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>

Capitalist Chattel Slavery

How freeing is free market capitalism? It is in most cases offers sovereignty for those directly involved with the markets, and mostly for those who have the most to gain from it. At times, the current economy, and its ideals of capitalism seem too overwhelming to the individual, in that its close relationship with democratic government, seems to take more freedoms away from the individual than it provides, unless, of course, those individuals retain a sum of money to release themselves from a lack of favorable laws to benefit themselves.

There are many elements that lie beneath the surface, and those that can afford to manipulate the systems that attempt to make capitalism fair for all, offering a proper market of competition, instead of a system of biased steering of laws, in order to sustain a faulty or corrupt culture of business. In a nation that recognizes businesses as individuals, on the same level as individual persons, the economic imbalance is evidence that in a democracy that favors free markets and capitalist ideals, the dollar grants more advantage to big business, and places the true individual at a significant disadvantage. (Access To Justice In U.S. At Third-World Levels, Says Survey)

The credit system under the guise of free markets is also faulty, in failing to provide self-reliant financial gain for the individual. Based on my previous statement, legally empowered business grants credit, as well as maintains or enforces the credit values of individuals. The government has no role in this type of economy. There is no element of enforcement available to the consumer, that would provide a financial security if the consumer should be locked out of the current economic system, by not having a monetary provision. This, in essence, heavily enables private interests to selectively control and monitor who receives monetary resources, and how much of it they deserve. The Federal monetary system is practically becoming non-existent, and therefore corporations replace the Fed as a means to managing monetary aspects of the economy.

As manufacturing corporations, and corporations in general are granted more free will under limited regulation, they continue to impress upon the workforce a lower and lower wage, as financial corporations instill the use of credit, in order to keep the low wage earners psychologically at bay, from discovering that they cannot simply afford sustainability on a lower rate of income. In a capitalist democracy, as we have in the United States, money empowers any institution that has enough of it to supply, the corporation legally provided the rights of the individual inherits an unfair advantage over the literal individual. What the U.S. government has done is, instead of creating a separate set of laws to preserve the rights of corporations in a manner parallel to the rights of the individual, the government has purposefully created an artificial class of society that has tremendous amount of economic advantage over the individual, synonymous to the relationship between land owners of early America, and their imported slaves, who held absolutely no economic rights, whatsoever, and lacked the legal rights to sufficiently gain a secure and sustainable way of life.

Constitutional law since its establishment has emphasized an indifference to the financial freedoms of the individual. It is apparent in its wording of the 14th amendment, in that no state entity may "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This wording lends the federal government to too much passivity when it comes to regarding the freedoms of the individual. In a capitalist society, such as the one that exists in the United States, finances are the single most important aspect of gaining the essence of a stable and sustaining life; license to act within the law so as to maintain a sustainable life; and preserve one's own property. Granted the fundamental legislation laid forth in the founding documents and the following amendments were implemented to foster equality, but the reinterpretation of its meanings creates a paradox for the individual. If we are to uphold equality as some right granted to all individuals by supernal granting, then the people must ask themselves, how fortified is this equality when stood up against equality measured in monetary value. When you bring together the intrinsic strengths of individual freedom versus financial capability to purchase the essence of freedom, the two are not one in the same, Therefore, those elements of the governed that have the larger capacity to superficially obtain freedoms, should not obtain the same guarantees of freedom meant for the individual person.

A person is defined as "a human being regarded as an individual." In no way can this be misinterpreted or misconstrued as some other form or being, yet the law interprets it as including a network of individuals, even corporations. As Noam Chomsky has noted, the "powerful and privileged" felt that "any person" was too acute and obtuse under the same definition. "The Courts decided long ago to extend the concept "person" to include collective legal fictions created and supported by state power: corporations, which now dominate the economy and the society, and increasingly the political system." If the political system is dominated financially by corporations, then it is correct to conclude that the individual under these legal bounds has involuntarily relinquished crucial aspects of the freedoms granted by the 14th amendment. "Last January the Bush Supreme Court appointees overturned a century of precedents and sharply extended the right of corporations to buy elections." If those with the financial capacity to purchase votes have the driving force to guide the results of election in their favor, then it is true that the individual has lost their ability to effectively participate in a free democracy as a free person. The means by which laws are created to preserve individual freedoms are now steered by those who gain freedom through financial mechanisms, and not by right alone. "The grounds for the verdict are that money is speech, and corporations are persons, so to deprive them of the right to buy elections would deprive these fictional persons of their constitutional rights of freedom of speech. These expanded rights of unaccountable state-backed private tyrannies are being quite effectively exercised in the congressional campaigns that are underway right now, in a concerted effort to ensure that Congress is taken over by an extreme wing of business representatives." It is wrong to consider that men of business maintain a firmer right to freedom by way of state laws, than what is intrinsic in the right of free men. Whether we are associated with business or not, our freedoms are single in the perception of justice. (Final Remarks, Istanbul Conference on Freedom of Speech)

There are more mechanisms in place that tend to disable consumers from participating in the economy, by utilizing their financial assets. Without any government involvement most private institutions share information about consumers, basically known as credit reporting. An individual's movement through an economy is monitored at all times by, not a governing element, but instead by private interests: corporations. Since these corporations are granted the same status of liberty as you and me as individuals, it is as if one person has the ability to oversee your financial habits, and on the same token, enable or disable your ability to effectively spend or acquire money. If capitalism is a sponsor of free market practices, how is it possible that one individual can judge the financial capabilities of another? How does one individual justify your economic status within a market? What is that concept called? Controlling, manipulating, and monitoring one's ability to participate in an economic environment can somewhat be defined as an aspect of slavery. If participants have a minimal amount of money to spend on sustaining their inalienable lives, then they must turn to some other form of financial capacity, which is defined in capitalist structures as credit. Either the government's economic mechanisms supply the means by which its society can maintain sustainable living, or the private elements will follow suit in providing loans or credit dispensation. If the individual who lends to the individual who lacks the assets to participate in the market, at what point does the borrower gain non-debt status, if the economy is not providing enough means to participate in the economy, then how would the borrower ever exit debt status? The individual who has loaned or granted credit to the other is aware of this situation, and will seek to extend the debt status utilizing the information provided via credit reports, in order to manipulate debt elimination steps, and indeterminately keep the borrowing individual economically disadvantaged. Therefore, the economically disadvantaged individual fails to ever enter a prosperous stage, and due to the constant lack of having on-hand financial resource, obtains the economic status of an indentured slave.

There are two types of people in economic culture: those that practice the art of deception as a means to producing more prosperity for themselves, without providing an ample product, and therefore lacking production; and there are those that produce as a means of provision to the rest of society. Those who facilitate provisions into a society, and are compensated for it, are those that improve, and enable better growth for the economy. In contrast to this, there are those who seek compensation from society, without offering a provision, and it is these participants of a society that impress disadvantage upon other members of society, and therefore are degrading the efficiency and growth of any economy.

The process of creating an alternative international military force, "is nothing short of a subversion of the very existence of the nation-state and of principles of sovereignty and self-determination. 'The increasing use of contractors, private forces or as some would say "mercenaries" makes wars easier to begin and fight -- it just takes money and not the citizenry.'" This is the crux of this argument, in that there is no containment or element of private industry regulation to ensure the citizens that a paid force would not maneuver against the rights of a state and it's people. Only does money create mechanisms by which a force can generate a system which the intrinsic rights of the individual come with a price in monetary terms, and not on terms of liberty. (Scahill, Jeremy. Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army. 2007. Nation Books. New York.)

Let's think about IBM's move to relocate, or expatriate its domestic workforce in the United States (Project Match). IBM simply wants its workers in the U.S. to leave the U.S, and move to India, because the cost of living is cheaper there, and the workforce demands a significant less amount for wages (The Business Elites ... Are Instinctive Marxists). Basically, outsourcing jobs to foreign workers for its company is not enough, and now that that workforce is saturated, and the U.S. workforce is desperate for jobs, due to economic hardships, IBM gains from removing a trained workforce from one nation to another, in order to decrease pay, without regard for international laws, or the domestic rights of the individual who chooses to relocate for work. The worker has two choices: relocate outside of the country that guarantees your freedoms and quality of life, to preserve your job, and work for less money, or resign, and seek work elsewhere at a time when the availability of jobs is scarce. Either way the individual is forced to sacrifice their livelihood and the stability of domestic laws that preserve individual rights over state or plutocratic authority. This is a basic manifestation of involuntary labor enslavement. The lack of international laws protecting foreign workers who have relocated, plays into the hands of corporations who take advantage of global free trade, in order to manipulate labor in a way that would place global workers within an insecure, and lacking global arena of nonspecific human rights laws, which provide these corporations with the ability to have complete dominance over a workforce's ability to sustain a free and stable life based on its provided labor. Is it not in the practice of financially advantaged corrupt third world entities, to gather up the strong, and those fully capable of providing intense labor for minimal compensation, in order to gain full profits? There is an unspoken advantage supplied to the corporate elites, that consumes the liberties of the common man, and that disguised upper-hand that the elites have gained, fails to address the laws that guarantee a dislocated workforce's economic freedom, and prevent capitalist-driven indentured servitude.

If we are to continue to convince ourselves as a society, that the current form of free-market capitalism is the only means of providing the individuals of society with freedom, then we are leading ourselves down a path of foolishness, ignorance of the law and misguided philosophy. Those of us, that are not financially capable of purchasing the attention of representatives at the state and national levels, are the individuals that are blindly led to have faith in our freedoms, but that faith is weakened by the mere fact that freedom within a capitalist society is so closely tied to monetary value and status. This is especially true, when the availability of money is decreased, and replaced by a system of credit, that has the intent of deteriorating our value as free members of society, and therefore debt becomes the chains by which we are prevented from gaining individual prosperity. If the individual cannot prosper, then the individual cannot be free.

Voter Dissuasion

The trouble with dissatisfied voters is they never vote. If they never vote, there is an element of effective representation lost on the part of the people. The main argument expressed by opponents to voting is that the system in which they participate will never change regardless of how much their vote truly counts. To make this kind of justification for not voting is absurd, and it is the equivalent of saying the best way to heal the wound is to let it fester and become infected.

Young voters, especially, are those so opposed to voting, as if it was their own unique form of snubbing the establishment, but in their lack of presence at the polls, the establishment could wish for nothing better than to have a larger number of voters against it to simply not show up. Consider the 2008 presidential election, where a record number of minorities and youth turned out to vote, and the result was creating a significant lead for the Democratic candidate, a gap so large between the winner and loser, that was seen in neither of the two preceding elections, that elected a Republican president. One could argue that it was simply the people being utterly dissatisfied with what the former administration had done to the economy and how it handled conflicts overseas, but there was a significant increase in voters that created a voting lead so large, there was no need for a recount (Blacks, Young Voters Not Poised for High Turnout on Nov. 2 - http://www.gallup.com/poll/142877/blacks-young-voters-not-poised-high-turnout-nov.aspx). In the 2000 and 2004 elections, the turnouts were significantly lower, and the election results were difficult to decipher, because the balance of the votes were almost even. Fast forward 8 years, add in the factor of a large turnout, and it was apparent that in former elections, there was a closeted majority not utilizing their votes. If these voters were not dissuaded from voting in the past, it is quite possible previous elections would have created a different historical course. In other words, the second-guessing that occurred in 2000 and 2004, and in one election, where the Supreme Court overrode the votes of the people, could have been avoided altogether, and a true majority would have selected the president in a way that was constitutionally correct.

Money and steep financial funding of political figures is another factor. Political endorsements create or foster a false majority. When so much money is concentrated on a particular political faction mostly by way of media, and the most effective form being television, because that is the best way to facilitate political information to the general public, who needs something simple to digest, in order to understand who they are voting for, or which political platforms to which they can relate. In a complete irony of how the media currently plays out in relating political viewpoints upon the general public is that of comedian Jon Stewart, who is by all means a comedian, and not what most suppose an authoritative news source. The irony stems from the fact that most serious news and media gurus look to his satirical news show as respectable form of news dissemination, while Stewart consistently emphasizes that it is anything but that, and that his show is meant to point out the facade that most media giants (as well as politicians and pundits) construct, in order to cater to some element of the establishment. Stewart was even so far as questioned by genuine news reporters, seeking some form of empathy from Stewart, by stating, "Boy, I wish I could say what you're saying." And Stewart's response to that is why can't they ask the question they want to ask? What could possibly prevent a professional newscaster from breaking from the script, and generating thought provoking or objective questions or statements...? Wait! That's the problem. The mere evidence that something as amendable as a new story or policy expression is not authorized by the main people responsible for asking the question, but instead some external as well as partial element. (1)

This external element is the point at which media begins to deteriorate the foundation of Constitutional representation of U.S. voters, because this element exists, disabling journalists and newscasters from approaching policy making and legislation with a investigative mindset that is not inhibited by whatever mysterious interests are out there heavily influencing or reshaping the content by which most U.S. voters get their information. What is it that reporters, journalists, or newscasters cannot say? Who or what is placing restrictive measures upon the free flow of news information? Some may perceive this as a product of strict editing, and that most effective sources of news are watered-down, in order to meet the certain formats, but that is a naive concept. Most editors of news may only answer to the owners of the news agency, and that alone is a private interest, that is generating a diversion of information for the purpose of gaining capital or favor from related interests. In other words, the general public is immediately receiving a biased viewpoint from self-interested parties, and that is why reporters or journalists cannot talk about the politics they genuinely wish to talk about.

So, the voter is constantly misinformed, or is receiving information about candidates that is manipulated by partisan forces, and quite possibly private interests. Through mediums like television and internet news feeds, presented by media conglomerates, the information is very easy to digest, and a much larger percentage of the population will accept the less complicated presentation of voter information, that is simply too filtered. More intellectual sources will be less appealing to the general public, and leads to disinterest. In Jon Stewart's case, the news and opinions may be simple, yet thought provoking, and offer the public an intimate perspective of political realities, but one must consider that this can be viewed by the intellectual elite as simply satire, and therefore not accepted as an authoritative source.

Most of the current news sources are seeking ratings through sensationalist stories. These are stories that play off of people's emotions. Stories that evoke emotion, a lot of political figures embrace, in order to gain more votes through those elements of an incumbent's background that may either be questionable or lacking in performance in the bureaucratic realm. Sensational news is also non-authoritative, because it places too much emphasis on characterization of a topic, and covers less of the intrinsic content, like the ethical, moral, historical or philosophical aspects of the content. Granted, the latter type of coverage may be boring and unacceptable to the average user, but how hard would it be to present the facts in a simple form, rather than have to listen to endless and repetitive stories based on slander, failure, complaining, and simply uninformative context? Emotional dialogue lends voters to turn away from voting because it fails to provide firm answers, and aids in avoiding the facts behind a certain platform or politician.

In this case, voter dissuasion is a product of discontent with how politicians and current leaders are portrayed on all sides as baseless, incongruous, and failing to meet society's needs. A society of voters needs to embrace political leaders, and by being provided a public image through the disintegrated lens of popular mass media, it is fair to say, that this relationship never comes to its fruition. It may be possible that by portraying political leaders in a sensational light, that presents negativity and apathy towards public servants, the voter feels, in a sense, betrayed, and instinctively turns away from participating in realm of politics, especially voting. It's like being a bystander in a room full of arguing people. Who would want to participate in something of that nature? If individuals weigh in the current political sphere, it is a horrendous two-party system in which one side is constantly criticizing the other, and policies take a back seat to sensationalized bickering, puritanical morality hunts, and self-fulfilling character jostling. Voters grow weary of this inane behavior, especially when the source of it is supposed to be leading by example, and not distracting the public with irrelevant communications. The voters are seeking solutions to social problems, not elaboration on faults.

Take for instance Robert Reich's recent article (http://robertreich.org/post/1285369087) on the Democrats building up blame upon China concerning the reasons for economic fallout in the U.S. and its assumed cause of high unemployment domestically. What the politicians are beginning to do is tout a platform of fear and anger against China, as a means to grasping more votes come this November, conveniently only a month away. Mr. Reich states that in no way are the Chinese responsible for the high rate of unemployment in the U.S., and that the politicians that are using this type of rhetoric, are simply utilizing an external component of politics to place the blame outside the realm of American society.  He goes on to state that the real cause of recession was that the middle class was no longer able to support the economy, after experiencing an inability to borrow. So, the true cause of the recession is internal, and closely linked to the failures of domestic financial institutions, and not foreign entities. This is geographically isolating the voting public from information about the true causes of the economic downturn, and it fosters emotions, in order to get the vote out against those politicians that support Chinese foreign policies in any form or manner. If the voters cannot assess the causes of their economic problems, because the information exists beyond the capacities of international citizens' rights, and therefore the focus of inequality, like Reich notes as being domestic, has now been placed out of the control of the voting citizen base, and placed upon a global insignificance.

American voters live within a democracy, but fail to vote like citizens of one. It is not a democracy if the larger number of voters are not turning out, due to varying forms of dissuasion (whether it be intentional or not). If the people of a democracy are not voting in large numbers, then reaching the identity of the majority is never grasped, and it would lead voters to question whether it is ever possible to have their greater voices heard in Washington D.C.. This factor in itself is a form of dissuasion, and shows that there is a tremendous underlying psychology at work against the American voters, where it is acceptable to have a smaller number of people voting, and therefore, successfully disguising the minority within a smaller collection of votes.

References:

1) Smith, C. (Sept 20, 2010). America Is a Joke; The worst of times for politics and media has been the best of times for The Daily Show's host--and unfortunately things are getting even funnier. New York, p.NA. Retrieved October 08, 2010, from General OneFile via Gale:
http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodId=IPS&userGroupName=orange_main

Freedom: Cannot Help Your Self

The pseudo-biblical quote, that is on constant repeat in my head, throughout most of my current days, is "God helps those, who help themselves". This verse apparently is not in the bible, having gone through my entire life until now, thinking that it was a verse brought down by the authors of the bible, and in fact it has been noted by some Christian theologians, that it is an antithesis to actual passages in the Christian bible that go against the premise of the aforementioned quote. The bible's associative verse actually says, "For You have been a defense for the helpless, a defense for the needy in his distress, a refuge from the storm, a shade from the heat..." It's a mere political cliche!

So I set that quote aside for a few minutes and got down to reading a new book I picked up at the library yesterday, titled, Voices of a People's History of the United States by the historian Howard Zinn, and there was a passage in it, that rekindled my thought on the intent of this quote, that actually was coined by Benjamin Franklin, who cited it from Algernon Sydney's article, Discourses Concerning Government. In the history text by Zinn, there is a letter written by a group of slaves in 1777, who write a letter addressed to the Massachusetts House of Representatives, asking that they be allowed to serve the same purpose in life that all other free men serve in a free land as that of America. Consider for a moment that this petition for freedom in a country that was not even a year into its independence, a nation of men free to establish their own laws, and subsist of their own free lands, and were almost literally helping themselves gain true freedom! There's a subtle hint of irony though. How were free men helping themselves while, at the same time, helping themselves to the enslavement of other men, in order to gain an excessive amount of freedom that could never exist. The wealthy colonists were not helping themselves, but were instead very dependent on the withdrawal of another man's freedoms, in order to fulfill their sense of freedom. It seems as if God was helping those that depended on the help of others, and the former colonists were helping themselves to freedom at the cost of another man's ability to help himself. The strongest sentiment of the letter written by the slaves, states, that "they have, in common with all other Men, a natural and unalienable right to that freedom, which ... they have never forfeited." In other words, they never willingly gave up the ability to help themselves, until they were enslaved and forced to help those that couldn't help themselves, and those that couldn't help themselves were the ones who had gained the most from the institution of slavery. Even the colonists were indentured slaves to Great Britain at one point, so the men who had gained freedom from an oppressive state, should have been the first people to be able to relate unequivocally to the slave's predicament. In the letter, the slaves were astonished, that "[the granting of freedom] has never been considered" by a new nation that had torn itself from the long reach of England, which was helping itself at the cost of the colonists.

More times than none, you can always perceive religious proverbs as a sensible tool to be applied to making sure that one's life is being carried out ethically and morally, but it is extremely important to remember that just because it is a generally accepted belief, does not necessarily make it true or correct. How many times in our lives can we actually look back on the good outcomes and say that that particular situation was overcome because I depended solely on my own resources or abilities. Overall, we all sooner or later have any instance in our lives connected to someone else's contribution. Not to say that it should come in the form of oppression or authoritative control, but people can find themselves in a beneficial situation that was provided by others in a mutual sense.

The point here, is not a religious proclamation, but rather a proper understanding of what it means to help one's self, and how that is ethically degrading to the welfare of all people, whether it be the individual or society as a whole. Today we are often presented a lot of language from politicians who view the world in one of two ways - social or independent. From this we are lead to question whether we benefit as a society or more so from our participation in that society as individuals. In contrast to one another these two schools of political thought bring about this sense of struggle between which approach caters to the concept of being more free. Conventional wisdom among more conservatives is that the individual fails to be free, or is restrained by social participation, because the individual is committed to providing efforts of responsibility to the group, therefore sacrificing his or her individual needs. In contrast to that is the societal thinker, who identifies with freedom for the individual through the mechanism of a group's responses, social responsibility.

Are we to sustain our lives together, but apart? That is the representation of strict individualism, where the individual performs his or her life's tasks expressly for the purpose of self-fulfillment. Satisfying one's own happiness is not necessarily immoral in the context of society, but it is a very limiting or constrained premise. When one considers the individual versus society, and the implementation of laws, it is clearly evident that the individual depends on society, and is strongly connected to society via the rule of law. Granted, "legal entitlements may come into conflict as well as it occurs for individual interests", but the mere fact that there is a conflict between the individual interest and society's laws, the two could never separate from one another, and the existence of a society is necessary for sustaining the individual's interests. In this scenario, the individual is more of a threat to society, then society is a threat to the individual. If any one interest outweighs the interests of others, this is dictatorial, and fails to benefit the interest of all of the individuals within a society, and therefore the society fails to sustain itself. In either case, there exists a certain level of legal entitlement, and if that entitlement tends to favor the individual over society, and all other individuals are known to exist "under a disability" ("a party is unable to or exempted from extinguishing one or more of the existing legal relations of the counterparty."). A counter-party, or an individual grasping full power of the law, alters the other individuals' abilities to utilize the law. (1)

Division of society is a clear example of how individual power deteriorates the power of all the individuals within that society. The more times an individual can portray to the society that factions of society are wrong or bad for the good of the individual, that act of isolating power has proven throughout political history that interests of the individual work against all persons. There are many ways by which individualistic power forces can split societal powers, especially when it pertains to labor forces. There are two examples that come to mind: one, is the gender differences in the job market, and how one gender will criticize the other for creating an unfair, non-competitive job market; the second is free trade workers, in that there is a struggle between domestic workers versus foreign ones.

New Deal 2.0, featured an article, titled The Other Side of the ‘Mancession’: Women Left Behind, and it pointed out that new economic stimulus legislation directed at infrastructure in the U.S. is favoring men more than women, because infrastructure jobs only involve construction and engineering - two career areas the author assumes are only male dominated. The question that comes to mind is, was legislation meant to put more investment into the economy biased towards men, and meant to ignore the female staffed industries of health care or education? This seems to be an attempt at division of society, pitching male individuals versus female, and using the platform of job shortages and unemployment as a mechanism to challenge societal needs. No economic policy at a national level is meant to benefit a faction or an individual. It would defeat the purpose of serving as an economic policy, and therefore would never work.

The free trade movement is the most astounding attempt by one party to use an unrecognized structure of international law and culture to manipulate and take advantage of global citizens without global citizenship. Free trade offers all kinds of power through law, which entitles global businesses to make movement of trade goods across borders easier and cheaper. Under U.S. law, the business is recognized as an individual, and therefore in conjunction with free trade agreements, the U.S. business apparently serves its own interests over those of the global society, and in turn the global society's individuals are not permitted by domestic laws to participate in the same international manner.

These types of individualistic strategies benefit the proxy individual, in that a third party pitches two other factions of society against one another, as a way to deteriorate the power of society, and swing the power toward the third party's own interests. This dependence on necessitating an imbalance among members of a society proves that even the external individual's power highly depends on the unsettled society, for advantage. This is the "unresolved conflict of interests" and it prevents individuals from pursuing happiness, where it would cause all kinds of strife for individuals, making life "solitary, poor nasty, brutish and short." If the individuals cannot gain happiness for themselves, then society as a whole will never provide a common happiness through individual freedoms. (2)

The Tea Party's most recent attacks on government closely resemble these individualistic strategies to not just undermine a social authority like the government, but to remove all societal elements that weigh too heavily upon individual liberties, or legal powers belonging to a society of individuals. Those legal powers are what the U.S. Constitution represent, so this begs the questions: to what purpose does the constitution serve (individual or societal liberties), and does the constitution favor a social government at the cost of individual freedom? The perspective offered to us by Tea Party members is misleading, in that the constitution was constructed for the purpose of preserving the liberties of the people. The party platform, though, fails to specify how the constitution is continually amended, and that is by what is known as a "new Constitutionalism". The new Constitutionalism is a an approach to writing national laws, that allows for "multiple authority roles", not just the power of law granted to the individual, but all elements of a nation, whether that be a person, a gender, a business, or a social faction. Therefore the U.S. Constitution was never meant to only grant entitled law to the individual, instead, it goes "against the narrowly legal conceptions, against the approaches that see constitutionalism as a matter of institutional and intellectual history" and also "against the view of constitutionalism as aiming only to protect individual liberties by limiting the scope and power of government". (3)

The U.S. Constitution does not just grant the entitlement of law to the individual, and if it was intended to do that, then giving free reign of law to each individual would not be enforced, because the society would not have a government by which to do so. Each person would have their laws, and would force each other to do things of self interest, by which none of the others would abide. True anarchy. It is meant to provide law favoring many people, at various levels, and that can be interpreted as society. By having this multi-functioning law making concept at hand, it serves the individual as well as the society, but more so the society for the sake of providing liberty on a social scale.

Helping one's self is a human necessity. It tells us that we need to start at some point to recognize our liberties and rights, and make sure that there are boundaries as to how far other individuals can go, before infringing upon another person's. The law needs to be written with all members of an immediate society in mind, and not just those who have an individual stake, so that helping others is just like helping yourself in a more indirect manner.

References:


1) Vatiero, M. (April 2010). From W. N. Hohfeld to J. R. Commons, and beyond? A 'Law and Economics' Enquiry on Jural Relations. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 69, 2. p.840(27). Retrieved September 24, 2010, from Business Economics and Theory via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/start.do?prodId=PPBE&userGroupName=orange_main


2) Faulhaber, R W (Sept 2005). The rise and fall of 'self-interest'. Review of Social Economy, 63, 3. p.405(19). Retrieved September 24, 2010, from Business Economics and Theory via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/start.do?prodId=PPBE&userGroupName=orange_main


3) Morgan, D F (Sept-Oct 1998). A New Constitutionalism: Designing Political Institutions for a Good Society. Public Administration Review, 58, n5. p.453(11). Retrieved September 24, 2010, from Business Economics and Theory via Gale:
http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/start.do?prodId=PPBE&userGroupName=orange_main

Education Evolution

Today, the New York Times wrote about a new program that is being implemented in a school district in New Jersey, which sounds very progressive, and seems to be a movement that wants to sincerely address the pitfalls of the education bureaucracy that infests the academic halls of the United States. Now, most of you may think, well the problem with having all teachers lead education, and its policies, would be like having too many chiefs, or chefs, whatever the cliche, that this may cause too many conflicts of interest as far as policy guidance, and that students might experience a degradation in quality of education due to inconsistent curriculums or digressive learning. This type of thinking lends me to believe that education has been held hostage by administrative policies and procedures that simply do not adjust quickly enough to today's conventions, and often fail to diverge enough, in order to supply a well-rounded, and fully informative education for all students. In other words, present day education policy, places students in a proverbial box, and over time starts eliminating necessary branches of learning. These branches supply adequate knowledge of where a student should or shouldn't apply one's education as to get the proper training for his or her future career.

In my career as a student, no matter at which level, whether it was grade school, or college, the teachers who taught best, were not just teachers, but simply facilitators of any if not all knowledge. Is it adequate enough for a student to be provided knowledge based in a curriculum that has first passed through Federal oversight, then down through the state education departments, and through the local level administration, and finally to the teacher's desk, where all along the way administrators slash out valuable concepts, remove what they perceived to be wasteful resource spending, and by the time the teacher begins writing on the chalkboard, the knowledge available to the student is watered down, and therefore limited in scope? Many would agree, that placing students within strict educational boundaries only hinders progressive and critical thinking, the ability to navigate and discover concepts through maximum exposure. Is it any wonder that kids today, diagnosed with learning disabilities are viewed as being learning "disabled". Are they in fact disabilities? Or are they being disabled by an educational system with too many learning boundaries, and not enough proper facilitation of concepts?

For instance, attention deficit disorder (ADD) is considered to be a learning disability (LD) by most educational professionals and psychologists. According to the U.S. Center for Disease Control, "4.5 million children 5-17 years of age have ever been diagnosed with ADHD as of 2006", and each year since 1997, the rate of ADHD diagnosing has steadily increased at a rate of 3% each year. The new breed, or should it be stated as a trend, of learning disabilities is the autism spectrum disorder (ASD), which is also on the rise in younger students as well. This trend of psychologically categorizing students is yet another way the educational system tends to further limit the capabilities of giving a diagnosed student a broader exposure to learning. Instead, most students who have been diagnosed with a learning disability are usually placed in a special learning environment, even though the administrators require the full inclusion of these types of students in the normal classroom setting, a student with LD may require more than the average stimuli provided in a conventional classroom. It seems education administrators are committing devolution of the learning mind.

Theoretically, teachers should provide an environment that has multiple forms of learning paths for students, whether they are learning disabled or not. Since the teachers are the frontline of education, it is critical that they produce a free-form curriculum that would facilitate all students' needs. The administrators do not have the capacity or the experience in the classroom to provide such a customized experience of learning for the students, and the current practice they apply simply places each student on the same educational playing field, through heavily refined curricula, that acts as a huge filter, failing to expose the students to the maximum experience of knowledge. It is extremely important to recognize learning disabilities as abilities instead, because what the current education system does, is place a multi-capacity mind into a smaller and heavily restricted model of learning, and it would seem the system is therefore learning and teaching disabled.

Maybe what today's student needs is a more loose form of education, or a learning environment that is not restrained by an overwhelming amount of bureaucratic rules, policies, and faulty procedures that create a hindrance to effective learning. A school that can offer a curriculum wholly composed by teachers may create a classroom situation where multiple teachers are present, playing off one another in order to capture the random attention spans that students with disabilities like ADHD have. Sticking to the curriculum is anti-educational, as mentioned before, it constrains the exposure to concepts, so it would be effective to allow a teacher to branch from the curriculum, in order to better explain concepts to students using multiple facets, instead of just one.

On Natural Selection and Responsibility

A colleague of mine and I, had an interesting discussion recently. Often times we have a lot to agree or disagree about, concerning a tremendous range of political and economic topics. Usually our discussion began with one of us linking the other to an online article, and today's article dealt mostly with how big banks rigged their products, in order to gain profits over the short term, but the former practice is under investigation, to see whether or not the practice was legal (http://bit.ly/aoBo6Y). So, the debating ensued, and of course we both had our own perspectives on not whether their business dealings were illegal, but who was ethically at fault for enabling the fiasco of our current economic downturn.

Currently, several of the large players, Merrill Lynch, CitiGroup, and various other investment banks are all under investigation for creating "fake demand". The problem that exists for the investigators is that there is no transparent evidence pointing to the illegalities of creating a mechanism that told investors, that the product for which they sought, was somehow a "hot item", but below the surface, through the act of savvy investment deal strategies, the investment firms were selling cold, undesirable products. It is apparent after reading the lengthy article, that there was evident abuses committed, and that the markets, in the words of the now humbled Alan Greenspan, "took care of themselves", at the hefty cost of investors who were simply kept in the dark about the true nature of the products they were buying.

So, do we plant the blame on the government for not taking the reins, and implementing stricter regulations, even though it was hindsight, and that there were no effective policies in place to keep a mindful eye on investment schemes of the past decade? Or, do we point a finger at the private firms, who   created complex mechanisms, complex, so that the intricacies were flexible enough to dodge what little regulation was already in place?

The private industry in this case is the one to blame. Back before any of this economic strife was at hand, most Washington economic thinkers, like Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, and Larry Summers, were all big believers in a free market capitalist system, that promoted the philosophy that businesses should exist amongst an economy unbound by government regulations, or policies put forth to oversee their transactions.  Of course this made sense, because constitutionally, business is perceived to have the same rights as an individual person, and a person has the right to not be restrained by government to perform open business with another individual. That makes good sense, right?

Well, for one, U.S. law states that corporations are recognized as having rights and responsibilities just like people. Now, considering the notion of capitalism, a corporation's main objective is that of acquiring as much profit as possible, it is that final goal of acquiring as much capital as possible that begins to weigh in on how much priority is given to maintaining the right of the individual. If the rights of the individual are at stake, then we must consider the rights of each and every person associated with a corporation, whether that be employees, investors, or its clients. Each one of those people has a self-interest in gaining capital. That is separately, every person will gain for their own interest, and the interest of the company to sustain itself with ample capital is a collective interest. This collective interest at all times is parallel to the interests of the individual, and does not retain the obligation to preserve the sustainability of that individual.

So, evidently, the individual, or person is involuntarily in conflict with a corporation from various levels. As a member of a corporation, whether it be an employee, investor, or client, an individual must always consider its own right to prosperity over the prosperity of others. Sure, everyone involved with the corporation has the same goal to increase capital, but at some point, each person requires an isolated individual need from the overall gain. Since the corporation has the same rights as the individuals associated with the corporation, it reserves the same right to prosper as well, but the point at which the corporation begins to shed its right as an individual is that it is made up of a conglomerate of individuals, and the sum of the requirements necessary to prosper extremely outweighs those rights of the genuine individual through a non-democratic process, where only its directors or managers are capable of determining who is entitled to more prosperity than another individual.

When you consider the conventional characteristics of corporations, that take advantage of the loosely defined conceptual policies of free markets, and that they break the barriers of national laws through globalization, the corporation paints itself as less of an individual, and more as an institution that is not bound by the laws of nations that sustain individual rights. If there were a global governing structure in place, and an international law that recognized corporations as does U.S. law, then corporations could legitimately claim the rights of the individual, but they currently exist beyond those rights in a global free market.

Externally, an individual's rights are heavily weakened by the laws that protect corporations as individuals. In today's current economic crisis, individuals are faced with a government that acts as a conveyance of public funds to private industry. The current U.S. tax structure draws a larger chunk of revenue from the middle and lower class. Each individual pays into a system, that is meant for social or public security. When the financial crisis hit, large sums of tax revenue were handed over to big banks that failed to provide a responsible and stable financial mechanism to individuals, all of whom had the right to invest in these companies. The sole individual, the taxpayer has no recourse to isolate it's public funding from the individual entity of a corporation. The corporation on the other hand has a certain power to politically convince government that its individual financial subsistence is more important than that of the individual taxpayer. This is a power not granted to the individual. In all of economic history, not a single one person, has walked into a government agency, made a request to be financially stabilized, and was given an affirmative inconsequential response. Sure, a taxpayer has the very minimal benefits provided to them via social security services, that are funded by their tax dollars, but how does a corporation fit itself into this social model? It simply cannot, especially when economic policies that do not heavily tax these corporations because of their higher rate of profit, but when there is a need for these corporations to be provided a large sum of capital, in order to preserve its existence, the individual's right to exist as an equal is eliminated.

It is often the view by most free market capitalists that the markets "will take care of themselves". What is meant by this is that if there is something intrinsically wrong with the markets, whether that be abuses, failure to gain capital or be socially responsible, by its nature, the market will correct its malfeasance, so to speak. A lot of these type of economic thinkers have a tremendous amount of faith in that an economic system has a natural tendency to maintain the welfare of all whom participate within it. It's as if there was some Darwinian philosophy applied to free market principles. Natural selection is a great concept when applied to the business aspects of economy, but it fails to address the evolution or benefactors of economic progress. So, how does a naturally selective business model sustain an improving economy?

Well, let's take for instance, a room full of people, not particularly businessmen, but just average people, and there is a table in the middle of the room, and upon the table rests a $10 in small bills. Now, the first human instinct would compel each person in the room, to either grab as much of the money as they could, or take at least some. If we were to consider the current economic system in the United States, and apply it to this situation, someone in the room would be placed in charge of distributing the bills to the rest of the people, and then there would be some sort of transactional mechanism in place to allow those people to exchange the money, so that different people will have different amounts of money at different times.

Now, consider that the current economic management structure is set up, so that the the person in charge of distributing the capital, believes that the responsibilities of those granted the capital, do not have to abide by certain rules. These rules only apply to those who do not receive the money from the person in charge. The people capable of exchanging money go about swapping the bills, and performing business as usual, but what about those who were not granted money? Will the lack of rules allow them to participate in the exchange as well?

The room started off with a chaotic system, a natural one, whereby everyone was equal in obtaining the money, but left to natural selection, the most capable person could have disabled the other physically, and created an economy that would only serve itself. So, a person was placed in charge of money distribution, similar to the U.S. Federal reserve, but that person failed to implement rules by which that money maintain its currency within the room's economic system, and therefore, has created a scenario similar to the initial chaotic system of natural selection.

This example proves that an economy modeled after natural selection is not capable of maintaining itself for the good of society. A man-made system can never subsist as a mechanism of nature. At some point this type of system would implode on itself, and not supply the needed resources to all those who make up the greater economy. A smaller percentage of people within the system enabled by a capital distribution agency will naturally consider its needs before those of the general economy, and without regulation, there is no present boundary or firm definition as to what the needs of those people are. In other words necessity may be taken to an extreme, where the need for more capital is never met. As the capital flows upward, or is tightly retained by this section of the economy, those less advantaged, will increasingly fall into economic despair, and as the demand for more capital goes up for those initially granted it, the harder the rest of the economy needs to work, in order to gain a smaller piece of capital, if any at all. An economy based on a model of natural selection fails to guarantee an improving economy.

The Struggle against Corporate Irresponsibility Continues

It is very difficult for the average person to understand why an industry that draws in hundreds of millions of dollars in profit a year cannot solve a problem caused by their own disaster. When we consider why companies on Wall Street that bilked the financial system and taxpayers, or we think over the reasons behind the cause of an oil rig to explode in the Gulf of Mexico, often times we overlook one important factor. This factor is plain and simple irresponsibility. The political engine of the United States has fully supported the enabling of these industries to keep themselves in check, a policy concept that would motivate selfish behavior in any situation.

A system that allows its individuals to be responsible for its own actions is anarchic in nature, and leads to lawlessness. Can we continue to expect these companies to be even in the slightest virtuous, and trust that safety, progress, production, and responsibility would outweigh the decision to make a profit at any cost? Being responsible for your own actions requires objective oversight. If there is no regulation or oversight, the individual is aware that there is no consequence for their actions, and therefore the individual will seek out the ways by which he or she can gather benefits for them self at the cost of all others. If we are to live out our lives in this manner, and find that it is more than acceptable, then we are living no more advanced than common animals. We are willing to degrade, destroy and pillage the potential for liberty, progress, and the well-being of human-beings for the sake of something so temporal as money. This is not to say that prosperity is bad, but excessive prosperity, better known as greed, is the true threat to all others that lay in its wake.

The British Petroleum oil spill is that wake. It is an absurdity that should be punished harshly, but instead it is looked as if it was as natural of a disaster as Hurricane Katrina, even though it was a man-made catastrophe, and could have been avoided. We fail to recognize how irresponsible these white-collar criminals have been, and we condemn them with only as much punishment as a parent slaps the hand of a child stealing cookies from a cookie jar.

While we continue to wait, still 30 days after the sinking of the BP's oil rig, we continue to hear about how BP failed repetitively to patch up it's leaking underwater pipeline. Even after several attempts by the general public to propose solutions for fixing the well break, BP has sat on 700 ideas for the fix, derived from nearly 10,000 proposals, and still has not come to a final decision on how best to deal with this catastrophe. So we wait, and while we wait, the Gulf of Mexico fills up with oil, and toxic chemical dispersant, and we wait, while a multi-billion dollar company waters-down an outright emergency.

So, some might say that this is a big problem, and big problems need time to figure out, so as to get it right without making the problem worse. Well, not to state the obvious, but it has been getting worse day after day for 30 days and counting. It shouldn't even be asked why it's taking so long to get this busted well fixed, instead why does it take so long to fix something that took almost 2 weeks to initially engineer.

At the end of August in 2009, BP completed the drilling of the Tiber well, and on September 2, 2009, BP went ahead announced the successful discovery of oil, in an industry strategy to boost stock value. Two weeks to complete a well drilling, and get a rig in place to begin making big money off of placing this new found source into barrels as fast as possible. When it comes to making a profit time is of the essence, but when BP and it's partners took shortcuts to make more profit by avoiding safety standards, and was irresponsible for the sake of money, it has all of the time in the world to lose money on fixing a disaster they created.

When you consider as well this strong emphasis on free markets by the political right, emphatically pressing its influence upon the masses to rid governmental regulation, not only do they make a broad stroke with this ideology, but it fails to address how private industry will be compelled to carry out business in a moral fashion. Consider the fact that BP has failed to fix the problem in the Gulf of Mexico, and then the right-wing insists on blasting the government for not taking over the clean up efforts, for which BP promised to be fully responsible.

Why is it that this political faction hold us to a double standard? The one side of the political state that demands less and less government influence and regulation among private industry, is the same institution that demands that government be more responsible for private industry mishaps. If they want businesses to remain independent, then let them! Do not exonerate government, and simultaneously point the finger at it for not fixing a problem caused by a private company!

##

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.

The Vultures Will Swarm

Having gone through enough political battling with the presidential elections having past, the American people have heard and seen enough of it, and now is a better time than ever for America's leaders to move well past the horrendous struggle between political parties for power of leadership. Enough is enough already! The American people deserve a working government, instead of a government that fights against itself. With a current financial crisis slowly devouring the stability of the U.S., the effective management of the Iraq war, and Afghanistan deployment, and pretty much the gather up of the pieces of dilapidated government and nation, that needs a stable and focused leadership.

If the American people consider their disposition, the only political party that is to blame for it constant instability can be owed to the Republican party, mostly composed of neoconservative policy makers, and strongly supported by the GOP. These political entities have not only aggressively pushed faulty war policies, but have participated in underhanded moves to destroy any political opposition through federal grand jury investigations. Mainly, the responsibility of a failing Republican party or the GOP, or the blame should be heavily placed on the Bush's, especially George W. Bush, having been remarked as one of the worst U.S. presidents in history, which is the least of his blemishes upon his political record. When we look to trying to understand why he failed as president, it's simply because we went from a tremendously thriving economy, to that which was withered away in the first term of his presidency, fought two wars which are still unfinished, will be left in the hands of a new president, and one of which was smeared with corruption, lies, and consistently tainted secrecy and mystery. Most historians will look back at this presidency, and say WTF!

Now America has elected a leader who has offered the nation a promise of "change", but will this really happen? Obama's intentions are great, but it is not that he won;t live up to them, it is that Washington's dirty old consensus has rotted America out from the inside, and Obama is staring at huge brick wall, when it comes to Senators who bicker over who gets to pass what law, and sneak a bill in every which way than done, and in the end nothing is resolved. Instead Americans, if not the world, are left with even more turmoil, and political stink.

I really enjoyed Senator Feinstein's tantrum over not being informed of Obama's nod for head of the CIA. Why does Feinstein have any leverage in the matter other than her having to run the intelligence committee for the approval of Panetta. Now today she approves of Obama's selection. This is my point exactly! If we didn't have these old bastards getting in the way, we'd actually have leaders capable of doing there jobs without all the game playing bullshit flying around distracting them from doing their job. Mrs. Feinstein, it is your job to approve of whoever the President-elect selects, and he is not obligated by law or in any other fashion to explain to you beforehand why he made that decision. What a twit.

Now this picture shows up on CNN this morning, of the living presidents getting their photo ops with the newly elected Barack Obama. Now, I'm really into interpretation of figurehead photos, because you can often tell a lot by their body language, and positioning. First, the ties, the Bushes and Obama, are all wearing blue ties. Blue in most political marketing minds is a symbol of softness, trust, and offers a more down-to-earth tone. On the surface you may get all of that with the Bushes, but in all reality, they are sheisters, and they would need to heavily depend on imagery to associate themselves with trust and tenderness. Both Bushes were war declaring presidents, so that tosses tenderness out the window. Bush Jr., well his entire presidency was intertwined with constant surfacing of corporate and political corruption, including corruption on the war front. So I don't see how anyone would consider the Bushes in any way associated with trust.

Also, consider the positioning of the presidents. Both presidents whose parties were swept out of incumbency by a landslide (McCain's loss to Obama, and Clinton's sweep over Bush Sr.), are standing literally on top of Obama, so much so it goes beyond shoulder to shoulder but overlapping shoulders. Give the guy some breathing room! This looks like a shallow attempt to associate themselves with the winner, when in a time the Republicans haven't a leg to stand on to sway the voters. Any connection they can make to Obama, even if it is physical body contact is just another desperate attempt to grapple at power posits. On the other side of the photo, both Clinton and Carter have given themselves ample room between themselves and the guys on the left.

I know, photos aren't everything, and I should not make assumptions about political character based on them, but you should ask yourself, why these leaders position themselves in a such a way in the first place. If you look into the details of things, when observing the political behaviors of our leaders you may discover that there is more than meets the eye in how they will carry out the policies of economy, relationships with foreign countries, and meeting the needs of the American people.

Even though this article may seem a bit bitter towards these leaders who have failed us in one way or another, there is a lighter side of it that came into being, when I thought about the respectable deed of Obama calling this luncheon, and having the openness of discussing ideas of all leaders on both sides of the political spectrum, whether wrong or right. This is something that should be taken level upward, in that presidents, instead of being part of a club, should consult one antoher as does a jury, or a committee. A presidential council of sorts.