Here is an interesting article from Bill McKibben, Middlebury College Professor and founder of 350.org. McKibben explores the question of why Republicans are so virulently opposed to both the science and solutions surrounding global warming. During this election cycle, fraught with extremist views from Tea Party candidates, more Republicans than ever are denying the science of global warming, despite the overwhelming (and unfortunate) evidence that it exists.
In particular, I love all the accusations of "hoax" and "conspiracy." Such fringe theories are even more tenuous than anti-Semitic Illuminati conspiracy theories. As if thousands of scientists, data stations, studies, reports, physical observations, and the laws of physics themselves were in on it. But these theories don't come from extremist loners sitting in their basements, they come from extremist crackpots sitting in power, or scarily close to it. They also, of course, come from vested interests such as the oil and gas industry. I wonder what they have to gain?
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
New Yorker Exposes David Koch
In a recent article in the New Yorker, reporter Jane Mayer writes about Koch Industries and the covert, self-interested political operations to simply expand their company's profit margin. Favorite tactics include subverting scientific conclusions, pouring money into supposed "grassroots campaigns" and using heavy handed influence on supposedly independent boards and non-profit groups to control findings, reports, and manipulate decisions. Oh, also stealing from Native Americans.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
The Hypocrisy of the Bush Tax Cuts
Like most of us, the United States owes money, except its debt is a bit larger than ours. About 13 trillion dollars larger. That number is the national debt: the total amount of money that the United States owes to its investors (anyone who has purchased a Treasury bill or a federally-backed bond).
The deficit is something different. It is the difference between money that the U.S. spends in a given year and the money that it takes in from taxes and other sources of revenue in that year. Every year the amount of the deficit gets added to the national debt. If the U.S. spends less money than it takes in, then it has a surplus. The United States had a budget surplus three times under President Clinton. The previous most recent budget surplus occurred 29 years before that.
In 1999 Alan Viard, Senior Economist for the Dallas Federal Reserve, wrote “If current policies are maintained, surpluses are expected to continue for 20 years, completely retiring the outstanding federal debt. However, deficits are expected to reappear after 2020 due to rising Social Security and medical spending.”
So what happened? There is no easy answer of course. September 11th, war, housing bubbles, natural disasters, and the financial crisis all contributed to changing economic conditions that affected U.S. expenditures and revenues. But one of the main reasons was the expiration of an obscure Congressional rule, and the subsequent fiscal irresponsibility of the most recent Bush administration. PAYGO, enacted in 1990 under President H.W. Bush essentially required the government to finance new expenditures with currently available money, instead of borrowing it. It’s a concept with which we are all familiar: use your debit card instead of your credit card. You may get less instant gratification, but you know you won’t go into debt. Plus, you have your whole line of credit available for an emergency.
This rule, along with a booming economy, put our spending in line with income and produced three years of budget surpluses. Then, under the Bush administration, the government decided to cut taxes (a major source of revenue) while increasing spending (example: the pointless war in Iraq). It would be as if you took a pay cut while simultaneously buying a summer home in Maine. Between 2003 and 2007 the national debt increased by over half a trillion dollars each year, and increased over 1 trillion dollars during 2008 (primarily due to the bank bailouts). During the entirety of George W. Bush’s presidency the national debt increased by almost five trillion dollars, and we entered the greatest financial and economic crisis since the great depression.
So let us be clear. In the previous two decades, it has been Democrats, not Republicans, who have handled the nation’s finances better (Credit should go also to George H.W. Bush for enacting PAYGO and raising taxes when necessary). Despite this fact, it has been conservatives who have consistently demanded that the United States reduce its annual budget shortfalls and its national debt, eagerly cutting taxes while refusing to cut costs.
Since the government spent billions upon billions of dollars injecting money into the economy in 2009, Conservatives have been yelling even louder that the country must reign in its ballooning debt. Three times this summer, Senate Republicans blocked legislation that would have provided, among other necessary services, unemployment benefits to Americans who have been out of work for an extended period of time. They voted against it because the spending was not offset (it would have added to the deficit).
Congress has the authority to spend without paying for that spending in emergency situations. One might assume that during a period of 10% unemployment, Republicans might consider extending unemployment benefits an emergency. But no. They continued to block. And here’s the rub: when the highly irresponsible Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the this year, Republicans want to extend all tax cuts, even to the richest Americans who can most afford them without – you guessed it – paying for them. Tax cuts cost money. They mean a significant loss of revenue to the federal government.
This is a black and white situation. Republicans are willing to give tax cuts to the richest Americans, but they are not willing to give even the most basic unemployment benefits to Americans hit hardest by the financial crisis (which was essentially caused by the richest Americans).
The question is, why? Is it an academic difference of opinion about how to best invigorate an economy? Or is it a more self-serving ideological motive to starve the government of resources and revenue, despite the costs to the citizens of this country? I think we already know the answer.
The deficit is something different. It is the difference between money that the U.S. spends in a given year and the money that it takes in from taxes and other sources of revenue in that year. Every year the amount of the deficit gets added to the national debt. If the U.S. spends less money than it takes in, then it has a surplus. The United States had a budget surplus three times under President Clinton. The previous most recent budget surplus occurred 29 years before that.
In 1999 Alan Viard, Senior Economist for the Dallas Federal Reserve, wrote “If current policies are maintained, surpluses are expected to continue for 20 years, completely retiring the outstanding federal debt. However, deficits are expected to reappear after 2020 due to rising Social Security and medical spending.”
So what happened? There is no easy answer of course. September 11th, war, housing bubbles, natural disasters, and the financial crisis all contributed to changing economic conditions that affected U.S. expenditures and revenues. But one of the main reasons was the expiration of an obscure Congressional rule, and the subsequent fiscal irresponsibility of the most recent Bush administration. PAYGO, enacted in 1990 under President H.W. Bush essentially required the government to finance new expenditures with currently available money, instead of borrowing it. It’s a concept with which we are all familiar: use your debit card instead of your credit card. You may get less instant gratification, but you know you won’t go into debt. Plus, you have your whole line of credit available for an emergency.
This rule, along with a booming economy, put our spending in line with income and produced three years of budget surpluses. Then, under the Bush administration, the government decided to cut taxes (a major source of revenue) while increasing spending (example: the pointless war in Iraq). It would be as if you took a pay cut while simultaneously buying a summer home in Maine. Between 2003 and 2007 the national debt increased by over half a trillion dollars each year, and increased over 1 trillion dollars during 2008 (primarily due to the bank bailouts). During the entirety of George W. Bush’s presidency the national debt increased by almost five trillion dollars, and we entered the greatest financial and economic crisis since the great depression.
So let us be clear. In the previous two decades, it has been Democrats, not Republicans, who have handled the nation’s finances better (Credit should go also to George H.W. Bush for enacting PAYGO and raising taxes when necessary). Despite this fact, it has been conservatives who have consistently demanded that the United States reduce its annual budget shortfalls and its national debt, eagerly cutting taxes while refusing to cut costs.
Since the government spent billions upon billions of dollars injecting money into the economy in 2009, Conservatives have been yelling even louder that the country must reign in its ballooning debt. Three times this summer, Senate Republicans blocked legislation that would have provided, among other necessary services, unemployment benefits to Americans who have been out of work for an extended period of time. They voted against it because the spending was not offset (it would have added to the deficit).
Congress has the authority to spend without paying for that spending in emergency situations. One might assume that during a period of 10% unemployment, Republicans might consider extending unemployment benefits an emergency. But no. They continued to block. And here’s the rub: when the highly irresponsible Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the this year, Republicans want to extend all tax cuts, even to the richest Americans who can most afford them without – you guessed it – paying for them. Tax cuts cost money. They mean a significant loss of revenue to the federal government.
This is a black and white situation. Republicans are willing to give tax cuts to the richest Americans, but they are not willing to give even the most basic unemployment benefits to Americans hit hardest by the financial crisis (which was essentially caused by the richest Americans).
The question is, why? Is it an academic difference of opinion about how to best invigorate an economy? Or is it a more self-serving ideological motive to starve the government of resources and revenue, despite the costs to the citizens of this country? I think we already know the answer.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
More Evidence David Koch is Just the Worst
This post on climateprogress.org is further evidence that David Koch, an alumnus of Deerfield Academy (my alma mater) is just about about one of the worst people in America. His interests are entirely self-serving, and his largesse seems to be nothing more than attempt to buy his way into heaven.
Sorry David, even a lifetime of good deeds cannot wash away the sins which you continue to perpetrate on your fellow humans. Deerfield Academy should be ashamed for honoring you so enthusiastically.
Sorry David, even a lifetime of good deeds cannot wash away the sins which you continue to perpetrate on your fellow humans. Deerfield Academy should be ashamed for honoring you so enthusiastically.
Climate Change Skeptics are Just Plain Wrong
For those of you still engaged in the debate over whether climate change is real, here’s some news: the debate’s over, and the climate change skeptics have lost. With apologies for the bluntness, they are simply wrong, and they most likely chose to disagree due to their short-term economic self-interest.
Consider the new study published by William Anderegg of Stanford University in PNAS, the official journal of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Anderegg and his coauthors examined an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers. Their “publication and citation data show that (i) 97-98 percent of climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets [of climate change] and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of [climate change] are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.” Seems like a fairly one-sided debate.
But wait, skeptics say, what about that whole Climategate debacle, where stolen e-mails from climate scientists at East Anglia University in Britain supposedly showed climate data manipulation? And what about Michael Mann, the climate scientist from Penn State and the University of Virginia? His research has been under investigation by overzealous political opportunist Ken Cuccinelli (Attorney General of Virginia). These incidents are proof that scientists have been manipulating data and lying about climate change, aren’t they!?
Sorry climate change skeptics, but both accusations have been extensively reviewed and dismissed. In Britain, three official panels found no reason to dispute either the rigor or the honesty of the climate scientists. At Penn State, two panels found Michael Mann not guilty of any scientific wrongdoing.
Subsequent comprehensive reports from the National Academies of Science and the National Research Council have not only confirmed the global consensus on climate change, but also more fully detailed the consequences to the U.S. of a warming planet.
Let us imagine the skeptics have seen the evidence and are convinced. Polls show most Americans both don’t consider climate change a priority, they claim. But is this really true? A new poll and analysis of polling data by Dr. Jonathan Krosnick of Stanford University finds that a large majority of Americans believe climate change is real, is caused by human actions and that the government should actively pursue ways of slowing and reversing climate change.
Krosnick debuted this poll in a recent New York Times op-ed. The most intriguing results came from the state level polls (especially important for senators), where Krosnick finds that majorities in every single state believe climate change is caused by human activity (the majority of states had rates of 80-90 percent). Further, Krosnick found that an astounding 74 percent of Americans support the concept of a cap-and-trade regime to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
So why are climate change skeptics so vocal and why are they given a bigger platform than their arguments deserve? Easy: they are most often people with the most to lose if the world shifts away from fossil fuels, and they have lots of money. Companies like Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries and others base their entire business model on our dependence on fossil fuels. And they are decidedly more interested in maintaining healthy quarterly profits than in supporting a decades-long global transition that leaves their futures uncertain.
I wish the scientists and experts were wrong. I wish pouring carbon dioxide into our atmosphere had no effect on global temperatures and we could go on merrily burning oil, natural gas and coal. But they are not, and no amount of lobbying, obfuscation or denial will stop the temperature from rising.
The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is overcooked.
Consider the new study published by William Anderegg of Stanford University in PNAS, the official journal of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Anderegg and his coauthors examined an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers. Their “publication and citation data show that (i) 97-98 percent of climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets [of climate change] and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of [climate change] are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.” Seems like a fairly one-sided debate.
But wait, skeptics say, what about that whole Climategate debacle, where stolen e-mails from climate scientists at East Anglia University in Britain supposedly showed climate data manipulation? And what about Michael Mann, the climate scientist from Penn State and the University of Virginia? His research has been under investigation by overzealous political opportunist Ken Cuccinelli (Attorney General of Virginia). These incidents are proof that scientists have been manipulating data and lying about climate change, aren’t they!?
Sorry climate change skeptics, but both accusations have been extensively reviewed and dismissed. In Britain, three official panels found no reason to dispute either the rigor or the honesty of the climate scientists. At Penn State, two panels found Michael Mann not guilty of any scientific wrongdoing.
Subsequent comprehensive reports from the National Academies of Science and the National Research Council have not only confirmed the global consensus on climate change, but also more fully detailed the consequences to the U.S. of a warming planet.
Let us imagine the skeptics have seen the evidence and are convinced. Polls show most Americans both don’t consider climate change a priority, they claim. But is this really true? A new poll and analysis of polling data by Dr. Jonathan Krosnick of Stanford University finds that a large majority of Americans believe climate change is real, is caused by human actions and that the government should actively pursue ways of slowing and reversing climate change.
Krosnick debuted this poll in a recent New York Times op-ed. The most intriguing results came from the state level polls (especially important for senators), where Krosnick finds that majorities in every single state believe climate change is caused by human activity (the majority of states had rates of 80-90 percent). Further, Krosnick found that an astounding 74 percent of Americans support the concept of a cap-and-trade regime to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
So why are climate change skeptics so vocal and why are they given a bigger platform than their arguments deserve? Easy: they are most often people with the most to lose if the world shifts away from fossil fuels, and they have lots of money. Companies like Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries and others base their entire business model on our dependence on fossil fuels. And they are decidedly more interested in maintaining healthy quarterly profits than in supporting a decades-long global transition that leaves their futures uncertain.
I wish the scientists and experts were wrong. I wish pouring carbon dioxide into our atmosphere had no effect on global temperatures and we could go on merrily burning oil, natural gas and coal. But they are not, and no amount of lobbying, obfuscation or denial will stop the temperature from rising.
The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is overcooked.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Conservatism and Climate Change
For those of us who really care about climate change, here’s a question. Why? Why do we want to stop the surface temperature of the earth from warming, the icebergs from melting, sea levels from rising, polar bears from dying, and coral reefs from shrinking? The answer may be less obvious, and less virtuous, than we think.
The earth’s climate has shifted countless times over billions of years in a variety of extreme directions, with a dizzying array of consequences for life on the planet. True, current climate change will negatively affect a multitude of animal and plant life, but it will also positively affect other animal and plant life more suited to the changing global conditions.
Humanity will survive, and the natural world will adapt and reach a new equilibrium. So why do we want to stop these changes? Is it guilt from being the cause? Perhaps it is because the costs are more visible than the benefits. But should we feel guilty? Plant life previously changed our entire atmosphere, introducing large amounts of oxygen for the first time. No doubt some species suffered. Animals flourished. Are plants to blame for those changes?
While guilt may be part of it, I submit that we care most about climate change’s negative impacts on humanity. We mostly like current temperatures, rainfall patterns, sea levels, and plant and animal distributions. We have well-established human patterns (both globally and locally) that depend on a degree of environmental certainty. Our cities are built near water, our crops are sewn where they grow best, and we are dependent on the predictability of a variety of natural cycles. Changing our habits and infrastructure would be incredibly expensive, wildly inconvenient, and would impose a heavy toll on human lives.
This leads me to believe that we are motivated to slow climate change mostly by conservative and selfish impulses. We want things to remain the same, and we don’t want to deal with adapting to change. My point is that stopping climate change is not a moral cause, nor is it an environmental cause, and it need not be in order to feel passionate about it. It is a cause predicated upon the continuity of our physical, cultural, economic, and political preferences. And that is alright.
When it comes to climate change, those of us who want to take action now are the true conservatives. (Note that political conservatives use the exact same argument of preserving opportunity for future generations when they discuss deficit control.) And approaching the issue with that attitude will be incredibly important in marshaling public opinion to inspire our leaders to take action. We must point out that the benefits of stopping climate change outweigh the costs.
Opponents of action raise valid, if shortsighted, points. Slowing and stopping climate change will have short-term consequences. It won’t all be green jobs and windmills overnight. People will lose jobs. Economic growth will slow. Some Western Virginia coal mining towns will become ghost towns.
But we know that the consequences of inaction are far worse than the consequences of action. And we know that once we start changing our ways, eventually the drive of new innovation and human ingenuity will yield a civilization able to sustain itself and live within its means. And the best way we can communicate that is not by talking about polar bears and coral reefs, but by being honest with ourselves and others, being selfish, and speaking the language of conservatism when we talk about climate change.
The earth’s climate has shifted countless times over billions of years in a variety of extreme directions, with a dizzying array of consequences for life on the planet. True, current climate change will negatively affect a multitude of animal and plant life, but it will also positively affect other animal and plant life more suited to the changing global conditions.
Humanity will survive, and the natural world will adapt and reach a new equilibrium. So why do we want to stop these changes? Is it guilt from being the cause? Perhaps it is because the costs are more visible than the benefits. But should we feel guilty? Plant life previously changed our entire atmosphere, introducing large amounts of oxygen for the first time. No doubt some species suffered. Animals flourished. Are plants to blame for those changes?
While guilt may be part of it, I submit that we care most about climate change’s negative impacts on humanity. We mostly like current temperatures, rainfall patterns, sea levels, and plant and animal distributions. We have well-established human patterns (both globally and locally) that depend on a degree of environmental certainty. Our cities are built near water, our crops are sewn where they grow best, and we are dependent on the predictability of a variety of natural cycles. Changing our habits and infrastructure would be incredibly expensive, wildly inconvenient, and would impose a heavy toll on human lives.
This leads me to believe that we are motivated to slow climate change mostly by conservative and selfish impulses. We want things to remain the same, and we don’t want to deal with adapting to change. My point is that stopping climate change is not a moral cause, nor is it an environmental cause, and it need not be in order to feel passionate about it. It is a cause predicated upon the continuity of our physical, cultural, economic, and political preferences. And that is alright.
When it comes to climate change, those of us who want to take action now are the true conservatives. (Note that political conservatives use the exact same argument of preserving opportunity for future generations when they discuss deficit control.) And approaching the issue with that attitude will be incredibly important in marshaling public opinion to inspire our leaders to take action. We must point out that the benefits of stopping climate change outweigh the costs.
Opponents of action raise valid, if shortsighted, points. Slowing and stopping climate change will have short-term consequences. It won’t all be green jobs and windmills overnight. People will lose jobs. Economic growth will slow. Some Western Virginia coal mining towns will become ghost towns.
But we know that the consequences of inaction are far worse than the consequences of action. And we know that once we start changing our ways, eventually the drive of new innovation and human ingenuity will yield a civilization able to sustain itself and live within its means. And the best way we can communicate that is not by talking about polar bears and coral reefs, but by being honest with ourselves and others, being selfish, and speaking the language of conservatism when we talk about climate change.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
The Banks Continue to Embarrass Themselves
This article from the Huffington Post indicates that financial reform is most likely on the right track. If a JP Morgan banker (James Glassman) is complaining about financial reform in such a childish manner, Congress must be on to something (even if the bill leaves much to be desired).
Notice that Glassman doesn't offer any substantive policy criticisms of the reform. Rather he speaks in expansive generalities and mocks Michigan's horrible economic plight. This is yet another example of the isolated bubble that such bankers operate within. Glassman claims that Goldman Sachs and other banks were no more responsible for this crisis than Congress. A fair point, if you assign Congress the blame for repealing important regulatory rules and failing to enforce ones that did exist. But we can also point to Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and the other banks that ferociously lobbied for years to deregulate the industry. And we can also point to a private sector that does everything it can to avoid regulation.
Essentially Glassman blames the police for allowing a crime, without placing any of the blame on those who actually committed the crime. This is beyond despicable, and Glassman has not a leg to stand on. I would be interested in hearing actual suggestions on how reform can be improved, as opposed to sweeping statements about the "fundamental principles of market economics."
Notice that Glassman doesn't offer any substantive policy criticisms of the reform. Rather he speaks in expansive generalities and mocks Michigan's horrible economic plight. This is yet another example of the isolated bubble that such bankers operate within. Glassman claims that Goldman Sachs and other banks were no more responsible for this crisis than Congress. A fair point, if you assign Congress the blame for repealing important regulatory rules and failing to enforce ones that did exist. But we can also point to Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and the other banks that ferociously lobbied for years to deregulate the industry. And we can also point to a private sector that does everything it can to avoid regulation.
Essentially Glassman blames the police for allowing a crime, without placing any of the blame on those who actually committed the crime. This is beyond despicable, and Glassman has not a leg to stand on. I would be interested in hearing actual suggestions on how reform can be improved, as opposed to sweeping statements about the "fundamental principles of market economics."
Friday, April 16, 2010
U.S. Accuses Goldman Sachs of Fraud
In an article in Today's New York Times, the SEC has filed a civil law suit accusing Goldman Sachs of selling investments they knew would fail, and then covertly betting against those sales, thereby richly profiting from the losses taken by their investors.
This is a perfect example of a zero sum gain, whereby one person only wins when someone else loses. of course, this example also includes straight-up fraud, which is even more ethically disturbing than taking advantage of asymmetrical information.
This is yet more evidence that the financially industry has become nothing more than a dishonest car mechanic who tells you your brakes need fixing when they don't.
This is yet another example of why we need financial reform in this country. It seems odd to me that a single political party is unified against this reform. It couldn't be that they are hoping to obstruct and win short-term political points...
This is a perfect example of a zero sum gain, whereby one person only wins when someone else loses. of course, this example also includes straight-up fraud, which is even more ethically disturbing than taking advantage of asymmetrical information.
This is yet more evidence that the financially industry has become nothing more than a dishonest car mechanic who tells you your brakes need fixing when they don't.
This is yet another example of why we need financial reform in this country. It seems odd to me that a single political party is unified against this reform. It couldn't be that they are hoping to obstruct and win short-term political points...
Thursday, April 15, 2010
The United States Financial Sector
I want to expand on a thought in my previous post and take it in a slightly new direction. I argued recently that Republicans (writ large, I take pains not to over-generalize as much as possible), true to Adam Smith, believe that the main goal in life is to maximize wealth, as individuals and as a society.
The distribution of this wealth is not important, just the sum total. Taken to an extreme, these people would prefer a world with 10 trillion dollars of wealth to a world with 5 trillion dollars of wealth, even if in the 10 trillion dollar world, only 10% of the population holds all of the wealth. Meanwhile in the 5 trillion dollar world, the wealth is spread evenly enough to afford everyone the basics of life: food, shelter, and basic health care.
This is a numbers game. The ultimate goal is to make the numbers as large as possible, without concern for how that tangibly affects human lives. For people who subscribe to this idea (and it is fairly predominant on the Right), this goal is akin to a moral good, because money equals happiness and success. And if you maximize the amount of money in the world, the argument goes, there is more for everyone. And, according to these folks, all it takes to acquire a chunk of this money is hard-work, intelligence, and an unhindered free market.
Of course there is no truth to these claims. The world of 10 trillion dollars does indeed have more money. But this world only exists where there is shocking inequality, massive market failures, poverty, and limited freedom.
In this world, where free-market advocates point to fairly arbitrary measures of the economy like GDP or the Dow Industrial Average, people put less of an emphasis on the equity and distribution of the growing GDP or the growing stock markets. By design, (and this is not meant to imply some diabolical conspiracy) the economic regime of the United States tends towards gross inequities in wealth. And wealth often begets more wealth, while poverty begets more poverty.
I believe that laws of supply and demand are true. I believe in markets and the power of incentives and price signals. And like anything else, these things can be abused, twisted and distorted to serve the interests of those who are able to either a) take advantage of loopholes in existing law or b) change existing law to their benefit. There is a place for investment banks and stock markets. They serve important functions. But when entire corporations exist solely to make money with no underlying value, or when corporations are willing to risk the bankruptcy of entire nations, I believe things have gone too far.
What you have them do, opponents will say, the ultimate responsibility is to the shareholders and to make money. Well I disagree. When all morality and sense of duty and responsibility has left the boardroom, financial and other crises occur.
The financial industry in the United States is morally bankrupt. It is guilty of multiple transgressions of ethics and the law, or at least the spirit of the law. Of course it is not the only industry guilty of reckless self-interest, but the consequences of its abuses are borne by people around the world, in ways only exceeded by polluting industries.
Now Republicans are fighting the financial reform bill, saying all it will do is provide future bailouts to banks. That claim is completely untrue. If anything the financial reform bill is too weak. But it is a start. I'll delve more into specifics and try to avoid ranting in my next post.
The distribution of this wealth is not important, just the sum total. Taken to an extreme, these people would prefer a world with 10 trillion dollars of wealth to a world with 5 trillion dollars of wealth, even if in the 10 trillion dollar world, only 10% of the population holds all of the wealth. Meanwhile in the 5 trillion dollar world, the wealth is spread evenly enough to afford everyone the basics of life: food, shelter, and basic health care.
This is a numbers game. The ultimate goal is to make the numbers as large as possible, without concern for how that tangibly affects human lives. For people who subscribe to this idea (and it is fairly predominant on the Right), this goal is akin to a moral good, because money equals happiness and success. And if you maximize the amount of money in the world, the argument goes, there is more for everyone. And, according to these folks, all it takes to acquire a chunk of this money is hard-work, intelligence, and an unhindered free market.
Of course there is no truth to these claims. The world of 10 trillion dollars does indeed have more money. But this world only exists where there is shocking inequality, massive market failures, poverty, and limited freedom.
In this world, where free-market advocates point to fairly arbitrary measures of the economy like GDP or the Dow Industrial Average, people put less of an emphasis on the equity and distribution of the growing GDP or the growing stock markets. By design, (and this is not meant to imply some diabolical conspiracy) the economic regime of the United States tends towards gross inequities in wealth. And wealth often begets more wealth, while poverty begets more poverty.
I believe that laws of supply and demand are true. I believe in markets and the power of incentives and price signals. And like anything else, these things can be abused, twisted and distorted to serve the interests of those who are able to either a) take advantage of loopholes in existing law or b) change existing law to their benefit. There is a place for investment banks and stock markets. They serve important functions. But when entire corporations exist solely to make money with no underlying value, or when corporations are willing to risk the bankruptcy of entire nations, I believe things have gone too far.
What you have them do, opponents will say, the ultimate responsibility is to the shareholders and to make money. Well I disagree. When all morality and sense of duty and responsibility has left the boardroom, financial and other crises occur.
The financial industry in the United States is morally bankrupt. It is guilty of multiple transgressions of ethics and the law, or at least the spirit of the law. Of course it is not the only industry guilty of reckless self-interest, but the consequences of its abuses are borne by people around the world, in ways only exceeded by polluting industries.
Now Republicans are fighting the financial reform bill, saying all it will do is provide future bailouts to banks. That claim is completely untrue. If anything the financial reform bill is too weak. But it is a start. I'll delve more into specifics and try to avoid ranting in my next post.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Political Consequences of Health Care Reform
Following the House of Representatives vote on the Senate health care bill and the Reconciliation bill (which will now go back to the Senate), Republicans threatened to attempt to repeal the bill, they crowed that the vote would decimate Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections, and they threatened to grind Congress to an even more profound standstill for the rest of the year.
The most explicit threat of gridlock came from the man who campaigned on the slogan of "Country First," John McCain. "There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," he told an Arizona radio station. "They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it." The accusation is that Democrats used unethical, arrogant, and unconstitutional methods to pass health care reform. We have all heard the Democratic responses to this: that Republicans have used the reconciliation procedure almost twice as much as Democrats, that they have had countless opportunities over the last year to engage and offer ideas on health care (and in fact did so), and that it was Republicans who moved immediately to accusations of socialism, death panels, and government takeovers. These are all facts, not be argued. There was no public substantive policy debate from the Right. Instead they encouraged and fed a movement (the Tea Party) that revels in bigotry, homophobia, xenophobia, while lacking any sort of realistic or pragmatic worldview.
This is John McCain's sad legacy. The maverick is gone, replaced by a bitter, enraged man who acts simply out of a need for vengeance and political expediency. He now opposes, simply to oppose, a host of policy positions that he had previously supported. He has become a slave to the masses, lacking thoughtfulness and opinions of his own. I believe John McCain has come to characterize the Republican party as a whole. The true moderates are gone, and those who were moderates for political purposes only have sided with the hardliners and ideologues, because it is politically expedient.
Obama, Pelosi, and the Democrats certainly played some politics, and still will. But they also have appealed to a sense of morality and compassion that they believe is present in all humans. They have shown their willingness to sacrifice political gain for America's benefit. In the face of that, Republicans, and pundits assume that Democrats will pay dearly at the polls in November.
I disagree. I believe that now is a great opportunity for Democrats to not give an inch to expectant Republicans, but instead to forge ahead and be bold in trying to not only retain their majorities in both Houses, but to make gains. Democrats should not be apologetic about passing health care reform and they should explain why it was Republicans who, in the face of a massive economic crisis refused to help America, or in the face of a massively deficient health care system refused to help Americans. Or who, facing the largest environmental and humanitarian crisis in the history of humanity, refuse to make sacrifices now for the benefit of future generations (I find it ironic that intergenerational equality is all the Right talks about when referencing government spending).
I do not mean to -overgeneralize, and there are many exceptions to the statements I have made today, but the modern Republican party seems to be obsessed with one thing: money. For them, money is the ultimate indicator of happiness, of utility, and of a good life. And it does not need to be spread out evenly, there just has to be as much as possible. Nevermind that 5% of the population has 80% of the wealth. All that matters is that there is more wealth. Now of course not all Republicans in the country feel this way, but every single Republican in Congress has voted this way. And as a lawmaker, you express your principles and your ideals, as well as your pragmatism and common sense, through your vote.
Democrats have myriad flaws. They often succumb to similar temptations. But this president has shown a respect for human life and dignity such that I have never seen in my life. Above any ideology he espouses pragmatism and common sense,while still retaining high-minded ideals that often get in the way of our daily lives. He breaths hope, compassion, and a strong love for this country into our national discourse. He manages to rise above pettiness and discord, and he tries again and again to find common ground and compromise. But when no ground is yielded from others, he does not back down, and he fights for the good.
This is the narrative Democrats should tell in the upcoming elections, because it is the truth. If you make a decision, and you believe in it, own that decision. It was almost impossible, through the lies, distortions, and spin, to truly understand what a bill of this magnitude does. No wonder the polls showed what they did. But have no doubt, this health care reform bill (despite flaws), is a great thing. And it will have lasting benefits for this country, both economically and morally.
Republicans have lost something in these last several years. Their compasses no longer point to true north. Their love of small government and lower taxes has shown itself simply to be love of themselves. And they should be forced to wander in the wilderness yet longer.
The most explicit threat of gridlock came from the man who campaigned on the slogan of "Country First," John McCain. "There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," he told an Arizona radio station. "They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it." The accusation is that Democrats used unethical, arrogant, and unconstitutional methods to pass health care reform. We have all heard the Democratic responses to this: that Republicans have used the reconciliation procedure almost twice as much as Democrats, that they have had countless opportunities over the last year to engage and offer ideas on health care (and in fact did so), and that it was Republicans who moved immediately to accusations of socialism, death panels, and government takeovers. These are all facts, not be argued. There was no public substantive policy debate from the Right. Instead they encouraged and fed a movement (the Tea Party) that revels in bigotry, homophobia, xenophobia, while lacking any sort of realistic or pragmatic worldview.
This is John McCain's sad legacy. The maverick is gone, replaced by a bitter, enraged man who acts simply out of a need for vengeance and political expediency. He now opposes, simply to oppose, a host of policy positions that he had previously supported. He has become a slave to the masses, lacking thoughtfulness and opinions of his own. I believe John McCain has come to characterize the Republican party as a whole. The true moderates are gone, and those who were moderates for political purposes only have sided with the hardliners and ideologues, because it is politically expedient.
Obama, Pelosi, and the Democrats certainly played some politics, and still will. But they also have appealed to a sense of morality and compassion that they believe is present in all humans. They have shown their willingness to sacrifice political gain for America's benefit. In the face of that, Republicans, and pundits assume that Democrats will pay dearly at the polls in November.
I disagree. I believe that now is a great opportunity for Democrats to not give an inch to expectant Republicans, but instead to forge ahead and be bold in trying to not only retain their majorities in both Houses, but to make gains. Democrats should not be apologetic about passing health care reform and they should explain why it was Republicans who, in the face of a massive economic crisis refused to help America, or in the face of a massively deficient health care system refused to help Americans. Or who, facing the largest environmental and humanitarian crisis in the history of humanity, refuse to make sacrifices now for the benefit of future generations (I find it ironic that intergenerational equality is all the Right talks about when referencing government spending).
I do not mean to -overgeneralize, and there are many exceptions to the statements I have made today, but the modern Republican party seems to be obsessed with one thing: money. For them, money is the ultimate indicator of happiness, of utility, and of a good life. And it does not need to be spread out evenly, there just has to be as much as possible. Nevermind that 5% of the population has 80% of the wealth. All that matters is that there is more wealth. Now of course not all Republicans in the country feel this way, but every single Republican in Congress has voted this way. And as a lawmaker, you express your principles and your ideals, as well as your pragmatism and common sense, through your vote.
Democrats have myriad flaws. They often succumb to similar temptations. But this president has shown a respect for human life and dignity such that I have never seen in my life. Above any ideology he espouses pragmatism and common sense,while still retaining high-minded ideals that often get in the way of our daily lives. He breaths hope, compassion, and a strong love for this country into our national discourse. He manages to rise above pettiness and discord, and he tries again and again to find common ground and compromise. But when no ground is yielded from others, he does not back down, and he fights for the good.
This is the narrative Democrats should tell in the upcoming elections, because it is the truth. If you make a decision, and you believe in it, own that decision. It was almost impossible, through the lies, distortions, and spin, to truly understand what a bill of this magnitude does. No wonder the polls showed what they did. But have no doubt, this health care reform bill (despite flaws), is a great thing. And it will have lasting benefits for this country, both economically and morally.
Republicans have lost something in these last several years. Their compasses no longer point to true north. Their love of small government and lower taxes has shown itself simply to be love of themselves. And they should be forced to wander in the wilderness yet longer.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Open Letter to the Deerfield Academy Community
I write dismayed for Deerfield Academy and its tarnished legacy. I have recently learned that David Koch has been named a lifetime trustee of the Academy. Deerfield has never before granted such status. Unfortunately, this privilege has been given to a man profoundly unworthy of the honor.
I have long known of David Koch's political affiliations and business practices and felt uneasy about his looming presence on Albany Road. Mr. Koch is a billionaire who has made his fortune from oil and gas interests. He has many radically conservative ideas that insult not only the values and heritage of Deerfield, but of the United States. For years he has quietly funded "grassroots" organizations that co-opt the passion and anger of Americans who feel disenfranchised. Ironically, it is his own worldview that conspires to disenfranchise these Americans.
David Koch's flagship political group, Americans for Prosperity, has for decades quietly funded tea-party-esque rallies against health care reform, undermined the science of climate change, and pushed strongly for pro-business interests that will benefit his firm, Koch Industries. He denies the science of global warming, and argues against further regulating the very Wall St. firms that caused the recent financial crisis.
David Koch presents himself as a caring philanthropist. As Deerfield students know, everything he funds bears his name. This is true of his philanthropic projects everywhere. Yet his name rarely appears as the patron of political groups that work to undermine legitimate and necessary policy reform in health care, climate change, and financial regulation. He quietly sows the seeds of fear and hatred, yet publicly reaps applause and gratitude.
I encourage every Deerfield student and faculty member to research the real David Koch, and to ponder if he is a man worth emulating when you use the facilities bearing his name. For here is a man who has proven himself unworthy of Deerfield's heritage, and yet he has somehow managed to buy one of the highest honors in the Academy's history.
I have long known of David Koch's political affiliations and business practices and felt uneasy about his looming presence on Albany Road. Mr. Koch is a billionaire who has made his fortune from oil and gas interests. He has many radically conservative ideas that insult not only the values and heritage of Deerfield, but of the United States. For years he has quietly funded "grassroots" organizations that co-opt the passion and anger of Americans who feel disenfranchised. Ironically, it is his own worldview that conspires to disenfranchise these Americans.
David Koch's flagship political group, Americans for Prosperity, has for decades quietly funded tea-party-esque rallies against health care reform, undermined the science of climate change, and pushed strongly for pro-business interests that will benefit his firm, Koch Industries. He denies the science of global warming, and argues against further regulating the very Wall St. firms that caused the recent financial crisis.
David Koch presents himself as a caring philanthropist. As Deerfield students know, everything he funds bears his name. This is true of his philanthropic projects everywhere. Yet his name rarely appears as the patron of political groups that work to undermine legitimate and necessary policy reform in health care, climate change, and financial regulation. He quietly sows the seeds of fear and hatred, yet publicly reaps applause and gratitude.
I encourage every Deerfield student and faculty member to research the real David Koch, and to ponder if he is a man worth emulating when you use the facilities bearing his name. For here is a man who has proven himself unworthy of Deerfield's heritage, and yet he has somehow managed to buy one of the highest honors in the Academy's history.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
America's Clean Technology Trade Deficit
Great article in the American Prospect on the United States' Clean Technology Trade Deficit and how we are losing out on a burgeoning multi-trillion dollar industry to Asia and Europe. A coherent argument for a more holistic federal approach to bringing clean technology manufacturing to the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)