Our Poor Economy

Politicians, especially so-called conservative ones, love to talk about the national economy as though it were just a giant version of "Mom and Pop" back home. It makes great political talk because it's something everyone understands. Unfortunately, it is just a fraud. National economics has nothing to do with Mom-and-Pop economics.

Along with this foolish comparison goes the myth that Mom-and-Pop always operate on a balanced budget. Perhaps some do, but the majority of Americans have been living on increasingly high levels of debt for the last three decades. That's what hit us in the face in 2007; credit dried up.

The national economy is very complex. Contrary to the Mom-and-Pop economy, the delicate relations of employment and distribution of wealth lie within the national economy, played out by different factions of the population. Business opportunities and job creation absolutely depend upon a large population of people who have money and want to consume. When the distribution of wealth tips largely in favor of a small portion of the population, the remaining population is left with little money to spend (and no availability of credit). There is no point in businesses expanding and creating new jobs. It doesn't matter how many tax breaks or other benefits the Republicans give their rich friends, there is no point in creating jobs when the bulk of Americans have no ability to consume!

Ironically, in the situation where the majority of Americans have little money for consumption, government spending is the one factor that can stimulate consumption and lead to job creation. This, of course, means going further into debt and is precisely what our conservative Republican wizards are not inclined to do. They would rather cut government spending --- i.e., put thousands of government employees out of work to further reduce employment and reduce money available for consumption --- and balance the budget. 

Of course, taxing the super wealthy is the last thing we would want to do even though that might balance the budget and put more buying power in the hands of the majority of Americans. This is supposedly all because they are the honored entrepreneurs who will create jobs for us. But the brutal fact (if Republican politicians would only look at it) is that these same honored entrepreneurs would far prefer to expand business and create jobs off-shore where wages are lower, resources are cheeper, and people are still able to consume. They know the situation in America and they know that the meager share of wealth they have left the poor slobs in 95% of the population is not enough to stimulate thriving businesses. 

The Republican Solution

Gosh, the Republicans do have a plan to create jobs in America. All we have to do is reduce taxes on corporations and the most wealthy citizens to 0%, end all oversight, throw away all regulations on business, and then just stand back and watch the jobs bubble up from the muck.

Does anyone really believe this bullshit? There is no empirical evidence for it at all. The eight year Bush era, which was a wild-and-crazy period for doing just this sort of thing, did nothing for jobs.

Meanwhile, the Republicans want to butcher government spending and that means, in effect, throwing all kinds of people out of work --- thousands more jobless. Do they ever think any of this stuff through?!

But, of course, their real agenda items are to end abortions, bash gays and lesbians, and put the church back into the state. Funny, Republicans are all against government intervention except when it comes to pushing off their "morality" on the rest of us.

Having a National Character

The problem with the current Republican position on the Federal government --- which is a position that would reduce the Federal government to something quite minor --- is the question of whether we have "national interests" or not. The Federal government is how we come together as a national people to address our national interests. If we accept the idea of reducing the Federal government to nothing, or at least to something quite small and impotent, then it seems to me that we are claiming that there are no essential national interests. Protecting the boundaries and perhaps collecting tariffs seem to be the only interests that Republicans respect.

For example, it is appropriate to ask whether civil rights is a national interest, something that defines us as a people and, hence, something that does not vary from region to region, or state to state. If Federal oversight on civili rights is eliminated or hog-tied by budget cuts, then local interests and prejudices can take control. Civil rights would become a regional disposition and we can only imagine the regions in which conditions would change radically. Respect for civil rights would no longer be a matter of national character.

Another example we might consider is the Food and Drug Administration. Is it a matter a nation interest to oversee the commercial distribution of foods and drugs? If we declare this as a regional responsibility, will the states pursue oversight with similar standards or will regional producers successfully avoid true oversight? If protecting one's health becomes an individual responsibility, what resources will be available, especially if only regional standards are maintained and interstate commerce is unrestricted?

The fact of the matter, it seems to me, is that we have a great many national interests today and, consequently, we need a Federal government through which we function as a nation to address these issues. These are not issues that we can afford to be decided on regional bases; and they are issues that define a national character --- that is, what it means to be an American.

What is Government About?

Herewith a few comments for anarchists, libertarians, and right-wing conservatives.

There is a common thread within these groups even though they may not think so. That common thread is, at the very least, the destruction of the Federal government. On the right wing, the arguments are principally fiscal; they don't like paying taxes and the government spends too much for their taste. Cut Federal programs and everything will be fine! But there is a complete unwillingness or ignorance about where that leads us. Libertarians and anarchists, on the other hand, are unblushing in their desire to eliminate government. So self-reliance is the message, one way or another.

The big question that looms in my mind is what self-reliance actually means, as a practical day-to-day system, for these people. Once government as such is gone, where do we all go from there?

Personally, I can attempt to grow more vegetables in my back yard and I suppose that I could put in some chickens and rabbits. It's doubtful, though, that the water company will continue to exist and I'm not sure where I'll get the water for irrigation. Since banks will undoubtedly fail or just default on what they owe us, we'll be pretty unlucky about buying anything. We've trusted the financial system all these years and don't happen to have gold bricks under our mattresses. It'll be pointless to have automobiles since the black-market price of gas will be way out of sight and the roads will not be maintained anyway. Guess that wipes out our vacation plans. God, real freedom is wonderful isn't it! That is freedom to stay at home and guard what little we have left with my shotgun.

But some of my libertarian friends will say this is all wrong. The people will arrange to do what they need to do by way of their collective action. That's great. But isn't that what government was in the first place! Government was the way in which we came together collectively to do what we all have a need to do. We needed a system of legislation, or decision making, to guide us and we needed taxation in order to make sure that everyone contributed.

Gosh, is that what government was about? Too bad we threw it away!

Why?

With Easter coming along, I cannot resist commenting on some thoughts I always have when I see people wearing crosses.

What if Jesus had lived in France in the late 18th Century? Would women be wearing miniature guillotines around their necks? Would every Christian church along the 210 freeway have a huge pillar bearing a massive guillotine? What if Jesus had been stabbed to death or hung? Would we have daggers in our windows and large hangman's nooses above the alters?

The issue is why do we take the cross as the icon for Christ? The cross was a vicious and cruel device for putting people to death slowly. What, indeed, does it say about Christianity that this icon of suffering and death seems to be the only way we can remember the life of Jesus? People have largely forgotten what that life was about, in terms of rebellion against the powerful and service to the oppressed. Instead, we remember his ugly death for the narcissistic reason that we hang our own hopes for immortality on it. Clearly, we could care less for his real message.

So, Happy Easter to all you Christians out there.

The Budget

Well, Congress almost closed down the Federal government this week. And this is just the first wave of arguments over the Federal budget. The whole experience has brought out a number of interesting points.

First, let's take the overall "theory" behind the Republican love of reducing Federal spending. The idea is that reduced spending will put more money in the hands of wealthy entrepreneurs who will then (of course) create jobs, thus stimulating the economy. No matter that this has never ever been demonstrated true to reality! The interesting thing about this theoretical vision is that it completely ignores the quality or character of the jobs that are involved. The Federal jobs that are mostly likely to be cut by Republicans are jobs in social services --- inspection of foods, protection of the environment, monitoring of fair labor practices, teaching children, giving aid to the poor and unhealthy. But when the entrepreneurs come forward with their new job opportunities, do they create jobs in the same fields? Of course not. We're talking about making new jobs in the manufacture of plastic buckets or new tanning sprays. The Federal government is good at creating jobs for the welfare of society; entrepreneurs are good at creating jobs for their own profit in popular consumer fields.

In the last few weeks, we've heard nothing but the Republican mantra that they only want to reduce Federal spending. We should ignore HOW they want to reduce spending. In fact, the Federal budget reflects the face of our government; it is how we spend our money. Any reduction in the budget, consequently, is an alteration of the government's face. Neither Democrats nor Republicans should be surprised by that. So the last minute fight over women's health care and NPR and public television was no accident. These are Federal programs that Republicans want to destroy and they will continue to try to destroy them so long as they have the strength to do so.

So how do Republicans think the Federal government should look? That is, what should be left after they have successfully destroyed Federal programs for the social good? Basically, Republicans want to protect our borders and maintain a military presence around the world. They never consider lowering military spending. Too many of their buddies in the manufacture of military goodies would suffer. Yet that's where the real spending is. No other country maintains military bases all around the world. The United States is more militarist than the Third Reich but nobody complains about it, not even the Democrats. While we're throwing away lunches for under-privileged children and mammograms for women, we are waging three different wars in Africa and the Middle East. But nobody is talking about how these are the activities that have caused our huge deficits. Why? Because our militarism is not something we are willing to look at. We don't want to admit it as fact. Isn't that pretty much the same as the German people of the 1930s? No one wanted to admit the dark side of where they were going.

The Republican Attack on NPR and Public Television

Republicans love to suggest that they are in a political contest with liberals. The notion of what constitutes a "liberal" is somewhat like a diseased soul --- morally degenerate, whimperingly sympathetic to the poor, employers of illegal immigrants, and probably drug addicts. To admit that you are a liberal is to emerge from the primal slime of the vegetative earth. How can anyone admit to it? I don't see how Republicans get away with this crap, frankly; except they do.

But nothing really highlights the center of this contest more than the present Republican attack against NPR and Public Television. What is the problem? NPR and Public Television are intelligent media. It is intelligence that offends the Republicans. Those liberal creeps all went to big public universities and took higher degrees. They want the media to be truly critical and to organize genuine discussions. Ridiculous! How can you make a decent buck in a world where people are actually able to ask real intelligent questions about what you are actually doing? Preposterous!

The sad truth of our world is that we are not locked in a two-party political conflict but rather in a vicious and uncompromising war between ignorance and intelligence. Major issues --- healthcare for example --- are fought out in almost complete ignorance, in terms of ridiculous notions and assumptions about death panels and loss of personal choice. No one will listen to an intelligent argument --- that is, to first understanding what the legislation provides and then asking why and what alternatives might be. You might find some of those discussions on NPR --- but not for long if the Republicans have their way.

Why are Republicans so afraid of intelligent discussion? Because it is in their interest to have an ignorant and impoverished population.