Big Government vs. Big Corporations

You’ve probably seen the bumper sticker, “I love my country, but I fear my government.” What does this mean?!? I wonder what the government has really done to the person who has the bumper sticker? They pay a marginally higher tax rate? They can’t own armor piercing shells for their automatic mini-canon?

President Reagan popularized a disdain and, yes, possibly fomented a hatred of the government. He saw government as a meddling, overwhelming, and intrusive force – one that was badly mismanaged. He had some points about mismanagement. He had some points about its intrusive influence – at times.

And yes, the government hasn’t always been a benevolent force. Certainly, they have overstepped their bounds in some instances.

But, if you look at the Reagan years in government, government spending seemed to increase every year as did the number of government employees. Spending, in fact, skyrocketed on Reagan’s watch as did the deficit. Civilian government employee payrolls increased from around 2.7 million to well over 3 million by the time Reagan got out of office.

[Government spending chart: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GovernmentSpending.html]

[Government Employment stats: http://www.opm.gov/feddata/factbook/html/fb-p08.htm]

There seems to be some dissonance here in what Reagan stated and what he practiced. But this is another issue for another time.

The question is; who do you really want on your side? Big Government or Big Corporations?

The core reason for a corporation can be summed up simply, to make a profit. I have nothing against profit, as long as it is done ethically, humanely and with a holistic eye on how they do business affects the greater good. Certainly, there are ethical corporations -- ones that place their customers and employees first and make sure they don’t spoil our environment and contribute generously to the communities they inhabit.

But there are just as many that see profit as the soul reason for existence and abandon almost all their ethics and morals to obtain and maintain a profit. The corporate scandal sheet seems endless. Examine the soul of Enron and you will see an entity devoid of compassion, caring, and anything that resembles concern for anything but greed.

To see a list of the most recent corporate scandals, check out:
http://www.forbes.com/2002/07/25/accountingtracker.html

And this list just includes corporations that have nurtured and carried on with unethical and illegal accounting practices. What about those corporations that have sacrificed our health in order to boost their bottom line?

Big tobacco lied unconvincingly to congress stating that nicotine wasn’t addictive. That they weren’t targeting teen smokers with their advertising. It seems to me that there was very little they wouldn’t do to protect and enhance their bottom line.

Merck claimed that it only had the health of the consumer in mind when it forced Vioxx through the FDA approval process only to discover less than few years later that the drug contributed to the deaths of nearly 28,000 people and severe health consequences for countless others.

It has become abundantly clear to me that there are entirely too many companies that would sell their customers, their employees, and their country to maintain a profit.

Who stood in the way of the intimidating influence of the big tobacco? David Kessler of the F.D.A.

Who passed the Sarbane-Oxley bill that changed the way corporations did their accounting and protected millions of worker’s pensions? Our U.S. congress.

I’m not saying that there aren’t pork barrel projects that take liberties with our tax dollars. Certainly, better oversight and fiscal discipline is needed, but in the end, we elect a public official to represent our best interest. A corporation is created and maintained to make a profit. Again, profit isn’t a four letter word, but if I’m walking down a figurative dark alley, I know who I’d want to be with me. Do you?

Is it Time for a Right Turn for the Democrats?

Obviously, the elections didn’t go the way the democratic party wanted. Of course, they’re huddling right now – looking for scapegoats, complaining about strategies, pointing fingers, and trying to find a winning direction. But which direction should they go?

There are stalwarts in the party that are going to advocate that the party didn’t energize its base. They didn’t work hard enough to appeal enough to the far left and party loyalists and the only way to find a winning way would be to stay with their base.

In an election where ABB (Anybody but Bush) was recognized by the vast majority on the left, it comes down to the question of whether you won the hearts and minds of your loyalists or whether you have enough loyalists? I would argue that there just aren't enough members of the base. The political compass of the country has shifted to right and sentiments of the nation are firmly rooted in "conservative values." Whatever that means. But whatever it means, it's time to take notice and start re-thinking strategies.

I don’t know if this shift dates back to the “Reagan Revolution” or not, but I strongly suspect that it does. If you look back over the history of the United States, you can see shifts. F.D.R. and his liberal ideals ruled the day for over two decades. Then there was a shift to the right with Ike. Then a shift back with Kennedy and L.B.J. Then Nixon and the temporary backlash from his debacle that caused a momentary shift back to the left, but I think you could just argue that Carter’s election more of a reaction to the unsettled landscape left in the wake of Watergate.

Reagan brought a simple assurance into the office that permeated the country. People like simple ideas. Where people stand on base issues is simple for them to determine.

Abortion – Pro Life or Pro-Choice
Gay Marriage – for or against
Taxes – lower or lower

These are simple issues to decide – what Republicans might call fundamental values. Throw the complexity of solving the problems of Social Security and Health Care at the populace and they have no idea what to do. The Clinton Health Plan was over 1300 pages long. It’s that sort of complexity that puts voters as a distance.

The problem with the left is that they fail to focus on the simple issues like the morality of a living wage. Like the widening gap between the rich and the poor. And so on.

And it’s not just focusing on simple issues. They don’t need to abandon their protection of the issues of the women’s right to choose and gay rights, but they had better put those items on the back burner and focus on the “kitchen table” issues that Clinton was able to capitalize on and attempt to capture a broader base of voters than what was typically in their court in the past.

You’ve already lost this fours years in the White House and quite a few seats in the congress. Don’t you think it’s time to win? The only way to do that is to take a step to the center. Notice, I didn’t say right. The center is where the democrats can win.

What do you think? Is a move to the right an apostasy for democrats? Or is it a realistic move to make?

Moral Taxes? Yes.

At the heart of many of my conservative friend’s fundamental beliefs is that taxes are immoral. Check out many conservative web sites and print publications and you will see opinions ranging from the sensible and reasonable to outright rants. The latter usually lead to how “liberal” taxes plans are ruining the country.

First, some facts:
1. Out of the top industrialized countries, America and Japan have the lowest tax rates
2. Our current tax rates are the lowest in 50 years

So, in relative terms, we aren’t being taxed that much.

I heard a comments somewhere the other day that American, as generalized population are philosophically conservative, but operationally liberal. I tend to agree with this. When I look at my paycheck and see a big hunk being siphoned off to taxes, I sigh. But what’s a guy to do?

In response to negative comments about taxes, I ask my conservative friends if they like police protection, fire departments, an armed forces that protects and defends our country (and our ideals), safe drinking water….the list could go on. So some agree that they do like these and this leads to eventual and begrudging acceptance that not all taxes are bad. While others go to insane extremes that they either want someone else to pay for services that they get or have elaborate pay for services programs like: Want to use a public tennis court, insert a quarter for 25 minutes worth of play time. And so on.

It’s like they would like a line item veto on how their tax dollars are spent. I would too.

Back when I was more liberal, I didn’t want my tax dollars to go to defense. Of course, that line item veto option didn’t come on my 1040. And I’m happy it didn’t. I want us to be united as a country and, baby, taxes are one thing that unites us – whether we like them or not.

I’m not for unbridled taxes. And there are plenty of tax dollars going to pork barrel projects all over the country. Want to see a list? Check out the Heritage Foundations list on this site:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These projects merely build on the $20 billion spent on more than 8,000 similar programs in fiscal year 2002, including:
$273,000 to help Blue Springs, Missouri, combat teenage "Goth culture";
$1,500,000 for a statue of the Roman god Vulcan in Birmingham, Alabama;
$1,000,000 for an "Intelligent Transportation" grant for Moscow, Idaho--population 22,000;
$50,000 to fund a tattoo removal program in San Luis Obispo County, California;
$26,000 to study how thoroughly Americans rinse their dishes; and
$4,572 to Las Vegas Helicopters (LVH), which performs airborne weddings officiated by Elvis Presley impersonators, as part of the post-September 11 package of aid to airlines.

(http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1622.cfm)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, what is really at the heart of their argument? It’s that progressive taxes are immoral.

Their argument goes something like this: “Why is it fair that if someone works hard, takes a risk, and sacrifices and finally after years of toil, makes it, and then we (the government, the liberals) come in and say that he/she has to pay a higher tax rate than everyone else? Do they get a higher level of service from the police? Does their tap water taste better?”

It’s a simple argument with a lot of credence. No, they don’t get more for their money. But where did their money come from in the first place? Okay, not from the government, I admit, but from an economic environment that has been, in part created by a working tax system.

Here’s one piece of anecdotal evidence that I witnessed first hand.

I worked with an instructor at the college (a private college) where I work to help set-up a global trade videoconference. We linked to government satellite offices in 3 different countries (Canada, Argentina, and one other place – maybe in Africa – my memory fails me). In attendance at this conference were probably around 20 or more small business. Now given their own devices, these small companies would never have had the ability to create these linkages between their businesses and opportunities in these countries.

Taxes become a “force multiplier.” You take a few pennies (ok, an understatement) from everyone and pull it together into one synergistic effort and you create a way for everyone to benefit.

In my example, the small business operator through the help of government satellite office in foreign lands a contact with someone that opens a new market for them. The small business builds sales, employs more people, and expands opportunities. On their own, who know I they could make this connection.

My summary argument is that, in America, we have built the most prosperous nation on the earth by balancing out an idea of getting ahead through hard work and taking care of underprivileged quite well. It is this system that creates an environment that allows someone to work hard, sacrifice and takes risks to get ahead. These people do not create this opportunity in a vacuum. The construct of our society allows for it.

So, I won’t ask people to turn a blind eye. Yes, there needs to be accountability, but taxes are not immoral. I end with a quote from David Cay Johnson who wrote the book, “Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich -- and Cheat Everybody Else.”

"Taxes are the means by which we decide how we're going to finance maintaining our democracy, who pays and how much, how the burdens are distributed."

Come up with a better system and people will listen.

Think first, act later,
Random

Iraq War Flip-Flop, Maybe?

When it was first considered, I felt that invading Iraq was a good idea. Not for any of the reasons put forth by the Bush administration. Weapons of mass destruction, Saddam’s collaboration with terrorists, etc.. These motivations are not what motivated me.

I liked the idea of the Iraqi people being liberated from the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein. After 26+ years of being under “house arrest” as a country, I felt we (the U.S.) had some responsibility as the most prosperous and powerful nation on the planet to do something.

I had supported our efforts in Kosovo to end the ethnic cleansings there. I supported our humanitarian activities in Somalia. It seemed consist to support the liberation of an oppressed people.

Now, you may ask, why Iraq? Aren’t there many other countries we could help?

I have this handy fire chief metaphor I like to use in response to these type questions. If you’re a fire chief and you come to a city block full of buildings on fire, you have prioritize which building you want to put out first.

You look at which building is most important to the interests of the city -- hospital, a munitions factory, the bank, etc.. You ascertain which building can be put out. If the bowling alley is engulfed, let it go. Which building has the most people who need rescue?

In taking this metaphor into real like, you ask, why not North Korea? Well, they have a huge, heavily armed military. They have nuclear weapons. You can’t put that fire out. Why not the Sudan (Darfur)? I think we do need to insert some sort of calming presence there, but it doesn’t have the critical factors when it comes to our national security.

Iraq had invaded Kuwait in the previous decade. The Hussein regime had killed an estimated 300,000 of its people after that because they were dissidents. Human rights, freedom of speech, or any privileges we have in the U.S. are unheard of there.

On top of that, there was a good chance that they had aided terrorists or could be a breeding ground for them.

As much as my initial knee-jerk reaction is to oppose any military initiative that sounds pre-emptive, I studied the situation from several angles and decided that it was a good idea.

Today, I’m not sure I would.

Okay, you can call me a flip-flopper. I call myself a rational, thinking individual. If you go down a dark alley every day and get mugged, you decide not to down that alley anymore.

I think that war has been terribly handled. We don’t have enough troops. Not enough emphasis was put on what to do after their military is toppled. We failed to understand the cultural problem post-invasion and conquest.

Maybe it’s not the war itself I regret supporting, but the prosecution. The training of Iraqi’s new army is floundering. “New” Iraqi soldiers seemed to have either bulls eyes on their backs or become our newly trained enemies when they defect to insurgents.

And I definitely don’t want to see it as first step to an expanded military interventionist policy to re-shape the Mid East. Which I strongly suspect is the ultimate goal of the “Vulcans” in the Bush administration.

Obviously, we can’t go back in time, but we need to be honest about the situation. President Bush is trying to paint a positive picture of the situation and who blames, but it is pretty bleak. Since the toppling of Saddam, the situation in Iraq has spiraled down and out of control. The “Plan” is way off-course and having the conviction to stick with it doesn’t make him sound commanding, it makes him sound ignorant. I wouldn’t look down on him, if he said we need to make a major course change, but it’s difficult to support a stubborn course when you know it leads to disaster – repeatedly.

Come up with a new plan and I might stay on board. If not, and I’m flip-flopping. It’s my prerogative, I’m an American, not an Iraqi.

Post Election Musings and Wrong Directions

I spent last evening with a low grade depression. Never before in my life have I felt the after effects of an election as profoundly as I have felt this one.

Why do I think this election was so important? Because I see a direction being taken for our country that I think is dangerous. Because I’m afraid that this administration will take the victory and claim it is a mandate of the people. When, in fact, he got over barely 50% of the vote.

If you or I were in an election with our friends and families voting and we got just over barely 50% of the folks voting, we would feel that we would need to do some consensus building.

I’m afraid that this administration will take its “mandate” and open up the “activist” foreign policy – meaning expanding the war. If you want to learn more about the neo-con’s activist military positions you can listen to interviews of David Frum and Richard Pearle who wrote the book, “An End to Evil,” at these sites:

WBUR On Point interview:
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2004/01/20040109_a_main.asp

KUOW Weekday interview:
http://www.kuow.org/defaultProgram.asp?ID=4956

You can either look at their stance as bold or dangerous. I tend toward the latter. I think that if you examine the war in Iraq in detail, you will see that there is a true lack of understanding of the culture in the Mid East. This failure to examine the affects and backlash of an occupation of Iraq is evident in the increase of casualties of our troops and the utter lack of safety civilian contractors are experiencing.

The hawkish neo-cons stance is to expand our foreign policy by use of military might rather than through diplomacy or cultivating multi-national efforts. They base their premise on the fact protecting our country gives them a blank check to do whatever they want. They feel that the only way to defeat the terrorist is to take the war to them. I think that Israel has been attempting this stance for 40+ years and look where it’s got them – suicide bombers on buses and in markets on a regular basis.

It’s my opinion that this will further erode America’s political standing in the world and take away any moral high ground we had. (But, in all reality, almost all of that high ground was lost when we prosecuted a pre-emptive war in Iraq.)

We don’t have the military might. I can see that our military is already at a breaking point. If they do an dramatic expansion of our military efforts (invade Iran), then a draft will be mandatory.

Well, that’s my limited take on the foreign policy ramifications of these election results. What do you think? Are you as depressed as me?

Post Election Blues and Ramblings

Earlier in the day, the big question for me was why did all these new voters come out and vote? The only reason I could see was that they were out as a vote for change. I was wrong. The Republicans did just as a good a job as the Democrats in getting out the vote. Plus, I heard that too many of the young voters are tending to vote conservative.

The scary thing is that the issue that mattered most in their vote was moral issues. The democrats cannot win at this part of the game. It basically came down to abortion and the civil unions. The country is in a conservative dip right now and unless the left is ready to sacrifice some of it's core values (or bend some), it's going to be hard to be elected.

I'm surprised that the war didn't resonate more with voters, but I would say that most people have recognized that there is no going back -- we are there and we have to stay to finish the job.

Also, I must say that I think that the democrats got on the wrong horse. Kerry just didn't have the broad appeal. If you look at where he won -- democratic strongholds and in the north east. You have to have someone like Bill Clinton that would carry a few southern states. I think Edwards would have done a better job with that, but obviously, as VP, he didn't have much pull. People vote for a president, not a vice president.

Here's my suggestion for the democratic party - run Evan Bayh, senator from Indiana. He could get Indiana and, maybe Ohio. He has a moderate record and that is how Clinton won as a centrist. Bayh has been a governor and a senator. So, he has both state and national experience. On the moral issue area, he has a mixed record on abortion -- voting for the ban on partial birth abortions.

If you pair Bayh with the right running mate, then maybe that could garner enough votes to get over this conservation national swing. He would need a Southerner like Edwards and then, maybe they could pull it off.

Speaking of Edwards, what is he going to do for the next four years? He's not a senator anymore. How can he maintain his public identity when he has no spotlight. He doesn't have the political gravitas to do what Reagan did and get syndicated radio time to keep his name in the news. Plus he doesn't have a winning ideology (conservatives) like Reagan did.

On the bright side, had Kerry been elected, then he would have inherited a huge mess with Iraq without a lot of options. I think that Iraq will be the millstone around Bush's neck and if he keep listening to the hawkish neo-cons, the situation will only get worse, The fall out from the next four years will give the democrats enough fodder to fuel insurgent moderates to check their alliances.

On the whole, I'm disappointed, but the country will survive.

Wait, news bulletin -- Country Dead. Bush election kills country. The surgeon general pronounced America dead as of 4:35 AM on November 3 as a result of brain damage.....