This past Saturday I made my annual pilgrimage to the Minnesota State Fair. Earlier in the day I had dropped my wife off at the Park and Ride lot closest to our house so she could complete the first of two volunteer shifts at the Pro-Choice Resources booth (she serves on their board, give them a donation). I then took my son home so he could have his afternoon nap, and when he awoke we returned to the same lot and took the bus to the fairgrounds where we met my wife and spent a few hours taking in some of the many cultural, educational, and gastronomical offerings available at this most Minnesotan of gatherings. While there I had an interesting idea (for an invention of sorts, it will take a bit of research before I know whether or not it is feasible), and for the rest of the day my brain was just clicking. Later in the evening back home I was catching up on news and read this excellent op-ed in the New York Times. While digesting the piece and posting the link with a bit of commentary on my Facebook feed I was struck by the thought than when looked at in a certain way, the phenomenon of child poverty in the U.S. is not just tragic, wasteful, and entirely avoidable if certain resources were redirected, but is a gross violation of the terms of that great, often misunderstood document, the U.S. Constitution.
In Article III, Section 3 the Constitution defines what will be considered treason under U.S. jurisprudence, and the section includes the clause "The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted." Now treason is a pretty serious crime, one of the most serious a person can commit given its potential to enable the large scale destruction of lives and property depending on the specific content of the treasonous act. At the same time, however, the writers of the Constitution wanted to be very clear on what treason actually was. Having recently thrown off British rule, many of them were keenly aware of how fuzzy the definition of treason can be when one is the subject of a monarch, no matter how limited his or her powers may be, and they knew it had often been applied unjustly to people who had simply disagreed with the Crown or Parliament but had done nothing to aid or abet its enemies. Thus they specified that treason "shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Having done this they then wrote the clause above about the punishment of treason. As we can see, Congress is given latitude to decide this, but with a couple of interesting restrictions, especially for the time. In England, part of the standard punishment for treason was that strange term "Corruption of Blood", which basically meant that if a man was convicted of treason, not only was his life and property forfeited to the state, but his (most likely innocent) children were disinherited. Such unfortunate children were barred from inheriting not only from their father (whose property had of course already been forfeited), but from any other living relatives such as a grandfather or uncle. As a rule this punishment was reserved mainly for nobles, and it effectively ended the hereditary titles and political influence of any family thus attainted, so it is interesting that the term appears in the founding document of a nation that has no noble class (at least in theory) and grants no hereditary titles.
Now I am no Constitutional scholar (though having majored in political science as an undergrad and more recently earned a masters in public policy I believe I can reasonably assume I have studied it a good deal more than the average citizen), but it seems to me that the inclusion of the clause first quoted sends a pretty powerful message, one that at the time was considered somewhat radical: children should not be punished for the crimes of their parents. By prohibiting Corruption of Blood as a punishment for the most serious crime, one can infer that the framers did not intend for it to be a consequence of lesser crimes either. Yet that is exactly what is happening in the U.S. today from a social, a legal, and most crucially an economic standpoint. And it is true not only for the children of those who have actually been convicted of a crime, but for the children of those who fall into a class that might as well be considered criminal, the poor.
It wasn't always this way. We used to have this thing called the American Dream, and up until 30-40 years ago it was entirely possible for someone who had been born into poverty to break into the ranks of the middle class or the wealthy if they were lucky or talented or had a halfway decent work ethic. It had its challenges, certainly, and in the social arena who your parents were did have an influence, but these were not insurmountable, and there was always the option to pick up and relocate since in those days your past didn't follow you as closely. Today, however, that Dream is dying, and while its decay was in progress long before the current recession, these past few years may have given it a blow from which it might not recover. Today being born into poverty is no longer just a stumbling block coming out of the gate, it is like being shot in the leg before the race even begins.
As detailed in Blow's op-ed, child poverty rates are on the rise, and the consequences for those unlucky enough to be born into it are myriad and debilitating. Such children rarely get adequate pre-natal care when they are in the womb, and when born suffer from poor nutrition, unstable living situations, and a lack of nurturance from parents who are overworked, underpaid, and overstressed. These conditions often lead to diminished brain development, low educational attainment, and increased vulnerability to both physical and mental illness. While some of these children will defy the odds and grow up to be productive members of society, and maybe even the occasional Oprah who shoots into the stratosphere, most of them will be doomed to the same low economic prospects that doomed their parents, ensuring the continuance of the vicious cycle into yet another generation. To me, and I will wager to many others, this situation constitutes a de facto imposition of Corruption of Blood on the children of both actual criminals (whose standard of living plunges when a parent is incarcerated) and the poor (who may as well be criminals, considering how they are treated by the more "respectable" elements of society).
The earthquake that recently struck the Washington D.C. area was described by some as the result of the Founding Fathers collectively rolling in their graves in disgust at the current state of this country. While I do not idolize that group as some do, I give them credit for crafting a Constitution that has stood the test of time and for leaving a great legacy for future generations to aspire to. They were wise to recognize that children should not be punished for the crimes of their parents, and it is time their successors, us, stood up to eradicate the morally abhorrent, economically wasteful, and unconstitutional condition of child poverty. It is not only a wise investment, as decades of research have proven, but it is the ethical thing to do, and by doing so we not only leave a better future for everyone's children, but renew the promise of the contract that binds us all as citizens.
Friday, September 2, 2011
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Ron Paul, Warren Buffet, and job creation voodoo.
This past Saturday through the excellent technology of DVR I spent about an hour and 40 minutes in that bizarre alternate universe that was the R presidential candidate debate. Sponsored by FOX News and originally airing the Thursday evening prior to the Iowa straw poll, the event had a surreal atmosphere throughout, and even when a candidate was saying things that were relatively sane I felt a general uneasiness, as if I was peeking into someone's window and seeing something not meant for public view. For the R presidential nomination process is very much akin to watching sausage being made, and for this left-leaning moderate the phrase "In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king." came to mind very often. While it would take much too long to go over all of the inaccurate, misleading, and hypocritical statements that were made during the course of this unsettling affair, my personal favorite was hearing Rick Santorum of all people chastise Iran for "trampling on the rights of women and gays". To say that the debate had a "winner" would be unfair to both the candidates and the viewers, since in a forum that included eight hopefuls there was no space to give any of them enough airtime to make a coherent statement of their platform (though the Bachmann-Pawlenty snipe-fest was definitely entertaining for this Minnesotan), but to me the one-eyed man was Ron Paul. While, as is the case with anyone who would seek the R endorsement, he and I agree on very little, he seemed the most genuine of the people on stage and earned points with me for his more thorough understanding of the U.S-Iran relationship (he cited the 1952 CIA-led coup against the democratically elected Mossadegh) when that topic was being discussed. A shame that he is the Rodney Dangerfield of the R field.
Of the many topics that were discussed at the debate, the economy was at the top of the list. Recently I wrote about how there has been, nearly three years after the 2008 financial crisis, and the huge rise in unemployment that it triggered, little movement on the most pressing problem this country faces: getting those unemployed back to work. While in the weeks since the debt deal there has been a bit of an uptick in the mentions of the job issue in political rhetoric, I have yet to see anything resembling a coherent plan from any part of the spectrum on the issue. But listening to the R candidates pontificate on this during the debate, it is clear to me that they are stuck in their own echo chamber, and epitomized the adage that if you keep repeating a lie enough times, eventually people will believe it. I don't know where they got this notion (Grover Norquist, maybe?), but they all appear to think that job creation is somehow inversely tied to tax rates. Judging by their statements, they believe that a business person makes the decision whether or not to hire a new worker based solely on how lightly or heavily their profits are being taxed. Market considerations are apparently not a factor, nor are the internal needs of the firm. While maybe the debate was not the best forum to display a nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the economy, the talking points uttered are pretty much the same things we've been hearing from the Rs for several years. So please forgive me if my estimation of their potential to do something positive with the economy is virtually nonexistent.
Now don't get me wrong, I am well aware that tax rates do influence business decisions (all those tax incidence problems in grad school did get the message across), but I have never heard of any business person passing up a good investment opportunity just because they think the taxes on any money they make from it will be too high. Warren Buffett's editorial in Monday's New York Times states this quite eloquently, and he deftly exposes the hypocrisy of R calls for "shared sacrifice". The way I see it, people like Buffett who are already well off and are successful within a system that is designed to help them continue being successful are not the ones that need help. Nor, in contrast to much R rhetoric, are they delicate flowers who's purchasing power will wilt at the slightest movement in their tax rates back toward the historical average (although some might throw a hissy fit). Not to mention, quite a few of the wealthiest people in this country are on the record saying they wouldn't mind paying more in taxes, what with the crumbling infrastructure, hard-pressed schools, rising rates of child poverty and such. And any wealthy person who does whine that they are paying too much in taxes is either not paying attention or willfully ignorant. Last I checked, effective tax rates for the highest earners were near their historic lows, so what is there to complain about? And if, as the Rs say, low taxes are the key to job creation, then WHERE ARE THEY? Taxes on the very wealthy have been down and going down for the better part of a decade, yet net job growth has been near zero over that stretch. True, quite a bit else was happening in the economy, much of it enabled by lax regulation in the financial sector, but the R trope about how any raise in taxes will hinder "job creators" simply doesn't hold water when one looks at how the economy has actually been functioning (or not, as the case may be).
When I look at R statements about "job creators" I get the impression that they must believe that job creators are synonymous with very wealthy people and large corporations. While it is true that the demand for goods that wealthy people create inspires other people to cater to that demand, and that large corporations do hire people on occasion, most of the data on actual job creation shows that new jobs come primarily from small, young firms, aka start-ups. I take this to mean that the "job creators" are not people (or corporations) with money, but rather people with ideas. While it definitely takes money to put an idea into practice, as stated above good ideas should not have trouble obtaining funding no matter what the tax situation happens to be at the time. The much more murky question is that of the regulatory environment. Rs would have us believe that there is too much regulation across the board, but to me the pertinent question is who is doing the regulating, and for a long time the answer to that has been large corporations through the strategy of agency capture. This has happened gradually over the course of both D and R administrations, but by now almost every agency that regulates either a specific sector of the economy or a cluster of industries is for the most part filled with people who have worked for, lobbied on behalf of, or otherwise benefited personally from, the largest firms in those sectors or industries. As such it is no surprise that a lot of regulation favors large firms and leaves any potential start-ups at a huge disadvantage should they choose to enter the market.
Solving this particular issue will require a good deal more effort than tweaking any particular tax rate, and is thus a tougher nut to crack. Also, since there is no single source to target for action on regulatory reform, and any proposed action is likely to affect different parts of the economy in different ways, gains on one front will be diminished by losses on another. So, unfortunately for the soundbite and talking point obsessed media and the candidates who kowtow to its sensibilities, there are no easy answers and no one magic bullet that will get things back on track. But for a plan to have any chance of success it must focus on helping the people with ideas. Those with money are doing just fine, thanks.
Of the many topics that were discussed at the debate, the economy was at the top of the list. Recently I wrote about how there has been, nearly three years after the 2008 financial crisis, and the huge rise in unemployment that it triggered, little movement on the most pressing problem this country faces: getting those unemployed back to work. While in the weeks since the debt deal there has been a bit of an uptick in the mentions of the job issue in political rhetoric, I have yet to see anything resembling a coherent plan from any part of the spectrum on the issue. But listening to the R candidates pontificate on this during the debate, it is clear to me that they are stuck in their own echo chamber, and epitomized the adage that if you keep repeating a lie enough times, eventually people will believe it. I don't know where they got this notion (Grover Norquist, maybe?), but they all appear to think that job creation is somehow inversely tied to tax rates. Judging by their statements, they believe that a business person makes the decision whether or not to hire a new worker based solely on how lightly or heavily their profits are being taxed. Market considerations are apparently not a factor, nor are the internal needs of the firm. While maybe the debate was not the best forum to display a nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the economy, the talking points uttered are pretty much the same things we've been hearing from the Rs for several years. So please forgive me if my estimation of their potential to do something positive with the economy is virtually nonexistent.
Now don't get me wrong, I am well aware that tax rates do influence business decisions (all those tax incidence problems in grad school did get the message across), but I have never heard of any business person passing up a good investment opportunity just because they think the taxes on any money they make from it will be too high. Warren Buffett's editorial in Monday's New York Times states this quite eloquently, and he deftly exposes the hypocrisy of R calls for "shared sacrifice". The way I see it, people like Buffett who are already well off and are successful within a system that is designed to help them continue being successful are not the ones that need help. Nor, in contrast to much R rhetoric, are they delicate flowers who's purchasing power will wilt at the slightest movement in their tax rates back toward the historical average (although some might throw a hissy fit). Not to mention, quite a few of the wealthiest people in this country are on the record saying they wouldn't mind paying more in taxes, what with the crumbling infrastructure, hard-pressed schools, rising rates of child poverty and such. And any wealthy person who does whine that they are paying too much in taxes is either not paying attention or willfully ignorant. Last I checked, effective tax rates for the highest earners were near their historic lows, so what is there to complain about? And if, as the Rs say, low taxes are the key to job creation, then WHERE ARE THEY? Taxes on the very wealthy have been down and going down for the better part of a decade, yet net job growth has been near zero over that stretch. True, quite a bit else was happening in the economy, much of it enabled by lax regulation in the financial sector, but the R trope about how any raise in taxes will hinder "job creators" simply doesn't hold water when one looks at how the economy has actually been functioning (or not, as the case may be).
When I look at R statements about "job creators" I get the impression that they must believe that job creators are synonymous with very wealthy people and large corporations. While it is true that the demand for goods that wealthy people create inspires other people to cater to that demand, and that large corporations do hire people on occasion, most of the data on actual job creation shows that new jobs come primarily from small, young firms, aka start-ups. I take this to mean that the "job creators" are not people (or corporations) with money, but rather people with ideas. While it definitely takes money to put an idea into practice, as stated above good ideas should not have trouble obtaining funding no matter what the tax situation happens to be at the time. The much more murky question is that of the regulatory environment. Rs would have us believe that there is too much regulation across the board, but to me the pertinent question is who is doing the regulating, and for a long time the answer to that has been large corporations through the strategy of agency capture. This has happened gradually over the course of both D and R administrations, but by now almost every agency that regulates either a specific sector of the economy or a cluster of industries is for the most part filled with people who have worked for, lobbied on behalf of, or otherwise benefited personally from, the largest firms in those sectors or industries. As such it is no surprise that a lot of regulation favors large firms and leaves any potential start-ups at a huge disadvantage should they choose to enter the market.
Solving this particular issue will require a good deal more effort than tweaking any particular tax rate, and is thus a tougher nut to crack. Also, since there is no single source to target for action on regulatory reform, and any proposed action is likely to affect different parts of the economy in different ways, gains on one front will be diminished by losses on another. So, unfortunately for the soundbite and talking point obsessed media and the candidates who kowtow to its sensibilities, there are no easy answers and no one magic bullet that will get things back on track. But for a plan to have any chance of success it must focus on helping the people with ideas. Those with money are doing just fine, thanks.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Open letter to toy manufacturers
A couple of weeks ago I celebrated my son Liam's second birthday. It was a multi-day extravaganza that featured three parties attended by various elements of our extended family, lots of cake consumed, and plenty of gifts. For a while most of the gifts sat in several bags in our basement, but earlier this week I got to the task of sorting them all out, compiling a list of who gave what, and extricating the toys from the boxes they came in.
In regards to the latter I feel compelled to ask: Has the theft rate of childrens' toys gone up so much in the past 20 years to really require all of the layers of packaging, tape, cardboard tabs, twist ties, and little plastic thingies, some with screws to take out, one now encounters in the process of taking said toys out of their boxes? Working with my pocket knife, scissors, screwdriver, or whatever else was necessary to open these toys up, it often took me a half-hour on just a single item before it was ready to be played with as intended. Maybe I am some sort of ignorant fool and these things are just to hold the toy in place so it looks good on the shelf or have to do with some other marketing strategy, and are in no way a security measure, but whatever the reason behind this explosion of packaging paraphenelia it annoys the frak out of me as a parent when I need a Swiss army knife just to get the toy out of the box. Then there is dealing with all the unnecessary waste this generates and making sure none of the small parts in the elaborate scheme end up in either the kid's or a pet's mouth. In short, toy companies, you are taking something that should be simple and joyful (at least I hope some parents find joy in opening and setting up toys given to their children) and turning it into a complex, exasperating slog. Just the fact that I need to use terms like "process", "elaborate scheme", and "slog" to describe the experience should indicate something is wrong. And while I don't know exactly how much all of this extra material costs, it ain't nothing and someone (manufacturer, buyer, or some combination) is ultimately paying for it. As a result of all this I will not be buying toys that come packaged in this manner, not for my child or for anyone else's. I hope you're happy.
Amid all of this there was one notable counterexample. One of the items Liam received was a recycling truck made by the aptly named Green Toys. In addition to making all of their products from recycled material (primarily milk cartons), said products come in a simple cardboard box with no other extra fluff. So the next time you are looking for a gift for a young child, check them out.
In regards to the latter I feel compelled to ask: Has the theft rate of childrens' toys gone up so much in the past 20 years to really require all of the layers of packaging, tape, cardboard tabs, twist ties, and little plastic thingies, some with screws to take out, one now encounters in the process of taking said toys out of their boxes? Working with my pocket knife, scissors, screwdriver, or whatever else was necessary to open these toys up, it often took me a half-hour on just a single item before it was ready to be played with as intended. Maybe I am some sort of ignorant fool and these things are just to hold the toy in place so it looks good on the shelf or have to do with some other marketing strategy, and are in no way a security measure, but whatever the reason behind this explosion of packaging paraphenelia it annoys the frak out of me as a parent when I need a Swiss army knife just to get the toy out of the box. Then there is dealing with all the unnecessary waste this generates and making sure none of the small parts in the elaborate scheme end up in either the kid's or a pet's mouth. In short, toy companies, you are taking something that should be simple and joyful (at least I hope some parents find joy in opening and setting up toys given to their children) and turning it into a complex, exasperating slog. Just the fact that I need to use terms like "process", "elaborate scheme", and "slog" to describe the experience should indicate something is wrong. And while I don't know exactly how much all of this extra material costs, it ain't nothing and someone (manufacturer, buyer, or some combination) is ultimately paying for it. As a result of all this I will not be buying toys that come packaged in this manner, not for my child or for anyone else's. I hope you're happy.
Amid all of this there was one notable counterexample. One of the items Liam received was a recycling truck made by the aptly named Green Toys. In addition to making all of their products from recycled material (primarily milk cartons), said products come in a simple cardboard box with no other extra fluff. So the next time you are looking for a gift for a young child, check them out.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Bad ideas win again
Before I even looked at the details of the proposed debt ceiling deal I had a strong feeling there was not much about it I was going to like. It is, after all, a deal designed to cater to the Republican majority in the House, which in the several months since this Congress was sworn in has shown nothing even resembling a desire to enact legislation that would help get this country out of the deep hole it is currently in. Instead, it has pursued a strategy that has as its central tenet the continued enrichment of the small slice of the population that funds its campaigns at the expense of everyone else. What we have just seen in the debate on the debt ceiling is old-school Mafia tactics being applied to fiscal policy. It is as if a bunch of thugs with brickbats walked up to a storefront that has "U.S. Economy" on the door and said "Nice (though "barely functional" might be the more apt description right now) place you have here. Shame if something were to happen to it." And the store owners (us) are paying up, in the form of obscene tax giveaways to corporations and the top 2% of earners, spending cuts to safety net programs that have widespread support, and the decay of our physical infrastructure. The worst part of it is that through all of this latest Washington sideshow there was little if any discussion on what the real problem is: jobs, or the lack thereof. Though budget deficits and the growth in the national debt that they cause are definitely issues that should be addressed, the proposed deal does so in a way that severely dims the prospects for any sustained economic recovery. By passing it Congress will, in effect, be cutting of the economy's nose in order to spite its face.
But of course nothing about how this particular round has turned out is at all surprising. For some time now the influence of conservative mass media has exerted a persistent pull on rightward end of the political spectrum, giving a platform for more and more extreme views. Thus we have a situation where what was considered conservative a few years ago is now no longer conservative enough. Case in point: Tom Coburn was recently called a RINO (Republican in Name Only) by Tea Partiers (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/07/24/tom-coburn-tea-party-turncoat.html). Combine this with the way our voting system is set up to grant victory to candidates who win only a plurality, the tendency of primaries to weed out all but the most puritan ideologues, and widespread voter apathy (in many ways a result of the previous two features), and we get the situation we have now where the Republican party is so consumed with falling over itself in the race to the bottom that it is in no way qualified to actually govern. Not that the Democrats have made a good name for themselves in this either, but at least there are folks in that party who at least try to run the country effectively when they are in office. Also, the tendency of liberals to be less deferential to authority and value evidence means the leftward end of the spectrum has been less subject to mass media hysterics and thus remained relatively stationary.
Thus, as the old saying goes, we are getting the government we deserve. While economic disaster may have been averted for the time being, the current media environment and existing voting system is setting us up for more of the same down the road. Since I happen to like the First Amendment and the freedoms it protects, no matter how unscrupulously some might use them, I grudgingly accept that conservative media is likely not going away anytime soon. However, the voting system is a construct of law and tradition, and we should be able to tinker with it in ways that will produce a more accurate reflection of public will. This is why I am a ranked-choice voting advocate, and hope that while the bad ideas may have won this round, they will open the way for this particular good idea to gain a stronger foothold in the national consciousness.
But of course nothing about how this particular round has turned out is at all surprising. For some time now the influence of conservative mass media has exerted a persistent pull on rightward end of the political spectrum, giving a platform for more and more extreme views. Thus we have a situation where what was considered conservative a few years ago is now no longer conservative enough. Case in point: Tom Coburn was recently called a RINO (Republican in Name Only) by Tea Partiers (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/07/24/tom-coburn-tea-party-turncoat.html). Combine this with the way our voting system is set up to grant victory to candidates who win only a plurality, the tendency of primaries to weed out all but the most puritan ideologues, and widespread voter apathy (in many ways a result of the previous two features), and we get the situation we have now where the Republican party is so consumed with falling over itself in the race to the bottom that it is in no way qualified to actually govern. Not that the Democrats have made a good name for themselves in this either, but at least there are folks in that party who at least try to run the country effectively when they are in office. Also, the tendency of liberals to be less deferential to authority and value evidence means the leftward end of the spectrum has been less subject to mass media hysterics and thus remained relatively stationary.
Thus, as the old saying goes, we are getting the government we deserve. While economic disaster may have been averted for the time being, the current media environment and existing voting system is setting us up for more of the same down the road. Since I happen to like the First Amendment and the freedoms it protects, no matter how unscrupulously some might use them, I grudgingly accept that conservative media is likely not going away anytime soon. However, the voting system is a construct of law and tradition, and we should be able to tinker with it in ways that will produce a more accurate reflection of public will. This is why I am a ranked-choice voting advocate, and hope that while the bad ideas may have won this round, they will open the way for this particular good idea to gain a stronger foothold in the national consciousness.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Shutdown blues II
So it has been two weeks since the Minnesota state government shut down all services save those deemed essential by Ramsey County Chief Judge Gearin.
How many offers has Governor Dayton made to resolve the budget gap? Several.
How many offers have Republican leaders? A big fat zero.
This alone should be an indication of which camp in this sorry affair is actually willing to move a little to bring the shutdown to a close. Now today the news comes out that Governor Dayton is offering to accept the last Republican offer before the shutdown began, with a few extra conditions:
Star Tribune Story
My take on this is that it is a bad deal to end an even worse problem. The school funding shifts are more of the same that we got from Pawlenty, and borrowing against the tobacco settlement does nothing to solve the revenue imbalances that got us into this mess in the first place. The added conditions are reasonable and might do something to mitigate the long-term unemployment crisis that is one of the root causes of this and similar budget deficits in other states, but at this point they are only drops in the bucket. I just hope that Minnesota voters have memories longer than most, and that when Nov. 2012 comes along they will punish the Republican party for all of the unnecessary suffering it is causing.
At the same time we really need to start tackling the issue that, while not responsible for the budget crisis itself, is the reason why the budget crisis has gone unresolved for so long: our voting system that stifles reasoned debate and rewards fearmongering and extremism.
How many offers has Governor Dayton made to resolve the budget gap? Several.
How many offers have Republican leaders? A big fat zero.
This alone should be an indication of which camp in this sorry affair is actually willing to move a little to bring the shutdown to a close. Now today the news comes out that Governor Dayton is offering to accept the last Republican offer before the shutdown began, with a few extra conditions:
Star Tribune Story
My take on this is that it is a bad deal to end an even worse problem. The school funding shifts are more of the same that we got from Pawlenty, and borrowing against the tobacco settlement does nothing to solve the revenue imbalances that got us into this mess in the first place. The added conditions are reasonable and might do something to mitigate the long-term unemployment crisis that is one of the root causes of this and similar budget deficits in other states, but at this point they are only drops in the bucket. I just hope that Minnesota voters have memories longer than most, and that when Nov. 2012 comes along they will punish the Republican party for all of the unnecessary suffering it is causing.
At the same time we really need to start tackling the issue that, while not responsible for the budget crisis itself, is the reason why the budget crisis has gone unresolved for so long: our voting system that stifles reasoned debate and rewards fearmongering and extremism.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Shutdown blues
As a resident of Minnesota, it irks me to no end that my state is once again in the national and international news for all the wrong reasons. Our government shutdown is now one week old, and to hear the pundits talk, how the budget impasse that created it is resolved will have a large influence on budget discussions at the federal level. In the meantime, some 20,000+ state employees (at least one of whom is a good friend) are laid off, parks and highway rest stops are closed, and state run or funded programs like child care assistance (which one of my sisters receives) are on hiatus. While it hasn't affected me personally yet, the longer this drags on the more the misery the shutdown is causing will spread. Scratch that: this morning I noticed that the tabs on the car I drive expired the day the shutdown began. I don't remember seeing a renewal notice in the mail, but since most of the places to do renewals are not even and you can't do it online, can I still get pulled over for not being in compliance? (If you work in law enforcement, please forget you just read that)
Now I read today that billboards scapegoating Governor Dayton are being put up across the state. Funded no doubt by the very same people who funded the campaigns of Republican legislators who think that any tax increase will bring about the end of civilization (wasn't that supposed to happen six weeks ago?). The same Republican legislators who wasted weeks of the regular session in debates to put a gay-marriage ban amendment on the ballot next fall, and want their pet social causes to be part of any budget deal. The same Republican legislators who seem to think that cutting spending on the very things that in the past made Minnesota a good place to live, like health care, education, infrastructure, and the environment, is somehow "pro-business". I could go on at length, and likely will at some point, about how unfair and unsustainable our current tax system is, but for now I have to wonder if anyone in the Minnesota legislature with an R next to their name has even the most basic comprehension of how and why we have a government.
As with most things in politics these days, the only beneficiary of the shutdown is that small slice of society that derives undue gains at the expense of those on the lower rungs of the totem pole. These are the folks who have already amassed great wealth through commerce (which depends on economic infrastructure and the purchasing power of consumers), inheritance (which depends on the crapshoot of parentage) or ownership of valuable resources (which depends on random distribution, either genetic or in the physical world) but feel some sense of entitlement as "self-made men" (they are most always men). It was nearly a year ago that I earned my degree from the Humphrey School of Public Affairs, and there is a screen that is posted above the main reception desk that displays various quotes from the Happy Warrior. My favorite one says "The worst thing a man can think is that he got there on his own." There, I think is the crux of the matter. Those who are already well-off have become so because of a system that is rigged in their favor, yet they cannot acknowledge that fact because if they did their entire case for why they do not need to pay their fair share of taxes evaporates. This is why they, and their bought and paid for Republican legislators, both in Minnesota and nationally, are fighting tooth and nail to keep the public from waking up to the realization that the wealth and privilege this small slice enjoys is based on a system that legitimizes a scheme of Robin Hood in reverse. It was not always this way, and does not need to be this way. Making the system more fair will be challenging, and will only be accomplished amid the incessant howling of those who will be losing the unfair advantages they have enjoyed, but in the end we will all benefit, even those who would be howling. Giving in to the absolutist demands of Republicans in either the state or national budget negotiations means worsening the already severe case of short-termism that has infected American business and politics, so I hope Governor Dayton sticks to his guns and does not let the state he was elected to lead be taken hostage by a moneyed few.
Amid the budget mess I will admit that one good thing came out of this year's session: the tap-room law championed by the Surly brewery that removed a restriction on its and other Minnesota breweries ability to sell their own beer on their own premises. I still have a bottle of 2010 Darkness in my fridge, and I think I'll save for when the shutdown finally ends.
Now I read today that billboards scapegoating Governor Dayton are being put up across the state. Funded no doubt by the very same people who funded the campaigns of Republican legislators who think that any tax increase will bring about the end of civilization (wasn't that supposed to happen six weeks ago?). The same Republican legislators who wasted weeks of the regular session in debates to put a gay-marriage ban amendment on the ballot next fall, and want their pet social causes to be part of any budget deal. The same Republican legislators who seem to think that cutting spending on the very things that in the past made Minnesota a good place to live, like health care, education, infrastructure, and the environment, is somehow "pro-business". I could go on at length, and likely will at some point, about how unfair and unsustainable our current tax system is, but for now I have to wonder if anyone in the Minnesota legislature with an R next to their name has even the most basic comprehension of how and why we have a government.
As with most things in politics these days, the only beneficiary of the shutdown is that small slice of society that derives undue gains at the expense of those on the lower rungs of the totem pole. These are the folks who have already amassed great wealth through commerce (which depends on economic infrastructure and the purchasing power of consumers), inheritance (which depends on the crapshoot of parentage) or ownership of valuable resources (which depends on random distribution, either genetic or in the physical world) but feel some sense of entitlement as "self-made men" (they are most always men). It was nearly a year ago that I earned my degree from the Humphrey School of Public Affairs, and there is a screen that is posted above the main reception desk that displays various quotes from the Happy Warrior. My favorite one says "The worst thing a man can think is that he got there on his own." There, I think is the crux of the matter. Those who are already well-off have become so because of a system that is rigged in their favor, yet they cannot acknowledge that fact because if they did their entire case for why they do not need to pay their fair share of taxes evaporates. This is why they, and their bought and paid for Republican legislators, both in Minnesota and nationally, are fighting tooth and nail to keep the public from waking up to the realization that the wealth and privilege this small slice enjoys is based on a system that legitimizes a scheme of Robin Hood in reverse. It was not always this way, and does not need to be this way. Making the system more fair will be challenging, and will only be accomplished amid the incessant howling of those who will be losing the unfair advantages they have enjoyed, but in the end we will all benefit, even those who would be howling. Giving in to the absolutist demands of Republicans in either the state or national budget negotiations means worsening the already severe case of short-termism that has infected American business and politics, so I hope Governor Dayton sticks to his guns and does not let the state he was elected to lead be taken hostage by a moneyed few.
Amid the budget mess I will admit that one good thing came out of this year's session: the tap-room law championed by the Surly brewery that removed a restriction on its and other Minnesota breweries ability to sell their own beer on their own premises. I still have a bottle of 2010 Darkness in my fridge, and I think I'll save for when the shutdown finally ends.
Introductory Post
Greetings, everyone.
Welcome to my new blog, The Left Call. The name was inspired by my experience many years ago as an umpire for youth baseball games, and also by my determined opposition to the right-wing authoritarian agenda that has now wholly captured one of the two major parties in American politics (if I have to tell you which one, you haven't been paying attention). Its primary purpose will be to examine current issues from a standpoint that first and foremost values logic and reason, but that also takes into account the interests of those who are increasingly being given the shaft in today's economy. Like a baseball umpire, my job here is to "call 'em as I see 'em", but since in the game of life complete objectivity is impossible I will not claim to be an unbiased observer, especially because most of what is discussed here is or will be affecting me in some way.
While anything is fair game here, including and especially those topics you hope never come up at your family's Thanksgiving table, I expect any discussion that evolves to be civil and open-minded. The current polarization we see in today's political and media environment serves only the short-term interests of a wealthy few, and will be the undoing of us all if it continues for much longer, so I hope no one succumbs to it here. While as the author I reserve my right to the occasional rant, I want this above all to be a forum that is eye-opening, thought-provoking, and fun. Now play ball!
Welcome to my new blog, The Left Call. The name was inspired by my experience many years ago as an umpire for youth baseball games, and also by my determined opposition to the right-wing authoritarian agenda that has now wholly captured one of the two major parties in American politics (if I have to tell you which one, you haven't been paying attention). Its primary purpose will be to examine current issues from a standpoint that first and foremost values logic and reason, but that also takes into account the interests of those who are increasingly being given the shaft in today's economy. Like a baseball umpire, my job here is to "call 'em as I see 'em", but since in the game of life complete objectivity is impossible I will not claim to be an unbiased observer, especially because most of what is discussed here is or will be affecting me in some way.
While anything is fair game here, including and especially those topics you hope never come up at your family's Thanksgiving table, I expect any discussion that evolves to be civil and open-minded. The current polarization we see in today's political and media environment serves only the short-term interests of a wealthy few, and will be the undoing of us all if it continues for much longer, so I hope no one succumbs to it here. While as the author I reserve my right to the occasional rant, I want this above all to be a forum that is eye-opening, thought-provoking, and fun. Now play ball!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)