your thoughts and comments - this is a significant shift for me. If you've got some hard evidence or persuasive arguments that I'm way off course, I'd love to see them.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Join me in becoming less distraught and more empowered
Most of my life, I've been a pretty positive guy. In fact, in college, friends said I viewed the world through rose-colored glasses. I have tended to believe that anything is possible. I tended to get along with everyone, didn't speak badly about other people behind their backs, and saw the good in others.
Recently, however, I feel like I'm stuck in some bad Star Wars remake, being drawn over to the Dark Side. Now, some of it may just be that I'm a middle-aged guy, with less patience who is more easily frustrated by ignorance, thoughtlessness, and selfishness. I'm more aware of my own short-comings and feeling more guilty about my lack of involvement in fixing our nation's problems. Moreover, like many people, I can get caught up in the day-to-day frustrations and disappointments of my life, the petty conflicts, the slights - real and perceived.
And, yet, I am a high school social studies teacher and love my job more than ever. I am having more fun, find my students more interesting, and enjoy the journey of learning with them more than ever. That would seem to require plenty of patience and a sense of wonderment. And, I'd like to think I'm making a difference, at least with some people, some of the time.
While there are, in all likelihood, a multitude of reasons for my darker mood, every day I come back to the same realization: that a major reason for this shift in attitude is the state of our nation, the direction in which we're headed, and the seemingly intractable problem of having a political system dominated by two political parties addicted to, dependent on, and beholden to big money. This problem is compounded by the alarmingly rapid growth of inequality in this country, where the top one percent, or less, are amassing wealth at a blistering pace while the middle class shrinks and stagnates.
It is easy to become like Bill Maher, host of HBO's Real Time, whose cynicism often is well-founded and defended. There are many, many enormous challenges facing our country, and there is plenty of evidence that the political system is broken. As a teacher, I have felt is was my duty to help my students see the looming threats to their future. I have felt even more justified, of late, since many of my warnings have become reality in the last few years.
The result, however, has been that all-too-many days my students left class feeling depressed or worried, while I wanted them to feel empowered. I have become ever more angry and frustrated with our politics and politicians and the lack of real progress in addressing our more urgent problems. But giving in to the cynicism, frustration, and anger solves nothing. If there's anything I've learned from my students this semester, and from the discussions since the shooting in Arizona, it's that we need to feel more empowered and less cynical. We need a positive vision of the future to rally behind, not an endless things to complain about and feel victimized by.
We all can see where things are headed if more and more of us feel like powerless victims. And there are plenty of people in politics and on radio and TV who stand to make more money and gain more power and influence by leading us down that path. But that path does not lead us to a future I want for me or my kids.
One of the things that has made America great over the centuries is that, when times got really tough and the challenges seemed enormous and virtually insurmountable, people rallied behind those who sought solutions and had a vision for a better future. The progressive movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s. FDR and the New Deal. Martin Luther King, Jr., and LBJ and the Civil Rights Movement and the Great Society. They reminded us of our strengths and the many things to feel grateful for while challenging us to become even better and to insure that more Americans had a shot at the American dream.
So my challenge for myself is to look for ways to better appreciate what I have in my life and the many wonderful things our country has achieved while finding ways to become a better citizen in a better country. To feel less angry and more hopeful. To find ways to empower myself, my students, and other Americans who want a better future.
That doesn't mean ignoring those who would bring us over to the Dark Side. Rather, it means holding them accountable for their lies and personal agendas while having real answers to the questions they pretend to answer. It means insisting on a fact-based, reality-based, forward-looking debate and modeling what that looks like every day.
If we all take on this challenge, if we all do our best every day to forge that positive vision and move us one step along in that direction, we will get there.
For me, the positive vision has to start with a major political reform of some kind to break the stranglehold of big money on our political system. I'm not sure if that means a third party or a constitutional amendment on campaign financing, but something has to shift. It also means young Americans - people in their teens and twenties - who have the most to lose if things don't turn around, standing up for their futures and being the agents of change people like them have been in the past (civil rights, Vietnam, the anti-apartheid movement, etc.).
Then, it's about creating the kind of America we will be proud to leave our children and grandchildren. I've written before in this space about what that vision might look like, and I will doubtlessly write about it more. And I want to hear from others what they want that vision to look like. It can't end with a conversation on the internet, but it can start here.
How am I doing so far? How about you?
Recently, however, I feel like I'm stuck in some bad Star Wars remake, being drawn over to the Dark Side. Now, some of it may just be that I'm a middle-aged guy, with less patience who is more easily frustrated by ignorance, thoughtlessness, and selfishness. I'm more aware of my own short-comings and feeling more guilty about my lack of involvement in fixing our nation's problems. Moreover, like many people, I can get caught up in the day-to-day frustrations and disappointments of my life, the petty conflicts, the slights - real and perceived.
And, yet, I am a high school social studies teacher and love my job more than ever. I am having more fun, find my students more interesting, and enjoy the journey of learning with them more than ever. That would seem to require plenty of patience and a sense of wonderment. And, I'd like to think I'm making a difference, at least with some people, some of the time.
While there are, in all likelihood, a multitude of reasons for my darker mood, every day I come back to the same realization: that a major reason for this shift in attitude is the state of our nation, the direction in which we're headed, and the seemingly intractable problem of having a political system dominated by two political parties addicted to, dependent on, and beholden to big money. This problem is compounded by the alarmingly rapid growth of inequality in this country, where the top one percent, or less, are amassing wealth at a blistering pace while the middle class shrinks and stagnates.
It is easy to become like Bill Maher, host of HBO's Real Time, whose cynicism often is well-founded and defended. There are many, many enormous challenges facing our country, and there is plenty of evidence that the political system is broken. As a teacher, I have felt is was my duty to help my students see the looming threats to their future. I have felt even more justified, of late, since many of my warnings have become reality in the last few years.
The result, however, has been that all-too-many days my students left class feeling depressed or worried, while I wanted them to feel empowered. I have become ever more angry and frustrated with our politics and politicians and the lack of real progress in addressing our more urgent problems. But giving in to the cynicism, frustration, and anger solves nothing. If there's anything I've learned from my students this semester, and from the discussions since the shooting in Arizona, it's that we need to feel more empowered and less cynical. We need a positive vision of the future to rally behind, not an endless things to complain about and feel victimized by.
We all can see where things are headed if more and more of us feel like powerless victims. And there are plenty of people in politics and on radio and TV who stand to make more money and gain more power and influence by leading us down that path. But that path does not lead us to a future I want for me or my kids.
One of the things that has made America great over the centuries is that, when times got really tough and the challenges seemed enormous and virtually insurmountable, people rallied behind those who sought solutions and had a vision for a better future. The progressive movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s. FDR and the New Deal. Martin Luther King, Jr., and LBJ and the Civil Rights Movement and the Great Society. They reminded us of our strengths and the many things to feel grateful for while challenging us to become even better and to insure that more Americans had a shot at the American dream.
So my challenge for myself is to look for ways to better appreciate what I have in my life and the many wonderful things our country has achieved while finding ways to become a better citizen in a better country. To feel less angry and more hopeful. To find ways to empower myself, my students, and other Americans who want a better future.
That doesn't mean ignoring those who would bring us over to the Dark Side. Rather, it means holding them accountable for their lies and personal agendas while having real answers to the questions they pretend to answer. It means insisting on a fact-based, reality-based, forward-looking debate and modeling what that looks like every day.
If we all take on this challenge, if we all do our best every day to forge that positive vision and move us one step along in that direction, we will get there.
For me, the positive vision has to start with a major political reform of some kind to break the stranglehold of big money on our political system. I'm not sure if that means a third party or a constitutional amendment on campaign financing, but something has to shift. It also means young Americans - people in their teens and twenties - who have the most to lose if things don't turn around, standing up for their futures and being the agents of change people like them have been in the past (civil rights, Vietnam, the anti-apartheid movement, etc.).
Then, it's about creating the kind of America we will be proud to leave our children and grandchildren. I've written before in this space about what that vision might look like, and I will doubtlessly write about it more. And I want to hear from others what they want that vision to look like. It can't end with a conversation on the internet, but it can start here.
How am I doing so far? How about you?
Monday, January 10, 2011
Why can't I be a "supporter of the 2nd amendment," too?
Listening to some of the discussions in the media in the aftermath of the shooting in Arizona this weekend, it is striking how the language of the gun control debate seems to favor the anti-gun control side.
Language matters. The words we choose often convey bias or judgement - good or bad, right or wrong. The NRA and its anti-gun control allies seem to have won the battle over language. Time and time again, I have heard those in who oppose gun control (often of any kind) as "supporters of the 2nd amendment" or "supporters of 2nd amendment rights." Now, I favor some forms of gun control. I favor a ban on assault weapons, I favor waiting periods and more serious background checks. I favor mandatory training and licenses, like you need to drive a car (another potentially deadly weapon). But I also believe in the Constitution and the 2nd amendment. I just don't interpret it as broadly as the NRA and most anti-gun control people do.
So why does the media tend to use language that makes me seem like I am against part of the Constitution and against the 2nd amendment?
Here's what the 2nd amendment actually says:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Seems pretty clear to me that this protects people's right to own weapons because we need a citizen milita to defend the freedom of the country. Now, we live in an era where the US military and National Guard protect the freedom of the country, so the intent of the amendment would seem moot. But I am willing to acknowledge a long-standing tradition of gun ownership in this country under a broad interpretation of this amendment. But it would seem prudent and constitutional for the government to pass laws limiting or regulating access to weapons if it is in the interest of protecting the general population.
But that does not make me "anti-2nd amendment," as the current language used in the media would suggest. By suggesting that those against gun control "support" the amendment (and, therefor, the Constitution), it is implied that those for gun control are against the amendment (and the Constitution). that pretty much stifles the debate.
Language matters. The words we choose often convey bias or judgement - good or bad, right or wrong. The NRA and its anti-gun control allies seem to have won the battle over language. Time and time again, I have heard those in who oppose gun control (often of any kind) as "supporters of the 2nd amendment" or "supporters of 2nd amendment rights." Now, I favor some forms of gun control. I favor a ban on assault weapons, I favor waiting periods and more serious background checks. I favor mandatory training and licenses, like you need to drive a car (another potentially deadly weapon). But I also believe in the Constitution and the 2nd amendment. I just don't interpret it as broadly as the NRA and most anti-gun control people do.
So why does the media tend to use language that makes me seem like I am against part of the Constitution and against the 2nd amendment?
Here's what the 2nd amendment actually says:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Seems pretty clear to me that this protects people's right to own weapons because we need a citizen milita to defend the freedom of the country. Now, we live in an era where the US military and National Guard protect the freedom of the country, so the intent of the amendment would seem moot. But I am willing to acknowledge a long-standing tradition of gun ownership in this country under a broad interpretation of this amendment. But it would seem prudent and constitutional for the government to pass laws limiting or regulating access to weapons if it is in the interest of protecting the general population.
But that does not make me "anti-2nd amendment," as the current language used in the media would suggest. By suggesting that those against gun control "support" the amendment (and, therefor, the Constitution), it is implied that those for gun control are against the amendment (and the Constitution). that pretty much stifles the debate.
Friday, January 07, 2011
One more thing on the corn subsidies...
Obviously we're addicted to cheap corn, so we can't just cut the subsidies today. We need to wean ourselves off of them. We need a sensible approach toward a more sustainable food policy and system. Pig factories are dangerous to the local environment and to our society in general. And we don't want kids and poor people drinking soft drinks and eating cheeseburgers and fries so much. We want and need less processed foods that are more affordable.
But because of the influence of the farming industry, we can't even begin the conversation politically. Even Michelle Obama's relatively modest initiatives around healthy eating have come under attack!
We need some real strategic thinking in DC. On energy, education, food/health, infrastructure. Concrete, achievable and observable goals for the next 10 years and clear policies for achieving them. If the current political parties can't do that, then our nation needs another party...
But because of the influence of the farming industry, we can't even begin the conversation politically. Even Michelle Obama's relatively modest initiatives around healthy eating have come under attack!
We need some real strategic thinking in DC. On energy, education, food/health, infrastructure. Concrete, achievable and observable goals for the next 10 years and clear policies for achieving them. If the current political parties can't do that, then our nation needs another party...
Our insane corn policy
Since the Nixon Administration, we've had a crazy policy of subsidizing corn production. It's a bonanza for the big agricultural companies like ADM and has become a bit of a political sacred cow - big shock. Between ADM and other companies exercising their lobbying clout and the Iowa caucuses being so important in the presidential election process, it's become as American as apple pie and baseball.
The consequences are tragic. Cheap corn made corn syrup a staple in processed foods, making the least healthy food the least expensive. Corn became the feed of choice for cattle and pigs, enabling the creation of mega cattle and pig factories and the necessity for using antibiotics to keep those cows and pigs "healthy." Fast food and soft drink sales exploded. So did childhood and adult obesity. So did drug-resistant diseases.
In recent years, ethanol became a more popular alternative to or additive to gasoline, as mandated by the government. That, in term, increased demand for corn and drove the prices up, making food that depends on corn (beef, pork, etc.) more expensive.
NPR has a series on ethanol, and one installment discusses this crazy aspect of our corn subsidies - which need to end. Decades or centuries from now, historians may well look back on American corn subsidies as one of the stupidest and dangerous government policies of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Like so many other policies that need to change, this one is tough because the status quo serves the interest of big business. But it's killing us.
The consequences are tragic. Cheap corn made corn syrup a staple in processed foods, making the least healthy food the least expensive. Corn became the feed of choice for cattle and pigs, enabling the creation of mega cattle and pig factories and the necessity for using antibiotics to keep those cows and pigs "healthy." Fast food and soft drink sales exploded. So did childhood and adult obesity. So did drug-resistant diseases.
In recent years, ethanol became a more popular alternative to or additive to gasoline, as mandated by the government. That, in term, increased demand for corn and drove the prices up, making food that depends on corn (beef, pork, etc.) more expensive.
NPR has a series on ethanol, and one installment discusses this crazy aspect of our corn subsidies - which need to end. Decades or centuries from now, historians may well look back on American corn subsidies as one of the stupidest and dangerous government policies of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Like so many other policies that need to change, this one is tough because the status quo serves the interest of big business. But it's killing us.
Acting like Soviets
When I lived in the Soviet Union during its last years, one of the things that struck me as a critical difference between Soviets and Americans was the attitude when your neighbor had something you did not.
In America, if your neighbor bought a nice, shiny new car, you wanted one. You tried to figure out how you could get a car just like it - or better. We called it, "Keeping up with the Joneses." This mentality helped fuel economic expansion in the 20th century by increasing demand for consumer products and rewarding innovation. Your neighbor got the new color tv? Well, you had to get one, too. Sometimes that meant trying to get a promotion or bonus, or maybe even switch companies so you could earn more money. When it got out of control, it meant over-borrowing by running up our credit card bills or by borrowing against the equity in our houses.
In the Soviet Union, if your neighbor got that nice, shiny new car (ok, they weren't that nice or shiny...), you thought, "How did they get that? Must have paid someone off. I should report them to the authorities so they will take it away! I can't afford one, and even if I could, I'd have to wait 5-10 years on a waiting list in order to get one. Ivan shouldn't be able to buy one now!" People resented any evidence of success or wealth or improvement in the standard of living of their neighbors.
Now I am not a big fan of America's consumption mentality. I think it is a source of unhappiness and stress and waste. But it also is a source of innovation and ambition and progress. It is part of what unites us in the pursuit of the American dream - that we will live better than our parents and that our kids will live better than we do.
The current attacks on public employees and their unions smacks of a Soviet-style attitude of resentment: "Why should government workers have cheap health insurance or a decent pension when private sector employees increasingly do not?" Rather than denying public workers affordable health care and a pension, why don't we have a national conversation about how to really make health care affordable for all - beyond what Obamacare might or might not do? Why not discuss how everyone will live comfortably in old age, especially as life expectancy increases? Will 401k's and Social Security be enough? Can Social Security and Medicare be made solvent for the long term without making them ineffective as safety nets? If most people do have to save for their own retirement now, how can we better educate and empower them to do it wisely and successfully? After all, most high school students never learn about financial planning and investing, yet most will be responsible for managing their finances, saving for their kids' college educations, and building a pretty big nest egg for retirement.
Let's not make public employees the villains here and try to tear everyone down to a poor lowest common denominator. Let's figure out what or new vision of the American dream is and then figure out the best way to make it happen!
In America, if your neighbor bought a nice, shiny new car, you wanted one. You tried to figure out how you could get a car just like it - or better. We called it, "Keeping up with the Joneses." This mentality helped fuel economic expansion in the 20th century by increasing demand for consumer products and rewarding innovation. Your neighbor got the new color tv? Well, you had to get one, too. Sometimes that meant trying to get a promotion or bonus, or maybe even switch companies so you could earn more money. When it got out of control, it meant over-borrowing by running up our credit card bills or by borrowing against the equity in our houses.
In the Soviet Union, if your neighbor got that nice, shiny new car (ok, they weren't that nice or shiny...), you thought, "How did they get that? Must have paid someone off. I should report them to the authorities so they will take it away! I can't afford one, and even if I could, I'd have to wait 5-10 years on a waiting list in order to get one. Ivan shouldn't be able to buy one now!" People resented any evidence of success or wealth or improvement in the standard of living of their neighbors.
Now I am not a big fan of America's consumption mentality. I think it is a source of unhappiness and stress and waste. But it also is a source of innovation and ambition and progress. It is part of what unites us in the pursuit of the American dream - that we will live better than our parents and that our kids will live better than we do.
The current attacks on public employees and their unions smacks of a Soviet-style attitude of resentment: "Why should government workers have cheap health insurance or a decent pension when private sector employees increasingly do not?" Rather than denying public workers affordable health care and a pension, why don't we have a national conversation about how to really make health care affordable for all - beyond what Obamacare might or might not do? Why not discuss how everyone will live comfortably in old age, especially as life expectancy increases? Will 401k's and Social Security be enough? Can Social Security and Medicare be made solvent for the long term without making them ineffective as safety nets? If most people do have to save for their own retirement now, how can we better educate and empower them to do it wisely and successfully? After all, most high school students never learn about financial planning and investing, yet most will be responsible for managing their finances, saving for their kids' college educations, and building a pretty big nest egg for retirement.
Let's not make public employees the villains here and try to tear everyone down to a poor lowest common denominator. Let's figure out what or new vision of the American dream is and then figure out the best way to make it happen!
Fixing education in America - are we on the wrong path?
The Economist has a hopeful article about education reform in the US. While I am glad that we seem to be in the early stages of a more serious debate about the future of America's schools, I am very concerned that the debate is merely accelerating a move in the wrong direction. Seemingly every day, I hear or read about someone pointing the finger at teachers and teacher unions as the problem. We need more accountability for teachers! Let's test kids more so we can use those tests to determine how well teachers teach, then fire the ones whose students do poorly on the tests and increase the pay for the ones whose kids improve the most. Yet while some talk about needing to recruit better-qualified teachers and pay them more if they are effective, governors across the country this week are targeting public employees, their unions, and their benefits (health care and pensions) in order to address dire fiscal crises. So we're going to cut teacher pensions and health care, and cut teaching positions and/or slow the growth in salaries?
I've been teaching for over a decade now. I love it. It's harder than I ever thought, and I hate grading. But it's incredibly rewarding, challenging, and interesting every day. I learn so much from my students and about myself. I get up at 5am every day and I can't wait to get to school!
I'm also incredibly fortunate to teach in an affluent school district with supportive parents and more resources than many districts in the country. I've had supportive administrators, too, including my first principal who was a mentor to me and encouraged me to take risks and develop my own philosophy toward teaching.
So while I acknowledge that my perspective is somewhat limited, I'd like to weigh in on the growing debate in the US about how to improve our sub-par educational system.
I think we've been moving in the wrong direction in terms of national policy for a decade. No Child Left Behind created underfunded mandates for states and put us firmly on the track of relying on standardized tests to judge effectiveness. That's extremely flawed and, overall, harmful to education. The Obama/Duncan approach toward education reform similarly emphasizes testing, but now to evaluate teachers, not just schools.
Standardized tests have their place. Designed well, they can be one way of measuring minimal standards of proficiency for certain skills. But, in the end, they merely measure how each student can do on one given day on a limited range of tasks. They often test how well kids memorize material that, two weeks later, they forget. They really test how well you take a test. When is the last time you took a multiple-choice test where you work?
The reliance on standardized tests, I believe, has helped dumb-down America's schools in all too many cases. Rather than raising standards, they have often lowered them. Many teachers now "teach to the test," relying on lecture-based instruction to "cover" material that might be on a test and assessing students' learning by giving them tests that mimic the standardized ones at the end of the year.
The purpose of America's schools shouldn't be to raise test scores. I believe the purpose of America's schools should be to prepare our kids for 21st century careers and to teach them how to participate successfully in our society. Kids need to learn how to innovate, problem-solve, and collaborate with peers. They need to learn how to research, analyze, and communicate effectively, in writing and verbally. They need to understand how the economy works, how to budget and manage their money, and how to invest for the future. They need to know how to take care of their bodies through exercise and good nutrition. They need to know how to evaluate a doctor's advice and how to understand news about medical and scientific studies. They need to know how to be effective citizens in a democracy - how to follow and understand the news, how to discuss political and economic issues with their relatives, friends and co-workers, and how to participate in a democracy. Kids need to know how to figure out for whom to vote, how to vote, how to lobby their elected representatives, and how to share their opinions with their fellow citizens (letters to the editor, Twitter, Facebook, blogging, etc.).
For the most part, standardized tests do not assess how well we are meeting those needs. We will not have the best chance of meeting those needs by teaching to the test by lecturing kids and having them memorize facts they can look up online in 30 seconds. If we lower our expectations to the standards of the tests, teachers and kids will lower their expectations and those needs will not be met. Basing teachers' salaries and job security on how well their students do on standardized tests is the path to mediocrity, not innovation and excellence.
We need better and higher standards. We need better ways of evaluating what we do in the classroom. We need better ways of preparing kids in poor inner city and rural districts for elementary school, so they can read and write and focus the rest of their academic careers on rising to high expectations. We need to train our teachers to be more innovative and creative, to take risks in the classroom in order to best address the needs and aspirations of the students they work with each year.
What do you think our goals should be? What's the best way to achieve them? How do we do it in this fiscal climate?
I've been teaching for over a decade now. I love it. It's harder than I ever thought, and I hate grading. But it's incredibly rewarding, challenging, and interesting every day. I learn so much from my students and about myself. I get up at 5am every day and I can't wait to get to school!
I'm also incredibly fortunate to teach in an affluent school district with supportive parents and more resources than many districts in the country. I've had supportive administrators, too, including my first principal who was a mentor to me and encouraged me to take risks and develop my own philosophy toward teaching.
So while I acknowledge that my perspective is somewhat limited, I'd like to weigh in on the growing debate in the US about how to improve our sub-par educational system.
I think we've been moving in the wrong direction in terms of national policy for a decade. No Child Left Behind created underfunded mandates for states and put us firmly on the track of relying on standardized tests to judge effectiveness. That's extremely flawed and, overall, harmful to education. The Obama/Duncan approach toward education reform similarly emphasizes testing, but now to evaluate teachers, not just schools.
Standardized tests have their place. Designed well, they can be one way of measuring minimal standards of proficiency for certain skills. But, in the end, they merely measure how each student can do on one given day on a limited range of tasks. They often test how well kids memorize material that, two weeks later, they forget. They really test how well you take a test. When is the last time you took a multiple-choice test where you work?
The reliance on standardized tests, I believe, has helped dumb-down America's schools in all too many cases. Rather than raising standards, they have often lowered them. Many teachers now "teach to the test," relying on lecture-based instruction to "cover" material that might be on a test and assessing students' learning by giving them tests that mimic the standardized ones at the end of the year.
The purpose of America's schools shouldn't be to raise test scores. I believe the purpose of America's schools should be to prepare our kids for 21st century careers and to teach them how to participate successfully in our society. Kids need to learn how to innovate, problem-solve, and collaborate with peers. They need to learn how to research, analyze, and communicate effectively, in writing and verbally. They need to understand how the economy works, how to budget and manage their money, and how to invest for the future. They need to know how to take care of their bodies through exercise and good nutrition. They need to know how to evaluate a doctor's advice and how to understand news about medical and scientific studies. They need to know how to be effective citizens in a democracy - how to follow and understand the news, how to discuss political and economic issues with their relatives, friends and co-workers, and how to participate in a democracy. Kids need to know how to figure out for whom to vote, how to vote, how to lobby their elected representatives, and how to share their opinions with their fellow citizens (letters to the editor, Twitter, Facebook, blogging, etc.).
For the most part, standardized tests do not assess how well we are meeting those needs. We will not have the best chance of meeting those needs by teaching to the test by lecturing kids and having them memorize facts they can look up online in 30 seconds. If we lower our expectations to the standards of the tests, teachers and kids will lower their expectations and those needs will not be met. Basing teachers' salaries and job security on how well their students do on standardized tests is the path to mediocrity, not innovation and excellence.
We need better and higher standards. We need better ways of evaluating what we do in the classroom. We need better ways of preparing kids in poor inner city and rural districts for elementary school, so they can read and write and focus the rest of their academic careers on rising to high expectations. We need to train our teachers to be more innovative and creative, to take risks in the classroom in order to best address the needs and aspirations of the students they work with each year.
What do you think our goals should be? What's the best way to achieve them? How do we do it in this fiscal climate?
Thursday, January 06, 2011
I've had it!
I am increasingly frustrated and angry with the direction of our country and the tragically flawed nature of our political system. I'm looking for people who share my concern so we can figure out what to do - how we can raise our voices and join together to make sure that we and our kids have a brighter future.
The root of all evil seems to be the infection of the political system with corporate money. How can we expect the government - no matter which party is in charge - to do what is best for the common good when corporations and other wealthy donors have bought access and influence that is unchallenged? Just this week, we learned that hedge funds bankrolled the GOP toward the end of the midterm elections, providing $10 million in campaign financing.
Why should it surprise us when Obama appoints a top JP Morgan Chase executive to be his chief of staff? Why should we be surprised when his budget director leaves to go work for Citigroup?
Why should we be surprised when the first step in health care reform was to cut a private deal with the major companies involved in health care?
Why should we be surprised that the GOP had as its top priority to extend tax cuts on the wealthiest 2%? Why should we be surprised that the most likely solution to fixing Social Security's solvency is to make middle and working class people pay more in payroll taxes and postpone retirement, rather than reducing future benefits for the wealthy or taxing more of their current income?
Why should we be surprised when eight presidents - from Nixon to Obama - fail to provide a serious energy policy to get us off our addiction to Middle East oil? Why should we be surprised that oil companies are among the most heavily subsidized by the government?
Why should we be surprised when some of our leaders ignore science and deny climate change? Why should we be surprised when even those who believe in science do nothing to address the need to reduce carbon emissions?
Why should we be surprised when the US government spends tens of billions of dollars subsidizing agriculture in ways that make our citizens - and especially our kids - obese?
Americans need jobs, we need to rebuild and modernize our infrastructure, we need major investments in new energy technology, and we need to fix and better fund our educational system. But who is lobbying Congress to make sure that gets done? And who is lobbying Congress to make sure it gets done not by borrowing from our children's future income but by asking those who benefit the most from our country's wealth to pay more according to their means and by ending subsidies that keep us addicted to oil and unhealthy food?
We're a great country, capable of solving our problems and giving our kids - and the world - a brighter, healthier, safer future. Our challenges might be great, but so is our capacity for innovation and hard work. But unless and until our government stops serving the needs of the few and puts the needs of the average American first, much of that capacity will go to waste.
Thanks to the Supreme Court, the only way to remove the stranglehold big money has on our political system may be to amend the Constitution. So do we need to rally together to make that happen? Is it even possible? Will politicians in DC and state legislatures choose to cut off the hand that feeds them? Or do we need a third party that will counter the Tea Party and raise support for a platform that will fix our fiscal mess while investing in our future? Is there another way, one that is more unconventional that takes advantage of social networking and the technology of the 21st century to truly transform grassroots activism?
I would love to hear from others who share my frustration and anger. I especially would love to hear from younger Americans - those in their teens and 20s - who have the most to gain and lose. You have the power - and the time and energy - to make a real difference. Time to stand up and be heard!
The root of all evil seems to be the infection of the political system with corporate money. How can we expect the government - no matter which party is in charge - to do what is best for the common good when corporations and other wealthy donors have bought access and influence that is unchallenged? Just this week, we learned that hedge funds bankrolled the GOP toward the end of the midterm elections, providing $10 million in campaign financing.
Why should it surprise us when Obama appoints a top JP Morgan Chase executive to be his chief of staff? Why should we be surprised when his budget director leaves to go work for Citigroup?
Why should we be surprised when the first step in health care reform was to cut a private deal with the major companies involved in health care?
Why should we be surprised that the GOP had as its top priority to extend tax cuts on the wealthiest 2%? Why should we be surprised that the most likely solution to fixing Social Security's solvency is to make middle and working class people pay more in payroll taxes and postpone retirement, rather than reducing future benefits for the wealthy or taxing more of their current income?
Why should we be surprised when eight presidents - from Nixon to Obama - fail to provide a serious energy policy to get us off our addiction to Middle East oil? Why should we be surprised that oil companies are among the most heavily subsidized by the government?
Why should we be surprised when some of our leaders ignore science and deny climate change? Why should we be surprised when even those who believe in science do nothing to address the need to reduce carbon emissions?
Why should we be surprised when the US government spends tens of billions of dollars subsidizing agriculture in ways that make our citizens - and especially our kids - obese?
Americans need jobs, we need to rebuild and modernize our infrastructure, we need major investments in new energy technology, and we need to fix and better fund our educational system. But who is lobbying Congress to make sure that gets done? And who is lobbying Congress to make sure it gets done not by borrowing from our children's future income but by asking those who benefit the most from our country's wealth to pay more according to their means and by ending subsidies that keep us addicted to oil and unhealthy food?
We're a great country, capable of solving our problems and giving our kids - and the world - a brighter, healthier, safer future. Our challenges might be great, but so is our capacity for innovation and hard work. But unless and until our government stops serving the needs of the few and puts the needs of the average American first, much of that capacity will go to waste.
Thanks to the Supreme Court, the only way to remove the stranglehold big money has on our political system may be to amend the Constitution. So do we need to rally together to make that happen? Is it even possible? Will politicians in DC and state legislatures choose to cut off the hand that feeds them? Or do we need a third party that will counter the Tea Party and raise support for a platform that will fix our fiscal mess while investing in our future? Is there another way, one that is more unconventional that takes advantage of social networking and the technology of the 21st century to truly transform grassroots activism?
I would love to hear from others who share my frustration and anger. I especially would love to hear from younger Americans - those in their teens and 20s - who have the most to gain and lose. You have the power - and the time and energy - to make a real difference. Time to stand up and be heard!
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Reply to an important comment - why should the wealthy pay more?
Someone posted the following comment in response to an earlier post:
I don't think many would disagree that we should be paying taxes. The real debate (in my opinion) is not should we pay taxes but why should those who earn the most be supporting those who contribute the least. I certainly expect to "pay for what (I) get" however my question is why should others "get" what I am paying for?
I don't think many would disagree that we should be paying taxes. The real debate (in my opinion) is not should we pay taxes but why should those who earn the most be supporting those who contribute the least. I certainly expect to "pay for what (I) get" however my question is why should others "get" what I am paying for?
I hear this a lot and it is an important and common point of view. I'd love to take a crack at replying...
First, I think a lot of people don't like paying taxes think they are "Taxed Enough Already" (the TEA Party people), and would like to see their taxes cut further. Unfortunately, no one really forces them to acknowledge that we pay little in federal taxes compared to other developed nations and, because we cut taxes almost a decade ago, we end up borrowing from our kids' future earnings to finance much of what our government does.
Also, in my experience, most people who are reluctant to pay more in taxes can't come up with a credible plan for spending less so we don't have to borrow. And most of the ones that I know have at least one or two major budget items they fervently want to protect (defense spending, Social Security, Medicare for their elderly parent, etc.). In general, we Americans want more from the government but refuse to pay for it. That is fiscally irresponsible and morally wrong.
Now, as to the main point in the comment, about "paying for what I get" but not wanting to have others "get" what the wealthy in America pay for, it's a fundamental question of what is fair and sensible in American tax policy.
The fundamental reason for a progressive tax system, in which those who make more pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes, is that those who earn more can afford more (the poor and middle classes spend most or all of their income on necessities - the rich have more discretionary income and can afford to pay a higher percentage of income in taxes). In addition, the theory goes, wealthy Americans benefit more, overall, from having a government that protects us, makes sure the financial system functions well (um, that is, most of the time?), and insures a healthy level of economic competition and the rule of law. I agree that, in general, a progressive system of taxation makes sense and is "fair" for those reasons. So does Warren Buffett. In fact, he has argued that our tax system offers so many loopholes and deductions for the wealthy that in many cases they pay less than middle class Americans.
But I also think it is ok to think selfishly. The reality is that wealthy people in this country generally do better when the middle class is growing and prospering. A healthy middle class buys more goods and services from businesses that the wealthy class owns and invests in. So if we make sure that the middle and poor classes pay less in taxes and have more money to spend, that's good for everybody. Just look at the 90s - the wealthy paid more in taxes than they do now, but the middle class did better and so did the overall economy - and the rich got richer!
There's one final point I'd like to make: we are in this together as a country. We choose to live here and participate in a social contract that tasks the government with providing for the general welfare of the country and its citizens. That means that, sometimes, those of us who have more provide aid and support to those who have less. It is one of our greatest traits as a people, I would argue. We are, generally, a kind and generous people. That's why we have had a social safety net for seven decades. And, while it does not work perfectly and there are those who take advantage of it, in general it serves us well and I am proud that we have one.
Thanks for the important comment and the chance to respond.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Some things should be sacred
The insane debate over the proposed Mulsim community center and mosque near - not at - Ground Zero in Manhattan is incredibly frustrating and disappointing for me. I fully understand and, sadly, accept the current state of politics in this country, in which every issue is partisan and where politicians carefully couch their statements in response to the current winds of public opinion or the latest statements of pundits on FOX News or MSNBC.
But some things in this country should be sacred, like freedom of religion. I know that separation of church and state can be murky, at times, but every American - especially our political leaders - should cast aside partisan agendas when it comes to our core freedoms. If someone wants to build a mosque, or a church, or a synagogue near Ground Zero, that is their right (provided they meet whatever local zoning and building codes apply). Period. Politicians should not try to score political points - or capture votes - by suggesting one religious group should be treated differently than any other.
I also am disturbed by Newt Gingrich - who, in spite of his intelligence is a crass political opportunist primarily concerned with his own political future - suggesting that Islam is the equivalent of the Nazis. So now Newt - and all too many Americans - would have us condemn all Muslims for the sins of a small number of crazy radicals. Great. That really is crazy.
No American who truly cares about the values millions of Americans have fought to defend should allow this line of reasoning to go unchallenged.
I know next to nothing about the group of imam behind the proposed community center and mosque. But I do know Rabbi David Saperstein, head of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and and one of the most honorable Americans I have had the pleasure of knowing and working with. Rabbi Saperstein wrote eloquently and powerfully in support of the proposed community center/mosque. That's just about the best endorsement you can get.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Where are the Millenials - and their parents?
There is a serious crisis looming for the Millenials (people in their teens and twenties), but most of them seem oblivious.
Our exploding federal debt and the financial woes of Social Security and Medicare (though the health care reform helped this a bit) threaten to doom my kids and others of their generation to a bleak economic future. Left unchecked, current trends will leave them with much higher income taxes to merely pay the interest on our debt while at the same time having fewer jobs and lower wages because our country can't afford to fix/improve education and infrastructure. Moreover, if waiting to fix Social Security and Medicare results in draconian benefit cuts down the road, our kids will have to spend more of their money taking care of us, their parents. Yikes! My generation is on course to be the first in over a century to leave our kids with fewer opportunities and a lower standard of living than we had.
Now, one of the problems in tackling this issue is that, right now, we actually need to spend and borrow more to make sure the fragile economic recovery takes hold. If we don't, the deficit will soar even more as the economy tanks and tax revenues evaporate. We need a solid economic recovery to create jobs, which will raise tax revenues and make it easier to get our fiscal house in order.
There are some Millenials who get it - like We Have POWER Now (http://wehavepowernow.org). But more need to join their cause - NOW! And we, their parents, need to join forces, too, to force our elected leaders to have some guts and make the tough but smart choices. It means having clear priorities and, ultimately, it means paying slightly higher taxes and, once the current economic crisis has passed, reigning in spending so our kids won't face astronomically higher taxes for a crippled government in a stagnant economy. It's called being the responsible adults.
Our exploding federal debt and the financial woes of Social Security and Medicare (though the health care reform helped this a bit) threaten to doom my kids and others of their generation to a bleak economic future. Left unchecked, current trends will leave them with much higher income taxes to merely pay the interest on our debt while at the same time having fewer jobs and lower wages because our country can't afford to fix/improve education and infrastructure. Moreover, if waiting to fix Social Security and Medicare results in draconian benefit cuts down the road, our kids will have to spend more of their money taking care of us, their parents. Yikes! My generation is on course to be the first in over a century to leave our kids with fewer opportunities and a lower standard of living than we had.
Now, one of the problems in tackling this issue is that, right now, we actually need to spend and borrow more to make sure the fragile economic recovery takes hold. If we don't, the deficit will soar even more as the economy tanks and tax revenues evaporate. We need a solid economic recovery to create jobs, which will raise tax revenues and make it easier to get our fiscal house in order.
There are some Millenials who get it - like We Have POWER Now (http://wehavepowernow.org). But more need to join their cause - NOW! And we, their parents, need to join forces, too, to force our elected leaders to have some guts and make the tough but smart choices. It means having clear priorities and, ultimately, it means paying slightly higher taxes and, once the current economic crisis has passed, reigning in spending so our kids won't face astronomically higher taxes for a crippled government in a stagnant economy. It's called being the responsible adults.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Some thoughts on the federal debt...
I guess my beliefs on the federal government's debt are pretty straightforward - and, at least I'd like to believe, fairly reasonable, logical, and sound from an economics point of view:
- The government owing money is not a bad thing. Governments need to borrow money, and at times it is the best way to pay for something, especially a short-term, unexpected expense (stimulus spending during a recession, a sudden military buildup at the stat of a war, etc.)
- In normal times - decent economic growth, low unemployment, and relative peace - the federal government should not borrow much, if any, money. That's the time to pay down existing debt (so you have room to borrow in future crises, plus it frees up capital for private borrowing/investment) and invest in the future: improve education, fund more research in medicine and new technologies, repair old roads and bridges and build new ones, add new infrastructure (nationwide wifi, for example), etc.
- Government debt can be a bad thing when it becomes too big a percentage of GDP (the tipping point is probably somewhere around 90 or 100% of GDP). Just ask Japan. It can suck up too much of the available capital, stifling private investment. Interest rates go up, making all borrowing more expensive and suffocating economic growth. And taxes need to be raised during what is likely a period of economic stagnation, because the government can't borrow as freely (or cheaply) and just making the interest payments becomes a huge part of the government's budget. Other budget items need to be cut - defense, education, care for the poor and elderly - because the debt payments squeeze them out.
So what does that mean about current fiscal policy? Well, it means Bush got it wrong - he cut taxes and borrowed heavily during "normal" times, then added to the borrowing during two wars, never raising taxes to help finance them as they dragged on endlessly. He also added a historic unfunded entitlement - medicare prescription drug benefits for the elderly - which compounded our fiscal woes.
As for Obama, he seems to be trying to hit the mark. Short-term additional borrowing to prevent the Great Depression II and spark a sustainable recovery. If anything, we might need more stimulus borrowing in the short-term. But he says he wants to start looking toward getting our fiscal house in order as soon as it is feasible - and has commissioned a bipartisan task force to come up with recommendations by December. We'll see if that bears fruit. He also has Defense Secretary Gates proposing cost-cutting measures to responsibly shrink the defense budget. The devil is in the details, but that is something that has to happen. Obama also wants to, eventually, end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. That's a no-brainer.
So Obama may be on a sensible course. But the politics of fiscal policy in the US have been crazy ever since Reagan and the GOP made paying taxes almost seem unpatriotic. We pay less in income taxes than most, if not all, developed countries. Most of us pay less than we did two years ago. And many Americans pay little or no income taxes. It's time we all grew up and acknowledged that we need to pay for what we get - not just expect to get what we pay for. Time to pay our bills, not borrow from our children's future earnings.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Wake up, America! Markets Jolted by Oil Surge and Worries Over Slowdown - New York Times
Markets Jolted by Oil Surge and Worries Over Slowdown - New York Times
Oil prices approach $100/barrel on nothing but speculation and fear - prompting overreactions to relatively minor fluctuations in supplies. But what we are really seeing is the convergence of some long-term problems that have been looming over the horizon for years - but largely ignored:
- A weak dollar, which has been embraced to date by the Bush Administration as a way to lower our trade deficit;
- The sub-prime mortgage crisis, the impact of which will be felt it seems for at least another year or two;
- Peak oil and the approaching moment when global demand for oil will surpass supply. The oil market's jitters are, in part, due to the acknowledgement by more and more experts and traders that this moment is just around the corner, if not already here;
- A $9 trillion federal debt that ties the hands of the government when it comes to fixing major problems, responding to economic crises, or investing for the future; and
- The inevitable moment when China's willingness and/or ability to endlessly help finance that debt will end.
So what will it take for us to finally wake up and do something serious about these problems? When will our "leaders" finally start leading?
Is there anyone out there? Hello???
Oil prices approach $100/barrel on nothing but speculation and fear - prompting overreactions to relatively minor fluctuations in supplies. But what we are really seeing is the convergence of some long-term problems that have been looming over the horizon for years - but largely ignored:
- A weak dollar, which has been embraced to date by the Bush Administration as a way to lower our trade deficit;
- The sub-prime mortgage crisis, the impact of which will be felt it seems for at least another year or two;
- Peak oil and the approaching moment when global demand for oil will surpass supply. The oil market's jitters are, in part, due to the acknowledgement by more and more experts and traders that this moment is just around the corner, if not already here;
- A $9 trillion federal debt that ties the hands of the government when it comes to fixing major problems, responding to economic crises, or investing for the future; and
- The inevitable moment when China's willingness and/or ability to endlessly help finance that debt will end.
So what will it take for us to finally wake up and do something serious about these problems? When will our "leaders" finally start leading?
Is there anyone out there? Hello???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)