It came as a bit of a surprise to me to learn that our Supreme Court has specifically ruled out the “level playing field” principle in its rulings. It’s not in the Constitution, or so some of the Justices say. In other words, our justices are not concerned about justice in the sense of fairness, and they’re officially blind to the broader “general welfare” clause in the Constitution (which would seem to encompass fairness).
This is a form of scholasticism, and it’s a very different view of the Court’s role and responsibilities than the one that prevailed during much of the 20th century. It means our Court is not morally centered; it’s more like a bureaucracy that merely applies the mandated rules and regulations. In a changing society – one that is far different from the one that inspired our Founding Fathers – this is a serious deficiency. It makes our political system more rigid and less flexible.
In practice, moreover, the Court’s official indifference to fairness has had a highly partisan edge to it. It has resulted in a consistent pattern of favoritism toward the rich and powerful interests in our society. As the Center for American Progress reports in a review of its rulings over the past several years, the Court has consistently sided with the positions of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (America’s premier business lobby). The Court has become an instrument of corporate interests, often at the expense of any sense of fairness toward the rest of us. The Lilly Ledbetter fair-pay case and the recent Citizens United case, which opened the floodgates to corporate money in political campaigns, are only two of the more egregious examples.
I think we should look again at the idea of packing the Court, which President Roosevelt tried to do unsuccessfully in 1937. It’s certainly not a popular idea, and it would take a major sea change in our politics, but if the number of Justices were increased to eleven or even thirteen and maybe had a mandatory retirement age (say 70), this would provide for a more frequent turnover of the Justices and a greater likelihood that the majority would be attuned to the changing needs of our society.
The other idea – probably even farther fetched – would be to press for a “level playing field” amendment to the Constitution which would specifically charge our elected officials and judges to weigh both procedural and substantive fairness in their deliberations in fulfillment of the “general welfare” clause that is, after all in the very Preamble to our Constitution -- part of its stated purpose! I know, litigators would love it. But nobody ever said social justice was easy.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Some Sayings for Our Time
* Fairness is more than just rhetoric; it’s a biological imperative.
* A society exists when people believe it does and act accordingly – and vice versa.
* If you don’t vote, you’ll get what somebody else voted for.
* We have more to fear than fear itself. We must fear the causes of fear.
* The merchants of hatred on the far right are preaching to the devil’s choir.
* Markets should serve people, not the other way around.
* For the opponents of Social Security, the motto seems to be “If it ain’t broke, break it.”
* If chimpanzees can understand fairness, why can’t the Governor of Wisconsin?
* You may not be able to fool all of the people all of the time, as Lincoln claimed, but our talk radio bloviators have shown that you only need to fool enough of the people enough of the time.
* A society exists when people believe it does and act accordingly – and vice versa.
* If you don’t vote, you’ll get what somebody else voted for.
* We have more to fear than fear itself. We must fear the causes of fear.
* The merchants of hatred on the far right are preaching to the devil’s choir.
* Markets should serve people, not the other way around.
* For the opponents of Social Security, the motto seems to be “If it ain’t broke, break it.”
* If chimpanzees can understand fairness, why can’t the Governor of Wisconsin?
* You may not be able to fool all of the people all of the time, as Lincoln claimed, but our talk radio bloviators have shown that you only need to fool enough of the people enough of the time.
Monday, March 28, 2011
A Taste of What's to Come?
Here is an excerpt from today’s “Progress Report” from the Center for American Progress. It may well be a foretaste – “harbinger” is the old-fashioned word – for what’s to come here.
London Calling
Almost a year ago, the Guardian wrote that Britain was taking "a leap into the political unknown" when the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats "formed the first full coalition government in Britain since 1945." Many wondered if the new government would chart a unique course in history, pursuing policies that blended those of the old-line conservatives with those of modern progressives. Unfortunately, the resulting Cameron-Clegg government pursued a very old path -- that of balancing budgets on the backs of working class people rather than asking the rich to pay their fair share. The coalition government pushed for "the sharpest cuts to public spending since World War II," which would cost the country more than a half million jobs, dramatically cut back on social welfare spending, and raise the pension age to 66 by 2020, "four years earlier than planned." These cuts come on top of massive education cuts that doubled or tripled tuition for many students, and which broke one of Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg's own campaign promises. Yet the citizens of the United Kingdom decided that it was unfair for them to have to pay for a budget crisis that resulted from a global recession they didn't cause. A massive and renewed progressive movement has erupted across the pond focusing on the government's failure to make tax dodging corporations and individuals pay what they owe while attacking the poor and middle class. This Saturday, this movement mobilized the largest protests since the Iraq war, with hundreds of thousands of people in London marching against the slash-and-burn coalition agenda. That movement is shaking the foundations of British society and forcing conservative retreats, and, slowly, Americans are learning from their Anglo neighbors and fighting back against the right-wing attack on the middle class on our shores as well.
London Calling
Almost a year ago, the Guardian wrote that Britain was taking "a leap into the political unknown" when the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats "formed the first full coalition government in Britain since 1945." Many wondered if the new government would chart a unique course in history, pursuing policies that blended those of the old-line conservatives with those of modern progressives. Unfortunately, the resulting Cameron-Clegg government pursued a very old path -- that of balancing budgets on the backs of working class people rather than asking the rich to pay their fair share. The coalition government pushed for "the sharpest cuts to public spending since World War II," which would cost the country more than a half million jobs, dramatically cut back on social welfare spending, and raise the pension age to 66 by 2020, "four years earlier than planned." These cuts come on top of massive education cuts that doubled or tripled tuition for many students, and which broke one of Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg's own campaign promises. Yet the citizens of the United Kingdom decided that it was unfair for them to have to pay for a budget crisis that resulted from a global recession they didn't cause. A massive and renewed progressive movement has erupted across the pond focusing on the government's failure to make tax dodging corporations and individuals pay what they owe while attacking the poor and middle class. This Saturday, this movement mobilized the largest protests since the Iraq war, with hundreds of thousands of people in London marching against the slash-and-burn coalition agenda. That movement is shaking the foundations of British society and forcing conservative retreats, and, slowly, Americans are learning from their Anglo neighbors and fighting back against the right-wing attack on the middle class on our shores as well.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Unfairness Run Rampant
It’s getting harder to find old fashioned models of fair-mindedness these days.
At one extreme, we have General Electric, now America’s largest corporation, with $14.2billion in profits for 2010 and no federal taxes – none. And GE is not an exception. In general, our corporations pay about 6.6 percent of all U.S. taxes, down from 30 percent in 1950. Who makes up the difference? You guessed it.
And where do you suppose all those profits go? The Economic Policy Institute reports that 100 percent of the average growth in personal income in the U.S. between 2000 and 2007 went to the richest 10 percent among us. The top 20 percent now owns 87.2 percent of the total wealth, up from a mere 84 percent in 2008.
Meanwhile, during the worst economic recession since the Great Depression and with some 25 percent of our population living in more or less extreme poverty, the Republicans in Congress and various states are poised to whack away at Medicaid, food stamps, child nutrition programs, home health services, public sector employment, and much more.
According to the CIA World Factbook, our Gini Index (a measure of the economic gap between the rich and the poor in any country) is now worse than Egypt -- 45 in 2007 versus 34.4 for the latest available year in Egypt (2001). Ours would be even higher in 2011.
If this negative trend continues, where it will all end is in the streets. It can happen here.
At one extreme, we have General Electric, now America’s largest corporation, with $14.2billion in profits for 2010 and no federal taxes – none. And GE is not an exception. In general, our corporations pay about 6.6 percent of all U.S. taxes, down from 30 percent in 1950. Who makes up the difference? You guessed it.
And where do you suppose all those profits go? The Economic Policy Institute reports that 100 percent of the average growth in personal income in the U.S. between 2000 and 2007 went to the richest 10 percent among us. The top 20 percent now owns 87.2 percent of the total wealth, up from a mere 84 percent in 2008.
Meanwhile, during the worst economic recession since the Great Depression and with some 25 percent of our population living in more or less extreme poverty, the Republicans in Congress and various states are poised to whack away at Medicaid, food stamps, child nutrition programs, home health services, public sector employment, and much more.
According to the CIA World Factbook, our Gini Index (a measure of the economic gap between the rich and the poor in any country) is now worse than Egypt -- 45 in 2007 versus 34.4 for the latest available year in Egypt (2001). Ours would be even higher in 2011.
If this negative trend continues, where it will all end is in the streets. It can happen here.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
A Hint of Change
It’s no easier to predict the future now than it was when Yogi Berra, America’s greatest baseball player/philosopher, first pointed this out. (Well, maybe he wasn’t the first.) Nevertheless, there are some signs that the time is coming for a genuine, wide-ranging reform movement in this country – a “crusade for fairness.”
There should be no doubt about the need for one. We have the highest disparity of incomes between the rich and the poor of any industrialized nation and the highest poverty rate, and it has gotten worse since the beginning of the Great Recession. Here are a few ugly facts (as of 2008):
* The top 1 percent of our population possess 33.4 percent of the wealth in this country and the top 20 percent have 84 percent. The bottom 80 percent of the population have 16 percent.
* As for income, the top 1 percent receive 20 percent of the total, while the bottom 20 percent receive 5.2 percent.
* It is estimated that about one-quarter of our population now live in poverty and that 30 percent of our work force are “working poor” – they cannot earn enough for a decent standard of living.
Why are we not more aroused as a nation about this state of affairs? We could change it for the better. One reason, it seems, is that many of us are unaware of just how bad things are.
For instance, a recent survey of Americans by two Harvard Business School professors found that most respondents drastically underestimated the wealth gap. They thought the top 20 percent had only 59 percent not 84 percent. More significant, there was a consensus that the distribution of wealth should be even more equitable, with the “ideal” set at 32 percent according to the respondents. In other words, many Americans don’t know how bad things are in terms of wealth and income and would support changes designed make them much better.
Yes, I know that the forces arrayed against a Fair Society are formidable, and unscrupulous. But I also recall what the PBS TV interviewer Bill Moyers said at the end of one of his last shows. “The only answer to organized money is organized people.” And if we need proof of that, look at Egypt.
There should be no doubt about the need for one. We have the highest disparity of incomes between the rich and the poor of any industrialized nation and the highest poverty rate, and it has gotten worse since the beginning of the Great Recession. Here are a few ugly facts (as of 2008):
* The top 1 percent of our population possess 33.4 percent of the wealth in this country and the top 20 percent have 84 percent. The bottom 80 percent of the population have 16 percent.
* As for income, the top 1 percent receive 20 percent of the total, while the bottom 20 percent receive 5.2 percent.
* It is estimated that about one-quarter of our population now live in poverty and that 30 percent of our work force are “working poor” – they cannot earn enough for a decent standard of living.
Why are we not more aroused as a nation about this state of affairs? We could change it for the better. One reason, it seems, is that many of us are unaware of just how bad things are.
For instance, a recent survey of Americans by two Harvard Business School professors found that most respondents drastically underestimated the wealth gap. They thought the top 20 percent had only 59 percent not 84 percent. More significant, there was a consensus that the distribution of wealth should be even more equitable, with the “ideal” set at 32 percent according to the respondents. In other words, many Americans don’t know how bad things are in terms of wealth and income and would support changes designed make them much better.
Yes, I know that the forces arrayed against a Fair Society are formidable, and unscrupulous. But I also recall what the PBS TV interviewer Bill Moyers said at the end of one of his last shows. “The only answer to organized money is organized people.” And if we need proof of that, look at Egypt.
Monday, March 21, 2011
A Fairness Crusade?
The word “crusade” has a double-edged connotation these days.
In Muslim countries it evokes memories of the centuries of warfare with Christian armies, usually sanctioned by the Pope, that sought to retake lands (especially Jerusalem and the Holy Land) that Muslims had seized, or to resist Muslim expansionism. The original Crusades were both religious and political/territorial wars, and there is much truth in the stories about the cruelty and greed (on both sides) that accompanied these supposedly high-minded missions. So it’s not surprising that Muammar Qadaffi has been denouncing the U.N. sanctioned attacks against his regime in Libya as another heinous “crusade.”
To many in the West, however, the term “crusade” has a more positive meaning. It implies any morally-grounded undertaking at great personal risk to eliminate an evil and achieve a high-minded objective. Thus, when the then General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the supreme commander of the Allied invasion of Normandy and the campaign to defeat Nazi Germany in World War II, published his memoirs after the war, nobody in the West objected to the title of his book, Crusade in Europe.
In more recent decades, the term “movement” has been the preferred moniker for various organized efforts to achieve some important, morally-grounded political objective. We have had a “civil rights movement,” a “farm workers movement,” a “women’s movement” and now a “gay rights movement,” among others.
My personal dream is that the next great political undertaking will be a “fairness movement” along the lines that I outline in my book, The Fair Society. I believe that we need to reverse the many negative trends in our society and must develop a new, more fair-minded “social contract”.
However, I have no illusions. This will be a formidable undertaking against an array of entrenched and powerful opponents without scruples. It will require an aroused electorate with the determination to stay the course. As the PBS TV interviewer, Bill Moyers, put it in one of his last broadcasts, “The only answer to organized money is organized people.” It will require something akin to a “fairness crusade.”
This, I fervently believe, is the great calling for this generation of Americans, for our future as a successful and harmonious society depends on it.
In Muslim countries it evokes memories of the centuries of warfare with Christian armies, usually sanctioned by the Pope, that sought to retake lands (especially Jerusalem and the Holy Land) that Muslims had seized, or to resist Muslim expansionism. The original Crusades were both religious and political/territorial wars, and there is much truth in the stories about the cruelty and greed (on both sides) that accompanied these supposedly high-minded missions. So it’s not surprising that Muammar Qadaffi has been denouncing the U.N. sanctioned attacks against his regime in Libya as another heinous “crusade.”
To many in the West, however, the term “crusade” has a more positive meaning. It implies any morally-grounded undertaking at great personal risk to eliminate an evil and achieve a high-minded objective. Thus, when the then General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the supreme commander of the Allied invasion of Normandy and the campaign to defeat Nazi Germany in World War II, published his memoirs after the war, nobody in the West objected to the title of his book, Crusade in Europe.
In more recent decades, the term “movement” has been the preferred moniker for various organized efforts to achieve some important, morally-grounded political objective. We have had a “civil rights movement,” a “farm workers movement,” a “women’s movement” and now a “gay rights movement,” among others.
My personal dream is that the next great political undertaking will be a “fairness movement” along the lines that I outline in my book, The Fair Society. I believe that we need to reverse the many negative trends in our society and must develop a new, more fair-minded “social contract”.
However, I have no illusions. This will be a formidable undertaking against an array of entrenched and powerful opponents without scruples. It will require an aroused electorate with the determination to stay the course. As the PBS TV interviewer, Bill Moyers, put it in one of his last broadcasts, “The only answer to organized money is organized people.” It will require something akin to a “fairness crusade.”
This, I fervently believe, is the great calling for this generation of Americans, for our future as a successful and harmonious society depends on it.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Republicans and Fairness
If there was any remaining doubt about how the Republicans define “fairness,” it has been dispelled in the states where Republicans are now in political control. What is emerging is a consistent pattern of cutting various social services and support for the poor while simultaneously lowering taxes for businesses and the wealthy. Here is a brief summary (with thanks to the Center for American Progress).
Arizona: Made drastic cuts in Medicaid while approving $538 million in tax cuts for businesses.
Florida: Laid of 6,700 state employees, cut education spending by $4.8 billion and Medicaid by almost $4 billion, while launching an effort to gut the state’s unemployment insurance system and, to “balance the scale,” slash corporate income taxes and property taxes.
Georgia: The Republican House has just passed a bill that would increase health insurance costs for state workers by 20 percent, cut funding for state universities by $75 million and gut its scholarship program. Meanwhile, the legislature is considering changes to its tax system that would lower taxes for the rich, cut corporate taxes by 33 percent and shift the burden to increased sales taxes on the basic necessities.
Iowa: The Republicans in this state are proposing a $200 million cut in corporate income taxes and commercial property taxes, while cutting $42 million from state university budgets, laying off hundreds of state workers, and cutting funds for preschool education.
Ohio: Republican Governor John Kasich has proposed a 25 percent cut in the state’s education budget, $1 million from food banks, $12 million from children’s hospitals, and $15.9 million from an adoption program for children with special needs, among other things, along with tax cuts for oil companies, repeal of the state’s estate tax and an income tax cut for the rich.
You get the idea. A similar pattern can be found in Kansas, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. It seems the Republicans don’t understand the concept of “shared sacrifices” (AKA “fairness”). It’s very clear that “compassionate conservatism” has been replaced by callous conservatism. The Republicans have thrown their moral compass overboard and they’re steering the ship of state toward an iceberg. We all know how that story ended.
Arizona: Made drastic cuts in Medicaid while approving $538 million in tax cuts for businesses.
Florida: Laid of 6,700 state employees, cut education spending by $4.8 billion and Medicaid by almost $4 billion, while launching an effort to gut the state’s unemployment insurance system and, to “balance the scale,” slash corporate income taxes and property taxes.
Georgia: The Republican House has just passed a bill that would increase health insurance costs for state workers by 20 percent, cut funding for state universities by $75 million and gut its scholarship program. Meanwhile, the legislature is considering changes to its tax system that would lower taxes for the rich, cut corporate taxes by 33 percent and shift the burden to increased sales taxes on the basic necessities.
Iowa: The Republicans in this state are proposing a $200 million cut in corporate income taxes and commercial property taxes, while cutting $42 million from state university budgets, laying off hundreds of state workers, and cutting funds for preschool education.
Ohio: Republican Governor John Kasich has proposed a 25 percent cut in the state’s education budget, $1 million from food banks, $12 million from children’s hospitals, and $15.9 million from an adoption program for children with special needs, among other things, along with tax cuts for oil companies, repeal of the state’s estate tax and an income tax cut for the rich.
You get the idea. A similar pattern can be found in Kansas, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. It seems the Republicans don’t understand the concept of “shared sacrifices” (AKA “fairness”). It’s very clear that “compassionate conservatism” has been replaced by callous conservatism. The Republicans have thrown their moral compass overboard and they’re steering the ship of state toward an iceberg. We all know how that story ended.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
A Stunning Statistic
Sometimes a single statistic can speak volumes about what has been happening to our society. Here’s one, at least for me. The median income for males with a high-school degree (no college) in 2008 was $32,000, compared with $44,200 in 1980, or a decline of 28.4 percent before inflation.
During that period, consumer prices more than doubled. So the decline in high-school graduates’ real income was much steeper. In real terms, their income was down by 64 percent. No wonder then that some 50 million Americans experienced hunger last year, and no wonder that more than one-quarter of those surveyed by Gallup a few years back regarding their standard of living described themselves as being poor.
While the rich have been getting richer since the beginning of President Reagan’s “morning in America,” they don’t seem to have noticed that the poor have been getting poorer, and more numerous. This must finally change.
During that period, consumer prices more than doubled. So the decline in high-school graduates’ real income was much steeper. In real terms, their income was down by 64 percent. No wonder then that some 50 million Americans experienced hunger last year, and no wonder that more than one-quarter of those surveyed by Gallup a few years back regarding their standard of living described themselves as being poor.
While the rich have been getting richer since the beginning of President Reagan’s “morning in America,” they don’t seem to have noticed that the poor have been getting poorer, and more numerous. This must finally change.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
“Make Everybody Hurt” (Again)
When David Brooks of the New York Times coined that sadistic phrase in an op-ed column the other day, “everyone” was definitely not included in his discussion. Missing in action were some notable “someones,” like the staff members for Wisconsin’s governor Walker, who got raises even as he was out to “hurt” unionized state employees.
Or how about the governor? I didn’t hear anything about his willingness to sacrifice some of his salary for the common good. Or how about the $100 million in tax cuts for businesses that he pushed through the (Republican) legislature in Wisconsin just before launching his assault on the unions?
Happily (well, that’s too strong a word, make it only “noteworthy”), there are some alternatives out there – states and their leaders who are approaching their budget deficits in a more fair-minded way. So it can be done.
Consider Connecticut, where Governor Dannel Malloy has struck a balance between (negotiated) givebacks by state workers and “revenue enhancements” targeted to the affluent and the luxury market, like high-end cars, yachts and airplanes, expensive jewelry, cosmetic surgery and pet grooming, along with a small personal tax increase weighted toward the wealthy.
Or look at the similar move in the state of Washington, where a group of legislators are seeking to enact luxury taxes and eliminate unjustified tax deductions by out-of-state banks to cover the shortfall in the state’s exemplary health care program.
Where is this kind of leadership in Washington? President Obama, please come out from behind that curtain. You’re not the Wizard of Oz, but maybe you can figure out a way to get Dorothy and Toto back to Kansas.
Or how about the governor? I didn’t hear anything about his willingness to sacrifice some of his salary for the common good. Or how about the $100 million in tax cuts for businesses that he pushed through the (Republican) legislature in Wisconsin just before launching his assault on the unions?
Happily (well, that’s too strong a word, make it only “noteworthy”), there are some alternatives out there – states and their leaders who are approaching their budget deficits in a more fair-minded way. So it can be done.
Consider Connecticut, where Governor Dannel Malloy has struck a balance between (negotiated) givebacks by state workers and “revenue enhancements” targeted to the affluent and the luxury market, like high-end cars, yachts and airplanes, expensive jewelry, cosmetic surgery and pet grooming, along with a small personal tax increase weighted toward the wealthy.
Or look at the similar move in the state of Washington, where a group of legislators are seeking to enact luxury taxes and eliminate unjustified tax deductions by out-of-state banks to cover the shortfall in the state’s exemplary health care program.
Where is this kind of leadership in Washington? President Obama, please come out from behind that curtain. You’re not the Wizard of Oz, but maybe you can figure out a way to get Dorothy and Toto back to Kansas.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Class Warfare (Part Two)
One of the many hand-lettered signs that was spotted at the demonstrations against union busting in Madison, Wisconsin last week read “They only call it class warfare when we fight back.”
In fact, Republicans have been engaging in class warfare, all the while denying it and accusing the rest of us of treason for suggesting this was the case, for over 30 years, ever since President Ronald Reagan declared war on “welfare queens.”
He went on to break the air traffic controllers union, to raise the tax burden of the middle class relative to the affluent, deregulate our savings banks, which produced a financial meltdown that presaged the “big one” in 2008, and he populated the government with cronies and incompetents (a model later followed by President George W. Bush). There were numerous scandals involving members of his administration, most notoriously the illegal sale of arms to Iran (no less) to raise money for illegally providing arms to the so-called Nicaragua “contras.”
President Bush carried on in this tradition with tax cuts for the wealthy, elimination (if only for a year with hopes to make it permanent) of inheritance taxes and further weakening of the programs and regulations that benefit the middle class and the poor.
Now the Republicans are at it again. In Washington they pushed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy then used a meat axe to offset those cuts by cutting away at social programs for women, children, and the needy. Then there is Wisconsin, where the Republicans used the pretext of a budget deficit to disembowel public sector unions. And Wisconsin is not alone. Republicans in other states are doing their best to follow the Wisconsin way.
Meanwhile, Forbes magazine this week reported that 214 new billionaires were added to its list in the last year. Many of these were added in other countries, but we still have the most billionaires, at 413. Overall, the net worth of the world’s billionaires jumped by 5.7 percent to an average of $3.7 billion each (the total is $4.5 trillion!).
One of those billionaires was David Koch, who has been bankrolling Republican efforts to gut the unions. Get it?
In fact, Republicans have been engaging in class warfare, all the while denying it and accusing the rest of us of treason for suggesting this was the case, for over 30 years, ever since President Ronald Reagan declared war on “welfare queens.”
He went on to break the air traffic controllers union, to raise the tax burden of the middle class relative to the affluent, deregulate our savings banks, which produced a financial meltdown that presaged the “big one” in 2008, and he populated the government with cronies and incompetents (a model later followed by President George W. Bush). There were numerous scandals involving members of his administration, most notoriously the illegal sale of arms to Iran (no less) to raise money for illegally providing arms to the so-called Nicaragua “contras.”
President Bush carried on in this tradition with tax cuts for the wealthy, elimination (if only for a year with hopes to make it permanent) of inheritance taxes and further weakening of the programs and regulations that benefit the middle class and the poor.
Now the Republicans are at it again. In Washington they pushed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy then used a meat axe to offset those cuts by cutting away at social programs for women, children, and the needy. Then there is Wisconsin, where the Republicans used the pretext of a budget deficit to disembowel public sector unions. And Wisconsin is not alone. Republicans in other states are doing their best to follow the Wisconsin way.
Meanwhile, Forbes magazine this week reported that 214 new billionaires were added to its list in the last year. Many of these were added in other countries, but we still have the most billionaires, at 413. Overall, the net worth of the world’s billionaires jumped by 5.7 percent to an average of $3.7 billion each (the total is $4.5 trillion!).
One of those billionaires was David Koch, who has been bankrolling Republican efforts to gut the unions. Get it?
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Mark Bittman on Agricultural Subsidies
Here's a New York Times column about agriculture that (as a small farmer) I strongly support:
Don’t End Agricultural Subsidies, Fix ThemBy MARK BITTMAN
Mark Bittman on food and all things related.
Agricultural subsidies have helped bring us high-fructose corn syrup, factory farming, fast food, a two-soda-a-day habit and its accompanying obesity, the near-demise of family farms, monoculture and a host of other ills.
Yet — like so many government programs — what subsidies need is not the ax, but reform that moves them forward. Imagine support designed to encourage a resurgence of small- and medium-size farms producing not corn syrup and animal-feed but food we can touch, see, buy and eat — like apples and carrots — while diminishing handouts to agribusiness and its political cronies.
Farm subsidies were created in an attempt to ameliorate the effects of the Great Depression, which makes it ironic that in an era when more Americans are suffering financially than at any time since, these subsidies are mostly going to those who need them least.
That wasn’t the plan, of course. In the 1930s, prices were fixed on a variety of commodities, and some farmers were paid to reduce their crop yields. The program was supported by a tax on processors of food — now there’s a precedent! — and was intended to be temporary. It worked, sort of: prices rose and more farmers survived. But land became concentrated in the hands of fewer farmers, and agribusiness was born, and along with it the sad joke that the government paid farmers for not growing crops.
The farm bill, up for renewal in 2012, includes an agricultural subsidy portion worth up to $30 billion, $5 billion of which is what you might call handouts, direct payments to farmers.
The subsidy-suckers don’t grow the fresh fruits and vegetables that should be dominating our diet. Indeed, if all Americans decided to actually eat the five servings a day of fruits and vegetables that are recommended, they would discover that American agriculture isn’t set up to meet that need. They grow what they’re paid to grow: corn, soy, wheat, cotton and rice.
The first two of these are the pillars for the typical American diet — featuring an unnaturally large consumption of meat, never-before-seen junk food and a bizarre avoidance of plants — as well as the fortunes of Pepsi, Dunkin’ Donuts, KFC and the others that have relied on cheap corn and soy to build their empires of unhealthful food. Over the years, prices of fresh produce have risen, while those of meat, poultry, sweets, fats and oils, and especially soda, have fallen. (Tom Philpott, writing in the environment and food Web site Grist and citing a Tufts University study, reckons that between 1997 and 2005 subsidies saved chicken, pork, beef and HFCS producers roughly $26.5 billion. In the short term, that saved consumers money too — prices for these foods are unjustifiably low — but at what cost to the environment, our food choices and our health?)
Eliminating the $5 billion in direct agricultural payments would level the playing field for farmers who grow non-subsidized crops, but just a bit — perhaps not even noticeably. There would probably be a decrease in the amount of HFCS in the market, in the 10 billion animals we “process” annually, in the ethanol used to fill gas-guzzlers and in the soy from which we chemically extract oil for frying potatoes and chicken. Those are all benefits, which we could compound by taking those billions and using them for things like high-speed rail, fulfilling our promises to public workers, maintaining Pell grants for low-income college students or any other number of worthy, forward-thinking causes.
But let’s not kid ourselves. Although the rage for across-the-board spending cuts doesn’t extend to the public — according to a recent Pew poll, most people want no cuts or even increased spending in major areas — once the $5 billion is gone, it’s not coming back.
That the current system is a joke is barely arguable: wealthy growers are paid even in good years, and may receive drought aid when there’s no drought. It’s become so bizarre that some homeowners lucky enough to have bought land that once grew rice now have subsidized lawns. Fortunes have been paid to Fortune 500 companies and even gentlemen farmers like David Rockefeller.
Thus even House Speaker Boehner calls the bill a “slush fund”; the powerful Iowa Farm Bureau suggests that direct payments end; and Glenn Beck is on the bandwagon. (This last should make you suspicious.) Not surprisingly, many Tea Partiers happily accept subsidies, including Vicky Hartzler (R-MO, $775,000), Stephen Fincher (R-TN, $2.5 million) and Michele Bachmann (R-MN $250,000). No hypocrisy there.
Left and right can perhaps agree that these are payments we don’t need to make. But suppose we use this money to steer our agriculture — and our health — in the right direction. A Gallup poll indicates that most Americans oppose cutting aid to farmers, and presumably they’re not including David Rockefeller or Michele Bachmann in that protected group; we still think of farmers as stewards of the land, and the closer that sentiment is to reality the better off we’ll be.
By making the program more sensible the money could benefit us all. For example, it could:
• Fund research and innovation in sustainable agriculture, so that in the long run we can get the system on track.
• Provide necessary incentives to attract the 100,000 new farmers Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack claims we need.
• Save more farmland from development.
• Provide support for farmers who grow currently unsubsidized fruits, vegetables and beans, while providing incentives for monoculture commodity farmers to convert some of their operations to these more desirable foods.
• Level the playing field so that medium-sized farms — big enough to supply local supermarkets but small enough to care what and how they grow — can become more competitive with agribusiness.
The point is that this money, which is already in the budget, could encourage the development of the kind of agriculture we need, one that prioritizes caring for the land, the people who work it and the people who need the real food that’s grown on it.
We could, of course, finance or even augment the program with new monies, by taking a clue from the ‘30s, when the farm subsidy program began: Let the food giants that have profited so mightily and long from cheap corn and soy — that have not so far been asked to share the pain — pay for it.
Visit my blog, where you can find out more about my last column, or what I just cooked. You can also join me on Facebook or Twitter.
Don’t End Agricultural Subsidies, Fix ThemBy MARK BITTMAN
Mark Bittman on food and all things related.
Agricultural subsidies have helped bring us high-fructose corn syrup, factory farming, fast food, a two-soda-a-day habit and its accompanying obesity, the near-demise of family farms, monoculture and a host of other ills.
Yet — like so many government programs — what subsidies need is not the ax, but reform that moves them forward. Imagine support designed to encourage a resurgence of small- and medium-size farms producing not corn syrup and animal-feed but food we can touch, see, buy and eat — like apples and carrots — while diminishing handouts to agribusiness and its political cronies.
Farm subsidies were created in an attempt to ameliorate the effects of the Great Depression, which makes it ironic that in an era when more Americans are suffering financially than at any time since, these subsidies are mostly going to those who need them least.
That wasn’t the plan, of course. In the 1930s, prices were fixed on a variety of commodities, and some farmers were paid to reduce their crop yields. The program was supported by a tax on processors of food — now there’s a precedent! — and was intended to be temporary. It worked, sort of: prices rose and more farmers survived. But land became concentrated in the hands of fewer farmers, and agribusiness was born, and along with it the sad joke that the government paid farmers for not growing crops.
The farm bill, up for renewal in 2012, includes an agricultural subsidy portion worth up to $30 billion, $5 billion of which is what you might call handouts, direct payments to farmers.
The subsidy-suckers don’t grow the fresh fruits and vegetables that should be dominating our diet. Indeed, if all Americans decided to actually eat the five servings a day of fruits and vegetables that are recommended, they would discover that American agriculture isn’t set up to meet that need. They grow what they’re paid to grow: corn, soy, wheat, cotton and rice.
The first two of these are the pillars for the typical American diet — featuring an unnaturally large consumption of meat, never-before-seen junk food and a bizarre avoidance of plants — as well as the fortunes of Pepsi, Dunkin’ Donuts, KFC and the others that have relied on cheap corn and soy to build their empires of unhealthful food. Over the years, prices of fresh produce have risen, while those of meat, poultry, sweets, fats and oils, and especially soda, have fallen. (Tom Philpott, writing in the environment and food Web site Grist and citing a Tufts University study, reckons that between 1997 and 2005 subsidies saved chicken, pork, beef and HFCS producers roughly $26.5 billion. In the short term, that saved consumers money too — prices for these foods are unjustifiably low — but at what cost to the environment, our food choices and our health?)
Eliminating the $5 billion in direct agricultural payments would level the playing field for farmers who grow non-subsidized crops, but just a bit — perhaps not even noticeably. There would probably be a decrease in the amount of HFCS in the market, in the 10 billion animals we “process” annually, in the ethanol used to fill gas-guzzlers and in the soy from which we chemically extract oil for frying potatoes and chicken. Those are all benefits, which we could compound by taking those billions and using them for things like high-speed rail, fulfilling our promises to public workers, maintaining Pell grants for low-income college students or any other number of worthy, forward-thinking causes.
But let’s not kid ourselves. Although the rage for across-the-board spending cuts doesn’t extend to the public — according to a recent Pew poll, most people want no cuts or even increased spending in major areas — once the $5 billion is gone, it’s not coming back.
That the current system is a joke is barely arguable: wealthy growers are paid even in good years, and may receive drought aid when there’s no drought. It’s become so bizarre that some homeowners lucky enough to have bought land that once grew rice now have subsidized lawns. Fortunes have been paid to Fortune 500 companies and even gentlemen farmers like David Rockefeller.
Thus even House Speaker Boehner calls the bill a “slush fund”; the powerful Iowa Farm Bureau suggests that direct payments end; and Glenn Beck is on the bandwagon. (This last should make you suspicious.) Not surprisingly, many Tea Partiers happily accept subsidies, including Vicky Hartzler (R-MO, $775,000), Stephen Fincher (R-TN, $2.5 million) and Michele Bachmann (R-MN $250,000). No hypocrisy there.
Left and right can perhaps agree that these are payments we don’t need to make. But suppose we use this money to steer our agriculture — and our health — in the right direction. A Gallup poll indicates that most Americans oppose cutting aid to farmers, and presumably they’re not including David Rockefeller or Michele Bachmann in that protected group; we still think of farmers as stewards of the land, and the closer that sentiment is to reality the better off we’ll be.
By making the program more sensible the money could benefit us all. For example, it could:
• Fund research and innovation in sustainable agriculture, so that in the long run we can get the system on track.
• Provide necessary incentives to attract the 100,000 new farmers Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack claims we need.
• Save more farmland from development.
• Provide support for farmers who grow currently unsubsidized fruits, vegetables and beans, while providing incentives for monoculture commodity farmers to convert some of their operations to these more desirable foods.
• Level the playing field so that medium-sized farms — big enough to supply local supermarkets but small enough to care what and how they grow — can become more competitive with agribusiness.
The point is that this money, which is already in the budget, could encourage the development of the kind of agriculture we need, one that prioritizes caring for the land, the people who work it and the people who need the real food that’s grown on it.
We could, of course, finance or even augment the program with new monies, by taking a clue from the ‘30s, when the farm subsidy program began: Let the food giants that have profited so mightily and long from cheap corn and soy — that have not so far been asked to share the pain — pay for it.
Visit my blog, where you can find out more about my last column, or what I just cooked. You can also join me on Facebook or Twitter.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
The Mandate Illusion
A Tea Party Republican Freshman yesterday declared that, if he didn’t get the budget cuts he wanted, which will undermine a lot of industry regulations and social programs that help the poor “…given what I got 70 percent of the vote on, I have to shut down the government.” Maybe he should read the polls and find out what the rest of the country thinks about his position.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
