Two weeks ago I introduced the idea of splitting the United States into two distinct countries, and I provided data indicating that the southeastern states were, de facto, pretty much doing this already. These states generally score low on the Human Development Index, tax their residents at low rates compared to other states, and send conservative legislators to Congress, where they block progressive legislation backed by a majority of Americans (universal health care being just one current example).
So, the question arises, why not separate formally into two distinct countries, permitting both to treat their citizens in a manner consistent with their political philosophies? Then the people who want low (or zero) taxes could live in the south and dismantle their educational and social welfare systems, while those who have a better developed sense of social justice could live in the north and develop top quality schools, hospitals, and support networks, taxing themselves accordingly.
Yes, I know it's been tried before. But circumstances change. There is no danger now of a resurgence of overt slavery based on race. This time, the north would have no incentive to oppose succession; "good riddance" would be a more logical response.
Or would it? Aside from the obvious logistical and political problems, this country's massive dilemma is much too complicated for a geographical solution.
First, and probably least important, our states are not homogeneous. So-called red states contain pockets of blue voters, and vice-versa. Even if people wanted to move to their "country of choice," the process of leaving existing homes and jobs would be disruptive at best and completely impossible for many. You think it's tough being a liberal in Mississippi now? Wait until you're only 1% of the population and the Supreme Court rules that "free speech" no longer includes dissenting from popular views. (I can't help wondering: would the ACLU be permitted to exist in a "new south"?)
Secondly, this "solution" doesn't solve the long-range problems inherent in a world where isolation is neither desirable nor possible. Unless travel between the two countries was prohibited, contagious diseases could easily spill over the border. And atmospheric pollution knows no boundaries; if the planet warms up quickly due to complete deregulation of coal-fired utility plants in the south, fences along the Mason-Dixon line will not protect those who are willing to tax themselves to maintain a healthy planet.
Thirdly, how long would the north tolerate the extreme conditions that would probably develop in states controlled by reactionaries and the self-interested upper class unfettered by our current federal laws? Ethical standards occasionally result in international intervention (e.g. to prevent genocide and famine). Conditions might develop in the south that would eventually cause Civil War II -- and how unfortunate that would be!
Finally, I doubt that geographic separation provides the best model for the resolution of human differences. Regardless of political labels, liberals and conservatives don't agree even among themselves on everything. One imagines that substantive debates already do and would still occur in the cities of Berkely and Tuscaloosa. What are the residents going to do then -- move to the extreme eastern and western boundaries of the existing metropolis and declare that there are really two legally different cities? And the process of continuous fragmentation could continue indefinitely, as new issues would inevitably arise. Do we really want to see several million countries in the world?
No, let's not take that course of action. Let's move decisions to the lowest reasonable level of government, to allow individual enclaves to live in a manner of their choosing so long as the "externalities" (negative influences on surrounding people) are minimized. Let's facilitate better communication strategies among dissenting groups and encourage tolerance and compromise where possible. Oh, by the way, we probably also need to find a way to isolate politicians at ALL levels of government from the influence of wealthy self-interests. If decisions on health-care were made in 50 different political venues, drug company, insurance company, private sector hospital, and physician association lobbyists would be showing up in all of them, showering money on as many state legislators as necessary. (You say that already happens? Gee, we do have some intractable problems, don't we?)
I guess the National Football League won't have to change its name anytime soon.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
On Reading the New York Times
If you were expecting a continuation of last week's post -- well, that comes next week. I'm going to give my readers another opportunity to comment on my "Two Nation" solution to the political mess we find ourselves experiencing. (Surely such a radical notion conjures up a few thoughts -- even though I told you I didn't really believe it was the answer!)
So, today, you get to experience vicariously the enormous pleasure I got out of reading the New York Times a few Sundays ago. Herewith, the essay I wrote in early August, saving it just for this occasion:
Yes, it's expensive to subscribe to every day home delivery. But where else, in one edition of any publication, can you read about:
* the impact of economics professors on real-life American financial meltdowns;
* the arrest of a homeless man for being homeless while he sleeps in a shelter;
* the impact of special interests on what otherwise would be an effective cap-and-trade system on carbon emissions;
* the awakening of our defense department to the security threats posed by climate change;
* the questionable ethical behavior of former Treasury secretary Henry M. Paulson during the economic turmoil of late 2008;
* the drug industry's plan to spend up to $150 million to run TV ads in support of health care change(wow, where did all that money come from? can you say "consumers"?);
* the demise of printed textbooks in favor of electronic delivery of sometimes-free content;
* the continuation of presidential signing statements;
* orthopedic problems associated with young baseball pitchers throwing too many fastballs; and
* President Obama's improvisational sense of humor?
Wait, there's more! Alberto Gonzales answers a question about his "ethical failings" by saying "All the inspector-general investigations, they're over now. They found that I had not engaged in any criminal wrongdoing." (Hmm, let me see -- is he equating unethical behavior with illegal behavior, or is he just evading the question? I report, you decide.) He follows up by saying, in response to a question about whether he has been offered a job with a law firm since le left government service, "I can understand why a company or a firm would want to make sure that the investigations are complete and there is no finding of wrongdoing before they make a hiring decision." And he's writing a book, publisher still to be identified. OK, I can relate to him on that last point.
Wait, there's STILL more! The word "fail" is becoming an adjective, as in "I'm so fail." (Is that somehow related to "Me bad"?) Human beings evolve, so does language. Who woulda thunk?
On Sunday, August 9, 2009, all this and more provided me with hours of enjoyment (not to mention the content for this blog post).
By the way, the New York Times actually has something in common with the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin -- neither is perfect. The photo of Sonia Sotomayor on page 1 of the Times, taking her oath of office as a Supreme Court Justice, says the accompanying article appears on page 12. It doesn't; it appears on page 10. (Does the Daily Bulletin make a few errors from time time? Don't get me started! Recently, a "reporter" kindly informed me that "entertaining entertainers" would be present at the Los Angeles County Fair.)
OK. I know you have 23 more blogs to read and 7 messages on your Facebook wall informing you what your friends had for dinner last night. So I'll end this here. But first, in the interest of full disclosure, I have no financial interest whatsoever in your subscribing to the New York Times! Do so only at peril of finding out what's really going on in the world.
So, today, you get to experience vicariously the enormous pleasure I got out of reading the New York Times a few Sundays ago. Herewith, the essay I wrote in early August, saving it just for this occasion:
Yes, it's expensive to subscribe to every day home delivery. But where else, in one edition of any publication, can you read about:
* the impact of economics professors on real-life American financial meltdowns;
* the arrest of a homeless man for being homeless while he sleeps in a shelter;
* the impact of special interests on what otherwise would be an effective cap-and-trade system on carbon emissions;
* the awakening of our defense department to the security threats posed by climate change;
* the questionable ethical behavior of former Treasury secretary Henry M. Paulson during the economic turmoil of late 2008;
* the drug industry's plan to spend up to $150 million to run TV ads in support of health care change(wow, where did all that money come from? can you say "consumers"?);
* the demise of printed textbooks in favor of electronic delivery of sometimes-free content;
* the continuation of presidential signing statements;
* orthopedic problems associated with young baseball pitchers throwing too many fastballs; and
* President Obama's improvisational sense of humor?
Wait, there's more! Alberto Gonzales answers a question about his "ethical failings" by saying "All the inspector-general investigations, they're over now. They found that I had not engaged in any criminal wrongdoing." (Hmm, let me see -- is he equating unethical behavior with illegal behavior, or is he just evading the question? I report, you decide.) He follows up by saying, in response to a question about whether he has been offered a job with a law firm since le left government service, "I can understand why a company or a firm would want to make sure that the investigations are complete and there is no finding of wrongdoing before they make a hiring decision." And he's writing a book, publisher still to be identified. OK, I can relate to him on that last point.
Wait, there's STILL more! The word "fail" is becoming an adjective, as in "I'm so fail." (Is that somehow related to "Me bad"?) Human beings evolve, so does language. Who woulda thunk?
On Sunday, August 9, 2009, all this and more provided me with hours of enjoyment (not to mention the content for this blog post).
By the way, the New York Times actually has something in common with the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin -- neither is perfect. The photo of Sonia Sotomayor on page 1 of the Times, taking her oath of office as a Supreme Court Justice, says the accompanying article appears on page 12. It doesn't; it appears on page 10. (Does the Daily Bulletin make a few errors from time time? Don't get me started! Recently, a "reporter" kindly informed me that "entertaining entertainers" would be present at the Los Angeles County Fair.)
OK. I know you have 23 more blogs to read and 7 messages on your Facebook wall informing you what your friends had for dinner last night. So I'll end this here. But first, in the interest of full disclosure, I have no financial interest whatsoever in your subscribing to the New York Times! Do so only at peril of finding out what's really going on in the world.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
The Two-Nation Solution
Wait! Don't call the Department of Homeland Security just yet. I'm not really advocating the overthrow of the federal government, and certainly not by forceful means. However, I do think some of the following facts, figures, and analyses will trigger brain waves leading to an interesting and possibly even useful discussion.
Consider health care reform -- something most people in this country recognize as necessary in some form or another. In addition to the massive lobbying described in previous posts, the barrier to passage is simply this: too many "nays" in the U.S. Senate, where, for historical (not constitutional) reasons, a two-thirds vote seems to be required to pass almost anything of significance.
Also consider this: the following states are currently represented in the U.S. Senate by two Republicans: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Louisiana and North Carolina have one Republican and one Democratic Senator. (I exclude Florida in this entire analysis because, from a political standpoint, it's already two states; South Florida has the hallmarks of the northern states from which many of its residents migrated, and Northern Florida resembles its neighbors Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia.)
Among the most southern states, only Arkansas is currently represented by two Democratic Senators. Since Republicans are generally more conservative and reluctant to support social programs (and to vote for the taxes that support them), it follows mathematically that if the states listed above were not part of the union, health care (and a lot more) would pass the Senate with great ease. Then the rest of us could have the kind of country we really want to live in. (OK, pardon the slight hyperbole, designed not to boil your blood but to stimulate your synapses.)
Arguably, we already have two countries -- we just don't call them that. According to "The Measure of America -- American Human Development Report 2008-2009," the south is by far the poorest performing region of the U.S. on ALL aspects of the Human Development Index (HDI) -- based on hard data measuring health, knowledge, and standard of living.
Here are the ten worst states, in order from the "bottom" -- Mississippi, West Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Montana. Texas ranks 35th, and Georgia ranks 32nd -- higher than the others but still firmly ensconced in the bottom half.
Case in point: here are the worst fifteen states to be born in if you want a long life expectancy, from the "bottom" up: Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky, South Carolina, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina, Missouri, Indiana, and Texas.
In homicides per 100,000 residents, in the year reported by this study, the U.S. average was 6. Here are the numbers for selected states: Louisiana, 13; Mississippi, 10; Alabama, 9; Georgia and South Carolina, 8; Texas and Arkansas, 7; Oklahoma, 6; Minnesota and Massachusetts, 3; and Maine, 1.
Is this state of affairs imposed by external factors on an unwilling population? Apparently not. According to the Tax Foundation, which uses data primarily from the U.S. Census Bureau, the states that tax their residents the least (taking into account sales, income, and property taxes) are, in order of increasing tax burden: Alaska (obviously a special case due to oil revenue); South Dakota, Mississippi; Tennessee, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Nevada (another special case due to the gaming industry), Montana, Alabama, South Carolina, New Mexico, Texas, and Louisiana. Putting Alaska aside, please note that 5 of the 12 remaining states listed also rank in the bottom ten of the HDI.
High tax states include New Jersey (rated 3rd from the top on the Human Development Index), New York (rated 7th), Connecticut (rated 1st), Maryland (rated 5th), Ohio (rated 31st), Vermont (rated 14th), Wisconsin (rated 19th), and Minnesota (rated 9th). (By the way, California taxes its residents at 26% above the national average and ranks 11th from the highest in terms of the HDI.)
Have I made my point? With some exceptions, the states that rank low on HDI tend to be low-taxing southern states, and apparently that's what the voters want, because they elect predominantly Republican U.S. Senators and governors. High-taxing states generally rank much higher on the Human Development Index.
So, let's just formalize what we already have and give those states that collectively want to spend money on health care, education, and general quality of life the opportunity to utilize their chosen federal government to enact such provisions legislatively. And the states that more or less don't care about such things and are unwilling to pay for them -- well, since they would probably not revert to slavery, let's send them on their merry way.
I will present some reasons next week, or the week after, why this is truly not only politically impossible but ineffective -- and possibly even counter-productive. However, in the meantime -- as always -- I welcome comments from my perspicacious and insightful readers. Why, or why do you not, feel that segmenting this already splintered and politically polarized country would be a good (or a bad) idea? And don't just say that it would become necessary to rename the National Football League.
Consider health care reform -- something most people in this country recognize as necessary in some form or another. In addition to the massive lobbying described in previous posts, the barrier to passage is simply this: too many "nays" in the U.S. Senate, where, for historical (not constitutional) reasons, a two-thirds vote seems to be required to pass almost anything of significance.
Also consider this: the following states are currently represented in the U.S. Senate by two Republicans: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Louisiana and North Carolina have one Republican and one Democratic Senator. (I exclude Florida in this entire analysis because, from a political standpoint, it's already two states; South Florida has the hallmarks of the northern states from which many of its residents migrated, and Northern Florida resembles its neighbors Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia.)
Among the most southern states, only Arkansas is currently represented by two Democratic Senators. Since Republicans are generally more conservative and reluctant to support social programs (and to vote for the taxes that support them), it follows mathematically that if the states listed above were not part of the union, health care (and a lot more) would pass the Senate with great ease. Then the rest of us could have the kind of country we really want to live in. (OK, pardon the slight hyperbole, designed not to boil your blood but to stimulate your synapses.)
Arguably, we already have two countries -- we just don't call them that. According to "The Measure of America -- American Human Development Report 2008-2009," the south is by far the poorest performing region of the U.S. on ALL aspects of the Human Development Index (HDI) -- based on hard data measuring health, knowledge, and standard of living.
Here are the ten worst states, in order from the "bottom" -- Mississippi, West Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Montana. Texas ranks 35th, and Georgia ranks 32nd -- higher than the others but still firmly ensconced in the bottom half.
Case in point: here are the worst fifteen states to be born in if you want a long life expectancy, from the "bottom" up: Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky, South Carolina, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina, Missouri, Indiana, and Texas.
In homicides per 100,000 residents, in the year reported by this study, the U.S. average was 6. Here are the numbers for selected states: Louisiana, 13; Mississippi, 10; Alabama, 9; Georgia and South Carolina, 8; Texas and Arkansas, 7; Oklahoma, 6; Minnesota and Massachusetts, 3; and Maine, 1.
Is this state of affairs imposed by external factors on an unwilling population? Apparently not. According to the Tax Foundation, which uses data primarily from the U.S. Census Bureau, the states that tax their residents the least (taking into account sales, income, and property taxes) are, in order of increasing tax burden: Alaska (obviously a special case due to oil revenue); South Dakota, Mississippi; Tennessee, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Nevada (another special case due to the gaming industry), Montana, Alabama, South Carolina, New Mexico, Texas, and Louisiana. Putting Alaska aside, please note that 5 of the 12 remaining states listed also rank in the bottom ten of the HDI.
High tax states include New Jersey (rated 3rd from the top on the Human Development Index), New York (rated 7th), Connecticut (rated 1st), Maryland (rated 5th), Ohio (rated 31st), Vermont (rated 14th), Wisconsin (rated 19th), and Minnesota (rated 9th). (By the way, California taxes its residents at 26% above the national average and ranks 11th from the highest in terms of the HDI.)
Have I made my point? With some exceptions, the states that rank low on HDI tend to be low-taxing southern states, and apparently that's what the voters want, because they elect predominantly Republican U.S. Senators and governors. High-taxing states generally rank much higher on the Human Development Index.
So, let's just formalize what we already have and give those states that collectively want to spend money on health care, education, and general quality of life the opportunity to utilize their chosen federal government to enact such provisions legislatively. And the states that more or less don't care about such things and are unwilling to pay for them -- well, since they would probably not revert to slavery, let's send them on their merry way.
I will present some reasons next week, or the week after, why this is truly not only politically impossible but ineffective -- and possibly even counter-productive. However, in the meantime -- as always -- I welcome comments from my perspicacious and insightful readers. Why, or why do you not, feel that segmenting this already splintered and politically polarized country would be a good (or a bad) idea? And don't just say that it would become necessary to rename the National Football League.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Prisons: Two Opposing Views
Strangely, the New York Times and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin both carried commentaries on 8/20/09 regarding our prison system and the wisdom of keeping so many people incarcerated. Compare and contrast -- have fun!
Nicholas D. Kristof, in the Times, suggests that we could probably afford better and more universal health care if we used our criminal justice money more wisely. He cites the example of Curtis Wilkerson, serving a life sentence in California for (hold your breath!) stealing a pair of socks worth $2.50. (Yes, it was his "third strike." I'm not claiming he's an angel. At the age of 19 he abetted robbery -- twice.) Kristof wonders whether we really need to spend $216,000 annually on keeping people like this in prison, comparing that sum to the $8,000 the State spends annually on each child in the Oakland public school system.
Citing a study indicating that 82% of those sentenced to state prisons were convicted of non-violent crimes, Kristof asks why the U.S. incarcerates people at nearly five times the world average.
U.S. Senator Jim Webb, in introducing a bill to establish a commission to study the situation, says "There are only two possibilities here. Either we have the most evil people on earth living in the United States, or we are doing something dramatically wrong in terms of how we approach the issue of criminal justice." (I have another hypothesis: in our predominantly selfish society with a wide gap between wealthy and poor, the former will go to just about any lengths to protect what they have from the latter.)
Well, enough of rational thinking. Let's see what California State Senator Bob Dutton has to say about the situation. "Everyone knows that liberals have a soft spot for criminals," he (or his ghost writer) begins, apparently having been inspired by the very first post on this blog to make a bold attempt to emulate famous writers who encapsulate entire universes of knowledge into their initial sentence. He goes on to criticize "unelected liberal judges" for requiring the state to release 43,000 inmates in the next two years. (Even assuming that the "liberal" label actually provides legitimate information, I can't help wondering whether conservative judges aren't selected in exactly the same manner. A fine point, I know.)
Never mind that legally constituted federal courts, attempting to enforce the U.S. Constitution and its prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, have mandated after years of delay and inaction (during which time Dutton has been accepting public money as both a State Senator and a State Assembly member) that the time has finally come to stop the prison overcrowding that inevitably leads, as it did recently, to riots.
Dutton says that "California already has an abysmal 70 percent recidivism rate from rehabilitation programs." Not true. We might have a 70 percent recidivism rate from prisons, but just about everybody knows (not including the Senator, apparently) that very little money is spent in this state on rehabilitation. Dutton also says it would be a crime (so to speak) for a "rehabilitated" inmate (the quotes are his, implying that a "rehabilitated inmate" would be an oxymoron) to re-enter society and accept a job during this deep recession that might otherwise be taken by a "law-abiding constituent." With attitudes like this, no wonder recidivism is high!
Not embarrassed at using fear tactics, Dutton states that unless California's liberals come to their senses soon, someone could become the victim of another wanton killing. Parolee Charles Samuel, he says, has been arrested by police and is suspected of slashing the throat of a 17-year-old high school student. (Note that he doesn't say that Charles Samuel has been convicted of this crime, only that he's been arrested; another great American principle -- innocent until proven guilty -- bites the dust.) "Releasing hardened criminals to make prison more roomy and comfortable for the remaining criminals is both foolish and short-sighted...[T]he liberals' love affair with criminals now risks the safety of every Californian -- including themselves." Perhaps the conservatives' hate affair with social justice is just as much to blame.
Suppose, hypothetically, you had to be in the same room for a couple of hours with a politician who can't use the word "liberal" without combining it with character-assassination-style insults or a guy who stole a pair of socks worth $2.50. With whom would you feel safer?
Nicholas D. Kristof, in the Times, suggests that we could probably afford better and more universal health care if we used our criminal justice money more wisely. He cites the example of Curtis Wilkerson, serving a life sentence in California for (hold your breath!) stealing a pair of socks worth $2.50. (Yes, it was his "third strike." I'm not claiming he's an angel. At the age of 19 he abetted robbery -- twice.) Kristof wonders whether we really need to spend $216,000 annually on keeping people like this in prison, comparing that sum to the $8,000 the State spends annually on each child in the Oakland public school system.
Citing a study indicating that 82% of those sentenced to state prisons were convicted of non-violent crimes, Kristof asks why the U.S. incarcerates people at nearly five times the world average.
U.S. Senator Jim Webb, in introducing a bill to establish a commission to study the situation, says "There are only two possibilities here. Either we have the most evil people on earth living in the United States, or we are doing something dramatically wrong in terms of how we approach the issue of criminal justice." (I have another hypothesis: in our predominantly selfish society with a wide gap between wealthy and poor, the former will go to just about any lengths to protect what they have from the latter.)
Well, enough of rational thinking. Let's see what California State Senator Bob Dutton has to say about the situation. "Everyone knows that liberals have a soft spot for criminals," he (or his ghost writer) begins, apparently having been inspired by the very first post on this blog to make a bold attempt to emulate famous writers who encapsulate entire universes of knowledge into their initial sentence. He goes on to criticize "unelected liberal judges" for requiring the state to release 43,000 inmates in the next two years. (Even assuming that the "liberal" label actually provides legitimate information, I can't help wondering whether conservative judges aren't selected in exactly the same manner. A fine point, I know.)
Never mind that legally constituted federal courts, attempting to enforce the U.S. Constitution and its prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, have mandated after years of delay and inaction (during which time Dutton has been accepting public money as both a State Senator and a State Assembly member) that the time has finally come to stop the prison overcrowding that inevitably leads, as it did recently, to riots.
Dutton says that "California already has an abysmal 70 percent recidivism rate from rehabilitation programs." Not true. We might have a 70 percent recidivism rate from prisons, but just about everybody knows (not including the Senator, apparently) that very little money is spent in this state on rehabilitation. Dutton also says it would be a crime (so to speak) for a "rehabilitated" inmate (the quotes are his, implying that a "rehabilitated inmate" would be an oxymoron) to re-enter society and accept a job during this deep recession that might otherwise be taken by a "law-abiding constituent." With attitudes like this, no wonder recidivism is high!
Not embarrassed at using fear tactics, Dutton states that unless California's liberals come to their senses soon, someone could become the victim of another wanton killing. Parolee Charles Samuel, he says, has been arrested by police and is suspected of slashing the throat of a 17-year-old high school student. (Note that he doesn't say that Charles Samuel has been convicted of this crime, only that he's been arrested; another great American principle -- innocent until proven guilty -- bites the dust.) "Releasing hardened criminals to make prison more roomy and comfortable for the remaining criminals is both foolish and short-sighted...[T]he liberals' love affair with criminals now risks the safety of every Californian -- including themselves." Perhaps the conservatives' hate affair with social justice is just as much to blame.
Suppose, hypothetically, you had to be in the same room for a couple of hours with a politician who can't use the word "liberal" without combining it with character-assassination-style insults or a guy who stole a pair of socks worth $2.50. With whom would you feel safer?
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Lobbying and Evolution
Just in case you have other things going on in your life besides reading my blog (LOL), let me summarize the last three weeks' posts for you. At all levels of government, lobbying is ubiquitous, influential, and dominated by wealthy special interests (frequently corporations) that spend literally billions of dollars every year to promote primarily short-term, profit-oriented outcomes designed to benefit only themselves (sometimes at great cost to others).
Surely another case in point is redundant. But major newspapers scream with examples on practically a daily basis. According to the New York Times (8/19/09), a noon rally the previous day in Houston -- the first of about 20 planned -- was designed to "organize resistance to proposed legislation that would set a limit on emissions of heat-trapping gases..." Despite its "everyman" flavor (the master of ceremonies was a local rodeo announcer), among the participants was James T. Hackett, CEO of Anadarko Petroleum, and many employees of oil companies were bused in from their workplaces. (No doubt their pay was docked for taking more than 30 minutes for lunch.) Who's behind it? A group called "Energy Citizens." Who's behind that group? The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's main trade group. If you're surprised, go to your room. (Wait! On second thought, if you're surprised, you are already spending too much time in your room.)
Here, finally (was that a sigh of relief I heard?), is my primary point. As we all know, evolution favors "survival of the fittest." With exceptions that will be introduced in weeks to come, normally survival of the fittest means behavior designed to favor the life and well-being of an individual organism. In this manner, the probability of that organism's passing its genes on to another generation increases. [Caveat: evolutionary theory can be complex; the ideas presented here are essentially accurate -- but far from comprehensive. I intend only to relate those points specifically relevant to whatever hypothesis is being described at a given point in time.]
This system worked effectively for homo sapiens in its early days thousands of years ago, when survivability meant essentially staying warm, dry, well-fed, and safe from intruders bearing spears and clubs. The last two in particular often required strength, speed, agility, and a hostile attitude toward those inclined to inflict casualties and/or steal precious resources. As a consequence, nature "selected" for future generations the kinds of behaviors that are primarily self-directed and oriented toward immediate needs. The welfare of society-at-large and the longevity of the planet did not figure into the equation. It wasn't necessary 10,000 years ago.
But evolution, for all its genius, is a notoriously slow process. According to one theory, if organisms with a beneficial mutant gene produce 5 percent more offspring, it will require about one thousand generations before virtually all organisms in that species inherit that gene. Given that one human generation equals about 25 years, it follows that even a mutation that produces substantially enhanced probability of reproductive success could require some 25,000 years to effectively permeate the species.
What we have, then, is a world that has changed exceptionally rapidly over the last 300 years or so, creating an entirely new set of survivability issues, inhabited (at least in this country) by people who have institutionalized lobbying as the legal embodiment of selfish behavior that is no longer adaptive.
For these reasons, mankind has been described by some evolutionary biologists as a "walking fossil." "Our psychological adaptations consistently produce maladaptive thought, emotion, and behavior in our modern environments." (Reference available upon request.)
And it's likely to get worse before it gets better. The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide whether to lift what little restraint remains on the amount of money corporations can spend directly on elections -- and the people who claim to know about such things are placing their bets on a 5-4 vote in favor of doing just that. It might not matter a great deal, as we have already seen that corporations find legal ways of exerting enormous influence over politicians. But I see no reason to make it worse.
Will human beings be able to avoid the cataclysmic events that could be the consequence of the evolutionary "mismatch" between our stone-age brains and the modern, global, high-tech, polluting world? Will global warming, for example, result in massive political, social, military, or social unrest? Will the continued aggrandizement of wealth by those already wealthy eventually lead to upheaval? (Are we immune from such phenomena? If you think so, you may be spending too much time in your room -- but probably not reading history books.)
Please comment on this series of posts on lobbying, evolution, and their interactive relationship before global warming melts your keyboard.
Surely another case in point is redundant. But major newspapers scream with examples on practically a daily basis. According to the New York Times (8/19/09), a noon rally the previous day in Houston -- the first of about 20 planned -- was designed to "organize resistance to proposed legislation that would set a limit on emissions of heat-trapping gases..." Despite its "everyman" flavor (the master of ceremonies was a local rodeo announcer), among the participants was James T. Hackett, CEO of Anadarko Petroleum, and many employees of oil companies were bused in from their workplaces. (No doubt their pay was docked for taking more than 30 minutes for lunch.) Who's behind it? A group called "Energy Citizens." Who's behind that group? The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's main trade group. If you're surprised, go to your room. (Wait! On second thought, if you're surprised, you are already spending too much time in your room.)
Here, finally (was that a sigh of relief I heard?), is my primary point. As we all know, evolution favors "survival of the fittest." With exceptions that will be introduced in weeks to come, normally survival of the fittest means behavior designed to favor the life and well-being of an individual organism. In this manner, the probability of that organism's passing its genes on to another generation increases. [Caveat: evolutionary theory can be complex; the ideas presented here are essentially accurate -- but far from comprehensive. I intend only to relate those points specifically relevant to whatever hypothesis is being described at a given point in time.]
This system worked effectively for homo sapiens in its early days thousands of years ago, when survivability meant essentially staying warm, dry, well-fed, and safe from intruders bearing spears and clubs. The last two in particular often required strength, speed, agility, and a hostile attitude toward those inclined to inflict casualties and/or steal precious resources. As a consequence, nature "selected" for future generations the kinds of behaviors that are primarily self-directed and oriented toward immediate needs. The welfare of society-at-large and the longevity of the planet did not figure into the equation. It wasn't necessary 10,000 years ago.
But evolution, for all its genius, is a notoriously slow process. According to one theory, if organisms with a beneficial mutant gene produce 5 percent more offspring, it will require about one thousand generations before virtually all organisms in that species inherit that gene. Given that one human generation equals about 25 years, it follows that even a mutation that produces substantially enhanced probability of reproductive success could require some 25,000 years to effectively permeate the species.
What we have, then, is a world that has changed exceptionally rapidly over the last 300 years or so, creating an entirely new set of survivability issues, inhabited (at least in this country) by people who have institutionalized lobbying as the legal embodiment of selfish behavior that is no longer adaptive.
For these reasons, mankind has been described by some evolutionary biologists as a "walking fossil." "Our psychological adaptations consistently produce maladaptive thought, emotion, and behavior in our modern environments." (Reference available upon request.)
And it's likely to get worse before it gets better. The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide whether to lift what little restraint remains on the amount of money corporations can spend directly on elections -- and the people who claim to know about such things are placing their bets on a 5-4 vote in favor of doing just that. It might not matter a great deal, as we have already seen that corporations find legal ways of exerting enormous influence over politicians. But I see no reason to make it worse.
Will human beings be able to avoid the cataclysmic events that could be the consequence of the evolutionary "mismatch" between our stone-age brains and the modern, global, high-tech, polluting world? Will global warming, for example, result in massive political, social, military, or social unrest? Will the continued aggrandizement of wealth by those already wealthy eventually lead to upheaval? (Are we immune from such phenomena? If you think so, you may be spending too much time in your room -- but probably not reading history books.)
Please comment on this series of posts on lobbying, evolution, and their interactive relationship before global warming melts your keyboard.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Lobbying: Part III
The financial meltdown of 2008 was predicted well in advance by people who understood that the repeal of regulations incorporated in the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 would result in an "oligopolistic situation" -- companies that are "too big to fail" in today's lexicon (Martin McLaughlin, posted November 1, 1999 -- complete reference available for those who inquire).
Could we, or should we, have known better? According to McLaughlin, "a financial deregulation bill was passed in the early 1980s under the Reagan Administration, lifting many restrictions on the activities of savings and loan associations...The result was an orgy of speculation, profiteering and outright plundering of assets, culminating in collapse and the biggest financial bailout in US history (at the time), costing the federal government more than $500 billion."
Why, then, did former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas and others push repeal of the 60-year-old law that had (except for the S&L situation) kept the country away from financial disaster since the Great Depression?
According to McLaughlin, in 1997 and 1998 alone, the banking, insurance, and brokerage industries spent over $300 million on lobbying. Gramm himself (or more correctly, his political action committees, but it's a fine point) collected more than $1.5 million from these three industries between 1994 and 1999.
Does lobbying buy results? Cause and effect is hard to prove. Common sense suggests that it does; in fact, if it did not, would the supposedly rational corporations continue to throw millions of dollars into it? Not likely.
Here's a typical recent news report, stating basically what we all already know: special interests exercise virtual veto power over legislation they strongly oppose. "To win industry support in enlisting more of his collegues, Mr. Durbin (Senator from Illinois) approached trade associations. Shortly after negotiations began, the American Bankers Association abandoned the talks, saying there was no compromise they could ever support. (Senator Durbin's) legislation went nowhere...There was no counterweight to that legislative muscle" (New York Times, 6/5/09).
Academic studies verify the phenomenon. David Parsley, professor of management at Vanderbilt's Owen Graduate School of Management (and his co-authors) "suggest that lobbying activities significantly and positively impact the bottom line of companies who do it. In addition, lobbying expenses appear to positively impact firms' stock prices and returns" (reference available). Kroszner and Stratmann theorize, in a paper published in the American Economic Review (Vol. 88, No. 5, Dec. 1998) that the entire Congressional committee structure facilitates the transfer of corporate contributions to powerful committe leaders.
If all this special interest lobbying worked to the benefit of the country as a whole, then who could possibly oppose it? But, for the most part, it doesn't. An entire treatise could be written on the efforts of utility and coal companies to derail environmental regulation, and the impact is dirtier air and the challenge of potentially cataclysmic climate change.
Here's a recent example: you're no doubt familiar with the "cash for clunkers" legislation that is providing large rebates to purchasers who trade in "old" vehicles for more fuel efficient models. But why were vehicles manufactured prior to 1984 excluded? According to the Los Angeles Times (8/13/09), "the restrictions were pushed by lobbyists for the Specialty Equipment Market Association, a group that represents companies that sell parts and services to classic and antique car collectors...The association opposed the entire concept because such a program could shrink the size of the market for aftermarket parts."
Is the 1984 limit in the national interest, considering that the legislation was intended primarily to reduce pollution and act as a stimulus for new car sales? "Experts at the California Air Resources Board say cars built before modern engine controls were fully developed in the 1980s are significantly dirtier than new cars. For example, a 1965 Chevrolet Malibu, when new, produced 400 times the smog-forming pollutants that a new 2010 Malibu produces...Older vehicles also are among the least fuel efficient. In 1975, the overall new-car fleet averaged just 13 mpg, compared to 22 mpg in 1985" (LA Times, 8/13/09).
Let me remind you that this series is about lobbying and its impact on achievement of national goals, e.g. "the general welfare." (Reference: Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.) Who's winning -- general welfare or special interests? It doesn't even seem to be a fair fight!
Could it be that evolution is playing a role? I'll have some ideas on that next week.
Could we, or should we, have known better? According to McLaughlin, "a financial deregulation bill was passed in the early 1980s under the Reagan Administration, lifting many restrictions on the activities of savings and loan associations...The result was an orgy of speculation, profiteering and outright plundering of assets, culminating in collapse and the biggest financial bailout in US history (at the time), costing the federal government more than $500 billion."
Why, then, did former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas and others push repeal of the 60-year-old law that had (except for the S&L situation) kept the country away from financial disaster since the Great Depression?
According to McLaughlin, in 1997 and 1998 alone, the banking, insurance, and brokerage industries spent over $300 million on lobbying. Gramm himself (or more correctly, his political action committees, but it's a fine point) collected more than $1.5 million from these three industries between 1994 and 1999.
Does lobbying buy results? Cause and effect is hard to prove. Common sense suggests that it does; in fact, if it did not, would the supposedly rational corporations continue to throw millions of dollars into it? Not likely.
Here's a typical recent news report, stating basically what we all already know: special interests exercise virtual veto power over legislation they strongly oppose. "To win industry support in enlisting more of his collegues, Mr. Durbin (Senator from Illinois) approached trade associations. Shortly after negotiations began, the American Bankers Association abandoned the talks, saying there was no compromise they could ever support. (Senator Durbin's) legislation went nowhere...There was no counterweight to that legislative muscle" (New York Times, 6/5/09).
Academic studies verify the phenomenon. David Parsley, professor of management at Vanderbilt's Owen Graduate School of Management (and his co-authors) "suggest that lobbying activities significantly and positively impact the bottom line of companies who do it. In addition, lobbying expenses appear to positively impact firms' stock prices and returns" (reference available). Kroszner and Stratmann theorize, in a paper published in the American Economic Review (Vol. 88, No. 5, Dec. 1998) that the entire Congressional committee structure facilitates the transfer of corporate contributions to powerful committe leaders.
If all this special interest lobbying worked to the benefit of the country as a whole, then who could possibly oppose it? But, for the most part, it doesn't. An entire treatise could be written on the efforts of utility and coal companies to derail environmental regulation, and the impact is dirtier air and the challenge of potentially cataclysmic climate change.
Here's a recent example: you're no doubt familiar with the "cash for clunkers" legislation that is providing large rebates to purchasers who trade in "old" vehicles for more fuel efficient models. But why were vehicles manufactured prior to 1984 excluded? According to the Los Angeles Times (8/13/09), "the restrictions were pushed by lobbyists for the Specialty Equipment Market Association, a group that represents companies that sell parts and services to classic and antique car collectors...The association opposed the entire concept because such a program could shrink the size of the market for aftermarket parts."
Is the 1984 limit in the national interest, considering that the legislation was intended primarily to reduce pollution and act as a stimulus for new car sales? "Experts at the California Air Resources Board say cars built before modern engine controls were fully developed in the 1980s are significantly dirtier than new cars. For example, a 1965 Chevrolet Malibu, when new, produced 400 times the smog-forming pollutants that a new 2010 Malibu produces...Older vehicles also are among the least fuel efficient. In 1975, the overall new-car fleet averaged just 13 mpg, compared to 22 mpg in 1985" (LA Times, 8/13/09).
Let me remind you that this series is about lobbying and its impact on achievement of national goals, e.g. "the general welfare." (Reference: Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.) Who's winning -- general welfare or special interests? It doesn't even seem to be a fair fight!
Could it be that evolution is playing a role? I'll have some ideas on that next week.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Lobbying (continued from last week)
In last week's post I described the ubiquitous nature of lobbying in California. I doubt that any reader will find it difficult to extrapolate this situation to the national scene, where lobbying is legendary and the "game" is played for very high stakes -- billions if not trillions of dollars.
The amount of money spent on lobbying reveals the importance of the activity to those with skin in the game. Before I throw a few numbers at you, however, let me reassure you that I strongly support the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, certainly including the right to free speech. If lobbying were limited to presenting information to governmental officials and attempting to persuade them to engage (or not engage) in certain activities, I wouldn't be writing this. But common knowledge about Political Action Committees, gifts and travel, etc., added to the fact that lobbying involves far more money than could ever be spent on education and persuasion alone, leads us to the inevitable conclusion that more than free speech is involved.
OK, are you ready for some stark statistics? According to the Center for Responsive Politics (visit the website at OpenSecrets.org), total lobbying at the federal level alone in 2008 amounted to $3.30 billion. That's well over twice the amount spent ten years earlier. It's also about $1,000 for every man, woman, and child living in the United States -- every year -- without even including the prodigious amounts spent on lobbying at the state and local levels.
According to The Hill, a congressional newspaper with a special focus on business and lobbying, the top 100 lobbying firms posted revenue of $414 million in the first half of 2009. Firms ranked 101 to 200 brought in another $125 million. Extrapolating to the full year, it follows that the top 200 lobbying firms in the country will rake in well in excess of $1 billion in 2009.
These numbers may under-report the truth. Some companies don't register their in-house lobbyists unless and until some watchdog agency calls them on the carpet (Archer Daniels Midland is one example, according to The Hill). Therefore, those expenditures don't get reported.
Needless to say, these lobbying efforts are focused on accomplishing specific objectives. So I know you won't be surprised that health care, insurance, and finance companies spent a bundle recently. In fact, according to the New York Times (8/2/09), the health care industry spent $263.3 million on lobbying in the first half of 2009. The combined finance, insurance, and real estate industries came in a close second at $222.7 million. PhRMA, the powerful association of pharmaceutical companies, spent $6.1 million, up 23% compared to the comparable period in 2008.
Do you suppose that companies receiving TARP funds from the government (bail-out money!) ceased their lobbying activities, claiming poverty? Nope. According to the Commonwealth Institute, TARP recipients spent $114 million on lobbying in 2008, including $14.8 million during the last quarter alone when "relief" funds were actually being distributed.
What exactly does all this lobbying buy? (Academic studies, as well as articles in the popular media, give us the answer.) In what ways did lobbying result in the financial meltdown to begin with? Stay tuned, faithful readers!
The amount of money spent on lobbying reveals the importance of the activity to those with skin in the game. Before I throw a few numbers at you, however, let me reassure you that I strongly support the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, certainly including the right to free speech. If lobbying were limited to presenting information to governmental officials and attempting to persuade them to engage (or not engage) in certain activities, I wouldn't be writing this. But common knowledge about Political Action Committees, gifts and travel, etc., added to the fact that lobbying involves far more money than could ever be spent on education and persuasion alone, leads us to the inevitable conclusion that more than free speech is involved.
OK, are you ready for some stark statistics? According to the Center for Responsive Politics (visit the website at OpenSecrets.org), total lobbying at the federal level alone in 2008 amounted to $3.30 billion. That's well over twice the amount spent ten years earlier. It's also about $1,000 for every man, woman, and child living in the United States -- every year -- without even including the prodigious amounts spent on lobbying at the state and local levels.
According to The Hill, a congressional newspaper with a special focus on business and lobbying, the top 100 lobbying firms posted revenue of $414 million in the first half of 2009. Firms ranked 101 to 200 brought in another $125 million. Extrapolating to the full year, it follows that the top 200 lobbying firms in the country will rake in well in excess of $1 billion in 2009.
These numbers may under-report the truth. Some companies don't register their in-house lobbyists unless and until some watchdog agency calls them on the carpet (Archer Daniels Midland is one example, according to The Hill). Therefore, those expenditures don't get reported.
Needless to say, these lobbying efforts are focused on accomplishing specific objectives. So I know you won't be surprised that health care, insurance, and finance companies spent a bundle recently. In fact, according to the New York Times (8/2/09), the health care industry spent $263.3 million on lobbying in the first half of 2009. The combined finance, insurance, and real estate industries came in a close second at $222.7 million. PhRMA, the powerful association of pharmaceutical companies, spent $6.1 million, up 23% compared to the comparable period in 2008.
Do you suppose that companies receiving TARP funds from the government (bail-out money!) ceased their lobbying activities, claiming poverty? Nope. According to the Commonwealth Institute, TARP recipients spent $114 million on lobbying in 2008, including $14.8 million during the last quarter alone when "relief" funds were actually being distributed.
What exactly does all this lobbying buy? (Academic studies, as well as articles in the popular media, give us the answer.) In what ways did lobbying result in the financial meltdown to begin with? Stay tuned, faithful readers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)