2012 Election - Work Will Remain After The Voting

When a friend asked if I would like to provide an essay for her blog about the election, I quickly agreed. It didn't seem like it would be too difficult: I have strong opinions, I've written about them for some time: How hard could it be?

It turned out to be much harder than I anticipated. This election is presenting me with some challenges that I just don't recall any previous election presenting. I know who I am going to vote for, but it seems woefully inadequate, woefully irrelevant. Let me explain:

I find the big social issues to be a continued source of disbelief: You mean, after the Civil War, Woman's suffrage, the passage of the 14^th Amendment (with its Equal Protection Clause) and the 15^th amendment on voting, we STILL insist on attempting to segregate people from general equality based upon some aspect of their lives? We STILL insist on attempting to force conformity to one particular set of religious beliefs, even as those beliefs are undergoing internal revision themselves and don't speak for all of us? Bah.

So, it has been easy for me to vote against the party that continually comes down on the discriminatory side of things – that somehow eschews calls for equality and advocates against women frequently, against a gender-blind definition of marriage. Add to that their almost fanatical support for increasing the means to inflict violence, and its a no-brain-er.

2008 was exciting. Here we had an articulate black man who voiced concern for those who don't get a fair shake; concern for those who face injustice and inequality; and who, more than anything else for me, was willing to advocate for a restructuring of our out-moded and poor system of health care that costs all of us too much and denies coverage to many, specifically many who need it.

He did exactly that, too. Once President, Barack Obama continued pushing to reform the system of health delivery, striking bargains to make the result palatable to Republicans, Democrats, the Insurance and the Health Care Industries.

Of course, what we got represents all sorts of compromises, and in a spectacular play against the nation and for the furthering of their own interests, members of the Republican Party unanimously voted against it – voted against a remodeling that looked surprisingly like plans put forth by their own party 30 years previously; a plan that strongly resembled a successful State Plan enacted in the previous decade.

In the intervening time since then, President Obama has come out in favor of Gay Marriage, and has allowed the Pentagon to repeal their nefarious 'Don't Ask; Don't Tell' policy.

So, here we are in 2012. There is a new gorilla in the room, but nobody is talking about it. Neither Republican candidate Mitt Romney, nor re-nominated Democratic candidate Barack Obama. Both, in fact, seem bent on side-stepping THE major issue of this election (and perhaps our lifetime and more), turning the whole processes into a frustrating side-show of irrelevancies.

Mr. Romney, following his party (actually, almost re-inventing himself to be crueler and more prejudiced against practically anyone who isn't wealthy and white and male than was evident during his tenure as Governor) has brought up the old, tired drudges about taxes and spending and jobs, as though we won't see through it again. His running mate, true to form, has sponsored a non-sense budget that panders exclusively to those who extract rent from the economy, and imposes austerity on those who work.

The gorilla, of course, is the outsized (over 40% of our economy!), enormously detrimental Financial Sector with its reckless debt creation, speculation, and extractive activities that drove us to the brink of ruin four years ago, and its continued existence in current form which will only repeat the cycle. The financial sector has driven debt creation, both private (which we, as a nation, are wallowing in), and public (as the falsely strong dollar elicits large trade deficits, piling on government debt as foreign traders recycle their American dollars in Bonds).

I want a champion who will go to Washington and take on the FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) sector without concern for re-election, without concern for the opposition by the malefactors who daily steal the real productivity of the masses. I want a hero who will advocate a return to a true, classical economy, where debt is used to finance manufacturing expansion, where the unearned, 'free lunch' asset appreciation gains (Capital Gains) don't drive the economy nor contribute to outlandish awards to some.

I want a Neil Barofsky, or an Elizabeth Warren, or a Bill Black to go. Each has shown the fortitude to stand tall on this issue; each has worked in their way to raise awareness or to gain a foothold to battle it. Each has clearly demonstrated that they understand both what is happening, which of many possible solutions might give the best outcome, and the urgency with which this is needed.

Alas, outside of Warren who is running for the Senate, the others are not on the ballot. So, that leaves:

Mr. Romney, of course, who earned his fabulous wealth through this very means, borrowing and then saddling others to pay it off, while extracting a fortune from that very same debt. It is inconceivable that a Romney administration would promote the dismantling of the outsized banks and a return to a stable economy based upon real labor, real production, where real people perform real tasks to earn a real living.

President Obama, who has shown only a superficial awareness of this issue, and has so far backed away from any real attempts to address it or even communicate that he is considering it.

Hence, the lackluster feelings I have for this election. I will cast my vote for Obama, recognizing that my political participation will have only just begun at that point. That in order for us to gain any leverage, for us to stave off the austerity measures that the financial elite are cooking up for us, we will have to continue to participate, continue to advocate, continue to Occupy the public spaces.

Friday Shorts - Buffett, Huckabee, Debt, Anthony

The Republican stance on the debt shows that they have no enduring ideology, other than obtaining and staying in control. Remember that Reagan said that deficits don't matter? As Warren Buffett pointed out, congress raised the debt ceiling 7 times during Bush's term, without nary a whimper. But, they'd hold a gun to America's head over this, threatening to shut down the government? If they hate government that much, perhaps they should seek employment in the private sector...

Ever wonder if maybe Mike Huckabee was forced into politics because he was thrown out of the ministry for a lack of compassion? Every time I see his ad calling for the repeal of the Health Care Plan he just comes across as completely, totally heartless.

Speaking of the debt, have you ever wondered about the history of it? What our ancestor's thought and did related to it? How long has America had government debt? You can hear all these questions answered, and more on Backstory Radio's recent coverage of exactly this topic. Download the podcast, and do whatever it is you do this weekend while you learn why Alexander Hamilton could say, “A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing."

Casey Anthony. Everyone I know is certain she committed the murder of her daughter, but her acquittal is actually proof that our judicial system works, and works well. We have to demand sufficient proof of a crime to convict, and if the prosecution fails to bring that proof to trial, then the accused must go free. For there is the distinct possibility in all trials that if there is a lack of proof, then the accused is innocent of the crime in question. We certainly don't want to err on the side of locking up innocent people - even though it means that we must err on the side of occasionally setting the guilty free. (Which I must point out, we don't know has been done here.)

Which brings to mind an excellent campaign question for our congressional and presidential candidates: Do you feel that America's incarceration rate is too high? Are we locking up individuals for 'crimes' that shouldn't require it - and what and how do other nations, who all have much lower incarceration rates, deal with the activities in question? And, the real kicker: Do you support the privatization of our jails and penitentiaries - and do you see any conflict of interests between a private organization which will want to increase the quantity of incarcerated to increase their profits with America's desire to decrease its costs and reduce its government debt?

Market Value

One of our cherished ideas about the market is that it properly (and efficiently) sets the value of items. We even believe that it properly values people: Whether someone is making $10,000, $100,000, or $1,000,000, we often contend that the market has accurately determined their value to society, and they are being paid appropriately.

Leaving aside whether that is true or not, let’s poke a little at some of the ramifications. One observation that we can make is that it is the current value – the market does not attempt (with a couple of possible exceptions) to predict our future value. In other words, our current pay reflects our current value to our current employer – nothing more.

A co-worker made the assertion the other day that people who are poorly valued by the market have no business demanding Health Care. His idea was simply that if they hadn’t done what it takes to be highly valued by the market, and since the market reflects value to society, society is proper in denying them health care – we don’t get a good return on our investment by fixing them up.

But, that only reflects current value. We have no idea (and the market makes no predictions) about their possible future value. Most individuals, upon leaving High School, are relatively unemployable. Gradually, through time, they find a trade, complete college, and raise their wage.

Fortunately, most young people have good health. But, if they were to become sick, or injured: Can we take their current position in society, as determined by their wage, to fairly determine whether they deserve Health Care? Do we know that they will never amount to more, and our judgment that they should have only a bare minimum or face a lifetime attempting to pay their medical debts is fair?

Consider this, too: When CEO’s make mistakes, when those we’ve judged (by their salary only) to have high worth to society over extend their company: It is the rank and file worker who takes the brunt of the punishment, and loses their job, and frequently any Health Insurance / Care.

Did the worker’s value to society actually go to zero at the moment they lost their job?

I think we would say not – and the very act of denying the truth of this statement calls into question the earlier assertion that markets accurately value people.

And if markets don’t accurately value people, the idea that we can use a market valuation to determine eligibility for Health Care is also suspect.