Subsidies and the End of Oil
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
If only because I read (the print edition of) Ranger Rick as a little boy, I have long taken for granted that oil companies are greedy, heartless, and dangerous for the health of our planet. Glossy spreads of charismatic megafauna and a bright future powered by sun and wind inspired my young convictions.
I'd like to think that my views are a bit more sophisticated today; I understand that we need oil in the near-term. But my distrust of fossil fuels and the lords of the extraction industry remains, and I can't help but expect that some day, maybe in my own lifetime, we will no longer depend on their opiate.
Environmentalists, scientists, and some politicians have been saying for decades that we need to invest in alternative forms of energy. This drumbeat reached a fever pitch in the summer of 2010 as the events of BP's Deepwater Horizon explosion unfolded. 24-hour submarine video feeds dominated the airwaves. Members of Congress lambasted BP CEO Tony Hayward and delivered impassioned soliloquies in defense of the spill victims. In the wake of the worst environmental catastrophe of our nation's history, the case against Big Oil was laden with populist fury and disgust over the industry's latest disaster.
To speak in defense of the oil industry was not a political option (as Rep. Joe Barton quickly discovered). It seemed that, perhaps, we had reached a tipping point that would require lawmakers to clear the path for alternative energy's emergence as a big business in its own right.
Today, President Obama rides what remains of this sentiment and invests his political capital in the inevitability of a green energy revolution. Oil companies don't deserve taxpayer money, he contends. They are wealthy enough already, and we need to look towards a green, sustainable future.
In his argument, the President does not announce outright that he hopes to see the oil industry recede and, ideally, transform into a producer of alternative energy. (Such a transformation would probably be necessary in order to avoid massive loss of employment.) His omission of this position leaves him vulnerable to the legitimate criticism that he is unfairly singling subsidies to the oil industry. Their tax relief is like that of any other big business, and as a result, his argument that oil companies don't need our money, while true, isn't particularly compelling. A more salient point would be that, in the interest of national security, economic viability, and concern for the environment, the oil industry needs to end.
In other words, the government should not pay for what it does not need and does not want. Even if government would, in the end, lose revenue - a very possible outcome - President Obama needs to make the case that this would be a worthy sacrifice.
Oil subsidies are not unique or especially heinous aside from the industry they maintain. If President Obama wants to get rid of them, he needs to move beyond the populist argument that oil CEOs are filthy-rich scoundrels and focus on the fact that the oil industry is what tethers our economy and our environment to the dirty 20th century.
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Monday, March 19, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
2012.03.10 Weekly Address: Investing in a Clean Energy Future
Our Ball and Chain
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
It is astonishing that President Obama needs to convince us that energy efficiency is an important priority. His argument is clear and basic, and he presses on.
Of course, funding (and fear of the unknown, but that's another story) is a big part of why the nation isn't rallying around this cause. President Obama is correct that investment in clean energy would pay manifold dividends in the near future. But we must also, for example, mend our archaic system of education, riddled as it is with perverse incentives and slack. As we lag behind other developed nations in science and math, can we afford to ignore this expensive problem? Must we choose, or do we have enough cash on hand to address both challenges?
I might not be asking these silly questions had the United States not invaded Iraq in 2003. Because hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent to that end, we are left bickering over whether to invest in energy, education, or nothing at all.
However, we must consider that if the United States had not invaded Iraq, we probably would have found another way to spend those few hundred billion dollars. Pressing issues - education and energy efficiency - that pertain directly to the economy and national security would most likely have been neglected anyway. So what is it about our government culture that makes such a dim fate seemingly inevitable?
In an op-ed that President-elect Vladimir Putin wrote prior to the March 4 elections, he accused the United States of being "obsessed with the idea of securing absolute invulnerability," and announced that this is "the root of the problem." In fact, this is quite an accurate assessment. Americans are obsessed with "securing absolute invulnerability"; one might argue that this is necessarily the aim of a government, even if it is a distant dream. But because our sphere of influence is so immense and our military so vast, remaining invulnerable gets to be quite expensive and, from President-elect Putin's perspective, intolerably invasive. This would be so even if the United States were to refrain from launching wars of choice based on emotional fervor and pitifully faulty intelligence briefings.
Just as Russia is saddled with more land than any single country could possibly manage well, we have consolidated power to an extent that requires most of our economic might to maintain it. This is why we are in debt, and this is why we don't provide for our citizens at the standards of other developed nations. This is why a commitment to clean energy remains a distant dream.
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
It is astonishing that President Obama needs to convince us that energy efficiency is an important priority. His argument is clear and basic, and he presses on.
Of course, funding (and fear of the unknown, but that's another story) is a big part of why the nation isn't rallying around this cause. President Obama is correct that investment in clean energy would pay manifold dividends in the near future. But we must also, for example, mend our archaic system of education, riddled as it is with perverse incentives and slack. As we lag behind other developed nations in science and math, can we afford to ignore this expensive problem? Must we choose, or do we have enough cash on hand to address both challenges?
I might not be asking these silly questions had the United States not invaded Iraq in 2003. Because hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent to that end, we are left bickering over whether to invest in energy, education, or nothing at all.
However, we must consider that if the United States had not invaded Iraq, we probably would have found another way to spend those few hundred billion dollars. Pressing issues - education and energy efficiency - that pertain directly to the economy and national security would most likely have been neglected anyway. So what is it about our government culture that makes such a dim fate seemingly inevitable?
In an op-ed that President-elect Vladimir Putin wrote prior to the March 4 elections, he accused the United States of being "obsessed with the idea of securing absolute invulnerability," and announced that this is "the root of the problem." In fact, this is quite an accurate assessment. Americans are obsessed with "securing absolute invulnerability"; one might argue that this is necessarily the aim of a government, even if it is a distant dream. But because our sphere of influence is so immense and our military so vast, remaining invulnerable gets to be quite expensive and, from President-elect Putin's perspective, intolerably invasive. This would be so even if the United States were to refrain from launching wars of choice based on emotional fervor and pitifully faulty intelligence briefings.
Just as Russia is saddled with more land than any single country could possibly manage well, we have consolidated power to an extent that requires most of our economic might to maintain it. This is why we are in debt, and this is why we don't provide for our citizens at the standards of other developed nations. This is why a commitment to clean energy remains a distant dream.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Lots of backlash since my last post on what America should do about its oil addiction. Mostly on facebook and in person, acquaintances have been enlightening me with conflicting announcements of how most of America's oil is exported to China, anyway, or alternatively, around 90% of our oil is domestic, anyway, so our 'dependence on foreign oil' is largely hot air. I try to keep things factual when I can, so I'll be doing some more research to substantiate further posts, as the issue is obviously not going to slip from prominence.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
A Revival In American Manufacturing, Led By Brooklyn Foodies
This four-minute piece, produced by NPR's Planet Money, explores one route which might enable our land of highly skilled workers and highly particular consumers to compete in the global market. Food for thought.
This four-minute piece, produced by NPR's Planet Money, explores one route which might enable our land of highly skilled workers and highly particular consumers to compete in the global market. Food for thought.
2012.02.25 Weekly Address: An All-Of-The-Above Approach to American Energy
Four Billion Dollars in Context
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
In the interest of developing an "all-of-the-above" approach to American energy, President Obama has reissued his call to end oil subsidies. Without such generous tax breaks, more money could be invested in the development of alternative energy sources or used to pay off the deficit.
But by reducing the oil company's profits, we will, in the short term, reduce domestic production and increasingly rely on foreign oil. Gas prices will rise due to transit costs and tariffs. Without the ability to produce our own energy, our influence in negotiations with foreign governments will dwindle.
Furthermore, the money that oil companies lose will not be taken from monstrous corporate salaries and bonuses. Big oil will simply save the difference by investing in oil production abroad, thereby dodging the matter. The rich will remain rich, and many American refineries will go the way of mid-century mills and plants.
Alternatively, if these companies were incentivized to drill in America, they would be subject to the rules and regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency, the US Internal Revenue Code, and US labor laws. But unless there is some impetus to produce domestic oil, profit-driven transnational corporations will inevitably opt for the lax environmental regulations and labor laws of production of Russia, the OPEC nations, and international waters.
"Drill, baby, drill," crooned the GOP, at least until the Deepwater Horizon BP Gulf oil spill of 2010. This call to drilling has been mocked, rightly, as economically backwards, Islamophobic, and ignorant of environmental risks. However, an anti-oil backlash, too, would yield economic and environmental devastation, so long as Americans continue to use oil. We often hear about the quest for energy independence, but an equally important priority is the collection of tax revenues from oil companies - revenues that can be invested in the development of alternative energy sources and used to pay off the deficit.
American oil production, along with the extraction of natural gas (fracking) from Marcellus Shale, can ease our reliance on foreign oil. If the government seriously considers the warnings of scientists and environmental activists, these endeavors can be less environmentally dangerous than foreign extraction, cut down on wasteful transit, and support the American economy.
So, with any luck, President Obama will not spend the entire election season playing word games about saving "four billion dollars of your money" by eliminating tax breaks for oil companies. Surely, he realizes that we could save a great deal more by investing in stringent regulations, incentivizing oil companies to stay in America with tax breaks, and using the revenue to ease the tax burden and invest in alternative energy. Unfortunately, this is not a logical opportunity for the 99% to take their revenge against wealthy CEOs, who will simply take their business abroad if we give them no reason not to.
~
For a more detailed analysis of the economic consequences of these options, you might like to read Scott McNally's guest post on Scientific American's PluggedIn blog.
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
In the interest of developing an "all-of-the-above" approach to American energy, President Obama has reissued his call to end oil subsidies. Without such generous tax breaks, more money could be invested in the development of alternative energy sources or used to pay off the deficit.
But by reducing the oil company's profits, we will, in the short term, reduce domestic production and increasingly rely on foreign oil. Gas prices will rise due to transit costs and tariffs. Without the ability to produce our own energy, our influence in negotiations with foreign governments will dwindle.
Furthermore, the money that oil companies lose will not be taken from monstrous corporate salaries and bonuses. Big oil will simply save the difference by investing in oil production abroad, thereby dodging the matter. The rich will remain rich, and many American refineries will go the way of mid-century mills and plants.
Alternatively, if these companies were incentivized to drill in America, they would be subject to the rules and regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency, the US Internal Revenue Code, and US labor laws. But unless there is some impetus to produce domestic oil, profit-driven transnational corporations will inevitably opt for the lax environmental regulations and labor laws of production of Russia, the OPEC nations, and international waters.
"Drill, baby, drill," crooned the GOP, at least until the Deepwater Horizon BP Gulf oil spill of 2010. This call to drilling has been mocked, rightly, as economically backwards, Islamophobic, and ignorant of environmental risks. However, an anti-oil backlash, too, would yield economic and environmental devastation, so long as Americans continue to use oil. We often hear about the quest for energy independence, but an equally important priority is the collection of tax revenues from oil companies - revenues that can be invested in the development of alternative energy sources and used to pay off the deficit.
American oil production, along with the extraction of natural gas (fracking) from Marcellus Shale, can ease our reliance on foreign oil. If the government seriously considers the warnings of scientists and environmental activists, these endeavors can be less environmentally dangerous than foreign extraction, cut down on wasteful transit, and support the American economy.
So, with any luck, President Obama will not spend the entire election season playing word games about saving "four billion dollars of your money" by eliminating tax breaks for oil companies. Surely, he realizes that we could save a great deal more by investing in stringent regulations, incentivizing oil companies to stay in America with tax breaks, and using the revenue to ease the tax burden and invest in alternative energy. Unfortunately, this is not a logical opportunity for the 99% to take their revenge against wealthy CEOs, who will simply take their business abroad if we give them no reason not to.
~
For a more detailed analysis of the economic consequences of these options, you might like to read Scott McNally's guest post on Scientific American's PluggedIn blog.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
2012.02.18 Weekly Address: Continuing to Strengthen American Manufacturing
How to Bring Jobs Home
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
Though China can produce goods more cheaply, "we can make things better." And the cost of setting up shop abroad is rising. And so, the President says, with middle-class families struggling through a slow recovery, we need to give tax breaks to companies that manufacture at home, and not the other way around.
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
Though China can produce goods more cheaply, "we can make things better." And the cost of setting up shop abroad is rising. And so, the President says, with middle-class families struggling through a slow recovery, we need to give tax breaks to companies that manufacture at home, and not the other way around.
Apple springs to mind. Apple has taken a torrent of flack over the past few weeks as human rights organizations, including SumOfUs.org and Change.org, have singled out the labor conditions of its factories in China.
President Obama doesn't mention this controversy. Instead, he announces that "we can make things better," by which presumably he means 'higher quality,' a claim that anyone who has laid their hands on an iPhone knows is false. Even if products 'Made in America' were, once upon a time, objectively better than imports, this is no longer so. The myth of American exceptionalism is a wan distraction from the threats and opportunities of emerging economies.
President Obama doesn't mention this controversy. Instead, he announces that "we can make things better," by which presumably he means 'higher quality,' a claim that anyone who has laid their hands on an iPhone knows is false. Even if products 'Made in America' were, once upon a time, objectively better than imports, this is no longer so. The myth of American exceptionalism is a wan distraction from the threats and opportunities of emerging economies.
Apple, and plenty of other companies, have figured out a way to manufacture goods abroad both cheaply and well. This leaves the President with only one indisputable leg of his argument: that jobs continue to seep offshore, and the government needs to stem the tide as our nation gropes for a semblance of economic vitality.
Tax breaks for companies that manufacture in our country make complete sense. This is a straightforward approach to leveling the playing field in our country of high living costs and stringent labor laws. The President would strengthen his argument by acknowledging the disparity between American labor laws and those of China, India, and other outsourcing hubs. Perhaps this is what he means by saying that "we can make things better," but we can't afford to grant President Obama the benefit of the doubt.
The iPhone may never come home. But if the President wants to bring any jobs back to America, he needs to make a clear case that labor conditions abroad are unacceptable and come down hard on companies that pay little heed to the rights of their employees. Not only could this be considered a moral obligation, it would be a much more compelling case for moving jobs home than "we want them back."
Ignoring the problem won't make it go away, and waxing eloquent about the quality of American goods won't move the bottom line. The President wants to adjust the tax code, and there is a good reason to do it; we are waiting for him to spell it out.
Tax breaks for companies that manufacture in our country make complete sense. This is a straightforward approach to leveling the playing field in our country of high living costs and stringent labor laws. The President would strengthen his argument by acknowledging the disparity between American labor laws and those of China, India, and other outsourcing hubs. Perhaps this is what he means by saying that "we can make things better," but we can't afford to grant President Obama the benefit of the doubt.
The iPhone may never come home. But if the President wants to bring any jobs back to America, he needs to make a clear case that labor conditions abroad are unacceptable and come down hard on companies that pay little heed to the rights of their employees. Not only could this be considered a moral obligation, it would be a much more compelling case for moving jobs home than "we want them back."
Ignoring the problem won't make it go away, and waxing eloquent about the quality of American goods won't move the bottom line. The President wants to adjust the tax code, and there is a good reason to do it; we are waiting for him to spell it out.
Monday, February 13, 2012
2012.02.11 Weekly Address: Extending the Payroll Tax Cut for the Middle Class
Culture War Queen
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
Much ado has been made of the American tendency to vote against our own economic self-interest. In his famous response to Karl Rove's 'conservative coalition' of the 2004 presidential election, Thomas Frank published a book entitled What's the Matter with Kansas? Mr. Frank makes the case that social issues are used as a distraction while the conservative elite push through discriminatory tax and spending policy.
In a two-party system, there might not be a candidate who opposes gay marriage while favoring progressive tax policy, and poor evangelical Christians don't have the option of mixing and matching.
Eight years after the beginning of President Bush's second term, social issues - the 'culture wars' - remain at the fore, but the terrain has shifted. As state after state legalizes gay marriage, LGBT rights are increasingly considered civil rights, if only as a matter of grudging pragmatism. Other social issues that were once blamed on immorality and the degradation of Western culture, such as abortion rights and environmental activism, have been complicated by a richer understanding of our circumstances. Less often, today, do we hear about the supposed Judeo-Christian origins of our nation. Tempers and passions may not have chilled, but a sense of slight chaos has permeated some of these most iconic ideological standoffs.
Budget concerns, on the other hand, have emerged as the latest opportunity for posturing and political feud. It's clear that over time, all but a few pariah states will legalize gay marriage, but no one is sure how the budget mess will resolve. In this sense, it is a perfect political tool, allowing for grandstanding and condescension from all angles.
Furthermore, though Americans have been receiving handouts from the government since the Declaration of Independence, it seems to have become passe to publicly ask for them. This is a familiar and sad perversion of 'self-sufficiency,' a most treasured folk value firmly grounded in American exceptionalism.
In his weekly address, President Obama asks us to consider how $40 per paycheck might impact a working family's financial situation. It's clear where he is going with this. Will the underprivileged masses vote with their wallets, or will they buy a manufactured narrative of warped nostalgia that disregards their economic needs? Will they choose cash or pride?
Republican voters have found in a presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, the embodiment of their oppressor. The enormously wealthy Mr. Romney doesn't seem to viscerally feel the 'culture war' values of the Republican base, but he croons conservatism and callous economic policy. It remains to be seen whether Republicans primary voters will buy his pitch.
Certainly, Mr. Romney's family wouldn't miss $40 per paycheck. But how would he answer President Obama's thought experiment? Regardless of whether Mr. Romney really believes conservative economic policy is best for our GDP, does he realize how it would impact an average family? Has he ever bought his own groceries or a tank of gas?
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
Much ado has been made of the American tendency to vote against our own economic self-interest. In his famous response to Karl Rove's 'conservative coalition' of the 2004 presidential election, Thomas Frank published a book entitled What's the Matter with Kansas? Mr. Frank makes the case that social issues are used as a distraction while the conservative elite push through discriminatory tax and spending policy.
In a two-party system, there might not be a candidate who opposes gay marriage while favoring progressive tax policy, and poor evangelical Christians don't have the option of mixing and matching.
Eight years after the beginning of President Bush's second term, social issues - the 'culture wars' - remain at the fore, but the terrain has shifted. As state after state legalizes gay marriage, LGBT rights are increasingly considered civil rights, if only as a matter of grudging pragmatism. Other social issues that were once blamed on immorality and the degradation of Western culture, such as abortion rights and environmental activism, have been complicated by a richer understanding of our circumstances. Less often, today, do we hear about the supposed Judeo-Christian origins of our nation. Tempers and passions may not have chilled, but a sense of slight chaos has permeated some of these most iconic ideological standoffs.
Budget concerns, on the other hand, have emerged as the latest opportunity for posturing and political feud. It's clear that over time, all but a few pariah states will legalize gay marriage, but no one is sure how the budget mess will resolve. In this sense, it is a perfect political tool, allowing for grandstanding and condescension from all angles.
Furthermore, though Americans have been receiving handouts from the government since the Declaration of Independence, it seems to have become passe to publicly ask for them. This is a familiar and sad perversion of 'self-sufficiency,' a most treasured folk value firmly grounded in American exceptionalism.
In his weekly address, President Obama asks us to consider how $40 per paycheck might impact a working family's financial situation. It's clear where he is going with this. Will the underprivileged masses vote with their wallets, or will they buy a manufactured narrative of warped nostalgia that disregards their economic needs? Will they choose cash or pride?
Republican voters have found in a presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, the embodiment of their oppressor. The enormously wealthy Mr. Romney doesn't seem to viscerally feel the 'culture war' values of the Republican base, but he croons conservatism and callous economic policy. It remains to be seen whether Republicans primary voters will buy his pitch.
Certainly, Mr. Romney's family wouldn't miss $40 per paycheck. But how would he answer President Obama's thought experiment? Regardless of whether Mr. Romney really believes conservative economic policy is best for our GDP, does he realize how it would impact an average family? Has he ever bought his own groceries or a tank of gas?
Sunday, February 5, 2012
2012.02.04 Weekly Address: It’s Time for Congress to Act to Help Responsible Homeowners
Doing The Wrong Thing
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
Since I'm still here, I'll pass along a news bit of interest from the UK. There's been a row with Argentina, apparently, about the status of the Falkland Islands. The Falkland Islands were uninhabited until colonial powers started bickering over them in the seventeenth century, and not much has changed since. Today, a few thousand Brits live there, but the Argentinians feel sovereign, as the islands rest on their continental shelf. This all resulted in a war and hundreds of deaths in 1982. So, the question has been kicking around certain circles of London: are these islands really worth it? Why not just repatriate these southerly Brits and end the madness?
For one thing, there might be oil there.
This week, President Obama paints with broad strokes, his narrative of the past decade grounded in morality and "American values like fairness and responsibility." When some of us strayed from those values, our society was punished with a housing crisis and financial collapse.
The President could make just the same policy proposal - providing financial assistance to responsible homeowners who were swindled by the financial industry - without the tale.* But it is election season now, a time of oversimplified scripts that blame a faceless enemy (or an incumbent president) for the nation's woes. For President Obama, especially as the Occupy movement resonates and a campaign against Candidate Romney emerges, bankers and investors provide an excellent moral foil.
President Obama is practiced in making a case based on "doing the right thing." He, as so many American politicians, speaks often of "American values." Perhaps such platitudes from all angles are what have made it so difficult to muster a coherent exchange of ideas.
American values? What are these, and what do we Americans have in common that might endow us with a set of values? Not a common heritage, not a common religion. Our cultural chaos, if anything, might be our most legitimate claim to individuality among nations. Some things that we do have in common, such as democracy and freedom of speech, are no longer especially American. Other things, such as the deranged consumer culture that we export like opium, America could do without. The treasures and shames of our local folk cultures are hardly universally shared or understood.
Fairness and responsibility? Our nation may have been founded upon these ideas, but they are far too subjective to use as a basis for a policy argument. This has been proven time and again, with politicians of all stripes crooning to their bases about "doing the right thing." Because we have so little in common, there is no consensus on what the "right thing" is, so naturally, nothing is accomplished.
On the other hand, we might accomplish a great deal if we seriously engage a popular question of today: what are the government's actual responsibilities? More specifically, what is the government legally obligated to do? As much as I'd like the government to act morally, I know that sometimes it won't, according to my personal views. Put another way, I know that it usually hasn't, and I'm not foolish enough to expect moral justification to suddenly swing in my favor.
I don't expect that Congress would suddenly function if we stop posturing about morality. But it couldn't hurt. And maybe then, once we've acknowledged the absence of a moral consensus about anything, our government could return to its proper business of providing citizens with the services we are willing and able to finance at tax rates that don't favor the oligarchs.
__________________________
*But who is really responsible when a big bank deceives an uneducated homebuyer and bets on their failure, all while managing to obey the law?
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
Since I'm still here, I'll pass along a news bit of interest from the UK. There's been a row with Argentina, apparently, about the status of the Falkland Islands. The Falkland Islands were uninhabited until colonial powers started bickering over them in the seventeenth century, and not much has changed since. Today, a few thousand Brits live there, but the Argentinians feel sovereign, as the islands rest on their continental shelf. This all resulted in a war and hundreds of deaths in 1982. So, the question has been kicking around certain circles of London: are these islands really worth it? Why not just repatriate these southerly Brits and end the madness?
For one thing, there might be oil there.
This week, President Obama paints with broad strokes, his narrative of the past decade grounded in morality and "American values like fairness and responsibility." When some of us strayed from those values, our society was punished with a housing crisis and financial collapse.
The President could make just the same policy proposal - providing financial assistance to responsible homeowners who were swindled by the financial industry - without the tale.* But it is election season now, a time of oversimplified scripts that blame a faceless enemy (or an incumbent president) for the nation's woes. For President Obama, especially as the Occupy movement resonates and a campaign against Candidate Romney emerges, bankers and investors provide an excellent moral foil.
President Obama is practiced in making a case based on "doing the right thing." He, as so many American politicians, speaks often of "American values." Perhaps such platitudes from all angles are what have made it so difficult to muster a coherent exchange of ideas.
American values? What are these, and what do we Americans have in common that might endow us with a set of values? Not a common heritage, not a common religion. Our cultural chaos, if anything, might be our most legitimate claim to individuality among nations. Some things that we do have in common, such as democracy and freedom of speech, are no longer especially American. Other things, such as the deranged consumer culture that we export like opium, America could do without. The treasures and shames of our local folk cultures are hardly universally shared or understood.
Fairness and responsibility? Our nation may have been founded upon these ideas, but they are far too subjective to use as a basis for a policy argument. This has been proven time and again, with politicians of all stripes crooning to their bases about "doing the right thing." Because we have so little in common, there is no consensus on what the "right thing" is, so naturally, nothing is accomplished.
On the other hand, we might accomplish a great deal if we seriously engage a popular question of today: what are the government's actual responsibilities? More specifically, what is the government legally obligated to do? As much as I'd like the government to act morally, I know that sometimes it won't, according to my personal views. Put another way, I know that it usually hasn't, and I'm not foolish enough to expect moral justification to suddenly swing in my favor.
I don't expect that Congress would suddenly function if we stop posturing about morality. But it couldn't hurt. And maybe then, once we've acknowledged the absence of a moral consensus about anything, our government could return to its proper business of providing citizens with the services we are willing and able to finance at tax rates that don't favor the oligarchs.
__________________________
*But who is really responsible when a big bank deceives an uneducated homebuyer and bets on their failure, all while managing to obey the law?
Monday, January 30, 2012
2012.01.28 Weekly Address: President’s Blueprint Includes Renewal of American Values
Our Government is a Laughingstock
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
For now, I am stranded in London, the result of a travel documents SNAFU. London is not such a terrible place to be stranded.
America looks quite different from across the pond. Who supports the Tea Party, anyway, the Brits ask me. Doesn't the Republican primary contest remind you of reality TV? Do you realize what the stakes are for the next election? Why are American men so obsessed with masculinity?
It's tricky for Londoners to figure out quite why American politics work the way they do, because they're used to something a bit more functional and dignified.
For the last few days, the news here has been all about a proposed welfare cap. Should an unemployed person collect more from the government than the average worker? What about additional benefits for families with children? Can we figure out a plan that is fair, humane, and without a perverse incentive to produce more babies and remain unemployed?
As in America, the debate is based on conflicting theories of what the government ought to do for its people. But here in the United Kingdom, you can see why people might disagree, and you can see where they're coming from. Whereas political sound bytes in America are scripted and calculated, often with little regard for facts or the public good, the UK elected officials speak with passion, conviction, and logical progressions of thought. They prove that two opposing positions can both make some sense. It is inspiring to hear a government argue and weigh the benefits and drawbacks of a proposed bill.
Most Londoners have been confused about why Sarah Palin or Herman Cain are taken seriously as politicians. And yes, folks like these do shame us as a nation. But our more serious problems are the sort that President Obama bemoans once again in this week's address: "the corrosive influence of money in politics," unchecked "personal ambition," and an obsession over political differences. These fundamental problems, more than any laughingstock faux politician, are what threaten our rights as citizens and quality of life.
Of course, the UK government is not perfect. But ours is just embarrassing.
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
For now, I am stranded in London, the result of a travel documents SNAFU. London is not such a terrible place to be stranded.
America looks quite different from across the pond. Who supports the Tea Party, anyway, the Brits ask me. Doesn't the Republican primary contest remind you of reality TV? Do you realize what the stakes are for the next election? Why are American men so obsessed with masculinity?
It's tricky for Londoners to figure out quite why American politics work the way they do, because they're used to something a bit more functional and dignified.
For the last few days, the news here has been all about a proposed welfare cap. Should an unemployed person collect more from the government than the average worker? What about additional benefits for families with children? Can we figure out a plan that is fair, humane, and without a perverse incentive to produce more babies and remain unemployed?
As in America, the debate is based on conflicting theories of what the government ought to do for its people. But here in the United Kingdom, you can see why people might disagree, and you can see where they're coming from. Whereas political sound bytes in America are scripted and calculated, often with little regard for facts or the public good, the UK elected officials speak with passion, conviction, and logical progressions of thought. They prove that two opposing positions can both make some sense. It is inspiring to hear a government argue and weigh the benefits and drawbacks of a proposed bill.
Most Londoners have been confused about why Sarah Palin or Herman Cain are taken seriously as politicians. And yes, folks like these do shame us as a nation. But our more serious problems are the sort that President Obama bemoans once again in this week's address: "the corrosive influence of money in politics," unchecked "personal ambition," and an obsession over political differences. These fundamental problems, more than any laughingstock faux politician, are what threaten our rights as citizens and quality of life.
Of course, the UK government is not perfect. But ours is just embarrassing.
Monday, January 23, 2012
2012.01.21 Weekly Address: America is Open for Business
Luring the Russians
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
As Brazil, China, and India develop their middle classes, the United States might benefit from an influx of curious, newly mobile tourists. President Obama speaks this week about the importance of the tourist industry and what he is doing to support it.
Led by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, Congress and the President have already passed the Travel Promotion Act of 2009. This act imposes a $10 fee on international tourists, money which is then used to support Brand USA, an entity charged with promoting the United States as a vacation spot. Now, President Obama is pushing for an easier visa application process, further development of Brand USA, and an expansion of the U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board to include a new group of CEOs in the industry.
This all will help. But if you ask a Russian (yes, Russia's middle class is growing, too) why they haven't visited America, two common responses are:
"It's too expensive to get there," or
"It's too expensive to get around once you're there."
This second issue is huge. Even if Russians could get to America for free, it would still be a better deal to visit Europe, simply because everything there is closer together. Many Russians consider a trip to America silly, but not because they don't want to come here. Their concern is that all of the best-known and most enticing places in America - New York, Miami, Las Vegas, to name a few - are so far apart. For the price of a flight from Washington to Hollywood, a Russian could fly to Paris twice or Thailand thrice. A trip to the States is not cost-effective.
It's safe to assume that Congress will not pass a bill subsidizing flights for Russians tourists who want to hit up Vegas for the weekend. But surely, we could convince Russians that it's worthwhile to visit a section of America rather than the whole thing. As for the northeast, we could capture their imaginations with glossy advertisements for Berkshire leaves while handing out spoonfuls of Ben & Jerry's ice cream. While everyone knows that one can rage on the beaches of Miami, international tourists might not realize that they can drive for an hour in one direction to the Florida Keys or in another to the Everglades. And no tour of central California would be complete without a visit to Fort Ross, the southernmost outpost of the Russian Empire, situated less than an hour from San Francisco. Brand USA is promoting travel to America, but in order to make a realistic and enticing impression, they need to showcase specific regions, rather than the Top Ten Most Famous Spots of Americana, which are undeniably scattered every which way.
Needless to say, our more serious problem with international tourism is the result of American hostility to language learning and non-Americans in general. We could start by translating signage in major cities to Mandarin, Hindi, and Spanish. But while we tackle the endemic malfunctions of our education system and national superiority complex, we might also buy some billboard space near Red Square, or perhaps simply produce some welcoming YouTube videos trumpeting all that specific regions of our country have to offer. No need to keep it a secret.
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
As Brazil, China, and India develop their middle classes, the United States might benefit from an influx of curious, newly mobile tourists. President Obama speaks this week about the importance of the tourist industry and what he is doing to support it.
Led by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, Congress and the President have already passed the Travel Promotion Act of 2009. This act imposes a $10 fee on international tourists, money which is then used to support Brand USA, an entity charged with promoting the United States as a vacation spot. Now, President Obama is pushing for an easier visa application process, further development of Brand USA, and an expansion of the U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board to include a new group of CEOs in the industry.
This all will help. But if you ask a Russian (yes, Russia's middle class is growing, too) why they haven't visited America, two common responses are:
"It's too expensive to get there," or
"It's too expensive to get around once you're there."
This second issue is huge. Even if Russians could get to America for free, it would still be a better deal to visit Europe, simply because everything there is closer together. Many Russians consider a trip to America silly, but not because they don't want to come here. Their concern is that all of the best-known and most enticing places in America - New York, Miami, Las Vegas, to name a few - are so far apart. For the price of a flight from Washington to Hollywood, a Russian could fly to Paris twice or Thailand thrice. A trip to the States is not cost-effective.
It's safe to assume that Congress will not pass a bill subsidizing flights for Russians tourists who want to hit up Vegas for the weekend. But surely, we could convince Russians that it's worthwhile to visit a section of America rather than the whole thing. As for the northeast, we could capture their imaginations with glossy advertisements for Berkshire leaves while handing out spoonfuls of Ben & Jerry's ice cream. While everyone knows that one can rage on the beaches of Miami, international tourists might not realize that they can drive for an hour in one direction to the Florida Keys or in another to the Everglades. And no tour of central California would be complete without a visit to Fort Ross, the southernmost outpost of the Russian Empire, situated less than an hour from San Francisco. Brand USA is promoting travel to America, but in order to make a realistic and enticing impression, they need to showcase specific regions, rather than the Top Ten Most Famous Spots of Americana, which are undeniably scattered every which way.
Needless to say, our more serious problem with international tourism is the result of American hostility to language learning and non-Americans in general. We could start by translating signage in major cities to Mandarin, Hindi, and Spanish. But while we tackle the endemic malfunctions of our education system and national superiority complex, we might also buy some billboard space near Red Square, or perhaps simply produce some welcoming YouTube videos trumpeting all that specific regions of our country have to offer. No need to keep it a secret.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
2012.01.14 Weekly Address: Helping American Businesses Succeed
Skin in the Game
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
President Obama intends to make the government run more efficiently, and he has asked Congress for the authority to merge redundant agencies. This latest move is part of a broad initiative to reduce the size of government and model it after a successful business.
In order for government, or anything, to run like a successful business, the people who make decisions have to have some skin in the game.
No matter what President Obama does to slim down and modernize government, he will remain saddled by this basic fact. While agency directors face budget cuts, legions of public employees operate with a fixed salary and scheduled promotions. And though government jobs are no longer "safe," employees know that their job security depends not on individual performance, but Congressional bluster and budget priorities.
If you work for the government, your job is no longer "safe." But that is beyond your control; working harder won't convince President Obama not to phase out your agency. So either you will be fired for reasons beyond your control or you will keep your job indefinitely, so long as you don't ruffle anyone's feathers. Either way, your individual performance is hardly part of the picture.
Needless to say, if you are a taxpayer, your skin is in the game. We provide the funds for this operation. The United States diplomats who don't speak the language of their post? Their skin is not in the game.
Do you live in Iraq or Iran, Israel or the Gaza Strip? Your skin is in the game. The President of the United States? Unlike career diplomats, he needs to convince Americans to vote for him in order to keep the job. His skin is in that game.
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
President Obama intends to make the government run more efficiently, and he has asked Congress for the authority to merge redundant agencies. This latest move is part of a broad initiative to reduce the size of government and model it after a successful business.
In order for government, or anything, to run like a successful business, the people who make decisions have to have some skin in the game.
No matter what President Obama does to slim down and modernize government, he will remain saddled by this basic fact. While agency directors face budget cuts, legions of public employees operate with a fixed salary and scheduled promotions. And though government jobs are no longer "safe," employees know that their job security depends not on individual performance, but Congressional bluster and budget priorities.
If you work for the government, your job is no longer "safe." But that is beyond your control; working harder won't convince President Obama not to phase out your agency. So either you will be fired for reasons beyond your control or you will keep your job indefinitely, so long as you don't ruffle anyone's feathers. Either way, your individual performance is hardly part of the picture.
Needless to say, if you are a taxpayer, your skin is in the game. We provide the funds for this operation. The United States diplomats who don't speak the language of their post? Their skin is not in the game.
Do you live in Iraq or Iran, Israel or the Gaza Strip? Your skin is in the game. The President of the United States? Unlike career diplomats, he needs to convince Americans to vote for him in order to keep the job. His skin is in that game.
Monday, January 9, 2012
2012.01.07 Weekly Address: Continuing to Grow the Economy in the New Year
Destabilizing China
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
"Insourcing American Jobs" sounds too nice to be true. When I read the four company profiles of "insourcing" leaders, it's hard to imagine that these hundreds of jobs can make a big-picture dent in the Indian IT complex or Chinese manufacturing. But let your imagination wander for a moment.
The Master Lock story is unique, an oddity, but not irrelevant. In a nutshell, conditions in China that were once ideal for manufacturing have slipped. Labor costs are rising and migrant workers have begun to agitate for better work conditions. Most of the Chinese labor force is undereducated, and a company like Master Lock seeks to hire supervisors with graduate degrees.
How will President Obama save the American economy? The Master Lock story suggests that a destabilized China leads to more "insourcing." Even if all jobs don't come directly home, America would diversify its portfolio by relocating some Chinese manufacturing.
How will President Obama destabilize China? A Facebook Revolution? Of course, some of what happened in 2011 was organic, and I believe most of the protesters were earnest in their actions. But it is abundantly clear that unrest in China would benefit the near-term American economy and boost President Obama politically.
Let your imagination wander. Is President Obama going to stand by and hope that the poor migrant laborers of China come upon enough cash to purchase bandwidth and print pamphlets? Keep in mind that the Chinese would need significantly more funding than your typical revolutionary in order to overcome heavy Internet censorship. Moreover, do you think Washington bureaucrats will wait for the President's approval before they act in the name of democracy, security, and the quest for global influence?
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
"Insourcing American Jobs" sounds too nice to be true. When I read the four company profiles of "insourcing" leaders, it's hard to imagine that these hundreds of jobs can make a big-picture dent in the Indian IT complex or Chinese manufacturing. But let your imagination wander for a moment.
The Master Lock story is unique, an oddity, but not irrelevant. In a nutshell, conditions in China that were once ideal for manufacturing have slipped. Labor costs are rising and migrant workers have begun to agitate for better work conditions. Most of the Chinese labor force is undereducated, and a company like Master Lock seeks to hire supervisors with graduate degrees.
How will President Obama save the American economy? The Master Lock story suggests that a destabilized China leads to more "insourcing." Even if all jobs don't come directly home, America would diversify its portfolio by relocating some Chinese manufacturing.
How will President Obama destabilize China? A Facebook Revolution? Of course, some of what happened in 2011 was organic, and I believe most of the protesters were earnest in their actions. But it is abundantly clear that unrest in China would benefit the near-term American economy and boost President Obama politically.
Let your imagination wander. Is President Obama going to stand by and hope that the poor migrant laborers of China come upon enough cash to purchase bandwidth and print pamphlets? Keep in mind that the Chinese would need significantly more funding than your typical revolutionary in order to overcome heavy Internet censorship. Moreover, do you think Washington bureaucrats will wait for the President's approval before they act in the name of democracy, security, and the quest for global influence?
Monday, December 19, 2011
2011.12.17 Weekly Address: Honoring Those Who Served in Iraq
Our White Grandfathers
By Leo Brown
The Iraq War is over, and many troops will become veterans after years of fighting. President Obama points out that his grandfather's generation returned from World War II "to form the backbone of the largest middle class in history." But why would we expect this to happen today?
65 years ago, America stood tall upon the shoulders of the disenfranchised and silenced. Schools across the nation were segregated. The women who sustained our industry during the war were hustled back to the kitchen. Jackie Robinson had yet to break Major League Baseball's color barrier. Japanese internment camps were just shutting their doors.
While inequality, inequity and institutional cronyism still plague our society, we have made some progress. However, this progress has left us facing a pickle that many have yet to acknowledge, let alone swallow. Because while greater opportunity has expanded America's overall potential, when you divide up our output somewhat equally, there is less for the formerly privileged. Even releasing the income of the super-rich would not change this, though it would surely help, if you factor in the bill that's about to slam our Social Security coffers.
Our higher education system is a telling case of the changes America has seen. The GI bill was crucial to the success of our grandfathers' generation, and current GI initiatives provide veterans with needed educational opportunities. But armed with bachelor's degrees, will these young men and women contribute more than the millions of unemployed college graduates? Only as a result of tax incentives for hiring veterans. And today, because college degrees are available to so many students instead of only the lucky few, a ticket to the middle class costs thousands. No longer do complimentary high school degrees pave the way to a reliable job and enough income to support a family. Many Americans can borrow to afford a BA, but we know where this strategy tends to leaves them.
We cannot realistically hold ourselves to our white grandfathers' standards, and nor should we aspire to them. If we hope to achieve a culture of equal opportunity, we'll have to give up some of the prizes enjoyed by the bullies of generations past. This means that an average white kid college graduate, the sort that might have grown up to pull the strings of society, will be lucky to get a job as a secretary.
This is equality.
Monday, December 12, 2011
2011.12.10 Weekly Address: Ensuring a Fair Shot for the Middle Class
We Need Less Freedom
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
A few minutes ago, I tweeted that the government can have some of my rights back, because I don't want them anymore.
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
A few minutes ago, I tweeted that the government can have some of my rights back, because I don't want them anymore.
I was tweeting about my unencumbered right to run, or even patronize, a fast food chain. As of now, any deft entrepreneur is free to purvey addictive poison to our confused, vulnerable citizenry. We don't need this right.
The "slippery slope" argument comes to mind. Sure, the world would be better off without McDonald's, but do we really want to go that route? Heavy-handed government control of the free market? A command economy? Sounds awfully red. And look at what happened during Prohibition, our infamous attempt to eliminate alcohol consumption. Everyone knows that Prohibition was a failure.
But if the same thing happens to Prohibition 2.0 and we become a nation of fast food moonshiners? That would be great! In fact, that would be the point. Unlike the Noble Experiment, I'm not suggesting that we mandate what people consume. Rather, we need to manipulate access in order to curb fast food's current plague status. If people want to concoct something like a Big Mac at home, more power to them.
Furthermore, by passing a thorough, unambiguous law, there would be no need to dissemble McDonald's and the other giants. They could be preserved as economic engines and symbols of American prosperity. They would simply be required to restructure and meet serious quality standards. Meal prices would rise, and the poor who wrongly believe that fast food is their cheapest option would discover frozen vegetables and rotisserie chicken in the grocery store.
In his weekly address, President Obama beseeches Republicans in Congress to authorize the creation of a consumer watchdog agency. The goal is to prevent slick, powerful interests from taking advantage of uninformed consumers who are too busy managing their personal lives to do the necessary digging. Senator Lindsey Graham has led the Republican opposition, denouncing the proposal as "something out of the Stalinist Era."
Is it just me, or are some of our liberties causing more trouble for the country than they're worth? What are we even trying to protect anymore? Hopefully, America isn't too drunk on its own ideology to notice some of the cruel, unnecessary consequences.
Monday, December 5, 2011
2011.12.03 Weekly Address: Extending and Expanding the Payroll Tax Cut
Why is the Senator at the Fair?
By Leo Brown
I don't expect Congressional Republicans to follow this line of thinking. As usual, they will reflexively disagree with the President as part of their transparent, ethically vacant effort to make him seem ineffectual.
However, since President Obama brought it up, I did a bit of research about the House and Senate vacation schedules. The statistics might make you wonder about this whole operation.
To date this year, the Senate has been in session for 155 calendar days, and the House for 160. What about you? How many days have you worked this year?
Make no mistake: many senators and congressmen work hard. Most of their days "off" are spent traveling to events in their districts, attending fundraisers, and meeting with or calling wealthy donors. Not fun. And I don't mean to suggest that their individual priorities are necessarily warped. The fact is, if they don't adhere to this system, they will lose their jobs in a flash. And they know that their replacements will be faced with the same dilemma, and that the system will remain rotten.
So what needs to happen? How can we get these men and women to spend more time doing what they were hired to do? If I were an employer, and my employees needed to spend half of their time traveling the country campaigning to keep their job, my first instinct would not be to fire them. Rather, I would try to figure out why they find themselves in such a silly predicament. Firing and replacing them would not solve my problem.
To solve our problem, we need to choose between seeing our elected officials at the county fair or at their office in the Capitol. Certainly, there is much to be gained by a Congresswoman or Senator shaking the hand of a child who might then be inspired to become an engaged citizen. But for everything, there is an opportunity cost. And maybe that same child would be equally inspired by a government that works together, as a team, to provide dignified, compassionate domestic policy, including quality education and health care.
Such cooperation will not be possible until elected officials are hauled back to Washington. Only then will they be able to hear each other's voices over the din of media and campaign bluster. Ultimately, this change will only be brought about through popular demand and action by Congress itself: legislation dictating the amount of time one may spend at events and fundraisers. But President Obama would certainly have nothing to lose by bringing up the idea. Congressional approval ratings have sat at around 12% since September, so this might be his best opportunity to capitalize on the public's frustration and bring about significant change to the dysfunctional system.
After all, isn't that why we elected him?
Monday, November 21, 2011
2011.11.19 Weekly Address: Creating an Economy Built to Last
We Are Not Alone
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
About a month ago, the traffic on this blog doubled. I couldn't figure it out. Had I become more insightful? Maybe some post had gone viral?
As it turned out, all of the new visitors were from Siberia, where I now live. Because many of my Russian friends and acquaintances want to read what I have to say. In Novosibirsk, direct communication with an American is a rare opportunity. Some people may be less interested in my ideas and simply want to practice their English. Whatever the explanation, my audience has swelled and continues to grow at a quicker rate than before.
This is an opportunity for growth that had not occurred to me, and many American businesses operate with the same narrow perspective. As President Obama mentions in his weekly address, 95% of the world's consumers live beyond our borders. But according to this Washington Post article, 99% of American businesses do not export their product.
Of course, some businesses, due to their size or industry, should not export. But 99%? This couldn't be optimal.
Existing trade laws and tariffs are less then ideal, but President Obama is working to fix this. The trade deals he announced during his Asia Pacific tour will help. The President has repeatedly signalled, through both words and action, his commitment to uphold the campaign promise of doubling American exports by 2014. Based on these facts, we can reasonably expect the government to support an economic climate conducive to exports.
But for all the government can do, American businesses need to open their minds. Because consumers are consumers, whether they hail from Westchester or Tajikistan. Americans may not be buying like they used to, but this needn't destroy our economy. By investing in international market research, businesses might realize opportunities far beyond what a healthy American economy could ever provide. We need to aggressively court the international consumer base rather than treating it like a cheap sideshow.
By viewing the global economy with a wide lens, we can continue to grow as a nation. If we repeat the mistakes of the last ten years or the habits of the last century, the world will leave us choking on its fumes.
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
About a month ago, the traffic on this blog doubled. I couldn't figure it out. Had I become more insightful? Maybe some post had gone viral?
As it turned out, all of the new visitors were from Siberia, where I now live. Because many of my Russian friends and acquaintances want to read what I have to say. In Novosibirsk, direct communication with an American is a rare opportunity. Some people may be less interested in my ideas and simply want to practice their English. Whatever the explanation, my audience has swelled and continues to grow at a quicker rate than before.
This is an opportunity for growth that had not occurred to me, and many American businesses operate with the same narrow perspective. As President Obama mentions in his weekly address, 95% of the world's consumers live beyond our borders. But according to this Washington Post article, 99% of American businesses do not export their product.
Of course, some businesses, due to their size or industry, should not export. But 99%? This couldn't be optimal.
Existing trade laws and tariffs are less then ideal, but President Obama is working to fix this. The trade deals he announced during his Asia Pacific tour will help. The President has repeatedly signalled, through both words and action, his commitment to uphold the campaign promise of doubling American exports by 2014. Based on these facts, we can reasonably expect the government to support an economic climate conducive to exports.
But for all the government can do, American businesses need to open their minds. Because consumers are consumers, whether they hail from Westchester or Tajikistan. Americans may not be buying like they used to, but this needn't destroy our economy. By investing in international market research, businesses might realize opportunities far beyond what a healthy American economy could ever provide. We need to aggressively court the international consumer base rather than treating it like a cheap sideshow.
By viewing the global economy with a wide lens, we can continue to grow as a nation. If we repeat the mistakes of the last ten years or the habits of the last century, the world will leave us choking on its fumes.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
2011.11.12 Weekly Address: Honoring Our Veterans for Their Sacrifice and Service
Plead Ignorant No More
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
Senate has passed the Returning Heroes Tax Credit, a part of the American Jobs Act, which will grant tax credit to businesses for hiring returning veterans. The idea is that America should provide for its soldiers, and that no one, after putting his or her life at risk for country, should have to suffer from unemployment. This principle, upholding the legacy of the GI Bill, found bipartisan support in the Senate.
Fiscal conservatives who support this measure have more to explain than their respect for military veterans. Why, now, should the government meddle with the economy and use tax dollars to influence business decisions? This is not consistent with their commitment to austerity and small government.
Presumably, the thought is that veterans deserve particular respect for their unique form of service. This is the sort of sentiment that Democrats and Republicans usually share.
If this is the case, it points squarely to a troubling conclusion. Though fiscal conservatives usually oppose tax credits, they blink when the beneficiaries are veterans. This is a tacit, but hardly subtle, acknowledgment that judicious fiscal stimulus does work to reduce unemployment. This, of course, is why they are supporting it: it will reduce unemployment among veterans.
But while the national unemployment rate sits at 9%, fiscal conservatives only consent to provide veterans with these benefits. As a result, no other demographic will see their unemployment rate budge. A tax credit incentive to hire recent college graduates, or single mothers, or people with purple hair could reduce their unemployment rate as well. There is now no doubt that Senate Republicans understand this concept.
With such a weak economy, many businesses are reluctant to take on more employees. The Returning Heroes Tax Credit will give some of these businesses an opportunity to safely expand and invest while shielding veterans from unemployment. Hopefully, once Americans see the concrete, indisputable results of this program, they will realize our country's potential and call upon elected officials to act in our best interest.
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
Senate has passed the Returning Heroes Tax Credit, a part of the American Jobs Act, which will grant tax credit to businesses for hiring returning veterans. The idea is that America should provide for its soldiers, and that no one, after putting his or her life at risk for country, should have to suffer from unemployment. This principle, upholding the legacy of the GI Bill, found bipartisan support in the Senate.
Fiscal conservatives who support this measure have more to explain than their respect for military veterans. Why, now, should the government meddle with the economy and use tax dollars to influence business decisions? This is not consistent with their commitment to austerity and small government.
Presumably, the thought is that veterans deserve particular respect for their unique form of service. This is the sort of sentiment that Democrats and Republicans usually share.
If this is the case, it points squarely to a troubling conclusion. Though fiscal conservatives usually oppose tax credits, they blink when the beneficiaries are veterans. This is a tacit, but hardly subtle, acknowledgment that judicious fiscal stimulus does work to reduce unemployment. This, of course, is why they are supporting it: it will reduce unemployment among veterans.
But while the national unemployment rate sits at 9%, fiscal conservatives only consent to provide veterans with these benefits. As a result, no other demographic will see their unemployment rate budge. A tax credit incentive to hire recent college graduates, or single mothers, or people with purple hair could reduce their unemployment rate as well. There is now no doubt that Senate Republicans understand this concept.
With such a weak economy, many businesses are reluctant to take on more employees. The Returning Heroes Tax Credit will give some of these businesses an opportunity to safely expand and invest while shielding veterans from unemployment. Hopefully, once Americans see the concrete, indisputable results of this program, they will realize our country's potential and call upon elected officials to act in our best interest.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
2011.10.29 Weekly Address: We Can't Wait to Create Jobs
Occupy the Government
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
It might seem that President Obama is pandering to the Occupy Wall Street movement with his recent rhetoric. He wants to tax the rich to finance our nation's future. He wants to live in a country where everyone, not only those who have already made a fortune, has an opportunity to prosper.
Of course, the President has been saying these things since before he took office, and especially in the last year during the debt fight. He repeats his conviction in this week's address.
Not long ago, I suggested that the President's agenda didn't entirely align with OWS. He has since issued an executive order to ease the burden of student debt, finally enacting legislation that Congress passed in 2010.
We are right to push the man, to ask more of him, and to be angry when he fails to deliver. But anyone who thinks that President Obama is an enemy of the cause has their head in the sand.
In this widely circulated column, Thomas Friedman describes the revolting relationship between banks and government as "a forum for legalized bribery." Even the shortest fry can see that our society is guided by perverse incentive and controlled by the corrupt and ignorant.
So the anarchist contingent of OWS would nail me to the wall for suggesting this, but I'll say it anyway. In the 2010 Congressional elections, the Tea Party won a great many seats in the House. What if OWS tries to do the same in 2012? We don't have much to lose, and now would seem to be the moment to seize. Tea Party representatives are politically weak and verifiably silly. A majority of Americans sympathize with OWS. Occupations are shooting up like dandelions. Instead of Tea Party obstruction, an OWS caucus could empower President Obama to be the progressive hero that we want and need.
Or, OWS could rally behind Jill Stein for President. Ms. Stein, a serious and immensely likable Green Party stalwart, could very well scoop up OWS momentum and usher a Republican into the White House.
The outstanding question is whether OWS can stomach an infiltration of the government. Clearly, some would prefer revolution and will settle for nothing less. But the Tea Party has shown us that a concerted effort to win seats can make an enormous difference in the workings of government. And a majority of Americans, I predict, would not support a revolution.
OWS continues to amass an impressive trove of political capital and, in a brilliant tactical move, has spent none at all. As the world unites around a cause of equity and justice, political beasts will be brought to their knees. But who, or what, will stand before them? This is for the 99% to decide.
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
It might seem that President Obama is pandering to the Occupy Wall Street movement with his recent rhetoric. He wants to tax the rich to finance our nation's future. He wants to live in a country where everyone, not only those who have already made a fortune, has an opportunity to prosper.
Of course, the President has been saying these things since before he took office, and especially in the last year during the debt fight. He repeats his conviction in this week's address.
Not long ago, I suggested that the President's agenda didn't entirely align with OWS. He has since issued an executive order to ease the burden of student debt, finally enacting legislation that Congress passed in 2010.
We are right to push the man, to ask more of him, and to be angry when he fails to deliver. But anyone who thinks that President Obama is an enemy of the cause has their head in the sand.
In this widely circulated column, Thomas Friedman describes the revolting relationship between banks and government as "a forum for legalized bribery." Even the shortest fry can see that our society is guided by perverse incentive and controlled by the corrupt and ignorant.
So the anarchist contingent of OWS would nail me to the wall for suggesting this, but I'll say it anyway. In the 2010 Congressional elections, the Tea Party won a great many seats in the House. What if OWS tries to do the same in 2012? We don't have much to lose, and now would seem to be the moment to seize. Tea Party representatives are politically weak and verifiably silly. A majority of Americans sympathize with OWS. Occupations are shooting up like dandelions. Instead of Tea Party obstruction, an OWS caucus could empower President Obama to be the progressive hero that we want and need.
Or, OWS could rally behind Jill Stein for President. Ms. Stein, a serious and immensely likable Green Party stalwart, could very well scoop up OWS momentum and usher a Republican into the White House.
The outstanding question is whether OWS can stomach an infiltration of the government. Clearly, some would prefer revolution and will settle for nothing less. But the Tea Party has shown us that a concerted effort to win seats can make an enormous difference in the workings of government. And a majority of Americans, I predict, would not support a revolution.
OWS continues to amass an impressive trove of political capital and, in a brilliant tactical move, has spent none at all. As the world unites around a cause of equity and justice, political beasts will be brought to their knees. But who, or what, will stand before them? This is for the 99% to decide.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
An Immigration Thought Experiment
Most Russians I encounter hold some strong views about illegal immigration. As Mexicans pick our tomatoes, Uzbeks, Tajiks, and other Central Asians work their construction sites and supply other low-wage labor. One interpretation of this situation is that they do a mediocre job for cheap, thus degrading the quality of Russian life and taking jobs away from citizens.
Our situation in America is rather different, regardless of editorial spin. The government does not hire Mexican farm workers, and few would argue that their work is inferior. Disgruntled Americans focus on the notion that they are keeping wages low and unemployment up.
As I discussed in my last post, this interpretation has been complicated by evidence that unemployed Americans do not accept farm labor when it is available. It is more profitable, and more reliable, to simply collect unemployment insurance. This does not seem quite right.
So I've been thinking about what the economy would look like without undocumented immigrants. For the sake of simplicity, I'll focus on agricultural labor. Here is my take: an intuitive, thought-experiment economic analysis.
*Farm wages rise. Compensation needs to be more attractive than unemployment insurance.
*Without government assistance, many farms are unable to afford the new cost of labor and go out of business. Alternatively, the government provides subsidies to aid this transition.
*American food prices rise, reflecting the high cost of labor and scarcity of domestic farms.
*Cheap food from abroad fills American markets. Food "Made in America" is now a luxury.
*Most Americans end up eating food grown in Mexico, picked by the same Mexicans who used to work here.
The demand for domestic food will never go away, but in such a scenario, it would shift to the rich and the xenophobic. Because of undocumented immigrant labor, most Americans can afford food that is grown on our soil. Without Mexican workers, some more Americans might have jobs, but they wouldn't be able to afford a tomato picked north of the border.
Our situation in America is rather different, regardless of editorial spin. The government does not hire Mexican farm workers, and few would argue that their work is inferior. Disgruntled Americans focus on the notion that they are keeping wages low and unemployment up.
As I discussed in my last post, this interpretation has been complicated by evidence that unemployed Americans do not accept farm labor when it is available. It is more profitable, and more reliable, to simply collect unemployment insurance. This does not seem quite right.
So I've been thinking about what the economy would look like without undocumented immigrants. For the sake of simplicity, I'll focus on agricultural labor. Here is my take: an intuitive, thought-experiment economic analysis.
*Farm wages rise. Compensation needs to be more attractive than unemployment insurance.
*Without government assistance, many farms are unable to afford the new cost of labor and go out of business. Alternatively, the government provides subsidies to aid this transition.
*American food prices rise, reflecting the high cost of labor and scarcity of domestic farms.
*Cheap food from abroad fills American markets. Food "Made in America" is now a luxury.
*Most Americans end up eating food grown in Mexico, picked by the same Mexicans who used to work here.
The demand for domestic food will never go away, but in such a scenario, it would shift to the rich and the xenophobic. Because of undocumented immigrant labor, most Americans can afford food that is grown on our soil. Without Mexican workers, some more Americans might have jobs, but they wouldn't be able to afford a tomato picked north of the border.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
2011.10.22 Weekly Address: Bringing Home Our Troops
The Problems Money Won't Solve
By Leo Brown
President Obama has announced that, after a decade of war and deep involvement in foreign military affairs, "the nation we need to rebuild is our own." We are at a turning point, the President suggests - Muammar Gadaffi and Osama bin Laden have been killed, American troops will leave Iraq by the holidays - and from this point, we can anticipate a more peaceful and prosperous future.
It's a remarkably pragmatic idea. We've made some progress towards our military goals, but meanwhile, our country has hit the fan, and so we'll take this moment to reconsider our game plan.
In theory, the conclusion of the Iraq War should free up some dollars that could be spent solving some of our biggest challenges: the deficit, unemployment, student debt, the education system, and infrastructure. Obviously, students shouldn't have to borrow thousands of dollars to attend a university. Schools shouldn't need to choose between a music department and a gym. And no one should have to wonder whether it's best to buy heat or medicine. We can spend our Iraq money here.
But most fifty-year-olds will never move a touchscreen so nimbly as their daughters. What are they to do when the plant shuts down?
Green and advanced manufacturing can replace some of these twentieth-century jobs. But that might not be enough. So many industries no longer need manual labor. On top of this, advanced technology, touted as our economic savior, often is designed specifically to eliminate human workers. This is their definition of success (see: E-ZPass).
Unemployed college graduates are in trouble, but their parents have it worse. The world is working quickly to make their skills obsolete. And this doesn't only affect people who are approaching retirement: millions of new adults remain undereducated and poor. Fifty years ago, they (the white and male) could have found a job in the plant. But Americans today are not going to compete with illegal immigrants for farm work; they can make more money by collecting unemployment. So what should they do instead? Start a small business? Open a wine shop? Try it. See what happens.
Our economy has seen paradigm shifts before. More than two centuries ago, Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. Until then, cotton was not a very productive crop; though it is easy to grow in the South, it took too long to pick out all the seeds. This was no longer a hindrance, and the American economic capacity skyrocketed.
Likewise, if some genius (or anyone else) can come with an idea to put our undereducated labor to work, a project that truly requires their skills, our economy will once again have a future. For now, we will continue to cannibalize our workforce, churning out "smart" technology that puts the common man out of a job.
Likewise, if some genius (or anyone else) can come with an idea to put our undereducated labor to work, a project that truly requires their skills, our economy will once again have a future. For now, we will continue to cannibalize our workforce, churning out "smart" technology that puts the common man out of a job.
It's a fast-paced world and an exciting time to be alive, but we need to work with what we've got. Our current game plan will leave a vast segment of the population unemployed and disenfranchised. This is a problem that money alone will never solve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)