Why Did They Write the Second Amendment?

It's interesting to think about why the Founders needed the Second Amendment when the power of Congress to organize the Militia was written in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Gun-rights advocates, please take note: it clearly states here that the purpose of the Militia is to suppress insurrections and repel invasions -- not to overthrow the government.

And, as Jefferson, Hamilton and Madison all wrote, the main reason they wanted Militias was to avoid having a standing army, which was a trademark of tyrannical governments in Europe.

In a 2013 interview, Ruth Bader Ginsberg said, "The Second Amendment has a preamble about the need for a militia ... Historically, the new government had no money to pay for an army, so they relied on the state militias," she said. "The states required men to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their home so that when they were called to do service as militiamen, they would have them. That was the entire purpose of the Second Amendment."

So, they needed the 2nd Amendment to ensure that the troops would have arms -- and it also gave them the right to bear arms divorced from the need to get them from the Federal government, which could also take them away. The 2nd Amendment was placing both the right and burden of bearing arms on the people and the states and it was a way to not have to finance it.

And while the 2nd Amendment was clearly about bearing arms in the context of a Militia, there is at least one indication in Hamilton's Federalist Paper 29 that letting the people bear arms also did provide protection against the Federal government in those instances when a large army needed to be called up. This is the quote the gun-rights advocates should be putting on their memes, not the fake George Washington quote they always pass around. Hamilton wrote:

"if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

Of course, too long and too complex in thought to fit on a meme or a bumper sticker. Also, not actually written in any law and best read in the context of all of Federalist 29 and Article I, Section 8, but it is the only quote I have seen that gives some credence to the notion that the 2nd Amendment was at least partially intended to arm the people against a tyrannical government in command of a standing army.

Healthy Capitalism

The recent budget battle elevated the profile of Elizabeth Warren and exposed a startling alignment between the progressive Left and Tea Party Right. Conservative bloggers gushed in admiration as Senator Warren expressed outrage over Congress giving banks bailout protection for risky bets:

"I hope that Sen. Warren will run for president in 2016 to force a national conversation on the Washington-Wall Street power nexus," The American Conservative's Rod Dreher wrote. "Hillary Clinton won’t talk about it. You know that no Republican presidential candidate will talk about it (with the possible -- possible -- exception of Rand Paul). We all need to be talking about it. A populist who talks like Elizabeth Warren and really means it is a Democrat a conservative like me would consider voting for, despite her social liberalism."

While there appears to be some alignment on this issue between the far right and left, there is an ideological split underlying the debate. For example, Democrats and Republicans have two completely different responses to the Great Depression. Libertarian conservatives, who control the GOP agenda, didn’t want bailouts and would have preferred to let the banks fail and have America experience another Great Depression.

They believe that the only way for Americans to be free is to learn the lessons of the Depression the hard way, the way our parents and grandparents and great grandparents did. Let the market work the pain through the system, FDR be damned.

So, does Rod Dreher dig Warren because she has a spine? Or, does he actually agree with her call to keep the Dodd-Frank regulation in place? Is there some new breed of moderate conservative commentator emerging?

According to the conservative "no bailouts" line of thinking, if Americans had experienced massive poverty and a Depression due to the housing crisis, that would have been preferable to bailouts. The magical free market and private charity would have cared for all. Trickle-down economics would have eventually created prosperity as benevolent "job creators" let the "invisible hand" pick winners and losers based on their true worth and hard work, freed from the shackles of affirmative action and state-sponsored welfare. It’s a completely ideological argument that has a humanitarian message at its core, even though it is a completely utopian, Ayn Rand fiction-like way to make public policy.

Democrats on the other hand would rather have us not re-learn the lessons of the Depression first-hand, but believe we should learn from the lessons of history and apply government policy like FDR’s, so we can stave off the pain and suffering wrought by a depression.

We don’t want bailouts either and want to create policies like the one in Dodd-Frank that was just eliminated, which will make it less likely that a bailout will ever be necessary.

The point of a Federal regulation like Dodd-Frank and Glass-Steagall is not to create a Big Government takeover, but it is to eliminate pain and suffering, literally the massive starvation and death (and that doesn’t even include the impending fascism) brought by depressions.

Along with regulation, fiscal stimulus is also essential to allowing for a healthy form of capitalism. Stimulus spending in infrastructure and development is temporary, and once the private economy gets back on its feet, public spending can pull back. Why is it so hard for Democrats to communicate that message?

I know very few Democrats who actually want government to stay and grow big. I think most of us just want government that can step in and step out as needed. The thing that most independents fear about Democrats is that we're secretly socialists who want to nationalize everything. I think only about 15% of all Democrats actually want that.

Perhaps a notion of “Healthy Capitalism” is one that Democrats could embrace as it would have broad appeal to independents. Helping voters understand that most Democrats are capitalists who just want the right mix of public spending and regulation to allow capitalism to work could be a winning message. This is what worked in the US from 1932 to 1981, helping most Americans grow and prosper and not just the elite, billionaire class. 

Government Is Not the Problem

Anywhere you have a free-rider problem, government and public investments are usually a better solution than private enterprise.

The primary industries where this is the case are:

Police & Defense
Education
Health Care
Roads & Bridges 
Firefighting
Disaster Relief
Space Exploration
Foreign Diplomacy
Food Safety
Environmental Protection
National Parks 
Retirement Insurance
Air Traffic Control 
Savings Deposit Insurance (FDIC)
Poverty Assistance
Elections

Everything else should be left primarily to private enterprise. The problem with a devotion to Reagan's old saw, "Government is not the solution to our problem, it is the problem" is that it often translates into the belief that government should only do the first item on the list above. 

And, if you think government should do practically nothing, you mistakenly believe that those of us in the Democratic Party believe that government should do practically everything. 

What if I told you that I and most Democrats believe government is about the right size, we just need to pay for the government we have? Would you believe it? Why not?

Peaceful Transition

It is our long tradition of a peaceful transition of leadership that makes us unique in the world and inspires dreams worldwide of a more democratic and peaceful planet. 

My favorite passage from Obama's inaugural address:

"The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a Republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed."

This went hand-in hand with Senator Lamar Alexander's toast at the Inaugural luncheon, when he said:

“There is no mob, no coup, no insurrection. This is a moment when millions stop and watch. A moment most of us always will remember. A moment that is the most conspicuous and enduring symbol of our democracy....How remarkable that this has survived for so long in such a complex country with so much power at stake — this freedom to vote for our leaders and the restraint to respect the results. 

Last year, a tour guide at Mount Vernon told me that our first president, George Washington, posed this question: ‘What is most important of this grand experiment, the United States? And then Washington gave this answer: ‘Not the election of the first president, but the election of its second president. The peaceful transition of power is what will separate this country from every other country in the world.”

Obama and Alexander each speak to the idea that gun ownership is a right bestowed by our laws and constitution, not the other way around. With each successful, peaceful transition of our presidency, it suggests that the peaceful act along with our laws and government are what the 2nd amendment was primarily meant to protect. 

To keep the peace. It was not primarily intended so we would have guns in order to use them against the government. That makes no sense, especially in light of the government they had just formed. 

American Freedom

NPR recently reported that US college grads have an average of $26,600 in student loan debt. How does that make Americans more free? These grads have far fewer incentives to take risks, try new things, travel or start businesses. How can this be good for private markets?

If you are bankrupted or go into a lifetime of debt because of illness or injury or are denied coverage because of a preexisting condition, you are less free. You are now an indentured servant.

So, progressive taxes that pay for public investments in education and health care make us more free. And, wanting these two industries to be well-funded public institutions, does not mean you want government to run everything else. That is a false choice. Do not buy it.

You Didn't Build That

Only 11% of Americans want communism and Obama is not one of them. Even if he was, most Americans would never allow it. 

If you ignore the part of Obama's Roanoke speech that the Right continually takes out of context and look at the whole speech, I can see how you might interpret it as as too heavy on the praise of government and too light on praise of the entrepreneur.But, you not only have to view each sentence of the speech in the context of the whole speech, you also have to view the speech in the context of the broader political debate taking place. 

And in that context, the speech is simply a thoughtful rejoinder to the false choice Fox News presents every single day: that you are either a statist or a libertarian and there can be no middle ground. 

All Obama is saying in the speech is, look, don't buy this false choice. It is a lie. 

The fact of the matter is that America has always grown with a combination of individual initiative and public investment and it is this combination of independence and interdependence that has made us a great nation, not the singular devotion to and worship of private enterprise that Fox pushes each and every day. 

They are BOTH important, public and private systems, and it is ridiculous to assert that one is more important than the other. We simply need to nurture the balance between the two. 

That is all Obama is saying. Of course private enterprise is the primary driver of jobs and economic growth. That is a given. 

But, the private system works best and creates the most wealth for the most people, when it is properly regulated and taxed to pay for the public investments -- the roads, schools, research programs, loan programs, regulatory agencies and safety nets that make up a public operating system that allows capitalism to work best. 

Without an effective public operating system, we face the situation we are in now, in which the rich suck all the wealth and value out of the economy, do not invest in enough new start ups and technology, do not pay enough taxes to fund proper educations for enough skilled workers and fail to leave enough consumers with enough cash in their pockets to keep the system running with sustainability. 

That is the context of his speech and that is the context of that sentence: you didn't build that. To continue to assert otherwise is to look only at the information that conforms to your bias, while ignoring all information that describes our world as it actually exists.

It Can't Happen Here

Just as many on the Right see Obama as the head of a spear of radical, left-wing ideologues, poised to destroy the liberties granted by the Constitution, those of us on the Left see the Tea Party and Santorum, Bachmann, et al, as the tip of a spear of a radical evangelical movement that seeks to break down the separation of church and state and impose a Totalitarian Theocracy here in the US.

Recent examples include Santorum's queasiness with JFK's statements about separation of Church and State and the radical, evangelical pastor who introduced him last week, ranting about the US as a Christian Nation.

If Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" has provided a guiding cautionary tale for the GOP's brand of small-government libertarianism, then Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale" is an equally important text for those of us on the Left who see the emerging threat of an Authoritarian Theocratic regime here in the US. The Nazis seemed civilized, as they sipped fine Rieslings and listened to Beethoven while committing unspeakable atrocity. We should remember that many Germans, including my great-grandfather, a German Jew who fought for Germany in WW I, never believed the Nazis could implement the Final Solution.

A friend of mine on Facebook, Robert Chandler, likes to write that "the impulse of the Left is totalitarian," which ignores the fact that the impulse of any extremist ideology is either totalitarian or authoritarian. The Right fears the collectivist/socialist ideology that underpinned Nazism, and the Left fears the nationalistic, white-supremacist side of the Nazis.

Thus, Chandler's description of Obamacare and Obama as part of a totalitarian takeover plot is not that different from saying US Evangelicals = Islamo-fascism/radicalism. Each description is driven by an assumption that: either; 1)  there is a radical, extreme version of the Left embodied by Obama; or, 2) there is a radical, extreme version of the Right embodied by the Tea Party.

Just as the Right is spooked by Jeremiah Wright, and believes that Obama is the embodiment of the most extreme statements his pastor uttered over the past 40 years, those of us on the Left are spooked by the likes of the Louisiana pastor who introduced Rick Santorum. As the Tea Party sees a Jeremiah Wright, anti-white form of Socialism embodied in the US Presidency, I see the threat of Totalitarian Theocracy in the Tea Party controlled GOP Congress and right-wing militias.

The main difference, of course, is that Obama has not implemented or recommended a single policy that is socialist or statist. While he has, disappointingly, extended many of the authoritarian positions Bush/Cheney implemented with the Patriot Act and the AUMF, he also removed Single Payer and embraced the Heritage Foundation/Mitt Romney approach to health care reform, and he allowed for expanded drilling, oil production and pipeline construction.

So, Obama is a bi-partisan, moderate. But the Tea Party has transformed the GOP into a party driven primarily by extremist social conservatives, embodied in the recent rash of Right Wing state legislatures passing pre-abortion ultrasound bills with "shaming rooms" and the racial-targeting of voter ID laws. Obamacare is not part of a War on Religion, but the Tea Party and its leading candidates and GOP-controlled State Legislatures have initiated a War on Women. While the current US Evangelical movements have merely burned Korans, not beheaded hostages, that does not mean "It Can't Happen Here."

There's a Bill Maher video where he shows that Islamist extremists are much worse than US ones. And that’s true, based on post-KKK US history. But, at the end of the video, he explains that those differences rest on the foundation of a government and politicians that honor the separation of church and state and rights for women.

Those are the rights now under attack by the leading GOP candidates and by the US Congress and GOP-controlled State Legislatures nationally. And that is why Left-wing fears are not unrealistic or absurd, but instead based on evidence, data and recent history -- not the hysterical exaggerations, caricatures and ranting of Fox News and right-wing talk radio.

The Great Fear

The great fear is that the NDAA will be used to support massive civil liberties abuses. And, that is a really legitimate fear. The Obama administration wrote a secret legal memo to justify the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen, and the memo drew its justification from the authorization to use military force (AUMF) against Al Qaeda that Congress enacted shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Now, the NDAA extends the detention provisions of AUMF to US citizens at home. So, by extension, I imagine they could write a memo that draws on NDAA to justify domestic terrorist assassinations. The courts are our last line of defense here. I imagine any President or administration that tried to use the NDAA detention provisions simply to round people up and put them in FEMA prisons would face fierce legal challenges. I think the reason they added the offensive language to NDAA was to allow for military detentions and trials of US citizens captured in the US who may be collaborating with al Qaeda. There were a few 9/11 collaborators who meet that definition and were tried in civilian court and they wanted to keep them in military court. We can only hope the intentions are so benign, but should not have to. These laws should never have been written and we can only hope they will soon be repealed.

Blame Yourself for Nuclear Iran

Out of all the thrilling and entertaining moments in the 2012 Republican Presidential campaign, perhaps the most galvanizing was when Herman Cain said, “If you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself!”  It echoed all that is good and true in the conservative movement and its religious belief in taking personal responsibility. It is why Herman Cain rose higher and longer than any of the other non-Romney candidates, and why I think he had a serious shot at the nomination if it turned out he had a grasp of foreign policy and was true to his wife.

I find it ironic that for all of the GOP’s fervor for taking personal responsibility and getting government off our backs, that instead of blaming themselves, most conservatives seem content to blame immigrants, welfare recipients, big government and Barack Obama for most of what is wrong with America. Rather than taking responsibility and enjoying the benefits of one of the least regulated, smallest government, most capitalistic countries in the world it seems that many on the red side of the street spend more time worrying about Obama’s birth certificate, or a non-existent crime epidemic in border cities, or government regulations, instead of knuckling down and building better businesses and better communities.

Like Herman Cain, Ron Paul has it wrong with his small-government, laissez-faire economic policy. But, Paul at least has it half-right on US foreign policy. The part he has right: we should let Iran have nuclear power and become a nuclear country; the wrong part: cut almost the entire military and foreign aid budgets and disengage from the rest of the world completely.  I think we need a balance somewhere between the two.  We can cut the military budget in half over 5 years and invest in retraining the returning soldiers and out of work contractors in new energy technology. After all, energy security is national security.

Iran knows that one day their oil will dry up and their source of wealth and power as a country will dry up as well unless they have diverse industries and energy resources. It is the same reason Dubai has been diversifying its portfolio for years including the controversial deal to buy part of a US port in 2006. Under pressure from Israel and AIPAC, Democrats and Republicans will do anything to stop Iran from going nuclear. Yet, mutually Assured Destruction has worked everywhere else in the world, so why can’t it work between Israel and Iran? A nuclear Iran is a small price to pay for maintaining the American Empire.  

Yes, we are an empire. The US has only 5% of the world’s population, but we use 25% to 50% of its resources and our military budgetequals the next 20 countries’ combined. To many people outside the US it feels like they are being held hostage at gun-point by the US so that we can enjoy an extraordinary standard of living, while everyone else barely gets by.

So, stop your belly-aching, Democrats, and realize that even our poor and oppressed have it great compared to the rest of the world. And stop your whining, Republicans, and notice that the reason everyone wants to kill us is because we are no longer seen as liberators from the Nazis and Japan. That story has gotten old.

Rather, we have become a new empire and “the force” may not be with us. The fact that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator does not absolve us of the crime that was Iraq. The US supports far more dictators and oppressive regimes than we liberate. We’ve also lost our moral authority by gutting the Bill of Rights with the Patriot Act, Guantanamo and now indefinite military detentions of US citizens as codified in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.

So, instead of being seen as liberators or a beacon of freedom, the US is seen increasingly as a blood-sucking pig spewing green house gasses in the wake of its vast military and industrial empire. It’s gotten to the point where many in the outside world see us in the same way Republicans view welfare recipients:   pointing a gun at their head and forcing them to pay a small percentage of their taxes as welfare.

So, buck up and start blaming yourself America! There’s a reason much of the world hates us, even as they aspire to our standard of living. Mitt Romney can accuse Barack Obama’s foreign policy of “appeasement” all he wants, but Ron Paul and the rest of us will see through that lie and realize that a new US foreign policy requires everyone to take responsibility for their own actions. Even if that means talking to the enemy occasionally and letting them diversify their energy portfolio, just as we need to diversify our own.

The poster that could launch a thousand 3rd party candidates...

Is there a 2012 NDAA and FEMA Conspiracy?

In 2002, when I found out about Patriot Act II, which called for indefinite detention of US citizens without due process, that was the galvanizing moment that got me out in the streets, marching against the Iraq War. I thought, if Ashcroft, Cheney and Bush are crazy enough to start an illegal war based on flimsy WMD evidence, then maybe they are crazy enough to implement martial law and go after dissidents who disagreed with their theocratic worldview for the US.

The Internet was ripe with 9-11 conspiracy theories and all the brainwashing and bad intelligence that went into making the case for Iraq along with the brand new and ominous sounding Department of Homeland Security made me desperately afraid of what the Bush Administration would do in the wake of another terrorist attack.

Now we have an equal amount of paranoia coming from the right toward Barack Obama. Yet, instead of the paranoia being based on evidence or on actual policy decisions, the paranoia seems driven by racism, an unfounded fear of creeping socialism, and the fear-mongering and hate-speech being driven by talk radio and Fox News. I think a lot of that is embodied in a recent article on one of Alex Jones' Web Sites where he spins lots of conspiracy theories.

Jones argues that the detention provision in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) along with contingency and continuity planning in a recent FEMA RFP are connected dots in an ominous New World Order conspiracy. As much as I detest the detention provision in the NDAA, I also understand that it and FEMA continuity plans may have more benign purposes. For example, a suitcase nuke planted by a terrorist could necessitate the need to detain a US citizen who is helping coordinate either a domestic or foreign-based attack. FEMA contractors involved in continuity plans following such a nuclear strike, would need to coordinate with DOD and intelligence officials. Natural disasters also pose legitimate contingency planning for continuity.

The possibility of an economic collapse is real, but if you think that collapse is a Bilderberg-led, controlled demolition aided and abetted by the Fed, or if you believe Obama is a really a Kenyan Communist Manchurian Candidate, or even just illegitimate, then you have reason to fear being targeted, tagged and rounded up and put into a FEMA jail. The same way I feared being rounded up by John Ashcroft or Dick Cheney.

But, if you don't fear those things, and instead see a real threat of armed, domestic militias inspired by Ron Paul and Rick "Secessionist" Perry, targeting an "illegal" Communist President and his corrupt government, then perhaps some of the NDAA provisions and FEMA docs just make sense and aren't so scary after all.

Another issue I have with this is that on the Flickr site where Alex Jones has posted the FEMA Scope of Work, his comment reads,"Where the government talks about continuity of government and distinguishing the US citizens as the enemy." I read all the docs he posted and nowhere does the it talk about "distinguishing US citizens as the enemy." Alex Jones is a wing nut and should not be taken seriously. 

But that does not mean we should not take the detention provisions in the 2012 NDAA seriously. Glenn Greenwald has done fantastic reporting on this vital issue on Salon.com.  Maybe the detention provisions are more a symptom of our crony capitalist system and a need to reform the presidency than anything in an Alex Jones conspiracy theory.

How do we end this narrative?

Total Credit Market Debt as a % of GDP

Occupy the Common Ground

Chart published by by G. William Domhoff, University of California, Santa Cruz

The GOP is more interested in being right than in solving economic problems. The Democratic Party is more interested in appeasing everyone than in doing what is right.

Supply-side ideology failed, as the past 30 years of deregulation and lowering taxes have ended the previous 40 years of shared prosperity for 100%. Just as the Great Society also failed with taxes that were too high and a government that was too big.

The Irony of America: Most Americans do not want socialist redistribution of wealth in the form of big welfare programs and most Americans do not want plutocratic redistribution of wealth in form of top the 1% getting massively rich at the expense of everyone else.

It is not either/or, despite the raging debate on 24-hour cable and Internet.

Since the middle of the 19th century, he American Dream has been fulfilled with a combination free-markets and socialist economic principles.

Most Americans want:

1. Money out of politics
2. World-class public schools and infrastructure
3. A solvent social safety net
4. An effective combination of de-regulation and regulation

I think we can all agree on these four things. So, let’s "‘git ‘er done!”

Starved for Glory

Americans have always rallied around causes of democracy, liberty and freedom. Our passion to live and die by these ideals has led to many great military victories, including the one that led to the birth of our nation. Now, we are a people starved for glory. Once the Cold War ended, there was no common enemy to rally around. We relished the win over Soviet communism, but once the victory-rush was over, we were rudderless without a new enemy. And instead of an external enemy, a new enemy was found within: the Federal Government. A first expression of this was manifest in 1995, with the Oklahoma City bombing. With Bill Clinton at the helm, fear of a “New World Order” motivated the most extreme and militaristic elements of society. But with 9/11, a new external enemy emerged and gave new cause for those who relish and rejoice in freedom-fighting. By 2006, a war-weary country realized that it had been lied to and duped. And, with the al Qaeda enemy mainly dispersed into the craggy shadows and mountains in a far away land another enemy was needed. He emerged in the form of the President of the United States of America. And, that is what motivates the Tea Party today and that is why the GOP cares more about removing President Obama, all Federal safety-nets, welfare and anything considered an entitlement, than they care about enacting polices that may help the nation.

The "Texas Miracle"

Recent Exchange with Some Tea Party Friends on Facebook

My friend Mark Rennie recently posted a Tea Party-inspired quote on his Facebook page. I felt obligated to respond and subsequently had a very intense conversation with some of his Tea Party friends who I do not know in real life. I love the fact that we were able to have such a civil and polite dialogue, as opposed to the insult-hurling and shouting you typically find on political blogs and forums.
------------------

Mark Rennie: "If you would not confront your neighbor and demand his money at the point of a gun to solve every new problem that may appear in your life, you should not allow the government to do it for you." –William E. Simon


Tuesday at 7:35am ·

Niki-Nicole Mesco and 2 others like this..

Tuesday at 7:35am · Monte Collins: Amen Brother. Ready for some TEA?

Tuesday at 8:42am · Tom Freeman: Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tuesday at 9:38am · Eric Forst:  Mark, I like that you and I can have a very civil dialogue on Facebook around our political differences. The problem I have with the Simon quote is that it implies that taxation with representation, which is what we have in our democracy, is somehow the same as pointing a gun at someone's head and asking for their money.

Tuesday at 10:06am · Mark Rennie: I see what you mean Eric. However, in today's political climate, I can say that I interpret and posted Simon's quote in the context that taxes and death are a given certainty. But to do so in the name of redistribution of wealth is of a socialist idealogy to which I am adamantly opposed. In this case, I see Socialsm/redistribution as the pointed gun.

Tuesday at 12:30pm · Monte Collins: We do not have taxation with 'equal' representation. We have taxation with selective representation and progressive redistribution.

If you want to be part of the select that is represented, either join a public employees union or hire a corporate lobbyist.

Tuesday at 1:28pm · Eric Forst: We'll probably never agree on the extent to which we should have a safety net (Social Security and Medicare), welfare-to-work and strong public education that is equally funded in every district. I believe that not only can we have that, but we can also have market-based solutions for just about every other industry. In other words, I think we can have some social programs without become a Socialist country. In fact, the history of this country is limited government that steps up when needed and then dials it back. Here's a passage on this from a recent essay by David Brooks, a leading conservative commentator:

"The story Republicans are telling each other is an oversimplified version of American history, with dangerous implications.

The fact is, the American story is not just the story of limited governments; it is the story of limited but energetic governments that used aggressive federal power to promote growth and social mobility. George Washington used industrial policy, trade policy and federal research dollars to build a manufacturing economy alongside the agricultural one. The Whig Party used federal dollars to promote a development project called the American System.

Abraham Lincoln supported state-sponsored banks to encourage development, lavish infrastructure projects, increased spending on public education. Franklin Roosevelt provided basic security so people were freer to move and dare. The Republican sponsors of welfare reform increased regulations and government spending — demanding work in exchange for dollars.

Throughout American history, in other words, there have been leaders who regarded government like fire — a useful tool when used judiciously and a dangerous menace when it gets out of control. They didn’t build their political philosophy on whether government was big or not. Government is a means, not an end. They built their philosophy on making America virtuous, dynamic and great. They supported government action when it furthered those ends and opposed it when it didn’t.

If the current Republican Party regards every new bit of government action as a step on the road to serfdom, then the party will be taking this long, mainstream American tradition and exiling it from the G.O.P."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/opinion/14brooks.html


Tuesday at 4:00pm · Monte Collins: Eric, not sure about the validity of your American history or the NY times article but to your last point, it's not just the Repulican party that regards with suspicion everything government is doing right now.... it's the whole country.

I left the Republican party last year because I'm even suspicious of their actions. I regard them all as narcissistic elitists who enjoy creating problems so they can ride in and be the legislative saviors.

I understand the need for ebb and flow in government oversight and governance. However I don't think anyone can justify the outrageous intrusion into our daily lives in this moment in time. They like to spout 'social justice' but in the end it's just robbery with a fancy name.

Tuesday at 8:33pm · Eric Forst:   Monte, I agree both the Democrats and Republicans are awash with special interest money that causes a lot of policy to be made that is not in the public interest. As broken and corrupt as our government is, I'd rather reform it than try to starve the beast. I agree that the Patriot Act passed under Bush in 2001 was an enormous intrusion by government into our private lives, but I'm not aware of an enormous intrusion of government into my daily life at this moment in time. What intrusion are you experiencing? Raising the income tax rate on the top bracket to levels that are still lower than under Reagan hardly seems like robbery in the name of social justice. Someone has to start paying for our multi-trillion dollar wars that were put on the credit card. Remember all the debt that Bush handed to Obama? The stimulus debt was necessary to keep the economy from spiraling into a depression. I do not see it as an attempt to implement permanent socialism. There is no evidence that is what Obama or most Democrats want. In fact what Obama has consistently stated and what the small-business tax credits recently signed into law by Obama show, is that Obama and the vast majority of Democrats want private industry to thrive. And we know that business can thrive even when tax rates rise on the top bracket, just as they did in the 1990s, when the economy boomed and Clinton was able to hand a large surpluss over to Bush.

Tuesday at 9:15pm · Monte Collins:  Redistribution = social justice = progressivism = theft. Plain and simple.

Yes, wars and social programs cost money. However, why is it the top wage earners are solely responsible? Last time I checked, the upper income earners pay the most but take the least when it comes to those services (excluding military).

Also, the stimulus package that just added 2 trillion dollars to our debt had nothing to do with any of the above. It was a nice slush fund for Democrats and their union sidekicks.

Lastly, I'm a small business owner that is responsible to meet payroll every week. I'm not one of those too big to fail guys so it's pretty much up to me to make sure we survive. As the years have gone by, we have been visited and audited by more government acronyms (EPA, CARB, EDD, OSHA, AQMD, SCAQMD, DOT, ETC, ETC, ETC) than you can possibly imagine. What do they all have in common? Layers and layers of paid bureaucrats with nice fat pensions that will never ever go away. What else do they have in common? Everyone of them shows up to our door with an invoice in their hand because I need to meet another criteria just to stay in business. Maybe to some this is just the price of doing business but to me it's excessive and it's 'intrusive'. It's also about time it stops...

Then when I do squeeze out a profit, I'm told that I need to contribute more because it's good to spread the wealth around.

Sorry but I stand with Mark and John Galt on this one...

Tuesday at 9:40pm · Eric Forst:  All that regulation is intrusive and costly and your politics naturally reflect your economic interests. I do not own a business or have all that overhead to deal with, so am not feeling the yoke of government as much. But, as a Democrat, I do have a natural tendency to believe that some groups of people in this country deserve social justice, even if that means I have to pay more for it than people in lower tax brackets.

Tuesday at 9:57pm · Monte Collins:  I hear ya Eric. I guess I just have more of a 'don't feed the strays' attitude than most. My philosophy is to teach the man to fish rather than give him the fish.... if you know what I mean. I think a man has more dignity when he has the opportunity to provide for himself rather than relying on someone else.

Yesterday at 8:41am · Eric Forst: I totally respect your point of view on that, Monte, and I agree with that point of view. I just happen to think that vision can not only co-exist with some limited social welfare, but is in fact supported by it, especially if we could refo...rm the teacher's unions and make big investments in public education. I get nervous when I see taxes equated with robbery or theft, even if you are only talking about the portion that might go to welfare programs, as it paints a picture of the Obama administration as illegitimate or socialist, which it is not. As corrupt and bad as both parties may be, I think we have one of the best political systems in the world. I just think that if you reduce government's role to simply defense and criminal justice, then the most rich and powerful interests will continue exploit and manipulate the middle class to the point where we become a feudalist country. During the Bush years, with low taxes and much more limited government regulation and oversight, the middle class saw real wages decline from 2000-2008 for the first time in the last 60 years while the richest 2% got massively wealthier.See More

Yesterday at 10:08am · Earick Ward: Nobody opposes a "safety net". It's only that some have turned it into a "hammock" Further, on the taxation issue, the current structure penalizes achievement, and promotes non-productivity. Classes (in America) are not FIXED. Incentivize achievement and you will get achievement.

7 hours ago · Earick Ward:  Eric - you make a couple mistakes in your "During the Bush years" discussion.

1) Your focus on "real wages" is a common mistake. While wages may have gone down, buying power went up. Cost of goods were less, relative to wages. This meant ...that for every dollar you earned you were able to buy more.

2) Also, while wages were down, SIGNIFICANTLY more people had JOBS. This is spreading the wealth. All classes benefit(ed) when more people are able to draw a paycheck.

3) The richest 2% got wealthier. Again, that richest 2% is not a fixed class. Many more citizens moved into the 2% class, as a result of wealth development. Further, the JOBS issue outlined above is, in part due to the wealth that was created, which created JOBs in the middle and lower classes in order to service the needs of the upper 2%.

4) You reference limited government regulation and oversight. The regulations were in place. Unfortunately, they were tweaked to mandate that banks and lending institutions make loans to people, who had no means to pay back their loans. Under the guise of "everyone has a right to own a home" I seem to recall seeing testimony by Barney Frank, that he wanted to "roll the dice" one more time. Well, snake eyes.

Incentivize achievement and you will get achievement.

7 hours ago · Earick Ward:   Eric - Respectfully, please obtain a copy of F.A. Hayek's: The Road to Serfdom. Non-politically, he lays out the fallacy of Collectivism.

7 hours ago · Eric Forst:   Earick,

We hardly have a hammock. We only spend 2% of our budget on social welfare for working-aged citizens as compared to 7% in Western Europe. And, I do not adovacte that level of welfare. But I do think we should spend much more on publi...c education and "teach a man to fish." As for your other arguments:

1) "Real wages" is an economic term that measures the hourly wage adjusted against the cost-of-living. Yes, the cost of some goods like electronics declined, but housing, energy, healthcare and education all went up significantly, and overall, the cost-of-living rose relative to wages in the US, which is what I mean by a decline in "real wages." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/real+wages?&qsrc)

Here is a good article on the real wages trend:

http://washingtonpolicywatch.org/2009/03/18/looking-past-the-banking-crisis-households-adjust-part-2-of-3/

It shows that Americans had to use credit cards and home equity lines of credit to maintain their standard of living during the 2000s and it also shows that real wages have declined and remained flat ever since the late '70s. So, I was factually wrong in stating that they declined for the first time in 60 years, rather they have been declining steadily since Carter, although they made a slight recovery under Clinton. Trickle-down economics of the past 30 years clearly hasn't worked.

2) While the unemployment rate was low in the 2000s, the underlying economy remained weak and job growth relative to other economic recovery periods was much weaker:

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp195/

From the article:"In fact, the average job creation rate for 2006—6.7%—is the lowest annual rate on record going back to 1990". The underlying economy was weak as most job creation was related to the housing bubble -- construction and financial services industry jobs -- rather than to long-term sustainable industries like manufacturing, technology or alternative energy.

3) By all measures, the income gap in this country has been steadily widening since 1980:
http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/100411-income-gap-grows-during-recession.html

4) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were simply one part of very big problem that involved many irresponsible moves by the entire banking and financial services industry. Their purpose was to make loans available to lower income Americans previously shut out of home-ownership due to racist lending practices, and it was the responsibility of banks and homeowners to manage their own lending and borrowing practices. The subsequent lack of enforcement of SEC rules by the Bush administration, predatory lending practices, corruption within Moody’s and the ratings agencies along with the 2004 removal of limits on banks' asset-to-borrowing ratio:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html

all accelerated the housing bubble and financial crisis. If anything it was the Bush Administration that promoted the culture of irresponsible lending and borrowing with its "Ownership Society" economic policy, not Barney Frank.

We have plenty of incentives for achievement in this country as income tax rates continue to remain at their lowest levels in 80 years (except for 1988 to 1990):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

The bottom line for me is that I think government can be too big and it can also be too small, and we are currently coming out of a period in which government was too small. While Obama definitely moves things to the left, none of the policies he or the Democrats have implemented could be considered socialist. The stimulus was Keynesian (not socialism) and the health insurance reform bill has no public option and no new government run services. A moderate rise in income taxes for the top 2%, to what can still be considered a historically low level, hardly smacks of socialism. I think we need to avoid both Libertarianism and Socialism as each would be equally disastrous in its own ways. I simply want mainstream economic policies that are based on the historical evidence of what is good for the average, middle-class worker. I do not want radical income distribution or policies that destroy incentives for entrepreneurs and private industry. I believe America is at its best when we have an effective balance between government and private-industry.

3 hours ago · Eric Forst:  Respectfully, on Hayek: He wrote his book at a time when the ills of the Soviet Union and mid-20th century socialism were ghastly and current. I agree that unfettered collectivsim can lead to tyranny, but I also agree with this quote by George Orwell:

"collectivism gives tyrannical powers to a minority...[yet a] return to 'free' competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the state."

That is why I think we need to avoid going to far to the left or the right.

2 hours ago · Monte Collins:   Eric, there is no way we are coming out of a period where government was too small. Just because it was the republicans in charge doesn't mean it was smaller government. Government has been growing more than the private sector for quite some time. Look at Sacramento over the last 10 years. I believe between our two idiot governors (Davis and Swarzanegger) government has grown 40%. That's astounding when you consider that unemployment in the state is well over 10% in the private sector.

Government needs to be cut and cut substantially. Not just a reduction in the amount of increases (which is what usually happens). Some agencies need to be phased out and the ones that remain need to be audited and put under a strict budget just like the private sector. Maybe easier said that done but a necessity nonetheless...

Pensions need to be reformed and regulations need to streamlined and, in some cases, eliminated. Tax rates should be equalized with a flat tax rate for all which raises some lower income earners up to the fair rates that the upper income earners pay. Additionally, we need to get away from the desire to model ourselves after these semi-socialist european countries. It is wrecking them and it will wreck us.

I'm not for the elimination of government just a government that works for all of us and not just someone who relies on grant money, welfare, subsidies, or the SEIU.

about an hour ago · Earick Ward:   On Hayek: Yes, the timing of his writing was relative to the ills of the (Collectivist) Soviet Union, and Germany and China. That that lesson appears to have not (still) been learned is disappointing (and frightening).

On Orwell: Hakek points out (and I'll paraphrase) that in a Collectivist society, you have to entrust that those who control the distribution of resources have everybody's best interest at heart. What is everybody's best interest? Well, there is no such thing. Therefore (the Planner) must decide who's needs they will serve, and therefore who's resources and how much another must contribute. In every Collectivist society (to date) the production of resources gradually and necessarily is reduced. In America, going back to Governor Bradford in Massechussets, within a close-knit Christian collectivist society, they determined that production didn't meet the needs of society. Upon providing and securing the rights to private property and following free market principles, production thrived, to the betterment of society.

Orwell asserts that society (collectively) is tyrannical. Two problems with this. 1) I tend to believe that most people (in society) are good. Republicans donate a significantly greater amount of their (remaining income) to charity. 2) Society doesn't act in a collective manner. Individuals spend their money on things that they deem important to them individually. Even if the most generous, smartest planner were placed in charge of collecting of resources from one, in order to provide for another, the production of [one] would necessarily and certainly diminish.

You can have equality of opportunity, or equality of results. You cannot have both.

Redistributive policies will certainly make things more equal, at the expense of everyone.

about an hour ago · Eric Forst:   Monte: The facts contradict this statement you wrote: “Government has been growing more than the private sector for quite some time.” Here are the facts on the growth of California’s GDP compared to the California state budget. From 2000 to... 2010:

GDP in California rose by 45% - from $1.29 trillion to $1.87 trillion
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=2000_2010&view=1&expand&units=b&fy=fy11&chart&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=USGrossDomesticProductGDPHistory&state=CA&color=c&local=s

California’s state budget and expenditures rose by 26% - from $78 billion to $98.2 billion
http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=61149


In 2010, state government is about 1/20th the size of private industry in California.

Where are you getting your information? If you look at some of the links I posted above, they show the history of our income tax rates, GDP growth and our state and federal spending and indicate that the size of government in this country is at a historical low-point.
--------------------------

Earick: We hardly have redistributive policies in this country. In fact, we are in fourth to last place on spending on social services as a percentage of net national income, and we are in third place, only behind Mexico and Turkey, for having the most inequality in our society:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/reader-feedback-social-spending-and-inequality/

Notice Mexico has the lowest spending on social services and the greatest inequality. Chart indicates we should increase social spending slightly and try to reduce inequality similar to levels in Canada or Australia, where they spend only slightly more than we do and have much lower inequality with very high degrees of first-amendment style freedoms and social mobility. Instead, the policies you advocate will likely make us more like Mexico.

All of the countries on this list (China and Russia aren’t on list) are able to spend more than we do on social services without becoming tyrannical dictatorships. So, some spending on social programs does not necessarily lead us to socialism or put us on the “road to serfdom.” Rather, I believe serfdom is more likely when government invests too little in public education and some basic social services. Respectfully, I think the vast majority will be living like serfs if we try to implement a Libertarian utiopia. I think the role of our government should be to keep the pendulum from swinging too far one way or the other.

Vote for Unemployment Benefits: An Open Letter to my Congressman, the Honorable Edward R. Royce, (R-CA)

To the Honorable Edward R. Royce,

I am disappointed in your recent vote against the extension of unemployment insurance and I urge you to vote for any new bills that provide not only unemployment benefits, but any short-term stimulus measures such as infrastructure projects and state budget relief that helps schools and state services. We recently pulled our kids out of Los Alamitos public schools and put them in private school because class-sizes are getting too big.

Without appropriate investments in our public schools and in new industries that create sustainable job growth, we may never completely recover from this recession. Endless tax-cuts and a failure to adequately invest in public services will certainly relegate California and the U.S. to second-tier nation status as China and India rise.

The free-market has no conscience and no rudder, and cannot solve all our problems. Government must sometimes step forward to help solve big problems and adequately serve the interests of the people. Deficit-reduction and austerity measures can wait until we get this economy back on its rails. I urge you to vote for more stimulus spending until private industry is able to create enough innovation and the long-term jobs necessary to grow the economy.

Sincerely,
Eric Forst

Where are the Jobs?

Robert Reich's recent post, "Why We're Falling Into a Double-Dip Recession" gives the short-term reason, but doesn't give the long-term explanation. The end of the stimulus spending is partly to blame for the impending double-dip, which Paul Krugman predicted at the beginning of the year. The real question is why is it taking so long for the economy to create sustained job growth? I think the main reason jobs are not returning is because for the past 10 years neither our industries nor our universities nor our government agencies (like NASA) have generated enough significant innovation or new technology to create the kind of growth that allows jobs to keep up with population growth.

This happened partly because investors were gun-shy after the tech bubble burst, but mostly it happened because the elimination of Glass-Steagall in 1999 opened the flood gates for the creation of new financial products like credit default swaps and rampant derivatives markets. So, instead of our nation’s best and brightest creating alternative energy or new software or biomedical breakthroughs, they were busy creating toxic assets and new hedge funds. And instead of the government investing in science and education, it was busy spending the country into trillion dollar deficits while playing Elmer Fudd chasing those wascally terrorists all over Iraq and Afghanistan. Creating the world's largest prison population didn't help either.

In addition to a new stimulus that puts people to work on short-term repair projects, the US needs to scale back its prison and military expenditures and invest in people and industries in ways that create long-term economic growth and jobs. We need a new New Deal. Lets bring home most of the troops and put them in the Army Corps of Engineers building wind farms and solar fields. Energy security not only means environmental security, but also lessens the need for overseas military adventures. That is true national security. It will make Japan happy, too. Their Prime Minister had to resign last week, largely because he could not fulfill his campaign promise to move a US military base out of Okinawa. We also need a new New Deal to correct for the past 30 years of conservative neglect. In the business world we call it human capital. And in his speech on the economy last week, Obama called it "A new foundation":

"It’s a foundation based on investments in our people and their future; investments in the skills and education we need to compete; investments in a 21st century infrastructure for America, from high-speed railroads to high-speed Internet; investments in research and technology, like clean energy, that can lead to new jobs and new exports and new industries."

The New Value

Michael Hiltzik hits the nail on the head in his LA Times column today. "Pointless deals line Wall St. pockets" illustrates what Chris Hayes at The Nation was talking about a few weeks ago when he described all the money sloshing around in the upper echelons -- but none of it is trickling down. Shows how hedge fund managers and investment bankers have been getting rich because they make good bets for their wealthy clients, but their activity does not add any value to the economy, and in the case of Goldman Sachs, one particular hedge actually helped make the damage for average consumers worse. They are professional gamblers helping the rich get richer, while the ....well, you know how it goes.

It shows that the free market has no values and simply lets the rich and powerful swoop in and game the system. When the government used to try and do big things - think NASA or fuel efficiency standards - those programs actually spurred innovation and technology that led to enormous growth in the private sector. But during the Bush years, de-regulation and small government policies ruled the day and instead of the economy creating growth and wealth based on innovation and technology, it created a housing bubble and "financial instruments" that have created vast wealth for small numbers of people without creating value or making life better for the average consumer. The wonderful free market of the past decade lured thousands of our best and brightest students and math minds away from inventing alternative energy or smarter computers and instead they have become stewards of vast empires of wealth.

"The Road to Serfdom"

One of the best examples of how Glenn Beck and Fox News mangle and distort their facts and why they are so dangerous is in this quote from one of Mr. Beck's recent shows:

"We will resist the total transformation of our country but we will do it peacefully. Yes. People did it under [Woodrow Wilson] and people did that here. Well, not so much because the people who are in [President Obama's] administration hated [Richard Nixon] and they didn't resist peacefully; they were setting bombs off. But we will resist peacefully."

How is giving the private insurance industry 30 million new customers, somehow a total transformation of our country? Where is the socialism? Where is the communism? There is none. The health care bill was really a health insurance bill that imposed much needed regulation on an industry that makes money by denying coverage to as many people as possible. And in the name of free-markets, that industry has made our country less competitive while our citizens have worse health outcomes than nearly every country with socialized medicine.

Beck uses the fear of Communism in exactly the same way Senator McCarthy did -- as a way to implement conformity and control -- and ultimately to incite people to violence, despite his non-violent rhetoric. Here's another quote from Mr. Beck's 4/8/10 show:

"Is it a coincidence that all of the above are or were advisers to the president? By the way, [Van Jones] was an adviser to the president and now he's with George Soros' group. Is it possible that maybe, by pointing out every night that there are radicals, Marxists and communists in the White House, maybe that struck a nerve?"

Sounds like something straight out of a House Committee on Un-American Activities meeting from 1950. Beck and his viewers are the shoeshine boys of the ruling elite and they don't even know it. By reducing every argument to a battle between Libertarianism and Communism, they eliminate the possibility of having a discussion that includes complexity or the reality of our hybrid government that combines democracy with a primarily capitalist, market-based economy and adds in a few social programs like Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. This is hardly a centrally planned economy now that the health insurance reform bill has passed. Mr. Beck, please tell me: where is there a movement by Democrats or any other group to impose a centrally planned economy in the U.S.? Where is there an attempt by the current administration to roll-back constitutional rights?

George Orwell perhaps summarized it best in his critique of Friedrich Hayek's 1944 best-seller, The Road to Serfdom:

"in the negative part of Professor Hayek's thesis there is a great deal of truth. It cannot be said too often — at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough — that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of". Yet he also warned, "[A] return to 'free' competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the state."

Hayek believed central planning and state control would inevitably lead to tyranny and totalitarianism, like it had in the Soviet Union. And that is what Beck and the Tea Partiers are worried is going to happen under Obama. Yet, the past 30 years of conservative dominance of U.S. politics and the stripping out of most New Deal financial regulation has led to exactly the kind of tyranny that Orwell warned against. And that was the tyranny against truth, justice and fairness in our governance and in our markets, which reached its pinnacle under the administration of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. And it is that tyranny, which Mr. Beck continues and enables through his Tea Party movement.