aboutpoliticsandotherstuff-blog - Tumblr blog

[aboutpoliticsandotherstuff-blog]

Worldly Malfunction: Globalization’s Failures and Remedies

Today, the world is more connected than any other time in recorded history. The flow of data and communication between borders has gone from 4.7 thousand gigabits per second to 211.3 gigabits per second between 2005 and 2014 alone; that’s a 45 fold increase.1 The number of international migrants has increased from 173 million in 2000 to 244 million in 2015.2 Trade as a percent of nations’ GDP worldwide was 57.5% in 2015, more than twice as large as it was in 1960.3 Foreign direct investment worldwide totaled $2.1 trillion in 2015, up from $10.2 billion in 1970.4 Consequently, the customs and traditions of different world cultures are more present and more accessible to the world. The increase of connectedness between the world’s people is called globalization. The contemporary globalization movement began with a massive drop in tariffs after the second world war, and accelerated with the fall of communist regimes towards the latter end of the 20th century. This enabled entrepreneurs all across the world to enter the global marketplace for every good and service sold on it. Through specialization, organization on the basis of comparative advantage, and usage of the latest technology, millions of people in impoverished nations were able to bring themselves out of poverty. China, India, and South Korea are only a few examples of this. However, the universal love of globalization turned sour when it was unable to deliver on its promise of “prosperity to all.” Even in developed countries like the US--which have enjoyed significant GDP increases due to globalization--people are united against it. The traction gained by presidential candidate Pat Buchanan (who ran on policies opposing globalization) during his two presidential elections in the 1990s was an early indication of a fear that would later manifest in the form of riots at the 1999 World Trade Organization conference in Seattle. Fast forward a decade and a half: businessman Donald Trump has won the presidency by espousing his opposition to free trade agreements. The reaction has been even worse in the global south, where most of globalization’s problems lie. Globalization may have helped some; but, through trade liberalization, capital market liberalization, privatization, the creation of global economic institutions, and the expansion of markets, globalization has been incredibly detrimental to some of the world’s most vulnerable nations.

Trade liberalization (more commonly referred to as “free trade”) is the cornerstone of globalization, and the flagship of its failures. It refers to the removal of barriers that interfere with the exchange of goods and services between nations. Tariffs, quotas, regulations are all examples of such barriers. According to neoclassical economic theory, trade liberalization is the foremost way by which countries increase their wealth; it brings new people, along with their talents and resources, into competition with each other in the market. Supposedly, everyone becomes richer when countries slash tariffs, remove quotas, and deregulate the trading process. In practice, this is not always the case. Within certain contexts, free trade can decimate the economies of countries who engage in it. When cheaper (and often superior) foreign goods flow into a given market, domestic competition in the relative industry is pushed out of business. This is economically efficient in the sense that the most productive firms are then set to produce that industry's goods; on the other hand, if new productive jobs are not created in a new industry as unproductive workers are shed in the old one, aggregate demand can fall, causing an economic downturn. Whether or not jobs are created in a new industry is dependent on two factors: (1) the availability of capital, and (2) the presence of entrepreneurship. Trade liberalization can only be effective insofar as these two needs are met. Unfortunately, in third world countries, the needs for capital nor entrepreneurship are met in the face of trade liberalization. A lack of education ensures that few entrepreneurs rise to the task of creating new firms; likewise, the weakness of (or lack of) financial markets ensures that those few entrepreneurs cannot secure any capital. The results are dire: jobs are destroyed faster than they are created, and previously impoverished people are plunged even deeper into the global south. This is precisely what happened in Sub-Saharan Africa following the 1994 round of worldly trade negotiations, which built upon the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The round of negotiations was dubbed the “Uruguay Round.” A report by the World Bank found that trade liberalization in Sub-Saharan Africa (which was negotiated as part of the Uruguay round) led to a 2% decline in the country’s gross national income (GNI).11 A more egregious example can be seen in Mexico. Following the enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, subsidized American exports flooded Mexican markets. Inexpensive corn exports increased five times, and pork exports increased twenty-five times.5 As a result, 120,000 Mexican jobs disappeared, pushing fourteen million mexicans into extreme poverty.6 With nowhere else to turn, these newly impoverished people immigrated to the United States. Between 1992 and 2000, the number of illegal immigrants in America more than doubled. In the cases of Sub-Saharan Africa, Mexico, and others, trade liberalization did not fulfil the promises of neoclassical doctrine--it did quite the opposite.

Capital market liberalization goes hand in hand with trade liberalization, and can be just as detrimental. Capital market liberalization is the removal of restrictions on financial flows between nations. Like trade liberalization, capital market liberalization is a double edged sword. It satisfies one of the two major requirements for the development of new industries in third world countries: access to financing. Conversely, capital market liberalization opens the floodgates for hot money. Hot money refers to funds that quickly flow in and out of a country’s markets. It allows investors to push large amounts of money into developing economies, and--if prospects are dim--to remove them overnight. By pulling financing out from underneath developing economies all at once (and with zero notice), outflows of hot money can destroy those economies. It was for this reason that european economies didn’t adopt capital market liberalization until the 1970s.10 There are indirect consequences of hot money too; the opening of markets to quick capital flows brings with it risks which make long-term investments from foreign nations unattractive. Hot money, although the highlight of capital market liberalization, is only one of its aspects. When financial markets are non-competitive, capital market liberalization can spawn higher interest rates by moving the responsibility for lending from state-run monopolies to private ones. In the same stride, capital market liberalization can weaken “window guidance”--influence of a country’s central bank over private ones--and risk pushing the business cycle through more extreme expansions and contractions. These three key downfalls of capital market liberalization (the proliferation of hot money, risk of private monopolies in financial markets, and reduction in window guidance) are exemplified in the 1997 financial crisis in East Asia, which suppressed the growth of countries in the region to 17% less than it would have been otherwise.7 After the opening of East Asian financial markets and the subsequent collapse of the Thai baht, domestic business saw its low-interest financing evaporate. The East Asia crisis was only one of many times that capital market liberalization has done more harm than good.

Trade liberalization and capital market liberalization across the globe has been met with the adoption of privatization policies, which exacerbate the economic troubles brought about by those other aspects of globalization. Privatization is the transfer of public enterprise to private individuals. In neoclassical theory, privatization can increase economic efficiency by bringing corporations under the scrutiny of the market. This ideal scenario laid out by neoclassical theory may very well be desirable, but only exists once a prerequisite is met: the given market that state industry is privatized into is a competitive one. If markets are are non-competitive, privatization can have the dire consequence of creating highly inefficient private monopolies. Since government companies are often conceived in order to address the market’s failure to provide goods and services, privatization frequently hands over power to private monopolies. Prices soar; quality plummets. The privatization of chick distribution services in Morocco, of internet services in the Ivory Coast, and of water in Bolivia are prime illustrations. Privatization carries with it large social costs as well. Even if markets are competitive, inefficient workers are shed from a company when it is privatized. If they are unable to find new, equally fulfilling (and paying) work, they may be met with increased feelings of alienation. They may put additional financial burdens on their family, or withdraw children from school in order to help cope with that financial burden. Privatization is not always sunshine and roses; like trade liberalization and capital market liberalization, it is yet another aspect of globalization that has the capacity for tremendous harm.

With the rise of globalization, there has been a parallel rise in global governance. Unfortunately, the institutions of global governance have often perpetuated globalization’s biggest problems by only serving the interests of those represented within them. The main institutions that manage globalization are the World Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The World Bank and the IMF were both formed in the wake of the great depression at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference, and were tasked with preventing another global economic crisis. The World Bank was designed to provide loans to develop the infrastructure of developing countries; the IMF was designed to provide loans to countries in crisis as to maintain global economic stability. The WTO was created in 1995 as an expansion of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT); it exists to better facilitate international trade negotiations. There are two main problems with these institutions, which have led them to perpetuate the biggest detriments of globalization: the first has to do with how much representation each country gets within the institutions. In the World Bank, the IMF, and the WTO, countries are not represented based on population, or by the degree to which they are affected by decisions made at the World Bank, the IMF, or the WTO. Votes are allocated on the basis of economic power. This leaves third world countries--which are the most heavily affected by decisions made at the institutions of globalization--with little or no say in the way that globalization will go about. The second problem with these institutions has less to do with which countries are represented within them, but rather which interests appear at the negotiating table. At the IMF and World Bank, countries are represented by their finance ministers and central bank governors, who are interested with keeping inflation low and seeing their loans repaid. At the WTO, countries are represented by their trade ministers, who are interested in reducing current account trade deficits and maximizing current account trade surpluses. Notice who is not represented. Workers in both developed and developing countries, who may lose or gain jobs to agreements negotiated at any one of these institutions, do not get a seat at the table. Small businessmen in third world countries, who may be driven out of the market by foreign goods, don’t get a seat either. Meanwhile, investment banks and wealthy individuals seeking to make a profit on the development of the third world are well represented through their finance ministers and central bank governors. Likewise, multinational corporations seeking to make a profit by exporting their goods all across the global south are well represented through their trade ministers. It is unsurprising, given which countries and interests have been in the driver’s seat of globalization, that policies of trade liberalization, capital market liberalization, and privatization have been pursued to the advantage of the rich and powerful whilst condemning the poor and powerless to their ever worsening predicament. It was the policies of the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO which led to economic crisies in East Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, post-communist Russia, and more. These are not mistakes; they are decisions that conform with the institutional structure of the IMF, World Bank, and WTO.

Some critics of globalization see the end of globalization as a solution to these problems. They assert that heavy barriers on trade, financial flows, migration, and/or international communication will “fix” globalization. This is wrong. Although an end to globalization may be able to rectify momentary problems created by globalization, it would simultaneously give up all of globalization’s benefits, including its strong tendency to create wealth. According to World Bank data, 13% of the United States’ GDP in 2015 was created by the sale of exports.8 That’s $2.2 trillion. In the same year, the US imported $2.3 trillion worth of goods, many of which are used as inputs in the production of American-made goods.9 In the US, to “end” globalization would mean to stop exporting and importing trillions of dollars worth of goods, casting millions of people into poverty. This is not good for the developed or developing world. Ending globalization would be an unproductive knee-jerk reaction to the problems of globalization; it is not a well thought-out solution.

Other critics who are more perceptive of the cause of globalization’s problems suppose that although ending globalization altogether is not desirable, the IMF and the World Bank should be destroyed. The critics point out that the existence of these lending agencies encourages countries to engage in high risk, high reward activities by providing countries with a safety net (a loan) to fall into if things go south. Moreover, the critics point out the truism that the IMF and World Bank are fundamentally undemocratic, and serve the special interests represented within them. Although this sceptical view hits on some well-justified points, it falls flat because it fails to consider that the problems of globalization are still present without the global economic institutions. Getting rid of the IMF and the World Bank wouldn’t eliminate those problems; in fact, it would eliminate the only institutions which can possibly correct the failures of globalization. These institutions themselves are neither good nor bad; they are a product of the people and interests who direct them. They have acted badly because they are run by people interested only in low inflation rates and loan repayments. For the institutions to be good, they must be directed by people with different interests. The IMF and the World Bank do not need to be eliminated, but restructured.

Globalization has not gone well for many of the world’s weakest and most vulnerable nations. Trade liberalization, capital market liberalization, privatization, and the creation of global economic institutions have ended up being--in many cases--colossal failures. It is not a law of nature that globalization is run in such a manner. To make globalization work for everyone, different prescriptions must be given to countries entering the global economy. Trade liberalization must be accompanied by low interest rates and a strong safety net, so that the negative effects of unemployment are minimized and so that lost jobs are recouped. Capital market liberalization must be accompanied by strong financial regulations, so that the worst tendencies of hot money are not realized. Privitization must be accompanied by strong public education, access to capital, and antitrust legislation, so that private monopolies do not arise. In general, industrialization must be considered within the context of the earth’s climate crisis. All of these measures should be developed by the third world countries which they affect most. The reforms described here can only emanate from more democratically run global economic institutions. Workers and their communities--not just finance ministers, central bank governors, and trade ministers--should have seats at the IMF, World Bank, and WTO. They shouldn’t just sit there, either; they should have a say in the way those institutions design and shape globalization. It is only through this new way of managing globalization that it has a shot at bringing continued prosperity to all.

Sources:

James Manyika, Susan Lund, Jacques Bughin, Jonathan Woetzel, Kalin Stamenov, and Dhruv Dhingra. "Digital Globalization: The New Era of Global Flows." McKinsey & Company. McKinsey Global Institute, Feb. 2016. Web. <http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/digital-mckinsey/our-insights/digital-globalization-the-new-era-of-global-flows>.

Connor, Phillip. "International Migration: Key Findings from the U.S., Europe and the World."Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center, 15 Dec. 2016. Web. <http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/15/international-migration-key-findings-from-the-u-s-europe-and-the-world/>.

"Trade (% of GDP)." The World Bank. The World Bank, 2016. Web. <http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.TRD.GNFS.ZS?end=2015&start=2015>.

"Foreign Direct Investment, Net Inflows (BoP, Current US$)." The World Bank. The World Bank, 2016. Web. <http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.CD.WD>.

Relinger, Rick. "NAFTA and US Corn Subsidies: Explaining the Displacement Of Mexico’s Corn Farmers." Prospect Journal. N.p., 19 Apr. 2010. <https://prospectjournal.org/2010/04/19/nafta-and-u-s-corn-subsidies-explaining-the-displacement-of-mexicos-corn-farmers-2/>.

Bacon, David. "How US Policies Fueled Mexico’s Great Migration." The Nation. N.p., 29 June 2015. <https://www.thenation.com/article/how-us-policies-fueled-mexicos-great-migration/>.

Joseph E. Stiglitz. "Capital Market Liberalization, Economic Growth, and Instability." Capital Market Liberalization, Economic Growth, and Instability (2000): n. pag. Columbia Business School Press. Web. <https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/mygsb/faculty/research/pubfiles/1479/Stiglitz_CapMktLiberaliz.pdf>.

"Exports of Goods and Services (% of GDP)." The World Bank. The World Bank, 2016. Web. <http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS?end=2015&locations=US&start=1960&view=chart>.

"United States All Products Import (US$ Thousand)." World Integrated Trade Solution. World Integrated Trade Solution, 2016. Web. <http://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/country/USA/startyear/LTST/endyear/LTST/tradeFlow/Import/indicator/MPRT-TRD-VL/partner/WLD/product/Total>.

Springler, Elizabeth. "Financial Liberalization, Stock Markets and Growth in Economies with Underdeveloped Financial Markets." Financial Liberalization, Stock Markets and Growth in Economies with Underde- Veloped Financial Markets 3.2 (2006): 53-86. European Political Economy Review. Web. <http://aei.pitt.edu/8371/1/springler.pdf>.

Harrold, Peter. "Impact of the Uruguay round on Sub-Saharan Africa." Impact of the Uruguay round on Sub-Saharan Africa (English) | The World Bank. The World Bank, 08 Oct. 2010. Web. <http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/938471468317123700/Impact-of-the-Uruguay-round-on-Sub-Saharan-Africa>.

[aboutpoliticsandotherstuff-blog]

The US Government Is Responsible for Mexican Immigration

Today, 11 million illegal immigrants live in the United States. According to PEW Research, just over half of them are from Mexico.1 With president Trump’s moves towards forcefully deporting these Mexican immigrants, and moves towards building a wall on the Mexican border, the question should be asked: why did these immigrants come to the United States? Ultimately, Mexican immigrants have been driven to the United States because of dire economic conditions created by American policy. Following the enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, subsidized American exports flooded Mexican markets. Inexpensive corn exports increased five times, and pork exports increased twenty-five times.2 As a result, 120,000 Mexican jobs disappeared, pushing fourteen million Mexicans into extreme poverty.3 With nowhere else to turn, these newly impoverished people immigrated to the United States. Between 1992 and 2000, the number of illegal immigrants in America more than doubled.

It’s about time that the president of the United States recognizes that Mexicans are not “taking” American jobs. The truth is quite the opposite: Americans have taken Mexican jobs by exploiting low-wage workers as part of NAFTA. America should not only reconsider its existing and future free trade policies, but also grant legal status to immigrants living in the US today. To do anything else would be inconsistent with America’s fundamental value of liberty and justice for all.

---

Sources:

Krogstad, Jens Manuel, Jeffrey S. Passel, and D’Vera Cohn. "5 Facts about Illegal Immigration in the U.S." Pew Research Center. N.p., 03 Nov. 2016. Web. 30 Jan. 2017. <http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/03/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/>.

Prospectjournalucsd. "NAFTA AND U.S. CORN SUBSIDIES: EXPLAINING THE DISPLACEMENT OF MEXICO’S CORN FARMERS." Prospect Journal. N.p., 19 Apr. 2010. Web. 30 Jan. 2017. <https://prospectjournal.org/2010/04/19/nafta-and-u-s-corn-subsidies-explaining-the-displacement-of-mexicos-corn-farmers-2/>.

Https://www.thenation.com/author/smccroskey/. "How US Policies Fueled Mexico���s Great Migration." The Nation. N.p., 29 June 2015. Web. 30 Jan. 2017. <https://www.thenation.com/article/how-us-policies-fueled-mexicos-great-migration/>.

[aboutpoliticsandotherstuff-blog]

Money In Politics Squashes Opposition Candidates and Parties

On Wednesday, October 19th, the two most unpopular candidates for the presidency of the United States will take to the University of Las Vegas for one final debate. According to polling aggregated by  RealClearPolitics, Hillary and Trump have higher unfavorability ratings than they do favorables (53.3% and 57.6% unfavorables respectively).1-2 In fact, Pew Research claims that the majority of people voting for either candidate don't like who they’re voting for; rather, they dislike who they're voting against.3 These statistics indicate a staggering absence of democracy.

This phenomenon is not without cause. Because of moneyed interests’ undue influence on American government, the vote is no longer being used for it’s intended purpose: to align public opinion with public policy. A Princeton University study covering just short of 1,800 policy issues between 1981 and 2002 found that, in fact, public opinion amongst the bottom 90% of income earners had no effect on public policy. The top 10% of income earners, however, had a direct effect on public policy.4 They do this by buying both the Democratic and Republican parties under the name of campaign contributions, which totalled $2,751,915,990 and $3,195,866,492 respectively in the 2012 election cycle (according to the Federal Election Commission).5 Furthermore, the top 0.1% gave 26% of all the money donated, totalling $1,757,407,618.12.6 That’s an average of $55,995.14 per person. For contrast, the US Census found the median household income of Americans to be $55,775.7 It is this system of privately financed elections that disconnects the will of the voters from their elected officials, and leaves them with such unfavorable views of the two most dominant parties.

It’s not that opposition parties who reject wealthy donors don’t exist; rather, they are shut out of the political process by those donors. According to the New York Times, Donald Trump had received nearly $1,898 Million in free media by March, Hillary Clinton had received $745 Million, while the Green Party’s Jill Stein had received none.8 This is a result of conflicting interests between news organizations’ journalistic integrity and their profits. Time Warner, CNN’s parent company, has spent $778,763 buying Republican and Democratic congressional candidates in 2016 alone, and has spent $812,368 on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.9-10 Likewise, Comcast (which owns MSNBC) gave $2,678,898 to congressional candidates in both parties this year, and $125,949 to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.11-12 This free media, let alone paid media, skews the attention of the public towards candidates whose policies would benefit the wealthy executives of huge corporations like Time Warner and Comcast.

Perhaps the best example of big money squashing the voices of opposition parties, however, is the presidential debates. They are run and organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a private organization whose members are appointed by the Democratic and Republican parties. This commission decides all the circumstances in which the debates take place: the location, time, duration, moderator, topics, questions, and criteria for entry. One of those criteria is an average of 15% in an aggregate of 5 polls (which polls are not specified). Seeing that it is near impossible for a candidate to reach 15% without free media given to them by corporate news, paid media funded by corporate money, or being in the debates themselves, the Commission on Presidential Debates has barred any politicians who refuse to be corrupted by big money from competing to be the leader of the free world. Practices like these stretch from the presidency, governorships, and senate seats to state legislatures, city councils, and school boards.

As long as those with the deepest pocketbooks hold the keys to public office, the voices of middle and lower income Americans will not be heard. There is only one way to fix this once and for all: amend the constitution. A constitutional amendment to get money out of politics and enact publicly funded elections is necessary to give Americans a real choice at the ballot box, not the corporate-approved options that the American people are given every year. End this era of false dilemma; fight to expand democracy beyond the donor class, and into the hands of middle and lower income Americans, who deserve to have their voices heard as well.

Sources:

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000461&cycle=2016

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/02/for-many-voters-its-not-which-presidential-candidate-theyre-for-but-which-theyre-against/

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/03/the-2012-election-our-price-tag-fin/

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/acsbr15-02.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000094&cycle=2016

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000461&cycle=2016

[aboutpoliticsandotherstuff-blog]

America Needs Universal Health Care

With health care giant Aetna’s recent withdrawal from the Affordable Care Act, the conversation over the state of American health care has been reignited. The progress made by Obamacare is undeniable; according to the Department of Health and Human Services, 20 million previously uninsured people now have health care. Furthermore, insurance providers are no longer allowed to turn away customers with pre-existing conditions, and kids are allowed to stay on their parents’ health insurance until they are 26. However, American health care remains far more inaccessible, inefficient, and ineffective in comparison to countries that provide universal health care. It's about time that the US caught up with those countries by supplying health care as a right to all of its citizens. America must institute a single-payer, Medicare-for-all health care system in order to provide its citizens with the highest quality, most cost effective health care.

The most obvious detriment of a privatized health care system is it’s lack accessibility. According to a 2016 Gallup poll, 11% of Americans remain uninsured. The more staggering number, however, is the amount of insured people who are underinsured. A study by the Commonwealth Fund found that, of the 89% of americans who have health insurance, 13% have premiums that are above 10% of their income, 10% have deductibles that are more than 5% of their income, and 10% have out of pocket costs that are greater than 10% of their income. Collectively, 25% of the insured population cannot afford their health care. This forces them to wait to get treatment, often until it’s too late. In fact, The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) found that America’s average annual physician visits per capita of 4.0 fell far below the OECD median of 6.5 visits. In comparison, Canada averaged 7.7 visits, Germany averaged 9.9 visits, and Japan averaged 12.9 visits.

This inaccessibility of health care has had a detrimental effect on Americans’ health. When the Commonwealth Fund compared health care in the United States with that of 12 other industrialized countries (Australia, France, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, Denmark), researchers ranked the United States last on healthy lives (as it did on equity, efficiency, cost-related problems, and overall). Among these countries, OECD data found the United States to have the lowest life expectancy, the highest rate of infant mortality, the highest percent of population over 65 with two or more chronic conditions, the lowest percent of the population over 65, and the highest obesity rate. To its credit, a study by Stevens et al. found that the US has lower mortality rates for cancer than most industrialized countries; this doesn’t, however, rectify Americans’ needs for access to primary care. A single-payer system would subvert this problem by providing all Americans with access to primary care, secondary care, and beyond.

Despite America’s substandard performance on health care, it spends significantly more per capita than that of the UK, Canada, and other single-payer countries. While the US spends $8,508 per individual on health care, Canada spends $4,118 per capita, and the UK spends $3,404 per capita. Norway and Sweden, who (according to the World Health Organization) have the highest quality healthcare worldwide, spend only $5,669 and $3,925 respectively. Universal health care would not only save American lives; it would save American dollars.

Conservatives argue that a universal health care system would stifle competition in the health insurance industry, making the American economy worse off. I would contend, however, that the opposite is the case. The public option wouldn’t replace existing health care providers. It’s just that: an option. In fact, single-payer would provide robust competition to existing health insurance companies, driving down prices and making consumers better off. This would also increase the velocity of jobs and entrepreneurship, seeing that workers would not be compelled to work for a particular employer simply because that employer provides health coverage. In other words: people who want to start their own business will be able to have health coverage while they create their startups, giving them incentive to do so. In more ways than one, universal health care fuels the economy.

The evidence is in: a single-payer health care system is the most accessible, effective, and economical way to maximize the health of Americans in the 21st century. A physically and mentally healthy population is not just necessary to maximize worker productivity, voter participation, and innovation; having access to functioning medical services allows individuals to live a life that is meaningful and fulfilling. For that reason, the case for a single-payer health care system in the US is not simply a political one. It’s a moral one. It’s time for the American people to take a moral stand and enact universal health care as the law of the land in the United States.

Sources:

http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

http://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2016/03/03/20-million-people-have-gained-health-insurance-coverage-because-affordable-care-act-new-estimates

http://www.gallup.com/poll/190484/uninsured-rate-lowest-eight-year-trend.aspx

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/may/problem-of-underinsurance

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/images/publications/issue-brief/2015/oct/squires_oecd_exhibit_03.png?la=en

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective

http://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/0006_health-care-oecd.pdf

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror

[aboutpoliticsandotherstuff-blog]

Remembering 9/11 (and What We Can Learn from It)

Fifteen years ago today, at 8:46 AM, a hijacked commercial airliner was flown into the World Trade Center’s North Tower in downtown Manhattan. Minutes later, at 9:03 AM, another airliner was flown into the South Tower. In the same day, hijackers directed a plane into the Pentagon. 2997 people were killed, 6000+ people were injured, 1300 children were orphaned, and 422,000 were afflicted with PTSD. Individuals and families all over the world continued to be affected by the aftermath of 9/11, both emotionally and physically. By every measure imaginable, what happened on September 11th, 2001 was nothing short of a tragedy.

The biggest American tragedy, however, happened in the days, weeks, and years following the September 11th attacks. Islamophobia soon became a cornerstone of American culture; Gallup polling found that 52% of Americans say they “do not respect Muslims”, which is illustrated by the ten-fold increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes and dramatic increase in job discrimination against muslims following 9/11 (according to FBI Uniform Crime Statistics and PEW Research respectively). This Islamophobic sentiment led the United States military to invade Iraq in 2003, which took half a million lives, inflicted 500,000 veterans with PTSD, increased veterans’ suicide rate by 80%, added $2 Trillion to the national debt (with another $6 Trillion coming over the next four decades), and created ISIS. Americans’ hatred of muslims has not served them well.

With this in mind, it is important that Americans reconsider what it means to defeat terrorism. The greatest tool of terror organizations is not sheer military might; rather, it’s the ability to inflict societies with fear of “the other”. This fear destroys societies from the inside, with the power of hateful ideology rather than invading armies. One look at the Ottoman empire, Nazi Germany, and Cambodia will tell you that much. They key to defeating terror is not to give in to fear of “the other”, but to overcome demagoguery with tolerance and reason. For the United States, that means ridding its culture the of rampant islamophobia that continues to play into the hands of ISIS and other violent religious radicals around the world.

When remembering 9/11, also remember the lessons taught by it’s aftermath: intolerance for Islam is counter intuitive. By exercising tolerance in all its forms in your everyday life, you not only work against the goals of global terror; you make the world a better place for your generation and many more to come.

Sources:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/aug/18/usa.terrorism

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157082/islamophobia-understanding-anti-muslim-sentiment-west.aspx

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/anti-muslim-hate-crimes-are-still-five-times-more-common-today-than-before-911/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/11/26/study-muslim-job-candidates-may-face-discrimination-in-republican-states/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/iraq-death-toll_n_4102855.html

https://medlineplus.gov/magazine/issues/winter09/articles/winter09pg10-14.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/study-80-percent-army-suicides-start-iraq-war/story?id=15872301

[aboutpoliticsandotherstuff-blog]

American Elections Need Ranked Choice Voting

The American people do not like their elected officials. According to a survey done by Pew Research, 32% of Americans have a favorable view of the national government. Similarly, a survey done by Gallup found that only 13% percent of Americans have a favorable view of congress. Perhaps the best example of this distaste for government is in the 2016 presidential elections; the Democratic and Republican Party nominees for the presidency are the most disliked presidential candidates in recorded history, both of which have higher unfavorables than they do favorables (53% and 60.1% unfavorability ratings respectively). These numbers indicate an unsettling larger trend: the integrity of the American vote has been compromised. Ranked Choice Voting is necessary not only to restore integrity to the vote; it would also end the two-party monopoly, and help restore democracy to the United States.

First: what is Ranked Choice Voting? Ranked Choice Voting (or RCV) allows voters to vote for the candidate they most agree with, without worry of splitting the vote. As the name suggests, voters rank candidates on their ballots in order of preferability; then, using a mechanism called “instant runoff”, candidates who finish with the lowest percentage of the vote are eliminated one-by-one until a single candidate wins the majority.

The integrity of the American vote, or its purpose an agent of democracy, has been eroded and needs to be revitalized by RCV. That purpose is not small by any means; the vote exists so that views of a populous are represented in government. When it is politically proficient for a voter to cast their ballot for a candidate they disagree with, and the government does not represent the voters, the integrity of that vote has been compromised. The United States’ 2016 presidential election is (again) a textbook example of this. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, only 43% of Hillary supporters agree with her policy positions, and only 40% of Trump supporters agree with his policy. The result is millions of Americans voting to keep a candidate out of the White House, rather than voting to put one in. This system of “fear voting” clearly does not constitute a democracy. RCV would eliminate this kind of strategic voting, and restore the integrity of the vote by allowing voters to cast their ballot for candidates they agree with the most.

The Democratic and Republican Parties currently hold a monopoly on American democracy, and RCV is needed to bring that monopoly to an end. It's not that opinions don't exist outside the two major parties; a number of factors cause opposition parties and candidates to be suppressed. This includes exclusion from debates, lack of funding, and subsequent lack of media buzz. Perhaps the most blatant example of this takes place on the national stage in the form of the electoral college, which is a “winner-take-all” system that underrepresents voting minorities. By definition, this tilts the scale in favor of the two establishment parties, and scares voters away from third parties, for fear of not being represented. Opposition parties like the Greens and the Libertarians both provide valuable perspectives to the American political conversation, and therefore ought to be included in it. RCV would end the dominating parties’ stranglehold of the electoral college, and allow third parties to be more fairly represented in the vote.

The reforms that RCV would bring about are necessary to a functioning democracy. At the moment, that democracy is anything but. A Princeton study that observed 1,800 policy issues from 1981 to 2002 found that public opinion had no effect on laws passed, with one exception: the top 10% of income earners had an ideal impact on what did (or did not) become law. This is before the 2012 Citizens United decision, which classifies corporations as people under law, and allows for unlimited political contributions in the form of Super PACs. At a time where moneyed interests have such a tremendous influence on American government, RCV is needed to give Americans a real choice when picking their elected officials, not a choice between a few similar candidates that are funded by the same special interests.

If America is to move forward as a model for other nations across the world, it must enact Ranked Choice Voting. RCV is not a loosely described idea or part of a partisan strategy; it’s a tangible solution to the degradation of American ideals. That's why organizations like FairVote have fought so hard for this bill to become the law of the land. When that does happen, and all American voters are allowed to rank their choices on the ballot, I believe they will have taken a humongous step towards having a freer, more democratic United States of America.

Sources:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx

http://www.people-press.org/2015/11/23/4-ratings-of-federal-agencies-congress-and-the-supreme-court/agencies-2/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html

http://time.com/4321059/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-poll/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/do-the-debates-unfairly-shut-out-third-parties/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/make-room-for-third-party-candidates/2016/03/03/39bbeb44-df23-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html?utm_term=.261a62ff37bd

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics-july-dec04-third_parties/

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

[aboutpoliticsandotherstuff-blog]

The US Needs Stop Its Drone Program Immediately

One of the United States’ biggest arms in the war on terror is the CIA’s drone program. In the program, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are used to strike suspected terrorists in countries abroad in an attempt to weaken terrorist organizations like ISIS and al-Qaeda. The drone program exists to cripple these terror organizations, and preserve the innocent lives that terrorists intend to take. This article will attempt to fundamentally question whether or not the the program achieves what it sets out to do. Does the CIA’s use of drone strikes actually make us safer?

Despite their intent to kill those associated with terrorist organizations, the vast majority of those killed by drone strikes are innocent civilians. According to a report by The Intercept, nearly 90% of those killed by drones are unintended targets. Furthermore, a study done by Stanford University and New York University concluded that only 2% of people killed were “high-level targets”. Although the exact death toll is uncertain, a study by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism claims that a minimum of 2,499 people have been killed by drones in Pakistan alone. Between Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Afghanistan, that number grows to 5,205. If you include those who died anonymously, the death toll becomes a staggering 8,155. That’s a civilian death toll of at least 4,684, and as much as 7,339.

The government’s report of civilian deaths by drone strikes, however, is much lower. The Obama administration has estimated that between 64 and 116 civilians were killed from 2009 to 2015, excluding drone strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is directly contradictory to The Intercept’s report that 90% of those killed by drones are unintended killings, seeing that the Obama administration also reported that 2,372 to 2,581 terrorist combatants were killed in those strikes. This has to do with the way that the administration determines who is (and isn’t) a terrorist: all “military age males in a strike zone” are automatically considered to be combattants. In essence, in the eyes of the drone strike program, all people in the target area are terrorists until proven otherwise. This has some obvious flaws; mainly, those people are not given the opportunity to prove their innocence before their lives are taken from them. This leaves a dangerous precedent for the way in which the United States’ military operates. By choosing to continue drone strikes that predominantly kill innocent civilians, America loses the moral high ground over al-Qaeda and ISIS that it needs to defeat them.

Not only does the CIA’s drone program take the lives of innocent people abroad; it makes Americans less safe at home. There is no evidence that drone strikes are decreasing terrorist threats against the US. In fact, I would contend the opposite: when civilian daughters, sons, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, mothers, and fathers are the primary victims of drone strikes, understandably resentful family members will turn to violence. According to a report by the Washington Post, increased drone strikes in Yemen have driven residents towards al-Qaeda. The Yemeni people’s behavior is not unique, and radical islam is not the not the reason they turn to terror. Instead, religious extremism is a vessel in which they communicate their anti-american sentiment. The use of drone strikes aggravates that sentiment, fuels terror, and puts American lives in danger.

Drones are not helping Americans’ wallets, either. Although the CIA does not disclose exactly how much it spends on drones and drone related expenses, the 2017 fiscal year budget proposal allocates $4.483 billion for the drone program.

Ultimately, the CIA’s drone program does not achieve what it sets out to do. Not only does it endanger American lives and take money from American taxpayers; it continues to murder thousands of innocent men, women, and children abroad. This disregard for human life has become symbolic of American foreign policy. If America is to be a leader in ushering the world into a more peaceful future, it must seriously consider whether or not the drone program (and ones like it) meet the ethical standards expected from a respected world leader. If Americans do just that, I am confident that America can set a worldwide example of how a country can defend itself while still respecting the dignity and God-given rights of all people across the world.

Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/civilian-deaths-drone-strikes_us_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/drones-graphs/

http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/publication/313671/doc/slspublic/Stanford_NYU_LIVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&&mtrref=undefined

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/in-yemen-us-airstrikes-breed-anger-and-sympathy-for-al-qaeda/2012/05/29/gJQAUmKI0U_story.html

http://dronecenter.bard.edu/drones-in-the-defense-budget/

[aboutpoliticsandotherstuff-blog]

What Bernie Sanders’ Endorsement of Hillary Clinton Means for Progressives in 2016

With Bernie Sanders’ recent endorsement of Hillary Clinton, the presumptive democratic nominee, progressives who backed Sanders during his presidential run are a mixed bag. While some are falling behind the democratic establishment in order to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office, many others feel betrayed by the endorsement. This leaves Americans who are looking for progressive change in a tough bind. What options do they have at the ballot box that will actually reflect their voices as members of the electorate?

Option A: vote for Hillary Clinton. A vote for Clinton is indisputably counter intuitive to progressive values, but the consequences of a Trump presidency is enough to make Bernie supporters think twice. Understandably, putting their vote towards Clinton would feel like a vote against their own policy positions; it would be a vote against a $15 minimum wage, against a carbon tax, against the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, against the decriminalization of marijuana, against a single payer health care system, against universal pre-k, against the end of military interventionism, against banning the death penalty, against a $1 Trillion infrastructure job program, and (most importantly) against publicly financed elections that would get money out of politics. Bernie certainly has differences with her on these issues. Why, then, did he endorse his former rival? Why didn’t he choose to run as an independent, or endorse a 3rd party candidate that more closely reflects his views? More fundamentally: what is Bernie afraid the electorate will do with their vote, if not vote for Clinton? That brings us to progressives’ second option.

Option B: vote for a third party candidate, most notably Jill Stein. Stein is the Green Party nominee for the 2016 election, and holds views almost identical to Bernie’s. She’s in favor of making america 100% green and renewable by 2050, a $15 minimum wage, trade protectionism, tuition-free public colleges and universities, reducing military aggression, eliminating private prisons, single-payer health care, and publicly financed elections (to name a few). Stein is sitting between 2 and 6 percent in the most recent round of polls, which (although measly compared to Trump and Clinton) could have easily been raised to 15% with exposure from a Bernie endorsement, putting her in the national debates. If Bernie knew this, why did he pass up endorsing Stein?

The reason Bernie threw his support behind Hillary Clinton is because he didn’t want to “split the vote.” If he ran as a third party candidate or endorsed the Green Party ticket, Bernie would have redirected votes that would have otherwise been cast for the democratic nominee, giving Donald Trump an excellent shot at being the next President of the United States. This happened in the year 2000, when Ralph Nader’s presidential bid led to the election of George W. Bush (and the turmoil that followed). With this in mind, both options mentioned above are still defensible; which one you choose will depend on ideology. Ask yourself these questions: what are the differences between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton? How significant are they? Are you prepared to vote for the lesser of two evils, even at the risk of electing Trump?

Regardless of who you support this election cycle, I urge you to continue fighting for progressive change in this year, and in the years to come. Always remember that real change does not come from ballots cast every four years, but when millions of people engage in the political process and get involved in their everyday lives. Call your elected officials; discuss politics with your friends; participate in civil disobedience. Doing these things is not only necessary for causes like Black Lives Matter and Wolf PAC; sharing your voice is fundamental to the human condition, and makes you a bit more...you.

Sources:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

http://www.jill2016.com/plan

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-nader-cost-gore-an-election/2015/02/05/3261cc22-abd2-11e4-8876-460b1144cbc1_story.html

[aboutpoliticsandotherstuff-blog]

Why California Isn’t Serious About Ending Its Drought

As our population increases, more natural resources are needed to sustain the well being of humankind. The cap on natural resource consumption is approaching, and populated areas of the world are seeing a decline in the availability of those resources. For example: water is becoming increasingly more scarce, particularly in California. According to the United States Drought Monitor, 43% of California is in “exceptional drought” or “extreme drought”. To combat this, Governor Brown has asked state residents to reduce their water usage by 25%. However, this reduction only applies to urban water use. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, only 10% of water usage is that of US residents’; 90% is used by California’s agriculture and livestock industry. That means, under Governor Brown’s executive order, only 2.5% of total water usage would be cut. That is not remotely close to the amount of water that needs to be conserved if we are to curb the trajectory of our drought.

There’s a reason why California’s residents are taking the entirety of this new regulatory burden, instead of sharing that burden with the agricultural industry. As it turns out, according to the Federal Election Commission, the the agriculture industry spent more than $13.5 Million contributing to politicians’ election campaigns in 2012. It is expected that they spend even more during this election cycle. As a result, our politicians continue to neglect Monsanto’s farming monopoly, and vote in favor of policies like the one instituted by Governor Brown. This used to be called “bribery”.

If we’re serious about water conservation, and you still want to flush the toilet, we need to have laws that ask big agriculture and livestock businesses to share the burden of reducing water usage. The way to solve this problem, alongside many others, is to move to publicly financed elections and get money out of politics. That way, lawmakers will represent the needs of the people rather than the needs of Monsanto and other huge trusts, not just in the agriculture but in every facet of democracy.

Sources:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=A07++

http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CA

http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/workgroups/lcfssustain/hanson.pdf

http://water.usgs.gov/edu/wulv.html

[aboutpoliticsandotherstuff-blog]

Why Marijuana Legalization is the Right Choice for America

In my final semester of high school, I took a class called “Health”. It was exactly what you might assume that a health class is like; we discussed nutrition, fitness, sex, and (of course) drugs. In particular, we focused on the most widely used illicit drug in the United States: Marijuana.

My instructor went over a variety of studies indicating that marijuana use can have a plethora of negative effects on your health, varying on how you consume it. It can damage your lungs, your immune system, and can cause emotional dependency if you use it to escape unpleasant feelings or situations. It goes without saying that you should avoid Marijuana abuse if you’re interested in keeping your body and mind as healthy as possible.

My instructor did, however, brush over some important points when he used that information to pitch to the class that marijuana use should remain illegal. If you’re in favor of keeping marijuana as a part of the Federal Controlled Substances Act (FCSA) next to heroin and methamphetamine, like my Health teacher, we need to have a larger discussion about the effects of our marijuana prohibition and its effects on our society.

The United States criminal justice system is one that incarcerates more people than any other developed nation. More than 2.2 million people are incarcerated in America, and another 5.1 million are on probation or parole. We incarcerate hundreds of thousands more people than China, an authoritarian communist regime without free speech or free elections. Furthermore, China has more than four times our population, and we still have more people behind bars than them. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, more than 50% of our prison population is there for minor drug offenses. That’s over a million people in jail for minor drug offenses alone, predominantly marijuana possession (not including those on probation or parole). Such a large percentage of our adult population in jail is what we call “mass incarceration.”

Not only do we lock up people in massive numbers; that system of imprisonment is racist.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), African Americans, Latinos, and whites all smoke marijuana at the same rate, yet black and brown people are four times as likely to be put behind bars for using marijuana. Furthermore, their sentences are consistently longer than those of whites.

This is how institutionalized racism works. By keeping marijuana use criminal, poor minority communities are kept in a perpetual cycle of poverty and divided families in a way that whites will never have to experience. That’s why black and brown people are stuck in a system of modern segregation, never having enough education or money to live in the places white people can.

Furthermore, keeping marijuana use a criminal act exacerbates the attempt to stop people from using it. When someone is released from jail, and they have a criminal record for marijuana possession, they are unlikely to get employment and become functioning contributors to society. Instead, they are thrown back into a multi-generational cycle of drugs, poverty, and imprisonment. In fact, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, longer sentences for drug users increases the chance that they will resume drug use when their sentence ends.

Legalizing the recreational use of marijuana would help countless Americans treat emotional dependency on marijuana. In order to get help for a marijuana abuse problem, the abuser must first admit they are breaking the law. Here’s why it’s so much harder to find help for people abusing any kind of drug when compared to alcohol: you can’t ask for help without asking to go to jail. When pot is decriminalized, you make treatment a feasible possibility for tens of thousands of people who have yet to admit they have a problem. Instead of treating addiction as a crime, we should be treating it as a sickness.

This last point is certainly less measurable numerically, but no less important: the federal prohibition on marijuana violates the supposedly american principle of liberty. The citizens of any “free nation” (which the United States certainly claims to be) should be able to do whatever they want in their free time, seeing that they don’t harm anybody else. In my mind, that includes the recreational use of marijuana. A person who chooses to smoke pot in their free time will reap whatever emotional, financial, or health-related consequences that result. Ultimately, until that person affects the lives of others through his use of marijuana, it is nobody’s business but his. For government to intrude into his personal activities is contradictory to the idea of a free society.

Let’s agree that pot can cause some serious health problems, but let’s also agree that keeping pot in the Federal Controlled Substances Act incarcerates an obscene amount of people, creates a police state, is an agent of institutionalized racism, exacerbates the attempt to keep people off marijuana, creates crime and unemployment, stops marijuana abusers from getting the help they need, and reduces the liberty of the american people. That’s why we need to remove marijuana from the Federal Controlled Substances Act, and legalize its recreational use under federal law. If we do that, we can end this era of mass incarceration, destroy the biggest arm of institutionalized racism, keep more people off marijuana, move people from the street to the workforce, help those who abuse marijuana become taxpaying members of society, and expand the liberty of the american people. Politicians (in both parties) that are satisfied satisfied spending $80 billion per year locking up millions of Americans for drug-related offenses are the same politicians that say it’s too expensive to spend $64 billion per year giving american youth a tuition-free college education. I reject that, and I think you should too. I ask that you voice your opinion, not only in the ballot box, but in the way you carry yourself through your everyday life.

[aboutpoliticsandotherstuff-blog]

A Viral Email, Debunked

I recently received an email from one of my best friends, with the subject line titled “interesting”. Attached was an article sent out by Phil Witt, a news anchor at the Fox 4 in Kansas City. It went like this:

> From: Phil Whitt <philw-bo@att.net<mailto:philw-bo@att.net>>

> Sent: Fri, Feb 26, 2016 2:21 pm

> Subject: U.S. Statistical Map

>

> >

> > The Latest U.S. Statistical Map:

> > Make sure you read to the bottom... Quite an eye opener! (Or should

> > be!) California New Mexico Mississippi Alabama Illinois Kentucky

> > Ohio New York Maine South Carolina These 11 States now have More

> > People on Welfare than they do Employed!!!

> > Last month, the Senate Budget Committee reports that in fiscal year 2012, between food stamps, housing support, child care, Medicaid and other benefits, the average U.S. Household below the poverty line received $168.00 a day in government support. What's the problem with that much support? Well, the median household income in America is just over $50,000, which averages out to $137.13 a day.

> > To put it another way, being on welfare now pays the equivalent of $30.00 an hour for 40 hour week, while the average job pays $20.00 an hour.

> > Furthermore:

> > There are actually two messages here. The first is very interesting, but the second is absolutely astounding - and explains a lot. A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.

> > Percentage (%) of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:

> > U.S. 65%

> > England 46%

> > Canada 42%

> > % of patients diagnosed with diabetes -received treatment within 6 months:

> > U.S. 93%

> > England 15%

> > Canada 43%

> > % of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:

> > U.S. 90%

> > England 15%

> > Canada 43%

> > % referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:

> > U.S. 77%

> > England 40%

> > Canada 43%

> > Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

> > U.S. 71

> > England 14

> > Canada 18

> > % of seniors (65+), with low income, who are in "excellent health":

> > U.S. 12%

> > England 2%

> > Canada 6%

> > And now...for the last statistic:

> > National Health Insurance?

> > U.S. NO

> > England YES

> > Canada YES

> > Check the last set of statistics!!

> > The percentage of each past president's cabinet... Who had worked in the private business sector...prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is; a real-life business...not a government job.

> > Here are the percentages.

> > 38% T. Roosevelt

> > 40% Taft

> > 52% Wilson

> > 49% Harding

> > 48% Coolidge

> > 42% Hoover

> > 50% F. D. Roosevelt

> > 50% Truman

> > 57% Eisenhower

> > 30% Kennedy

> > 47% Johnson

> > 53% Nixon

> > 42% Ford

> > 32% Carter

> > 56% Reagan

> > 51% GH Bush

> > 39% Clinton

> > 55% GW Bush

> > 8% Obama

> > This helps explain the incompetence of this administration: ONLY 8% of them...have ever worked in private business! That's right! Only eight percent---the least, by far, of the last 19 presidents!

> > And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business? How can the president of a major nation and society, the one with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs when he has never really had one? And, when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers?

> > They've spent most of their time in academia, government, and/or non-profit jobs. Or... As "community organizers."

> > Pass this on, because we'll NEVER see these facts...in the main stream media!!!

> > "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and

> > the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of

> > misery" -Winston Churchill

The contents of this email can be boiled down to three separate claims, which we will discuss in the order they were presented.

1: Eleven States now have more people on welfare than they do employed because welfare programs encourage them not to work.

This statistic was born out of a Forbes column written on November 25th, 2012 by William Baldwin. Four days later, Fox Business reported on this phenomenon, calling it the “Death Spiral”1. Both the Fox Business report and the viral email failed to mention that the Forbes article was not discussing the amount of people on welfare, but those who are “dependent on government.” This does not only include programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamps or SNAP), Medicare, and Social Security; under the viral email’s definition of “welfare”, police officers, public school teachers, postal workers, former workers receiving government pensions, and many people in similar positions are welfare recipients. Even the 27.5 million Americans who received an Earned Income Tax Credit, who (by definition) are working, are considered by this email’s author to only be on welfare2. Furthermore, the Forbes report adds one person to the “welfare recipient” list for every $100,000 in “unfunded pension liabilities”, and fails to account for the fact that 76% of TANF recipients and the 45% of food stamp recipients are children3-4. In actuality, none of the “Death Spiral” states have more TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid recipients than workers, even just within the private sector.

Most welfare beneficiaries are not receiving government support because of their laziness; on the contrary, a study done by UC Berkley in 2015 shows thta 56% of all welfare recipients are individuals with jobs and members of working families5. This is attributable primarily to the failure of trickle-down economics and corporate greed. When workers are paid the federal minimum wage of $7.25, a forty hour work week still leaves them well below the poverty line. Because corporations choose not to pay their workers a living wage, those workers are forced to utilize taxpayer sponsored programs like subsidized housing and food stamps. In effect, it is not the working poor of this country receiving the bulk of welfare; corporations are the biggest welfare recipients of all.

It’s not as if these corporations can’t afford to pay their workers a living wage, either. The wealthiest 1% of americans own more wealth than the bottom 90%, and a single family (the Walton family) owns a greater amount of wealth than the bottom 40% of america6. Furthermore, in the 2012 elections, big business spent $6 billion (with a b) on influencing the political winds7. They aren’t reinvesting in their businesses and creating decent jobs as “free trade” advocates would suggest; they’re amassing their wealth in numbers more staggering than any time in the modern history of america, then spending it on influencing the political process and storing the rest in tax havens. In fact, 15 of the fortune 500 companies paid nothing in corporate income taxes in 2015 by storing their money in places like Bermuda, the Cayman islands, and (more notably after the leak of the Panama Papers), Panama9. Countless industry giants have moved their production to low-wage countries overseas, pushing even more americans to rely on government support. Unless the american people demand policies that redistribute america’s wealth and political power, it doesn’t look like those big businesses will be changing anytime soon.

2: America’s lack of a National Health Insurance program makes american health care more effective in a shorter amount of time, and more competent than the single-payer programs of countries like Canada and the UK.

The statistics provided in the viral email come from “Investor’s Business Daily”, a weekday newspaper based in LA that covers international business and finance. The paper claims to get its data from the “United Nations International Health Organization”, but doesn’t provide a link or citation. As it turns out, such an entity does not exist. The author could be referring to the UN’s World Health Organization (WHO), which is among the world’s most reputable sources of health research and data. What the WHO, along with other reputable organizations (like the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) has found is quite the opposite.

The United States’ health care system not only achieves far worse health outcomes for its people, but is multiple times more expensive to taxpayers than the systems found in any other major country. Although patients in the US have excellent access to specialized health services, they are far less likely to access primary care services when they need them due to the cost burden associated with it10.

In other words, insured individuals are often unable to afford their own health care. Of the 90% of americans who have health insurance, 13% have premiums that are above 10% of their income. 10% have deductibles that are more than 5% of their income, and 10% have out of pocket costs that are greater than 10% of their income. Collectively, 25% of the insured population cannot afford their health care. This forces them to wait to get treatment, often until it’s too late11.

Despite America’s substandard performance on health care, it spends significantly more per capita than that of the UK, Canada, and other single-payer countries. While the US spends $8,508 per individual on health care, Canada spends $4,118 per capita, and the UK spends $3,404 per capita. Norway and Sweden, who (according to the WHO) have the highest quality healthcare worldwide, spend only $5,669 and $3,925 respectively. Meanwhile, the WHO has ranked the US as the worst health care system among any major country, being the only country to not guarantee health care to its citizens as a right10.

The premise of a single-payer, medicare-for-all system is not very popular among members of the United States congress. It’s not that the citizenry aren’t in favor of such a policy; Kaiser and Gallup polls both confirm that the majority of americans are in support of single-payer health care12-13. The reason that americans have the most expensive, ineffective health care system among 1st world countries is because the will of the people is separate from the desires of the people who represent them. This is mostly attributable to America’s campaign finance system, which has legally allowed biomedical and healthcare companies to donate $68 million to members of congress in 2014 alone14. After receiving those contributions, those same congress people have taken positions that are different than those of their constituents (specifically, against single-payer health care). As a result, those companies continue to profit from the more expensive, less effective health care system while the american people are unable to receive the treatment they need.

3: Only 8% of Obama’s cabinet has worked in the private sector, a testament to why Obama’s policies are failing american businesses.

Far more members of the current cabinet have had private sector experience than the email indicates. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter was a physicist and a harvard professor, Secretary of Interior Sally Jewell was the CEO of REI, Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker is a billionaire businesswoman and the founder of the Pritzker Realty Group, Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Mathews Berwell was the president of the Walmart Foundation, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz is the founding member of the Cyprus Institute and a former professor at MIT, and Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert McDonald was the CEO of Procter and Gamble. Furthermore, Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of  the Treasury Jack Lew, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx, and Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson all have practiced private law. In total, 11 of the 15 cabinet members have had private sector experience, totaling 73%15. That’s 17% more than the email claims to be on Ronald Reagan's cabinet.

While the connection between businesspeople on the president’s cabinet and the success of  american businesses is inconclusive, large corporations have done phenomenally well under Obama’s administration. Corporate profits have gone up 166% since he entered office, reaching all-time highs. Meanwhile, a Pew Research Center study found that median income has fallen 28% between Bush and Obama’s administrations from 2001 to 2013, and even more since. The housing crash of 2008 was a great contributor to this, alongside 99% of all new income going to the wealthiest 1% of individuals in america16. Obama has not failed the big businesses and institutions of america, many of which contributed large sums of money to his election campaigns; on the other hand, he has done little to curve the redistribution of wealth from middle income individuals to those in businesses and financial institutions.

What can we take from this?

It’s unclear exactly who wrote this piece. It could have been Phil Witt at the Fox 4, or he could have found it elsewhere and copied it into a mass email. Regardless of who wrote this email, and whether or not we will ever find out who they are, this much is clear: it’s wrong. And on every account. What’s more, this email is not built to inform--rather, to persuade. That is the very definition of propaganda. Why is it, you ask, that opponents of programs like food stamps and single-payer health care are spreading propaganda? The truth is this:

Opponents of progressive ideas have to make their own “facts” because the real facts are not on their side.

This has created one of, if not the most vigorous and effective attacks on free thought in the history of the world. The birth of the internet has allowed ideas and information to reach across the world in virtually no time at all. The result of this is indisputably the most well informed and well connected generations to have existed; entirely new ways to educate, learn, work, shop, and date have all sprung up from the world wide web. The infrastructures of entire nations are run off of the internet. This new way for ideas and information to travel from an individual to another has enlightened humanity in more ways than I can count, from spreading civil and human rights to overthrowing dictatorships. There’s a drawback, though: this new way to communicate is only as good as the information that travels across it, as this email would indicate. Just as the web has the ability to inform, it has equal ability to misinform.

I’m sure that I shock many of you when I say that not everything on the Internet, or any kind of media, is true. A war is being fought out every day between information and misinformation, and by those who benefit from each side. Every day, countless hours and dollars are dedicated to both. For that reason, I ask that you question everything you know or will know. When you read an article online or watch news TV, I challenge you to check its sources and reputation. Look to see that it cites sources that fight with facts, not lack thereof. Especially this one.

I am not asking you to do this because it’s particularly fun--I ask because of what is at stake if you do not. Across the world, but specifically in the United States, the influence of misinformation threatens the principles that are the foundation of a free and democratic society. While climate change threatens to displace a billion people within the next 50 years, oil and gas giants like the Koch brothers have spent billions attempting to convince lawmakers otherwise. The result is that one of the two major political parties in the United States continues to deny that climate change exists, allowing pollutants to poison the earth, and billionaires to make record profits. While major news outlets are tasked with the job of criticizing government, they receive gigantic donations from the same corporate sponsors that donate to politicians’ election campaigns. The result is a media that fails to address the issues that are most important to the well being of the people, and instead subverts their attention to whatever sensational topics will get them the most attention (without upsetting their sponsors, who could drop them at any moment for another TV channel or radio station). While wealth in America becomes incredibly concentrated among the wealthiest 0.1% of individuals, and the American middle class disappears, elected officials continue to give tax breaks to the rich. The result is a very small group of people with tremendous economic and political power, who have already effectively separated the will of the people from the agenda of Washington.

Go further than just recognizing where the power of misinformation has taken hold of the views of individuals--call propaganda out for what it is, so that others can open their eyes to it and become more aware of the world around them.

The legacy of the human race has always been the fight for forward progression, and this tremendous dilemma is no different. Every generation of human beings is more educated and more tolerant than the last. We see this in the advancement of technology, in the decrease of drug and substance abuse, and in the advancement of LGBTQ rights, women's rights, and minority rights. For the well being of our children, and their children, I ask that you be part of this new battle. I am confident that, if humankind becomes aware of this threat on rational thought, it will fight that fight--and win.

Sources:

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/01/death-spiral-states/

https://www.eitc.irs.gov/EITC-Central/abouteitc

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/tanf-caseload-data-2015

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2012Characteristics.pdf

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/pdf/2015/the-high-public-cost-of-low-wages.pdf

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/jul/29/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-madison-claims-top-01-americans-hav/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/31/bernie-s/sanders-says-walmart-heirs-own-more-wealth-bottom-/

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/10/2012-election-spending-will-reach-6/

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/04/09/15-Fortune-500-Companies-Paid-No-Federal-Income-Taxes-2014

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/nov/how-high-health-care-burden

http://kff.org/uninsured/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-december-2015/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/4708/healthcare-system.aspx

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/these-congressmen-have-big-financial-stakes-industry-they-are-helping

https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/cabinet

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/obamas-numbers-january-2016-update/

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/08/22/the-lost-decade-of-the-middle-class/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/apr/19/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-99-percent-new-income-going-to

[aboutpoliticsandotherstuff-blog]

Welcome!

Hi there! My name is Simon Monette; i’m a musician, student, and entrepreneur living in Orange County. I own and operate an audio and video company called Tiny Dino Productions. This site is a place for me to share my two cents on american politics and culture, and to attempt to give you some greater insight into the issues of our generation.