PROBLEMS WITH THE GOVERNMENT
Alter the Government: The government is required to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying, in safety and tranquility, their natural rights and the blessings of life. Whenever this requirement is not met, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, happiness, and prosperity. The idea behind having members of the house of representatives chosen every second year and members of the senate chosen every sixth year is that if there is a bad element in the government, theoretically, there are ample opportunities to remove and replace that individual. The reality is that it is very difficult to dislodge a congressman or senator regardless of their performance once they become elected to the position. It’s time to alter the government.
Freedom of Bribery? The Constitution guarantees our freedom of speech which means we have the freedom to speak about ideas, thoughts, feelings and opinions. Somehow our freedom of speech got confused with a freedom to pay politicians gobs of money in return for special favors when it comes time for them to write legislation. The Constitution does not mention a freedom of bribery.
Judges will usually pass unfair judgments if they receive any kind of payment from one of the parties that they are judging—it’s a conflict of interests. They simply cannot and will not be impartial if they are receiving bribes. The same holds true for the legislature. Unfortunately, since the system is already set up in this way, it is not likely that congressman will vote to strip away many of the financial benefits that they enjoy.
Many ordinary Americans are aware of the bribery going on in the legislative branch and have come to accept it as an integral part of lawmaking. In Washington, DC, it is accepted that a lobbyist's generous campaign contribution to a crucial congressman may help to steer some spending to the lobbyist's client. But proving corruption requires proving the intent to exchange one favor for another. Brent Wilkes, named as a co-conspirator in the bribery case of California congressman Duke Cunningham, told the New York Times about a lesson he was taught early in his lobbying career: a check must never be handed over at the same time as a lobbying pitch is made. Much better to wait and do it in a hallway later. Proving intent in a courtroom is famously hard to do, so few such exchanges result in convictions.
The amount spent on lobbying America’s federal government has risen from $1.4 billion in 1998 to $3.5 billion in 2009. See this website for source information: opensecrets.org Spending on electioneering has shot up, too. In 2000, the total for all federal elections was $3.1 billion; in 2008 it was $5.3 billion. The main danger of money in politics is not that the rich will buy an election, but that the rich will lobby the victor for favors after contributing to their campaigns. A tax break here, a subsidy there and soon you are talking about real money. In America, lobbying by hospitals and drug firms soared as Congress debated Obama’s health reforms, which is perhaps why the bill that passed in 2010 was so full of pork. Also in 2010, lobbying by coal firms helped to stymie American action against global warming.
Politicians Beg for Campaign Contributions from the Rich: Politics are more and more becoming a shabby conspiracy among money hustlers. Politicians spend much of their time trying to beg for campaign contributions from the rich. Big spenders shop for compliant statesmen and expect big favors in return for campaign contributions. Politicians are scrambling to return favors to the people who contribute to their campaigns rather than pursuing the national interest. The estimated amount spent in the 2000 elections was $3 billion.
Campaign Contributors Bribe Politicians: Campaign contributions act as a tax that is unique to democracies in that one is not required to pay this tax, but if one does not pay it to one’s representative in congress, one will not be represented very well. The minute a member of congress receives a campaign contribution, she loses her ability to legislate in an impartial manner and becomes beholden to the person or organization that paid her the campaign contribution, because if she writes laws and supports laws that help her contributor, she can be assured of similar payments from the contributor in future campaigns. However, if she writes laws or supports laws that are contrary to the wishes of the contributor then she can expect future payments from that contributor to be withheld. Impartial legislators write laws that are most beneficial to society.
Politicians easily influenced by large campaign contributors create economic policies that increasingly cater to the interests of their contributors while public services for the population at large are starved of resources. Our congressmen must stop being paid off by the people who are being directly affected by their lawmaking. Congressmen must base their legislative decisions solely on the good of society. Politicians have the capacity to rectify many of society’s problems, but they squander this unique opportunity in exchange for their own selfish acquisition of money to help them get re-elected.
During the presidential campaign of 1904, J.P. Morgan had said that Roosevelt would be lucky to raise more than $1,000 in the whole financial district because Wall Street disliked Roosevelt due to his trust busting policies (in his first term, Teddy Roosevelt had broken up Northern Securities, then the largest railroad conglomerate of the time). J.P. Morgan contributed $100,000 following up with $50,000 more—a lot of money back then. Wall Street virtually stood in line to donate large sums of money to Roosevelt's campaign as realization spread that he was likely to be elected for his second term by a historic majority. These campaign contributors were donating money to Roosevelt not because they believed he had the best policies, but because they were trying to bribe him. “I’ll give you money, and when you are writing and enforcing laws and regulations as the President, you’ll go easy on me.” The flood of money became an embarrassment for Roosevelt. Did all these men imagine they were buying him? “Corporate cunning has developed faster than the laws of nation and state,” he remarked to a reporter. “Sooner or later, unless there is a readjustment, there will come a riotous, wicked, murderous day of atonement.” Roosevelt was morally strong enough to not allow himself to be bribed. Other politicians are not so savvy.
The Government is Responsible for Regulating Companies: The government has the important responsibility of guiding industry through regulation in order to keep in check industry’s abuses, but the government can’t do it’s job properly if it is controlled by the people and organizations it should be regulating. Industry is essential to the welfare of the people of this country, but its main goal is to maximize profits. These vested interests discourage, delay and obstruct the use of environmentally friendly technologies because implementation of these technologies would have a negative financial impact on their business models. American businesses are to a large extent in control of the government; this must be reversed.
Externalities: An externality is an incidental consequence of some economic activity that can be detrimental to someone who neither controls the activity nor is intentionally served by it. The emission of pollutants constitutes one of the most clear-cut examples of a detrimental externality. The smoke from a chemical plant affects persons other than the management of the plant or its customers. Because the incidental damage done by the smoke does not enter the financial accounts of the firm that produces the emissions, the owners of the firm have no financial incentive to restrain those emissions, particularly since emission control costs money. Instead, they will find it profitable to produce their chemical product and to emit their smoke as though it caused no external damage to the community. Externalities are the primary cause of market failure (the failure of the capitalist market system to work properly). Companies would rather not fairly and properly deal with the detrimental externalities that they impose on society. Up to now they have been astute at neglecting their responsibility to deal with their externalities. A 2011 analysis by Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney of the Brookings Institution concludes that if the damage to human health and the local environment by soot and sulphur from coal-fired power stations were factored into energy costs, the price of a kilowatt hour from an American coal-fired power station would more than double.
back to top of TABLE
OF CONTENTS
back to PROBLEMS WITH THE
GOVERNMENT
back to CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS
BRIBE
POLITICIANS
Forces Against Environmental Regulations: The oil industry has a powerful lobby and the people in control of the oil industry have been running a highly profitable business, they do not want to hear that the party will soon be over. They rule almost exclusively for their own gratification, with indifference if not outright contempt for the common good. The values of large companies and the US government are shabby. These second-rate values are mimicked by individual citizens. Not only are these industry leaders against new environmental regulations, they also want to reverse any environmental regulations that are already in place. These regulations are viewed as obstacles that restrain their profit levels. Other oil producing nations such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq do what they can to deflect American measures aimed at energy conservation.
There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. The reformer has enemies in all those who profit from the old order. The people and organizations most influential in bringing about environmental reforms through regulation happen to be those who have the biggest interest in blocking these reforms.
The Executive Branch’s Voluntary Approach to Solving Environmental Problems: When President Bush (the son) was in office he pulled out of the Kyoto treaty on global warming, rejected stricter fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks and destroyed new standards for arsenic in drinking water. He has also pushed tax cuts for energy exploration on public land, and he devised new rules that allow mining companies to fill in valleys and streams with waste. His administration expedited the permit-granting process for power companies, enabled logging companies to build new roads in national forests and sought to open the Alaskan wilderness to oil explorations. He announced measures that allow old electricity generating coal plants that do not comply with current emissions rules set forth in the Clean Air Act to continue to operate. He thinks that the best way to protect the environment is to encourage big business to voluntarily implement pollution controls. It is a well known fact that voluntary programs are weak and unreliable. The voluntary approach has had predictable results. The US’ greenhouse gas emissions have soared. When it comes to environmental policy, the Bush administration is not the exception; it’s the rule. Every administration thinks in the short term; elections and partisan pressure overpower the will to help fix the system’s problems. The executive branch suffers from a chronic lack of preparation to avoid or cope with disasters such as hurricanes, floods, terrorism and global warming.
Politicians in the Legislative Branch Represent the People: The main reason the US broke free from England in the Revolutionary War was taxation without representation. Who’s representing me now? I know that there are people in the legislature who are supposed to be representing me, but it seems to me that they are only representing a select few. I’m experiencing taxation in a big way and I don’t feel like I’m being properly represented by anyone. I don’t want to start a revolution, but I would sure as hell like to fix it.
Checks and Balances, Help from the Judicial Branch: The judicial branch lacks the capacity to make major improvements to our society.
back to top of TABLE
OF CONTENTS
back to PROBLEMS WITH THE
GOVERNMENT
back to FORCES AGAINST ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATIONS
Problems with the Lobby System: Lobbyists encourage Congress to give subsidies to specific industries, persuade Congress to keep in place protectionist tariffs and quotas, and encourage Congress to protect specific industries from tough regulation and costly lawsuits. The art of persuasion works so effectively because it's sanctioned bribery.
Companies and other organizations spent a record $3.5 billion on lobbying in 2009, much of it targeted on the administration's health and energy bills. And this includes only what was recorded by registered lobbyists, not money spent for grassroots organizing, coalition-building, advertising and advocacy on the internet. The total spent on lobbying in Washington in 2009 was estimated at $9 billion.
Lobbying is very lucrative for corporations. One of various studies found that for every dollar spent on lobbying the outright return was $220. Various laws have been proposed or enacted to curtail lobbying, with limited success.
Oil Lobby: The energy bill that was passed during the Bush Administration (2000-2008) gave aid to larger oil companies and refiners who wanted protection against environmental lawsuits because one of their products, the gasoline additive MTBE, was contaminating drinking water in hundreds of communities. House leaders insisted an MTBE waiver be part of energy legislation. Oil lobbyists were able to persuade congressmen to protect the oil industry from MTBE lawsuits. This is a typical service that the oil lobby performs for society.
The energy companies' voices tend to be heard loud and clear in Washington, DC. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the energy industry has been the fourth-biggest spender in 2009 out of 13 sectors. In the first ten months of 2009 the energy industry lavished $300 million on 2,225 lobbyists in Washington, DC. It handed twice as much in campaign contributions to opponents in Congress of climate change legislation (legislation that would implement a cap and trade system on carbon dioxide) than to its supporters.
Agribusiness Lobby: In the US, 87% of the food comes from 18% of the farms so most of these subsidies are going to large wealthy farmers who are eroding top soil and poisoning the ground water (and the food) with chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The last American farm bill provided $170 billion in subsidies for American farmers over ten years and was generated in large part by commodity lobbies and agribusiness. The federal government spent over $20 billion on farm subsidies in 2005. Six out of ten American farmers get no federal money, while 10% of farmers get 72% of the subsidies. Nor are these small struggling family farmers. Over half the subsidies go to large commercial farms. The American food industry’s influence in shaping federal farm legislation is excessive. In 1998 alone, food and agricultural lobbyists spent $52 million on Capitol Hill. America’s agribusiness lobby has stifled the government’s regulatory power, helped create a seasonless and regionless diet, and hampered the government’s ability to offer sound scientific nutritional advice. These subsidies angered trading partners and allies, weakened the already fragile economies of agriculture exporting third world nations and undermined world trade by encouraging protectionist policies on the part of the rest of the world. It did however help to enrich large American farmers.
Integration of emerging economies into the global marketplace results from increased international trade between richer more developed countries and poorer more unstable countries. Increased international trade requires the US to be willing buyers of products of emerging economies. These products mostly consist of agricultural goods and textiles because these are products that are easiest for poorer countries to make and sell. Unfortunately, trade liberalization is costly for some domestic industrial and political interests so it’s a difficult issue to push through congress because the agribusiness lobby is a very powerful lobby that is against dropping tariffs and quotas.
Automotive Lobby: The automotive lobby is persuasive in keeping the minimum fuel efficiency standards low. In 2005, the average fuel economy of new vehicles in America was close to a 20-year low.
Trial Lawyers Lobby: Trial lawyers are another group taking advantage of the power to bribe congressmen with campaign contributions. Trial lawyers earn 30% to 50% of all settlements and have one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. The US’s torts system pays out approximately $180 billion annually of which only 20% of the money goes to claimants for economic damages. In a number of mass tort cases, such as asbestos litigation, courts have begged congressmen to intervene, but politicians hesitate. Reform would reduce payments to a constituency that recycles settlement money into political contributions.
Corporate Lobby: Ever since Enron went bankrupt, Congress was breathing fire about audit reform, including tougher regulation of accountants and banning firms from doing consulting work for their audit clients. This fire was deftly extinguished by deep-pocketed corporate lobbyists. In 2011, industrial tax breaks were worth $1 trillion a year in America.
back to top of TABLE
OF CONTENTS
back to PROBLEMS WITH THE
GOVERNMENT
back to PROBLEMS WITH THE LOBBY
SYSTEM
Fossil Fuel Subsidies: The executive branch proposes (through its budget) and the legislative branch authorizes subsidies to the oil, coal, and nuclear industries. With the possible exception of agriculture, the energy industry enjoys more outrageous subsidies, market distortions and other forms of disguised aid than any other industry. In a recent energy bill passed in November of 2003, the oil and gas industry received subsidies of $22 billion. The economic effect of any subsidy is to cause the industries that benefit from them to artificially increase output. This energy bill gave nuclear industry more than $7 billion while the coal industry got $8 billion. All of the monies granted to these industries in the form of subsidies are paid to these industries with money collected from taxpayers. In the 2005 energy bill, a vast majority of the bill’s $14.5 billion in tax incentives went to the coal, natural gas, nuclear power and oil industries. The bill also calls for an inventory of oil and gas on federal lands that are now protected from drilling (the inventory will be used in the event that this land becomes unprotected from drilling).
In 2012, the World Bank reckoned that governments subsidize environmentally and economically harmful activities to the tune of about $1.2 trillion a year: $500 billion on cheap fossil fuels; $300 billion on cheap or free water; $400 billion on fishing and farm subsidies (though not all of these are environmentally harmful).
Subsidies granted to the fossil fuel industries create an insurmountable barrier to entry for clean renewable energy technologies. It is often cited that energy from clean renewable technologies is more costly than energy derived from fossil fuels. If this cost comparison were adjusted so that the billions of dollars in subsidies granted to fossil fuels were shifted to the clean energy technologies, the outcome would be that clean energy technologies would be the cheaper alternative.
Most studies done on nuclear economics (including the most authoritative ones, done by MIT and Britain’s Royal Institute of International Affairs) conclude that new nuclear plants built by the private sector, with investors bearing the full brunt of risks, are not economic without subsidy. The most recent energy bill would give the nuclear industry about $500 million in insurance against the risk of regulatory delays and a further $6 billion in subsidies now being considered for new nuclear plants.
Recent Oil Profits: Exxon Mobil is the company that posted the highest annual profit in the history of mankind with 2005 profits of $36.1 billion. That works out to over 690 million dollars per week in profit for every week of the year. Royal Dutch Shell earned $23 billion in profit in 2005, the highest annual profits in British history. While Exxon Mobil enjoys these enormous profits, it is receiving taxpayer assistance in the form of government subsidies. The CEO of Exxon, Lee Raymond, has gone on record saying that he thinks renewable energy is “a complete waste of time”. He has argued in the past that global warming is an unscientific notion perpetuated by government scientists in search of funding.
Sliding Towards Plutocracy: The US is becoming more of a plutocracy (control of the government by the wealthy). 75% of total political campaign contributions to presidential and congressional elections are from families with incomes above $200,000 a year. Voter turnout is declining and is lowest among lower-income workers. Tax cuts are being passed for people with high incomes, and the government is trying to make estate tax reductions permanent (a tax cut that only benefits the wealthy). Our country is sliding towards plutocracy and this has resulted in a weakening of democratic values that have had destructive effects on economic and income growth.
When China, a country growing in strength, creates policies and laws, these policies are not going to be driven by a concern for the greater good, whether of the Chinese people or the region as a whole, but by what is good for maintaining party control. Similarly, as the US becomes more of a plutocracy, more of the US’ policies will not being driven by a concern for the greater good, whether of the US people or the region as a whole, but by what is good for maintaining plutocratic control.
Using Military Intervention as a Solution: The US has a short-sighted view that military intervention is an effective foreign policy tactic, but there are a number of reasons why military intervention is generally ineffective. Military intervention leads to the death of many innocent people, mostly foreigners but Americans too. Violence begets violence. The US used its military might to impose regime change on Afghanistan and Iraq. This has triggered an enormous amount of anti-American resentment by the people who live in these countries who believe that the foreign troops who occupy their land are there, not to help them, but to stay in control of oil interests that do not belong to them. The Afghanistan and Iraq regime changes have led to the captivity and sanctioned torture of suspected terrorists in US run foreign prisons. The Bill of Rights explicitly prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. These methods are not effective if you are trying to stabilize an emerging economy.
Large Deficits, Large Government: It is irresponsible to run up one’s credit card bill to levels that one can’t pay back. It puts one in a situation where they are only paying interest and not paying down principal. Deficit spending is just as irresponsible at the macroeconomic level as it is at the personal level. Government spending should more or less match tax revenues. If the government wants to spend more, then it should tax more. If the government wants to tax less, then it should spend less. One way to reign in the current deficit is to shrink the size of the government. Smaller government forces the government to become more efficient by cutting out unnecessary bureaucracy. In 2005, America’s federal budget deficit was $318 billion and its current-account deficit was $805 billion.
Problems with the Press: Journalism works well, wrote Walter Lippmann, when it can report the score of a game or a transatlantic flight, or the death of a monarch. But where the situation is more complicated, as for example, in the matter of the success of a policy, or the social conditions among a foreign people--that is to say, where the real answer is neither yes or no, but subtle, and a matter of balanced evidence, journalism causes no end of derangement, misunderstanding, and even misrepresentation. Lippmann assumed a public that is slow to be aroused and quickly diverted and is interested only when events have been melodramatized as a conflict. Lippman proposed the creation of intelligence bureaus which would be given access to all the information they needed to judge the government's actions without concerning themselves much with democratic preferences or public debate. John Dewey, another author, did not dispute Lippmann's contention regarding journalism's flaws or the public's vulnerability to manipulation, but Dewey criticized Lippmann's trust in knowledge-based elites. A class of experts is inevitably so removed from common interests as to become a class with private interests and private knowledge. The man who wears the shoe knows best that it pinches and where it pinches, even if the expert shoemaker is the best judge of how the trouble is to be remedied.
Marketing to the Masses: Marketing practices by industry and government effectively influence and manipulate the minds of the masses. A special point of view, emphasis, or interpretation in a cleverly worded message combined with an expensive media campaign enables the government and large organizations to persuade the majority of television viewers that just about anything is true. Marketing and advertising must be carefully regulated so that abuses of these powerful mind control tools of mass persuasion are minimized and so that the truth cannot be so easily obscured. One place to start is by limiting a company’s ability to target young children with advertisements. Companies have discovered that it is often more effective to recruit a child as an in-home marketer than to try to convince a parent to buy their products. Children are now influencing purchasing decisions for grown-up items such as cars and holidays, and firms are responding accordingly. With websites and cable channels devoted entirely to their interests, today's children are far more exposed to marketing than their parents or grandparents were. Currently companies are legally able to advertise to three-year-olds.