Don't Make the Public Private!

Of late, it seems as if political leaders are making public investment and its value in infrastructure extremely insignificant. As news continues to pour in about the privatization of Social Security, more legislation is built up to prevent single-payer health care, and now our elected officials aim to sell off our infrastructure as if it were not the public's in the first place (1). It is important to recognize that private procurement of public infrastructure or services is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is detrimental to the quality, effectiveness, and financial efficiency of these things, when there is a tremendous gap in economic laws that passively allow private owners to take advantage of the public, utilizing the same legal avenues by which they dodge taxes, ignore accountability, and just plain rip off the American taxpayers (11).

Wired magazine in February 2011 published an article entitled, The Village of Shadows, about a small Romanian city that was host to numerous technology-based con-artists. A particular shady character named Chita was mainly responsible for generating a large network of fraudulent businesses, in order to scheme people out of money. Chita was using a legitimate business to serve as a shell for fraudulent activities such as phishing attacks. Romanian authorities were quick to catch up with the scheme of his business, because he was purchasing big money items, without a justifiable source of income, and when the authorities (government officials) wanted to see his business records, Chita had none (2).

No records? How does one operate an effective an ethical business without records? This is not a comparison of how most privately owned businesses behave, but it is a signal to those who fail to understand that profit can be a dangerous thing, when it comes to the security and welfare of a state. When maximizing money is the main focus of a particular party, every other matter is secondary, if not irrelevant. The stability of government, and public infrastructure, that is meant to defend against a state collapse into chaos, is placed right into dire straits. Such a market already exists in the shadows, and the only thing that keeps the public from economic despair is that regulatory mechanisms are in place to route out any questionable practices.

Such is the state of affairs these days among the private corporate elite. How is Chita's business-related behavior any different than a "drug company mislead[ing] doctors about heart attack risks in order to sell more pills", "an insurance company manipulat[ing] its earnings by billions through complicated offshore reinsurance dealings", or a major bank "illegally charging minority borrowers higher loan rates or helping a dictator stash his ill-gotten gains" (10)? With the encroaching invasion of free market ideals, and the demand for the expansion of deregulation, fraud seeps into the cracks of companies, with private investors, that invest in corporations that are granted the same civil rights to privacy as the individual. Given this level of questionable, if not illegal, practice, it is evident that profit-driven business in a deregulated market could directly lead to a crime-ridden, dysfunctional, and destabilized public services infrastructure.

In contrast, government or public servants are accountable to the public, no matter the level of service being provided. The bureaucratic system cannot dodge the scrutiny of the public eye forever, as private interests practice everyday, avoiding the scrutiny of their questionable business practices. Private business on the other hand is accountable to only the customer, but this relationship is worlds different from the patronage of the public or the taxpayers, in that there is a certain level of openness when a service is publicly executed, whereas there is a tremendous potential for private contractors to conceal elements of quality, fraud, efficiency, and effective improvements (9). What type of public system would we have if questionable businessmen, like Chita, used the ownership of the Brooklyn Bridge as a means to defraud individuals?

When private business acquires public services for profit, this breeds a duality, in that the private interest is compelled to balance between profits and integrity of the provision of service. Instead of relying on weak legal contracts between the public and private parties, if a business were to acquire a public service, then it would be sensible to apply the same public laws by which public servants must abide. Therefore, profit is not secondary to improvement, but rather carries equal weight with quality and effectiveness of service. What this guarantees is that private businesses, that are granted the operation of public services, are required to provide proper customer service, and can no longer hide behind contract loopholes, and a lack of transparency. If a private business procures a public service it is no longer just a private business, but a public servant as well (9).

"Proponents have argued that when government is both the owner and the producer/deliverer of a service, it makes it difficult to monitor the activities of its agents – the bureaucracy – and that such problems can be overcome by engaging the private sector through legalistic contractual arrangements. The flaw in this argument lies in what some scholars have identified as a problem of incomplete contractual arrangements" (3). This is widely known as "asymmetric information" and has been the primary utility of private banks and investment firms that created faulty loan packages, that in turn were sold to investors for a profit, with the buyer making the assumption that the financial product was risk-free, when it was not. It is considered to be a characteristic of "one party [having] more or better information than the other" (4), and so it's not fraud, it's just taking advantage of the other party by withholding knowledge. Basically, a fraud of indifference, or better yet, purposeful negligence. If private interests, like those of investment firms and banks on Wall Street, that used a passive-aggressive mechanism to, for lack of a better word, lie about the financial products they were selling, how treacherous would that same business practice be, if these same types of companies were allowed to say they were maintaining public infrastructure, while the public taxpayer has no avenue to ensure that that information is correct? In the case of the government, the private contractor can supply a service, but by taking advantage of incomplete legal agreements, the servicing party can avoid providing quality assurance and not have to provide the public with absolute transparency.

Most people would assume that not all private institutions are capable of being intrinsically deviant, in order to avoid the liability of providing a more efficient service than government. These assumptions can be correct some of the time through a measure of corporate social responsibility, but it is important to remember that government that offers public services is intrinsically held accountable, and transparent, not because law requires it, but the representative bodies in place will ensure the security, stability, and sanctity of the public.

With business it's a entirely different story. Private industry is dedicated to its own "bottom line". There is this ever-present "incentive for the private sector to cut costs in order to maximize profit". So how does one company effectively cut costs so as to maximize profits? This is done through basic labor reduction, by "retrenchment" (diminishing the workforce), "employee cutbacks, lower wages, and the greater use of part-time labor", in order to eliminate the expense of paying full-time benefits (3). It's fairly safe to say that across the board the profit-driven private company is reducing its productive capacity. If that is done the quality either remains the same or has to decrease, due to a rotating schedule of cuts. In other words the private sector is only concerned with itself, and that concern has the same weight, if not more, as the concern for the preservation of the public society it is serving.

Reconsider corporate social responsibility (CSR)! In some economic circles it is considered a myth, in that a company that strives to meet its "bottom line", does so to the point that social welfare is ardently relinquished by corporations. Take for instance, the reformation prospects of the Canadian mining industry (12). The irony dispelled by the industry is rampant, and it stinks of a smattering of double standards put forth by corporation who dread having to face regulation. Canada's government wants to pass legislation to softly regulate the mining industry on a global scale, in order to ensure that the industry does not abuse the rights of the citizens directly effected by mining in their country. The mining companies on the other hand are reluctant to be regulated by law, but instead insist that they can apply voluntary social responsibility to their business model or practices.

So, in other words, companies that follow along this same logic, are willing to regulate themselves. That is absolute nonsense. Is it acceptable to believe that governed regulation is synonymous with voluntary responsibility? It would be safe to assume that this premise would never support social responsibility, because of the model of a conventional corporation. That is, a corporation will only consider the interests of the stakeholders, and not all individuals of a society are stakeholders. Even if some have the capacity to be a stakeholder, they are invested in various businesses, more often than none competing against one another (13). So, you have two separate elements of the corporation that fail to fit into the model of social responsibility: 1) there is a demographic of society that does not have the capacity to benefit from the interests of a corporation; and 2) the interests of competing corporation pitch the interests of individuals against one another. In fact, corporate social responsibility is actually negligence, and in order for a corporation to function it would need to indirectly go against the best interest of a society.

What is most interesting about political attempts to privatize public services is that there is this attitude that privatization is great as long as it lays off workers, and moves more business into the realm of private interests. It's as if the attitude lends itself to characterization of some tough, suck it up, indifferent directorate, whose responsibility is voluntarily limited to shutting down one system, and failing to preserve economic stability. By being accountable for the economic repercussions of producing such drastic changes to an economy, any policy executive would realize that such a sudden change in the economic landscape would be ruinous, especially if one of the effects of overhead costs would deplete the workforce, and therefore directly effect the individual's right to a sustainable life.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, that "receiving a fair remuneration with which one can fulfill one's basic needs is an inalienable human right" (14). Now this is a guideline that corporations should follow, but in reality, the corporation's goal of maximizing profit is in conflict with minimal financial rights of the individual (because they must decrease wages, in order to lower the costs of production), and so corporate entities force themselves to not comply with the declaration. Deregulation, in a global free market, disables national governments from questioning or even enforcing that a corporation abides by the declaration or their own doctrine of voluntary social responsibility. Only so much policy can be drawn up in favor of CSR, but when it is voluntary, and not law, then it is not a matter of ensuring that corporations preserve human rights, it is whether or not the corporation as an element of society can compel itself to participate in the community as a responsible member, and not place the liabilities of profits before the priorities of human rights. Keep in mind, that this is the one policy that at least government of the United States has ensured.

Maybe, slashing overhead costs isn't the only problem, and when we consider the effects of profit-driven models, the lack of transparency adds more fuel to the profit-maximization fire. No matter which viewpoint you have, private industry's entitlement to not having to disclose its business secrets to the public, and possibly only to those who have vested financial interests (i.e. investors or shareholders), is another detrimental factor to supplying the public with quality services.

The public answers to itself, because it is placing revenue into a system that intrinsically belongs to itself. Just like a private interest would do to ensure its financial well-being. When public services are privatized, as long as their is a binding contract between the public and private parties, and that contract offers bounds that determine that the private party will provide superior services, there is intrinsically a gap. This gap is between the private entity's assurance of providing quality and efficient service, and the ability of the patrons to assess that quality and efficiency. In essence, the public, when it pays for a service should absolutely be aware of the value for which they are paying.

Works Cited:

1) Cities for Sale: Psst! Wanna buy the New Jersey Turnpike? http://www.slate.com/id/2288401/


2) Bhattacharjee, Yudhijit. "The Village of Shadows." Wired Feb. 2011: 82+. Print.


3) Ohemeng, Frank K., and John K. Grant. "When markets fail to deliver: An examination of the privatization and de-privatization of water and wastewater services delivery in Hamilton, Canada." Canadian Public Administration 51.3 (2008): 475-499. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 6 Apr. 2011.


4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry


5) Charter Schools Outsource Education to Management Firms, With Mixed Resultshttp://www.propublica.org/article/charter-schools-outsource-education-to-management-firms-with-mixed-results?utm_source=socmed&utm_medium=Twitter&utm_content=tweet4&utm_campaign=Charters


6) "Rudy's way." Economist 330.7849 (1994): 26. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 13 Apr. 2011.


7) Walsh, Mark. "New York City Votes Are a Blow to Edison." Education Week 20.30 (2001): 5. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 13 Apr. 2011.


8) "The odd couple." Economist 333.7893 (1994): 24-25. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 13 Apr. 2011.


9) Bovis, Christopher. "The Effects of the Principles of Transparency and Accountability on Public Procurement and Public-Private Partnerships Regulation." European Public Private Partnership Law Review 4.1 (2009): 7-25. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 17 Apr. 2011.


10) Nader, Ralph. "How to Curb Corporate Power." Nation 281.11 (2005): 20-24. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 19 Apr. 2011.


11) Risen, Clay. "Accounts Due." New Republic 230.11 (2004): 16-18. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 19 Apr. 2011.


12) LAPIANTE, J. P., and CATHERINE NOLIN. "Snake Oil and the Myth of Corporate Social Responsibility." Canadian Dimension 45.1 (2011): 24-27. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 19 Apr. 2011. 


13) Uccello, Cynthia. "Social Interest and Social Responsibility in Contemporary Corporate Environments." Journal of Individual Psychology 65.4 (2009): 412-419. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 20 Apr. 2011. 


14) Rabet, Delphine. "Human Rights and Globalization: The Myth of Corporate Social Responsibility?." Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences 1.2 (2009): 463-475. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 21 Apr. 2011.

No More Tea Time for Newport Beach

One of the biggest frustrations that American taxpayers have with government is its inability to ensure that the wealthy are paying their fair share of taxes. By wealthy, I specifically mean, the corporate element of society. In past articles I've argued against the right of corporations to be legally defined as a "person", and in doing so, it was an attempt to help readers understand that being defined as a corporate "person" is only a legal avenue by which the plutocracy in America can get away with having to pay its expected rate of taxes like every other tax paying "person" in the United States. The argument is against the rich in America, because it is this same group of individuals who have griped about government placing too much pressure on them to pay forth reasonable taxes. Yet, there are so many tax laws in place that permit this class to piece by piece remove themselves from the enforcement of having to share in the responsibility of sustaining society's infrastructure. So, according to the tax laws, in the U.S., the poorer classes are mainly upholding the burden of economic national stability, while the rich, and those with more financial capacity try to shed their responsibilities to American society, all for the sake of financial self-preservation.

Before I move any further along with my argument, I would like to discuss the concept behind the formation of today's Tea Party. Even if most individuals think that the Tea Party is not made up of wholly wealthy elements, it portrays the characterization of elitist wealth. It's a club for those wishing to preserve the image of wealth and prosperity.

Don't believe it? Well, New York Times and CBS conducted a poll in August of 2010 of 1,600 adults, and found that 31% of Tea Party supporters earn more than $75,000 per year, as contrasted by the 26% total participants of the poll. 68% of those Tea Partiers consider themselves middle class or above, and the main reason why they are angry with government is spending. That is spending on poor people. The observers of the poll, The Nation magazine, concluded that the Tea Party supporters simply loathe poor people, because they assume, that what is in their minds defined as minorities, or the "poor", are receiving way too many benefits of entitlement from the government. The Nation reporter continued to point out that this was simply a myth, in that the poor who do receive welfare benefits from the U.S. government do not make windfall incomes from what the Tea Party terms excessive waste, and on the same token, those that consider themselves middle-class or higher, are receiving tax cuts in excessive amounts, that in comparison to welfare benefits, seem a greater compensation than welfare. It's very evident based on that poll that Tea-Partiers are the wealthy class, and their argument against excessive waste at the government level to enable the poor to be entitled is just simply a disproportionate attack on the poor, especially when the Tea Party middle class is receiving tax benefits that benefit their class by far. It comes down to placing the government benefits side-by-side for comparison, and reconsidering who actually is prospering more from government spending, regardless of whether it is a handout or a mechanism to help individuals with money keep more of it from government hands (3).

The political atmosphere is now flooded with the language of wasteful government spending, and according to members of the Tea Party, this waste comes from providing a level of sustainable income for the poor, instead of the government deciding to relinquish its responsibilities in providing a stable economic environment for all people, whether rich or poor, so that there is not a tremendous part of the population, without the capacity to sustain itself with the necessities of life. Instead those struggling to survive are labeled as spoiled, or entitled individuals, who are also persecuted as those taking too much from a system meant to provide stability. Someone needs to preserve that element of society, and it certainly won't be the Tea Party stepping up to offer assistance for the poor, in an effort to stabilize economic chaos.

The name 'Tea Party' itself, when viewed from the perspective of a historical context, has a strong connotation and connection to money. The name was drawn from the historic "tea party" of the American Revolution, where revolutionaries boarded ships carrying tea, dumping the ships' inventories into the waters of Boston harbor, in protest of the imposed tea tax by the British Parliament. This was in part driven by wealthy tax-paying land owning colonists, who were insistent they were no longer obligated to hand over money to the crown of England. It was always about money. Not only this, but it was about who was entitled to what money, and how much of it went to whomever thought they were entitled to it. Really?! What poor people or financially disadvantaged individual, would spend money on tea, anyhow, when their limited budget needs to go towards putting nourishment on the table, not some lavish cup of warm leaf brew?

This point is brought forth, not to argue that the colonists were wrong in fighting a tax, but to compare it to the efforts put forth by today's Tea Party, how the two situations are completely derived from two separate agendas, and how absurd their argument is in comparison to that of revolutionary principles. The American Revolution was a fight for independence, or let's say the freedom not to be financially tied to a foreign empire, to which the colonists had no social bridge. Money, or public funds were meant to go directly back into the colonial municipalities, to benefit the colonies, and not some distant nation.

Now, the modern-day Tea Party is not some foreign entity, nor is it representative of an American colony. It is a political party, so tied into the U.S. social structure, in that its constituents drive on public roads, benefit from public programs, probably send their kids to public schools, reserve the right not to pay exorbitant taxes, and in some cases benefit from public funding somehow as contractors or consultants of the Federal system. All of the aforementioned things are funded for the most part by tax dollars, that everyone pays within the American social net. What the Tea Party is countering is the infrastructure that offers them nationality. If they seek the elements of a nation by denying a tax that is fundamental to the existence of their nation, then they are not seeking independence, but only the preservation of their financial entitlement.

If this battle over taxes and spending is truly about independence, then why isn't there a significant number of individuals ready to band together, and prepare for secession? Instead of asking the federal government for financial freedom, why doesn't the Tea Party, establish itself as a nation in and of itself, and veritably declare independence? This is because it is simply a political strategy to ensure financial stability for a class of people in the United States, that are satisfied with the perks of being a citizen of one of the most free nations in the world, yet under financial pressures, they must fight to preserve their own economic status, against the tide of social stability. The Tea Party is not pressing for independence as a populace under the guise of one state, which is what the American Revolution's Boston Tea Party colonists sought. The colonial revolutionaries had a common purpose to found an independent nation, where as the Tea Party has yet to form "around a single leader, a single agenda or even a common name" (4).

The mere fact that the party has no single defining purpose, expresses to the political scene that it is not ready or willing to form and independent state, and that members of the Tea Party are content with what the U.S. has to offer, but never will its members admit to how the benefits of being a U.S. citizen are tied to the elements of a federal society, upon which they subsist. "There appears to be no consistent ideology or coherent set of policies behind the movement", and that alone shows that this movement is based on an idea, not a framework, by which supporters can bind themselves to, and begin to build a defining state. Instead, their focus is upon government taking their money away, or implementing laws that would further crush their individual financial sustainability, including radical if not extreme proposals to "return to the gold standard", abolishing Social Security, and a reflectance to implement a carbon-based emissions tax upon private enterprise (5). When it comes down to it, the Tea Party is all about the money, and in contrast to the 1776 American revolutionary model in which they tend to cast themselves, the party is in no way concerned with creating a stable, secure, and independent state, but rather more concerned with individual financial preservation, by taking down the elements of a state that provides stability for the greater citizenry.

If you look over the plethora of web sites tied to the Tea Party movement, you will often find mission statements that talk a lot about taxes and government spending. Take for instance The California Tea Party's web site, and its about page states, "The number one principle and goal of the California Tea Party is to empower the California Tax payer to fight for change!" (About | California Tea Party). So, they are willing to fight for change? Change what? Why, only tax payers? Why does the Tea Party feel the need to emphasize enabling specifically taxpayers? Again, there is this ever-present language that alludes to some form of financial constraint placed upon the citizen, and that there is some external factor involved in oppressing the taxpayer into paying-up, but there is no discussion in their mission of what needs to be changed in government in order to provide the taxpayer with more return for their tax dollar. In other words, a Tea Party individual would rather preserve their own dollar, then have to hand it over to a state entity, and feel convinced that that dollar will never benefit the individual in any manner (when in fact it does in some indirect way). It's as if the members of the Tea Party are all members of a really great country club, but they don't want to be obligated to pay their membership dues, and failing to understand that they can join or create another club, maybe cheaper, or maybe one that provides more member benefits. There is no implementation of new policy concepts, but instead a lot of finger-pointing, and an underlying agenda to hijack the government for the purpose of forcing the greater part of society to play by their selfish financial rules.

So, when we are debating change for ourselves, the Tea Party is missing the mark, completely, because the main focus is financial independence, and not providing a discourse on how to rebuild infrastructure, or instead of disabling government, finding more progressive ways to reform it. In other words the Tea Party doctrine really represents the "independence of me", and not the independence of a particular society or state. It's platform shouts of greed, selfishness, a lack of stability among any state that they would attempt to form, and its attempts at destroying a system that is in place for all the reasons of civilized society. The Tea Party is bringing us back to the Dark Ages.

A particular situation that has arisen in a region of the United States, Orange County, California, is the persistent selfish demands of the wealthy elite, and those associating themselves with wealth, that follow along the same political threads as those of the truly elite. There is this beach-side city known as Newport Beach, and since the 2008 presidential election, this city has been the thorn in the side of most other Orange County citizens, in that those who can afford to live in one of the nicest areas of California, are making demands upon the state and local governing agencies to meet the desires of a privileged life, at the cost of the average taxpayer.

The first instance that caught my attention was the battle over redirecting aircraft taking off from John Wayne airport, located in Santa Ana, requiring pilots to direct their planes up a steeper takeoff angle, so as to rise far enough above the beach-side residential areas of Newport Beach. This noise abatement is understandable from the perspective of providing a better living environment for those in the takeoff path of commercial airliners, but it is the cost and sacrifices that other taxpayers in Orange County are having to make, in order to preserve the sanctity of an over-privileged, wealthy beach community.

The John Wayne airport "maintains some of the most stringent noise rules in the United States", according to its website, utilizing a regulatory system called General Aviation Noise Abatement (GANO), which has been in place for many years now, and includes official enforcement and technological audio monitoring, all paid for by the taxpayers. This compliance program basically requires that air carriers remain within a certain decibel level so as to not excessively disturb the beach communities that lie within the take off pattern of the airport. This is the most outrageous thing I've ever heard, when you weigh and compare the noise of a single commercial jet airliner to the environmental effects of nearby noisy freeways, their contribution to greenhouse pollution, and the pollution produced by making airliners take off at a steeper rate, requiring pilots to burn more fuel to accelerate higher and higher above Newport Beach residents.

The irony, here, lies in the fact that a Tea Party supporting community, that in turn supports less taxes, enjoys the legal implementations of noise abatement, that is fully regulated by Federal, state, and local governments, and therefore paid for by the taxpayers (Airport Noise Law: Statutes and Regulations). Another irony exists in the inefficiency of environmental protection of the noise abatement program, in that it is a protection against noise pollution, and not environmental or climate pollution. A plane is required to make adjustments to its takeoff pattern, so as to climb faster and steeper, in order to put distance between the residence of Newport Beach, therefore generating more greenhouse gas emissions from the jet engines as they consume more fuel to do so (12).

It is utterly ridiculous to be more concerned about the effects of noise when people consider a jet taking off, then to try to balance that with the effects of pollution from jet engine exhaust being sprinkled upon the residence below. Instead of rich residents relocating, private airport interests redeveloping land, within the scope of takeoff patterns, for aerospace use only, or simply dealing with it, the taxpayers are left with a huge wasteful bill to cover the costs of making sure the elite of Newport Beach get a good night's rest. While tax dollars go to waste, these same residents breathe the pollution from jet exhaust, surrounding freeway exhaust, and can't provide the funding necessary to build seawalls or preserve wetlands (we're getting to that) to protect from the sea's effects of "global warming". It's just too noisy in Newport Beach. According to Newport Beach residents, pollution is only bad if you can see or hear it, but not if you're breathing or drinking it.

Not only does this produce a higher cost for the private interests, like the commercial airlines, but this cost eventually spills over into the private businesses that depend on airport's economy, and most importantly the cost of regulating noise. I mention the effects of vehicle traffic noise, because Newport Beach is littered with heavily traveled side streets, and there at least three major freeways intersecting through the city, that potentially could create more of a noise factor than a single airplane. No one in Newport Beach complains about that element of noise pollution, and if they did, regional taxpayers would be paying for it at some point as well.

Well, there is more. Newport Beach residents make more of a demand on state taxpayers to construct sea walls, and reinforce wetlands in the area, so as to protect their homes from flooding. Think that over, and while you do, consider the fact that in the 2008 presidential election, the Republican candidate for vice president, Sarah Palin, made a fund raising visit to Newport Beach, and the cost of: $1,000 for the food, and $2,300 for food and a photo with the candidate (6). With a population of about 86,000, 4.4% of that below the poverty line (source: the Wikipedia entry for the city), let's be generous and say that 50% of the population could afford a $1,000 dinner with Sarah Palin. That's a whopping $43 million. Now, I'm not trying to say that gathering campaign funds is a problem, here, but if the Newport Beach community is so overly concerned with the preservation of their environment (or lack thereof, because there is really very little left of the environment, when you consider that it's less that 50 miles from the L.A. metropolis, and is one of the most over-developed areas in the country), one would think they would be wise enough to pool their resources for conservation, instead of the political preservation of a GOP vote?

So, we are all well enough aware, that the lower income voters of Orange County were not going to be shelling out $1,000 for dinner, and the mere fact that Palin decided to fund raise in one of the wealthiest areas of Orange County, mostly recognized as a right leaning region, heading left, she decided against simply creating a wider campaign presence, by visiting other less financially-enabled areas of Southern California, for the sake of adding more dollars to her campaign. To add to this she drew money from those complaining about the lack of funding for their area's preservation of environmental elements that are meant to protect from natural disasters such as flooding from excessive tides or even earthquake damage. If they should be complaining about anything, it should be about the point that they wasted their money on a hollow presidential campaign. Instead the wealthy class of Newport Beach should have been spending those lost contributions on taxes, that could go back to the state or local governments so that their public investments could go back into building up seawalls or any other related infrastructure needed to ensure the safety of their elite neighborhoods. But, no! Why would the rich stoop as low as to use public funding to ensure their own security in case something should go drastically wrong, because conservative/Tea Party doctrines assume that tax dollars used to protect the public is not theirs to spend. A blatant irony. Is it not?

Another thing to weigh in on these so called big spenders, is that while the conservative elements of both the Tea Party, and Republicans, beat it into our collective heads, that implementing infrastructure spending, into things such as high-speed rail, or general public transportation is just way too expensive of an investment for the taxpayer, the reality (contrary to what the media tells us) is that investing in mass transit infrastructure is an environmental strategy to step-down global warming, the one reason the conservative elite of Newport Beach want to use tax dollars to build sea walls and conserve the surrounding area's wetlands. Of course it is a large investment, but the return that would be offered to taxpayers comes in the form of a secure, stable, and efficient infrastructure, offering the necessary engineering feats that provide civilization with roadways, trade ports, rails, preserved open spaces, and yes, even sea walls to protect homes from washing into the sea.

So, instead of focusing their efforts, and their big dollars on social spending, and providing the means to gain effective infrastructure, more attempts are made to isolate individual income from the community, and at the same time negatively impact the governing agencies' finances that provide large scale assured infrastructure. Maybe, if the tax structure in California was more sensible and less extreme in the realm of creating more tax breaks, the state could effectively supply a reformed plan for implementing engineering projects statewide that would have a climate strategy plan. It may cost more in the short-term, but it would certainly alleviate heavier tax-derived revenue expenses in such things such as environmental preservation, and sea-wall construction, both of which are smaller, and more expensive fixes, that would not ensure unabridged protection from disaster over the long-term.

Building sea-walls, and preserving wetlands has its good intentions, but it is not an end-game solution for addressing domestic protection from natural disasters related to global climate change. While, infrastructure is beginning to crumble nationwide, there is no better time then now, to invest in state infrastructure, and look to new ways of overcoming our old ways of indifference toward carbon-based emissions, and the "avenues" by which we keep enabling its increased presence.

If the conservative element of Orange County wishes to continue with a global-warming prevention strategy that is too small, non-effective, expensive, and self-serving, then they should do it at their personal expense. Let the wealthy community take care of its own environment on its own terms. While touting that taxes are unfair, and while making demands on the state's tax revenue, in order to implement securities that don't benefit the state's infrastructure as a whole, the self-serving elite of this region do not have the capacity to understand that creating a greater resource of revenue at the state level, would create alternatives to conventional transportation infrastructure, like the implementation of efficient public transportation, a system by which climate change can be reined in, and over time decrease our overwhelming contribution to global-warming (7).

Even if the conservative, wealthy elite of Newport Beach don't buy into the whole global-warming story, or their disbelief is just a by-product of entitlement, the evidence is stacked against their disbelief. As Tea Party members and politicians alike, share in a common theme, that climate activists and scientists are a part of some conspiracy to make the world aware of the dangers of climate change, because a potential threat, according to conservatives, has never been a threat at all (sarcasm is present here), experts, leaders and scientists all have relentlessly proven that human factors over the past century have had an effect on warming our climate (9).


There was a recent speech given by Keith Olbermann at Cornell University, where a conservative student reprimanded Mr. Olbermann for labeling conservatives as being "stupid". Well, when you consider the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence put forth by academia, and institutions of intelligence, evidence that screams of climate-change warnings, yet this evidence is ignored by conservatives or marginalized as a farce without evidence proving it so, the irony of their position shows that they are "wildly stupid" or ignorant of the truth for the sake of preserving their financial status (keep in mind, as well, that Newport Beach has recently decided to scale back their public libraries by removing library staff and books on shelves, as part of austerity due to the bad economy, so it's no wonder there is a lack of common intelligence among those conservative elite (13)).

As a note, there is a paper studying the effects of transportation on the climate in New York State, a two-part study to adjust transportation infrastructure, land development, and their climate effects, so as to curb natural disasters related to global-warming. This study found that "[t]ransportation, and in particular, emissions from vehicular transport is considered a major contributor to greenhouse gasses" (8).

So, while the Orange County conservative element, especially those in Newport Beach, seek out sea walls to protect their private land from global-warming, while simultaneously seeking to limit the amount of taxes they would have to contribute to the state, what they fail to realize is that they are working against their own efforts. The tax franchise in California would provide larger scale solutions, not just to implement sea barriers, but to also have the state provide alternative forms of transportation through mass transit infrastructures, like more train lines in the region, and a more efficient and effective bus system (10).

Even if the revenue didn't derive from an income or a property tax, which is currently in low supply as it is, most South County residents, including Newport Beach, mostly single-rider drivers, have been enjoying relief from transportation sales taxes, from things like low sales taxes at the gas pump (11). So, according to this demographic of wealthy, granted limited tax liability, placing a heavier demand on the state's budget, in order to maintain a climate-damaging transportation system, like freeways, and constructing sea-walls to protect against the same systems which they utilize at the cost of all the other taxpayers, who is really taking advantage of the welfare system in a two-fold damaging way to security, social stability, and sensible spending? This is welfare for the rich. There's no need for a modern day Tea Party, when the reality of abuse of the individual fiscal rights is stomped out by extreme entitlement, and meanwhile the wealth defeats itself.

If we are to seriously contend with the economic issues that we are having on a national scale, locally we need to recognize that some conservative elements like the Tea Party, provide us with ideals that feel good to promote, and may make sense from a financial standpoint, but the Tea Party, and conservative idealists are completely missing the point. Solutions for our local economies are born from contribution to the community in the form of investing in the mechanisms by which we gain better community, sustainable infrastructure, and an improvement in the quality of life for all that take part in those communities, whether or not those individuals have an ample amount of financial capacity. Instead of challenging or making expensive demands upon government, why not work with, and contribute to the mechanisms that would provide stability.

References:

1. Why Do Conservatives Hate Trains? http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/03/why-do-conservatives-hate-trains/72242/
2. Coastal cities prepare for rising sea levels http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-newport-sea-levels-20110306,0,3204468.story
3. Koeppel, Barbara. Nation, 8/2/2010, Vol. 291 Issue 5/6, p4-6, 3p.
4. Von Drehle, David. "2 The Tea Party." Time 176.26 (2010): 81-86. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 13 Mar. 2011.
5. Harris, Lee. Policy Review, Jun/Jul2010, Issue 161, p3-14, 12p.
6. Palin to Fundraise in Newport http://articles.dailypilot.com/2008-09-09/news/dpt-palin09092008_1_sarah-palin-alaskan-governor-newport-beach
7. Connecting California: Key Public Transportation Projects and Their Benefits for the Golden State http://www.uspirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/transportation/transportation2/connecting-california-key-public-transportation-projects-and-their-benefits-for-the-golden-state
8. Global Climate Change and Transportation Infrastructure: Lessons from the New York Area http://climate.dot.gov/documents/workshop1002/zimmermanrch.pdf
9. Science bites climate skeptics in the ass on the House floor http://www.grist.org/list/2011-04-01-science-bites-climate-skeptics-in-the-ass-on-the-house-floor 
10. Grand jury says OCTA fails low-income bus riders http://articles.ocregister.com/2010-06-09/cities/24630277_1_grand-jury-bus-service-octa 
11. OCTA board approves cuts to bus service http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=7133743 
12. Plane Pollution http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.971051300 
13. Tomes' time might be up at Newport Beach library http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0329-newport-library-20110329,0,1671782.story 

Taxes Can Sustain Us, but Never Will the Machines of Profit

Maybe the toughest and best solution for a public bailout is possibly removing any and all public services. Not permanently, but take away public services long enough for taxpayers to learn how to appreciate and understand where and how their tax dollars are spent to keep the society in which they live stable, secure, and apart from living in squalor and third world status. In the United States, many voters/taxpayers are mislead into thinking that taxes are too much, harm the individual's ability to do business and profit from it, provides extreme power to government, and only provides services to those who, unlike them, are not a contributing part of society. These premises are completely unfounded, and lack the reasoning that would wholly explain why taxes even exist at all.

 I have always held to the saying, "one has to spend money, to make money", sometime more than you earn, and this statement has so many truths that can stand up to our current financial dilemma, in that the money needs to come from somewhere, and if those that possess it fail to reintroduce it into society, then that is the point at which the economic machine grinds to a halt. It's a cycle, and as the saying imparts, the economy needs a consistent cycling of money in order to sustain itself. Businesses do it everyday, yet those who favor business spending associate that type of revenue as a benefit to profit only. Those same members of society, though view public spending in a negative manner, maybe because it is not providing instant gratification to their profit margins, and associate it right away with wasteful spending.

So, let's take it to the extreme. Let's provide a scenario that meets the far-right's wet dream of tax policies, which would be minimal to if any taxes at all. What kind of society would that be? Let us compare the benefits of a nation with a structured tax system to that of an under-developed nation, that may have a minimal tax policy system in place. Consider, the United States, or any other fully developed nation in Western Europe, and you would find that these are nations that carry a fairly well structured taxation system. Along with this well structured taxation system, comes a strong military presence, one that can move about the globe with ease and provide ample security for its citizens, due to a consistent revenue stream. These well funded governments can go into other countries and invest in their natural resources and provide a pathway for the private industries to business and make profits.

Then there are the amenities of well paved roads, running water, a consistent flow of electricity to each and every home. Look to nations that uphold the status of global tax havens, like Barbados (a 74,000 land force with a coast guard), Aruba (no military force at all), Belize (a force of 79,000 soldiers)! Most of these nations, lack a significant military force, and if they were to be invaded by a foreign force, they could not independently defend themselves. Set the military aside, and weigh in on transportation infrastructure! The U.S. (with a maximum tax rate on individuals of 35%) has well over 15,000 airports, and it is ranked number one in total roadways and railways. Compare that to Russia (with a 13% individual tax rate), with just over 1200 airports, ranked number two in railways, and number eight in roadway infrastructure. It is apparent that societies with higher taxes reap the benefits of return, that comes in the form of a stable and well structured state.

Granted some of these services are supplied by some private companies, but without subsidies and regulation by government, all of which costs money to build and regulate, not only would these utilities be scantily available, they would not be sustainable (Without Taxes, America Would be a Third World Country). I would challenge any individual, who believes in a limited tax system, to provide an example of a state that legally unbinds its citizens from taxation in any form, and show that state could provide the stability and security that matches that of nations that participate in a sensible tax system. An under-developed country without a feasible tax structure will never climb out of non-developed status. According to experts at the International Monetary Fund, development "will often generate additional needs for tax revenue to finance a rise in public spending". This public spending is necessary because it provides all the necessary mechanisms to create effective infrastructure, and without out it, the country stalls in the process of developing (Tax Policy for Developing Countries).

Speaking of developed nations, let's shift the focus to the comparison of tax structures in European states to that of the U.S. Most would argue that European taxes are way to high, and that argument lends itself to the entitlement of U.S. taxpayers, who pay little taxes in comparison to European social democracies, but on the same token receive less services from public sector, and that service is lacking in quality as well. Americans are paying more, simply because they aren't getting a significant return, and psychologically that angers taxpayers, and lends them to believe that government is taking advantage of them (a.k.a. big, bad, and overburdening goverment). If U.S. taxation is placed within the model of private investment, one would see that it is a bad investment, because even though taxes are lower in comparison to other developed nations in Europe, the return of services is lacking quality, efficiency, effectiveness, security, and stability. Why would anyone want to continue the punishment of investing badly? On the other hand, investors would pay more for a share if they felt that its value would have a good chance of increasing over time, and if value is to increase, then that would lead us to believe that more money is being placed into that same investment. Contrary to current investment practices, the taxpayer effectively needs to understand that you cannot get something for nothing, and that a higher rate of taxation doesn't necessarily mean a deflation in the quality of life. The U.S. has "the lowest tax rates among rich countries, the least generous public services" (1). This makes so much sense, because if the taxpayer consensus is to pay less, then obviously the return on services would match the level of financial provision.

An interesting view is if you compare not the rate of taxes, but the effects of government spending and the movement toward privatization and deregulation. The decrease in taxes and the increase in private infrastructure, seem to have an evident detrimental effect on lack of progress in worldwide economies. Take for instance the huge amount of government spending in the U.S. in the 1960's, a time when big programs like Medicare, the space program, military research, and increased regulation were strongly sustaining the economy, and were enhancing the economy on the taxpayer's dime. It was a time of good investment from and for the public. The U.S. was taking on the spending characteristics of the European model (1). It was during the 1980's, with the introduction of Reaganomics (i.e. trickle-down economic theory), and the drive for more market deregulation and the privatization of nationalized companies, where it seems that the descent into economic instability began, where economic bubbles formed and burst in an almost schizophrenic manner. Privatization of once public infrastructure gave conservative leaders a good excuse to justify lowering taxes. It makes a lot of sense, if a company is no longer public, why should the taxpayers have to pay for it? Though this restructuring of the economy sounds good, it fails to work, and fails to guarantee that a stable and effective infrastructure would be provided to the society that, even if it pays a lower rate, has to pay taxes. Look at private energy firms like Enron, or many other privately run utility firms, who place profit over social stability, that took over national energy responsibilities, and yet failed to provide a stable source of electricity for California (Enron linked to California Blackouts); (U.S. electricity blackouts skyrocketing), or created the scenario for regional blackouts in the Northeast. If these utilities were provided by government, the only entity to protect the interests of society and not profit, could such a threat to the stability of society have been prevented?

Where's the evidence, well look back to the 1960's or further back to post-war America, when the economy was growing intrinsically, based on production and value. The nation at that time was providing economic security. Sure, the business economy kept growing through the new millennium, but it was false value, and was only producing profitable returns for those investing in compartmentalized returns, failing to reach the greater element of society. There is no guarantee that private investment will benefit the growth of society. It is ridiculous to think that a privatized nation could promise the same level of efficiency, effectiveness, stability, and security that a nationalized infrastructure could carry. Self interest and the decrease or elimination of taxes fails to benefit either society, the taxpayer or the business realm.

So, for those who doubt government spending, and label it as wasteful, and that it fails to benefit the country as a whole, well I would ask those people to provide me with some evidence in current economic affairs, where private industry has made up for the loss of publicly funded infrastructure. Currently, while most states are preparing to make way for even more cuts to public spending, not a single element of the private industry has come forth to fill that gap. On the same token, they wouldn't be able to because they lack the investors from both sides: the taxpayer funded states who are slashing budgets for spending, and the lack of public investors. Newly re-elected California governor, Gerald Brown, has taken on the same economic character as his predecessor Schwarzenegger, who made extreme cuts to government funded services, and Brown plans to continue this practice by pursuing state worker's pensions. So that's one effort to cut spending. Wisconsin governor, Scott Walker, would provide "only the essential services our citizens need and taxpayers can afford" (2). Illinois, having recently struggled to pay its bills, due to the recent economic fallout, has $8 billion in unpaid social services bills, on top of it under-financed pension plan system. This is number two on our list, and proves that there is still no proof of excessive spending, and in fact its a lack of capacity to spend (2). Due to a significant lack of effective tax rates, it is outrageous to think that any government agencies have the ability to over-spend. It is simply a matter of reality, that there is not enough money coming in to spend anything at all, and that "money coming in" is better known as taxes. It's all well and good to want to cut spending, but it is a futile measure to rant about cutting spending at a time when governments lack the capacity to do so.

With our current rate of taxation, from where is most of this wasteful spending derived? There was plenty of money in the government to be had by the private banks and investment firms, when they failed to provide adequate returns on the false-value commodities they packaged. That wasn't spending, that was considered a stabilization of secure economy, because the private sector was incapable of providing sustainability for society, but at the same time not holding itself liable for doing so. Is it a fair premise that the only heroes of society are the same which failed to rescue anyone but themselves, while the taxpayers lose their right to public services? It was not government that wasted money on the wealthy private industry, but instead the private industry that threatened society's stability, due to its irresponsible free market behaviors. If we are to remove taxes and government, the people that make up the nation will lack economic security, and will only a threat to their livelihood.

1. "From sea to shining sea." Economist 369.8349 (2003): 6-8. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 17 Jan. 2011.
2. "Budget Worries Push Governors to Same Mind-Set". Davey, Monica. The New York Times. January 17, 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/us/17governors.html>

The Large Middle Class Isn't So Middle

The media seems to be all abuzz with reports that the U.S. government wants to uphold the middle class, and promises more tax cuts, and/or benefits to those who own a business or makes around $250,000 a year or less. A lot of the communication of economic policy coming from the Fed is very, very fuzzy, and only provides the American people with a monetary comfort via tax manipulation. Now, with the U.S. job market decreasing, and job cuts occurring in lumps, the middle class, that earns this so called below-$250,000, will be and maybe is deteriorating, and won't represent any part of the center of the economic class spectrum. The middle class in this country has been redefined by politicians, as word play to add support to those financially squeezed by a faulty economy, who have in fact become the lower class.

In an NPR radio story, titled The Vanishing Middle Class, Part I 'What Is Middle Class?', several of the people interviewed, held notions that things had changed financially for their families, for in their "childhood in the 1960's..." they "considered themselves middle class", and that these families "never wanted for anything...don't remember being without anything, or hearing their parents talking about bills". That is a powerful statement when reflected upon what middle class families face in our current economic status. Plenty of families are now struggling to pay many kinds of bills, whether they are mortgages, utilities, credit, and all things included in the status quo. The main reason why the middle class struggles a lot more in comparison to the middle class of the 1960's is not only because of inflation, but also because there is a lot more to be responsible for financially and the overwhelming weight of debt. Families have fallen into a wage bracket that "[hasn't] kept up with the cost of living -- which is what economists call 'real income'". The middle class' real income is false, and this is evident through the tremendous virtual necessity to supplement it's cost of living with personal credit. The middle class can only be termed as "middle class" because of a system of economy that is based on debt and not hard assets, and therefore its real income is actually representative of a lower class.

The politicians get around this, so as to avoid the public seeing themselves as lower class, by not stating what the lower end income is of the middle class bracket. Thus, the current middle class really cannot effectively define itself as either lower or middle. In other words by saying that anyone who makes less than $250,000 a year is a member of the middle class is in all senses misleading. Marketplace reported in an article, What is the middle class?, the Congressional Research Service issued a report in 2007, that placed the middle class' income somewhere between $19,000 and $91,000 a year. Based on this report the middle class has definitely been mislabeled, and really doesn't show that it is truly somewhere between upper and lower class. The margins are excessively skewed, and it seems that the middle class by political definition is tipping the scale towards lower class. Consider that in a Newsweek article, Sorry Pal, You're Rich: Can You Be Middle Class and Earn $250,000?, "the business pundit class has been griping that people who make $250,000 a year aren't really wealthy", and even though the author claims that they are in fact rich, by some unknown standard, to make that much money is creating a crisis among those who fall into this income zone. Some say that this amount of income is an ample amount to claim wealth, whereas many who in fact earn that much, are unable to live a "wealthy" lifestyle. In the same article, the author states median income (what may be considered the "true" middle) in various parts of the U.S. hits between $35,000 and $83,000 a year, nowhere near even $100,000 incomes. So there's is this large margin between the true middle class and whatever the class termed as making six digit incomes is called, and on the flip side a smaller margin between lower end of the middle, and the mysterious lower class.

These margins, lumped together, could be a buffer for politicians to use in manipulating economic policies to keep the non-wealthy classes out of financial arms reach of the upper class income. It is much easier to apply tax benefits, and interest rates to a class of earners who are unsure of their economic stature simply because the data is skewed, and would allow policy makers to classify incomes on their own terms, in order to promise benefits to all, but in actuality give benefits to a small few. The few that exist between the margins.

The middle class is so easy to define politically because it blankets several different classifications, but in very small amounts. Most of the public is convinced that they belong to this class. This is misleading in that if one was to look at the actual structure of the classes, the middle seems to lean and be lumped closer to the lower, and in all reality, because credit is not income, but rather the reverse, the middle places itself with one foot in the lower, and one in the middle, with the great chance that the middle, in an economy that heavily restricts credit, will spill wholly over into the lower in one broad sweep. This behavior of the middle class means that it is technically disappearing, by the fact that "high-income groups are becoming even wealthier, while average family income is stagnating and declining". There is no pull from the lower class because those who claim to be middle class may or may not be middle, so bad economy halts income growth, and misconception turns those in the middle into actual lower class individuals, because "many who are reported as saying they are middle class or aspiring to it are falling behind" (Behind the Number: Class Dismissed?). So, that leaves the upper class untouched by any form of fallout, and that should lead most Americans to believe that the upper is strongly sustaining itself, and absorbing all of the wealth. In a sense, devouring the middle. The author of the previous article, Ellen Miller, states that there is a "realistic view of income classes in the U.S.", and it offers up a "poverty line which is pegged at too low a level". The middle class cannot be defined, and is becoming poorer not richer, because "even if not officially defined as poor, people between the poverty line and 80 percent of the median income derive most of their income from work...are definitely not able to reach middle-class levels of living".

The middle class may be experiencing income growth, allowing those who claim that type of class status to do so, but due to "18 percent increase in inflation over the past 30 years", household and individual spending has also increased while inflation does likewise, more and more of that middle class income is becoming hollow. This occurs because if you consider this trend, it demands an explanation of to where does the money flow, if income is not growing or being gained by the middle class. It goes up! Research proved that the largest income increases occurred at the "top end of the income distribution". So the money is evaporating to the smaller upper class, and not being redistributed into the markets, and that would cause a middle class or any other class not included in the upper to become economically stalled. You cannot define a class if it has no stake in the economy.

Welfare or Recession

What would most Americans choose when they are faced with a shortage of finances? The new U.S. president, Obama, has introduced an economic stimulus plan marked for $825 billion that will:

• provide relief for families, by cutting taxes, increasing benefits for the unemployed and the poor.
• modernize federal infrastructure
• double alternative energy production in 3 years
• expand health care by providing subsidies for the uninsured unemployed, helping states with Medicaid, and modernizing health care information systems
• improve education
• invest in science research and technology

It is well worth noting, at this point, that Republicans in Congress are wholeheartedly in opposition to this plan, and the only plan they bring to the table is through businesses, by lowering taxes on payrolls and overall business taxes.

Setting these plans aside, looking at the concepts included in this policy, for one, the Republicans are simply griping about a more government-driven economic plan that Obama's administration has instituted and that will be more long-term, filling in the huge hole that has been produced by big businesses, that have no regulation, and are in Republican minds, receiving some more benefits via tax breaks. The Republican argument states that business tax cuts will place more money back into the economy, but for whom, if it is a tax cut? It will go right back into businesses, who are currently laying off people who can't afford to pay taxes, or their mortgages. So we get more recession, because these businesses are not getting effective loans, due to financing freezes, and so in turn these businesses will simply keep the tax money saved. The money train stops there.

The Obama administration has given the American people a lot to chew on. If there is not just long term intentions here, but also a plan that was analyzed to instill long term growth, then it would seem a lot of the items proposed could promote a stabilized economy, and soon. It would be great to see this plan approach government infrastructure in the same way it plans to renovate the health care information systems. If government can go back to limited regulation, and use information technology to enhance transparency of the corporate sector, then there would be more effective oversight of potential corporate financial abuses, which were most likely the root cause of the current failing economy. This would also enhance national security by creating more open sharing of information between agencies. Lastly, there is so much job creation potential deriving from the implementation of this policy.

Taxes are such a limited approach by government. Both Democrats and Republicans are too focused on this issue. In short, taxes only get the American people through the next election cycle, and for Republicans this issue will cater to their lobbying cronies on Capitol Hill. As for Democrats, they are just seeking more votes by the American public, which most likely had a hand in giving them a majority hold. What the Republicans fail to see, is that American businesses have become a political minority in a slow economy, and by reaching out to them, their party could potentially create an even larger rift between party members and loyal voters. The American people will fight this, because it does not foster, what in their minds is individual economic stabilization. Big businesses, are normalizing the economy, and as a result small businesses are being devoured by this. There needs to be a line drawn between the two, and both parties need to provide an opportunity for individuals and small businesses to climb out of a system of handouts and tax breaks.

Instead of resisting each other, both political parties should take the approach of providing the opportunity for Americans to produce and provide growth for themselves, instead of offering us politicized welfare or stimulus handouts. None of this bickering occurred when Congress moved to pass stimulus actions for General Motors or the investment banks. Congress is simply abusing its power when it comes to the interests of the people, but when they need to keep their lobbyists happy, they don't hesitate to pass legislation. Why keep creating this constant system of monetary flow control, instilling a bottomless recession, and only offering the public a limited solution to a much larger problem? Government, stop wasting our time and our dime. Get to work, and work for the people!

Unemployment: Our Leaders Simply Don't Care

Recently the news has been covering a lot of the status of unemployment in the U.S., and folks should recall that back when the rate was still beneath 6.5%, the media, and politicians all told American workers it was going to get better. But, it didn't get better, because now the unemployment rate has been set to 7.2%, a 16 year high. The American workforce cannot turn to their superiors because there is simply no dialogue going to occur when they get laid off, thus their only recourse is the unemployment line. So the American people who've lost their jobs can only turn to our political leaders, who are showing signs of shunning those who work an honest job.

In an attempt to alleviate some of the financial pressures of unemployment, President-elect Obama pushed for his own plan for economic stimulus. The Senate's response to his plan was that of resistance, and is beginning to show signs of placing obstacles in the path of rescuing those who are financially falling out of the bottom. Now, when Congress was confronted with the task of approving $750 billion dollar bailout plan for failing financial institutions, the Congressional leaders swiftly ran to their podiums to cast their votes, and get Henry Paulson, and the Bush administration money to ensure that corporate America could survive. Now, that the American people need a "bailout" in some words, the Senate is expressing concern over a growing deficit. This was not a concern when the corporate "fat cats" wanted more money to save them from their semi-corrupt business practices, practices which resulted in degrading the integrity of the U.S. monetary system.

If people need to ask themselves where the money is, and what the reason is that there is no necessity to give a helping hand to the economic players at the bottom, then the answer lies in the failure of our political leaders' concern for America's welfare, because America's well-being in their mind is at the top. This top includes corrupt governors, like Eliot Spitzer, Rod Blagojevich and Bill Richardson, swindling corporations like Enron and those involved in doing questionable business with elected officials. It also includes Wall Street gurus who robbed people blind, simply because they took advantage of deregulation, and made profits off of common trust, like Bernard Madoff. American people can find their money in the pockets of those corporate executives who gained bonuses for outsourcing American jobs overseas. The money is also deeply embedded in companies that reaped huge profits from the Iraq war, like Haliburton/KBR and Blackwater, a war that sucked the American purse dry in under 4 years, and still hasn't shown the American people any positive proof that Iraq was absolutely necessary for the benefit of the American population. What did it do, other than cost taxpayers more and more money?

Even the U.S. government as a whole has neglected its books, by placing the U.S. on a threatening ledge of debt (also known as government I.O.U.'s), in having placed trillions of dollars of debt in the hands of the Chinese treasury to keep our nation afloat. The same leadership that has placed us in global debt, is that which is asking Americans to tighten their belts, and simultaneously squandering our national purse on soft imperialism, and deficit buffers. The government can keep drawing from all sides of the money well, but eventually there will be nothing to draw.

Trickle-down economy does not work! Nor does any other kind of economy that does not wholly support its base. It especially does not work when somewhere along that money waterfall, CEO's are diverting the flow of money somewhere near the top of the trickle. And that is what is happening now. If U.S. leaders fail to understand this, then they simply do not have the best interests of the American people in mind, and therefore should not be in public office.

Well it looks like Dick(head) Cheney is up to his "higher than thou" and "wasn't me" antics again. The Associated Press writes that Cheney feels that President Bush should not have to apologize for not foreseeing the U.S.'s current economic, and that the no one at the CIA participated in any illegal activity of interrogating detainees of war time prisons in Iraq or Guantanamo.

First of all, Mr. Cheney is only the vice president, thus his points of view only really matter when the president concurs with them. Sorry, there are no points for second place. It's also worth noting that Cheney is correct in that Bush should be sorry for not foreseeing the economic crisis, simply because he didn't have to. He created it. It's would be ridiculous to think that people could be expected to foresee there own performances. Thus, his boss should apologize for what he produced, not what he could not predict.

One could also approach the CIA's illegal actions in the same manner. Cheney is correct again, in that the CIA's agents did not participate in illegal operations in detaining suspected terrorists in prison camps throughout the Middle East, including Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq, and of course the Bush Administration's safety, Cuba. Recalling that the Pentagon hired corporate mercenaries to carry out logistical operations, those operations once delegated to military personnel, which included interrogations. These interrogations involved not just the illegal mistreatment and torture of detainees, but some were killed without proof of their guilt or association with terrorist cells. So, in a way the CIA is not the only institution to point a finger at, but let's also throw some fingers in the direction of your good old buddies at Haliburton/KBR, or whatever ass-covering name it is nowadays.

Not the Only Shop In Town

With globalization such a trend of late, and the U.S. riding on its coat tails with the vehicle of free trade, it's seems apparent that the U.S. government wants to be the only shop in town (the town being the global market). Today, news agencies have reported, that South Korea's parliament is voting to approve a free trade deal with the United States, of which the South Korean people outright do not support. So what happens when a global power decides that it does no want to consider the needs of foreign people, and will at any cost force trade deals with unwilling nations? It blockades the voting chamber doors with office furniture, as the opposition is left to fight its way in, in order to stop the agreement.

This is a very disappointing light that will be cast upon U.S. representatives of South Korea. Not only is the U.S. government turning a blind eye to these events, but it fails to publicly declare that it is attempting soft imperial practices around the globe. This is what America calls a democratic process? South Korean lawmakers who oppose the free trade deal have stated that this agreement would destroy agriculture in South Korea, and in conjunction to this the U.S. Congress has fought this deal, because it would economically topple an already faulty auto making industry in America. If free trade is not the will of the people, and it is a system that has not effectively supported current economic infrastructure, then why is it constantly being rammed through?

President Bush, who wholeheartedly sponsors free trade, has committed himself to several free trade agreements, and has pushed to implement even more throughout the international scene. In order to effectively analyze Bush's economic agenda, one needs to consider his brute force tactics in initiating two conflicts in the Middle East, and along parallel lines, his all out commitment to promoting free trade one global region at a time. Note, that most of these regions fall within the global South (below the equator), made up of nations that are in fact poorer, less developed the nations unlike the U.S. and those in Europe, and do not hold any substantial leverage with institutions like the World Bank, IMF, or World Trade Organization. But, the U.S. government does. In fact it is has the most influential leverage of all, and in most cases will be the deciding factor in financial decisions of these organizations.

So, free trade therefore, really only benefits the U.S., because of its connection to global institutions committed to controlling the global monetary system, which in effect agrees to loan money to the U.S. for foreign investments in trade, which the U.S. in turn uses as leverage to politically and socially manipulate the nation with which it trades. President Bush has protected American interests via amending U.S. agriculture policy to the agreements, and subsidizing U.S. farmers simutaneously. The foreign nations only have the capability to supply whatever it is they can produce, and everyone is aware that most developing nations do not have this capacity, and at most they do have ample agriculture to get a economic head start. But, America does not want that part of their business.

One assumption could be made that U.S. companies foresaw a lack of demand domestically, and would began to scour the planet for more ways to produce more demand overseas. From a market standpoint that might work, but culturally it fails, because these businesses cannot possibly put countries like Guatemala, India even Iraq into the same mold that fits countries like Japan, China, or Saudi Arabia. Economy must be stable and have some form of structure that meets cultural and popular needs. It also must retain a mutual flow of trade. Without this the U.S. economy will fail itself, among other nations, and that is so evident in what is happening today with the markets. Too much is placed on foreign entities, too fast, and often times the concept of trade seems to represent an asymmetric business venture.

The U.S. government needs to stop its progression of free trade, and get back to the drawing board, and rethink its trade policies. They are simply destroying the global economy, in some sense creating more enemies for the global superpowers, and driving a divide between rich and poor individuals as well as nations.

Rescue Without Being Saved

The U.S. government is like a bad father handing out money to his children so they don't misbehave. Why is it the that the U.S. Treasury feels its best policy it can offer is to hand out billions of dollars to everyone and everything, in a desperate attempt to save the economy. It's broken because the system does not work, and not because there is no credit. Those politically elite up on Capitol Hill cannot possibly think that because Americans can't put themselves into more debt, is the main reason why Americans climb out of a recession.

Let me introduce to those politicians in Washington a little thing called FICO. FICO known as the Fair Isaac Corporation is a company that stores credit scores, supplying formulas to retailers that can be used to see whether or not you are a risk to credit. It's a system that basically keeps you locked out of the credit system if you fall below what the market deems a low credit score. In a tighter economy, the acceptable credit score can be raised, and vice versa in better economic times. Credit scores are only measured based on your length of relationship with a debtor, and how often you failed to pay debts on time. It is not based at all on employment history or income.

So here's a formula. People are evidently spending more then they can afford. Their real estate assets are worth less than the amount owed. 62% of people in America rent, not as a choice but because of financial circumstances. Outside of the exceptionally wealthy Americans, everyone else cannot ever afford a home. Now with rising unemployment, getting out of debt, or even the prospect of owning a home is a far reach. Now, add to that formula, the U.S. government pouring more money into debt, and enabling banks to offer up more credit to an economy that simply is battered by not just an overwhelming amount of debt, but also penalties for not being in the black, and what you have is a cyclical promotion of consumers being locked into debt, and the destruction of anything monetary, and eliminating an economy that is fluid, offering consumers the ability to pay for something without incurring debt.

Currently, consumers are weighed down by the heaving pressures of bad credit. Each and every American is now stored in several databases somewhere in the world with a number assigned to them, stating what and how much credit they deserve. This number is the end-all-be-all of an individual's ability to get a loan, in order to purchase something that is way beyond his or her cash-on-hand spending capacity. A low credit score can be brought upon by almost anything these days, and most likely not just by not paying back on what you owe. Often times the media talks about and advises on how to manage money better, but what they fail to discuss is the reality of the situation, and that is how far down the road most consumers have traveled in spending credit, that the ability of managing money is null and void because they owe so much that their money doesn't actually exist. It's all being poured right back into debt. So the logical person would convince them self that the cost of living is priority, and can be paid for with cash-on-hand assets, and their debt can wait.

Technology that drives economy, as that used to monitor the consumer base is destroying the U.S. economy. It creates an ever-present watch-dog system on every consumer's spending history, and over time puts a large part of the population into a financial category of the unwanted. If a majority of the consumer base cannot spend then it leads one to think that there would be no prosperous economy. Who is really being saved here?

Why There's No Value

I had an interesting conversation with my mutual fund adviser this morning, on the matter of why the current economy is in such a funk. In a time when most baby boomer retirees are looking to collect on their hefty funds, they stare dividend declines in the face, and there's not a damn thing we can do. Yet, there is a large contingency, including myself, that has been brought up by these baby boomers, who taught us to save, save, save, and I do, among many others that I know who are trying to commit as much of our paycheck to our retirement plan as possible, among the overwhelming amount of other outrageous expenses we all have nowadays.

When I asked my adviser if he thinks that the lack of efficiency in out financial system is the root cause of why the markets are crumbling, he said "Yeah that's a very large factor!" There was a certain confidence in his voice, that made me absolutely believe him. He went on to mention that when the "big boys" want to invest, they can do it, without delay, and that their money is immediately passed into the investments without processing, and stocks and the market can both be monitored and traded in almost real-time. Unlike, us, retail investors, who are forced to operate through corporate brokers, in order to invest, and often times these investments spend days if not weeks being processed, and there is no way for the average investor to analyze or monitor the market, and compete at all with said "big boys".

Confidence in investing means that the avenue that an investor uses to access investment must be a level playing field. Consider for example the old school marketplace. Trades were handled face-to-face, in person, and in real-time, thus allowing any buyer to see, feel, and have 100% confidence in that the investment would be put into action right at that moment. Now, in today's markets there are so many different market approaches, and 9 times out of 10 those markets are unseen, because they are operated by middle men (large corporate financial investment firms), and the markets are only available to them, and not the actual investor. Now because an individual is forced to use this system, he has to await processing of his money, in order for the firm to implement his investment. Processing takes time, and as they say time is money. If an investor knows about a good stock today, by tomorrow that stock may be a completely different story. And, that is where the confidence in the markets fails the economy.

Why is the individual investor's money processed? Why isn't the investment firm's assets placed in check like that of the individual? There is no confidence in the economy because the economic institutions don't have confidence in the buyers or the face-to-face consumers. Everything is kept in check, as if even hard assets are considered credit, until it is processed by a higher entity in the financial system. Not a single person wants to have confidence in something they cannot buy or sell on site. If it is not available at that time of value, what will its value be a few days later? Should he preserve their confidence in that product if they don't yet own it? Of course not.

In conclusion, it should be noted that in this day and age where our credit can be monitored faster then our ability to own stock, why can't the process of investments be improved. There is no excuse for our technologies to enhance this system, and make it safer, easier, and more substantial of a market for consumers and investors to invest in.

The Solutions To Our Economic Problems

When it comes to the solutions of the world's economic problems it stems mostly from a deteriorating economy within the U.S., which was not too long ago the world's strongest economic leader. Today it seems that the organizational structure of not just the government, but also the entire infrastructure of the U.S. is fouled up, by less progressive thinkers, and simply leaders who just "do their jobs", so as to promote themselves, and move on to the next task to add to their egotistical resume. All the while, nothing, absolutely nothing is being resolved. It's as if those not leading are being paid a lot of lip service, in order to sustain a system that our leaders have no idea how to manage.

Obama, working on a weekend, today, announced to Congress that he wants some kind of a plan implemented immediately, in order to get the economy back from its coma-like state. He wants to create more jobs, and ease up financial pressures on already financially burdened families, yet the Congress still feels it can solve our problems by using the age old stimulis solution, of which it is not. What the Democratic congress does not seem to understand, is that in a time when a Democratic president-elect is trying to push better solutions, the Democratic Congress is still sitting on Bush's Republican fence of stimulus initiatives, which have been proven not to work at all, and are beginning to drive a bigger hole into our collective wallets.

The most important thing the U.S. government needs to do is to focus on pouring money into infrastructure. Don't just hand money over to the people directly, which isn't even that much money in the first place, when divided among millions of taxpayers. Drive the money into education, utilities, progressive energies. Promote more tangible investments into the private sectors that can develop toward these industries. What Americans, and their leaders need to do is withdraw from old industrial economy, and begin to think in terms of investing in not the concept of the future, saving our environment, or giving better pay to teachers, because the ramifications of not supporting a newly reformed economy go way beyond those premises. There is no need to support a financial system that reworks itself repeatedly, in order to just turn money into a larger amount of money, which in the long run does not create a consistent and solid foundation for any economy.

If you place our economy up against globalization, it fails to move forward, if at all. American workers are compelled to get in their cars each morning drive an average hour to work and back each day, in a technically wired world, where individuals have become successful starting up Fortune 500 companies in their garages. Yet, millions of people still contribute to the workforce in the age old industrial complex's demand for proximity workers, being in the office. Not only does this drive up our already heavy demand for more oil, but it is wasteful and inefficient to on the job time. As the author Thomas Friedman states, "The more the workforce feels mobile – in terms of health care, pension benefits, and life-long learning possibilities – the more it will be willing to jump into the new industries and new job niches…and to move from dying companies to thriving companies." With kids in school being diagnosed with ADD, Autism, or a plethora of other learning disabilities, employees in the technology sector jumping from job to job (due to fast paced changes in tech progress), and the growth of information flow, it would only make complete sense to rearrange the system around the workforce. Employment benefits nowadays are not only too static for the economy, fits the old industrial mold, and it is not flexible enough, and often is not transparent, not allowing employees, as well as employers to grow, learn or innovate.

So let the financial firms collapse under their own faults. There is also no need to support an auto industry that has failed to change its business model of many decades, simply on the premise that change would be too costly, and would not benefit other inter-related industries like oil, which depended so much on the auto industry. Shut off the supply of funds to these industries. They are old, they are outdated, they damage our environment, they resist progress, they are failing to profit, simply because they are no longer a benefit to any economy.

The economic signs are all pointing in the direction of wealth redistribution. Not for the sake of benefitting a new group of special interests, but simply for the fact that our current industry's structure is simply dysfunctional. It may have been prosperous and thriving 50 years ago, but in this day and age it is just plain old, and not competent to live up to all the new factors that were introduced in that past twenty years. A redistribution of investments, and interests in the aforementioned industries would be much more capable of promoting growth, not just financially, but also professionally for those who are responsible for building it. It would be a revival for the American economy, and by indirectly funneling finances into these new industries, a wealth of new jobs would be created, Wall Street would gain from an increase in tangible investments, and the economy would not just rebound, but would stand itself up, independently.