Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2005 September
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| #1 (repost) An Intentional Failure of Government |
| 09.15.05 (3:56 pm) [edit] |
Somehow the first essay I posted dissapeared, I'm still figuring out the kinks of management page for this site. Luckily, I noticed it right after I posted essay #10 and they are mutually relevant, so this is a good location to repost #1. -Jason
Sept. 8, 2005
Did you hear the story about how President Bush caused Hurricane Katrina to destroy New Orleans? No?
Well, apparently he used secret weapons to create the storm over the ocean, went up in Air Force One and personally huffed and puffed and blew it right into the coast—directing it to the homes of poor minorities whenever possible.
Well, actually I haven’t heard this either. In fact, the only remotely similar story out there comes from writers, and talk show hosts who are attempting to refocus public attention away from the serious failings of our government. Once again, they pass the buck—rather than joining the policy debate serious people are trying to have, they would rather make snarky jokes and unfounded insinuations.
Well, the buck stops here (wouldn’t it be nice to hear something like that from any politician today?) I for one am willing to hold our current government responsible for their real failures. President Bush did not create hurricane Katrina, but he did create a society that cannot adequately respond to it. His administration had no good plan to restore civilization in the aftermath of a disaster that had been predicted for decades.
Their inaction left a social vacuum; where there should have been relief there was none for days, and where there should have been leadership, we found only excuses.
Team Bush had no plan because they believe that ‘government is the problem, not the solution.’ For thirty years, the conservative movement has pedaled slogans about keeping government off of our backs. They have worked to ‘starve the beast’ with tax cuts, they have appointed bureaucrats that don’t believe in the missions of their agencies and they have scoffed at the notion that government has the responsibility to protect the weak.
In times of peace and prosperity, these slogans win elections when coupled with calls for tax cuts. However, when the chickens come home to roost, we find ourselves with a deliberately inept government that can’t get the job done. Disaster inevitably strikes and in such times a confident—not cocky—and effective federal government is what we need.
America used to be an optimistic nation with confidence in it’s ability to make things better. During the 20th century, American citizens used the mechanisms of government to vastly improve our standard of living and the conditions of the workplace, to extend civil rights, to build the interstate highway system and to create a social safety net.
Unfortunately, most of this progress happened in the first half of the last century, before the rise of the modern conservative movement. Since then, our government has been infected with the idea that it should just stay out of the way or maybe bomb some other country. Now our schools are slipping, health care costs rising, poverty is increasing, wages are stagnating, and President Bush is riding his bike.
If one shred of good can come out of the disaster on the gulf coast, I hope it will be a new national dialogue. Far too many talking heads waste our time arguing abstract ideologies that describe fictional worlds. We need activists and politicians with solutions for the real problems we face. Americans must remember the successes of the past and find purpose in the struggle to create a better future for ourselves.
|
|
|
| |
| 10. Where was the Cavalry? |
| 09.15.05 (3:29 pm) [edit] |
I'm just going to post these numbers I found in Newsweek today without much comment--I think they speak for themselves. I would, however, enjoy hearing attempts to spin them from any Bush supporters.
On April 18, 1906 the San Francisco Earthquake struck at 5:15am, Army troups arrived to begin relief efforts by 7:00am--one hour and 45 minutes later.
99 years and four months later, New Orleans was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, and troops didn't arrive for four days.
What's going on here? Why, in an age of instant communication, does it take so much longer to organize a response?
Well, one answer might be the philosophy of government that animates our current government, see essay #1 below.
|
|
|
| |
| Constellation of Dust: Statement of Intent |
| 09.15.05 (8:24 am) [edit] |
Thank you for paying attention.
I intend the writing on this site to be about ideas, not personal issues, but in the short time since I put it up, Constellation of Dust has gotten much heavier traffic than I expected. It appears that most people reading this don’t know me personally, so I thought it appropriate to introduce myself to folks who just stumbled upon my thoughts.
My name is Jason, and I am a writer in Portland Ore. where I have lived with my wife, Julie, for about three years—I’m originally from the DC suburbs. I have held a variety of jobs in my life including, construction laborer, waiter, barista, newspaper circulation sales manager, telemarketer, lawnmower (I wasn’t actually ‘the lawnmower’, I just pushed it) musician, small business owner, and bread store manager.
Through it all, however, I have considered myself, truly, to be a writer. I write both fiction and non-fiction, but this site is exclusively for writing about ideas. I am the author of a forthcoming book, The Ant and The Moon (www.collectedcrust.com or www.bakersmark.com for more info) a collaboration with digital artist Ryan Swanson.
My non-fiction writing is primarily about ideas, as opposed to policies. I am fiercely interested in politics, but not in catering to partisanship. I prefer to focus instead on interrogating the philosophical assumptions that underlie public policy debates as well as the ways language is used and misused by partisans.
Constellation of Dust should be an exchange of ideas; I spend a lot of time reflecting on the essays I post, but I don’t consider myself infallible. I prefer debate of ideas over the exposition of my own thoughts. So, while it is flattering to be complimented, I would rather be challenged. I will post responses to thoughtful criticism. Please use the comment feature, not e-mail. Debate should be public.
Also, to any other writers out there, I am open to posting your essays of similar length and tone as features—it doesn’t really matter if I agree with you, as long as your writing is thoughtful. Neither of us will be compensated.
All essays will be left up as first posted, with the exception of fixing typos. This will allow the comments to remain relevant. However, I reserve the right to change my mind and will do so in the comments section or by writing a different essay on the topic.
-Jason Maxfield
|
|
|
| |
| 9. Thoughts on the Estate Tax |
| 09.13.05 (8:55 am) [edit] |
This piece is adapted and expanded from a letter I submitted to The Oregonian last week—apparently they didn’t like it.
On Tuesday, September 5, 2005 The Oregonian printed a misleading ad advocating abolition of the Estate Tax. This ad was part of a campaign to permanently abolish the tax, one of the highest priorities of the conservative movement (which, has been temporarily shelved as politically unpalatable in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.)
There are at least two good reasons to support the Estate Tax.
First, our government needs revenue, and it is far better to tax the dead than the living—this is a glib assertion, because obviously the tax is taken off of an inheritance meant for living people, but a thought experiment will demonstrate my point.
Imagine you are setting up a new society and developing the rules for a tax system. You know that the government needs X amount of money to do the work you want it to, and that represents 1/5 of all taxable economic activity. So, as a starting point, your tax rate must be 20% if you are going to break even.
However, let’s also assume for argument’s sake that it is inherently bad (not morally wrong, but unfortunate) to take people’s money from them. Taxation reduces their ability to purchase things they want, or invest and increase their net wealth—which allows social mobility.
What if, to balance the two considerations, you make a contract among the people that everyone will reduce taxes from 20% to 10% and thus have more money, but upon death, anyone who got extremely rich will forfeit a bit more of their estate to make up the difference.
This is the basic idea of the Estate Tax—and when you consider that most tax money is used to make wealth creation possible (I intend to expand upon this point in a future essay, stay tuned) it seems eminently fair as well as socially expedient.
The second good reason to support the Estate Tax comes from our identity as Americans. I believe that we are at heart an egalitarian society which holds that all people are created equal.
Of course, on a practical level, wealthy people are much more equal than poor ones. They have outsized voices because they can influence political candidates with contributions, fund causes they care about, or chose to devote their energy to activism rather than making a living. This makes some sense if the rich have achieved their status by their own merit and work.
Inheritors of fortune, however, are wealthy without effort; they become a social class of rich, powerful people who have no demonstrated abilities and consequently undermine our democracy.
This is the fundamental philosophical underpinning of the Estate Tax. Inequalities in wealth, status, power, etc. are only remotely justifiable if all people start with roughly the same chances and succeed or fail based on their own actions. We are nowhere close to this ideal in America today. To begin to rectify the situation, we ought to practice some redistribution of wealth from the richest citizens to the poorest.
Supplemental information.
The following chart is adapted from one found on wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This is the results from a Tax Policy Center study of 2004 tax returns. They looked in depth at 440 randomly selected returns from the 18,800 estates that were required to pay the Estate Tax that year. The largest group of these (43%) paid an average of 1.6%, a far cry from the 50% figure repeatedly mentioned in conservative sources. The 80 wealthiest families in the study paid the highest rate, but even they only got dinged for about 23%.
Apologies for the formatting incompetence; I'm still trying to figure out how to make tblog do my bidding.
Estate value, Number of returns, Average tax (in thousands), Effective tax rate
< $1 million, 0, $0, 0.0%>$1 - $2 mil., 190, $26, 1.6%
$2 - $3.5 mil., 60, $190, 7.5%
$3.5 - $5 mil., 40, $449, 12.0%
$5 - $10 mil., 80, $1,322, 19.3%
$10 - $20 mil., 50, $2,832, 22.9%
$20 million, 30, $23,442, 22.2%
|
|
|
| |
| 8. Where Are Those Democrats? |
| 09.12.05 (8:05 am) [edit] |
As we watch the Bush administration implode over their lack of response to national disaster, I cannot help but hope that some courageous Democrat will challenge his or her party’s apathy and step forward with a bold idea.
I know there are good political reasons for Democratic politicians to avoid directly criticizing the hurricane response—it robs the Bush admin. of the excuse that critics are just scoring partisan points—but criticism is not the only option.
How about offering a positive agenda?
Why not let a Senator with a safe seat and a high public profile (Obama?) float a trial-balloon that actually advocates a progressive social plan. Let the Republicans call it socialism (see entry #7, Why the Left Lost it’s Roar, directly below)—we’ll see how far that gets them today.
Suggestion: Propose that we spend just 10% of what Republican’s appropriated for
Iraq on an ambitious housing program, including grants, assistance classes, and
subsidized loans for low income families who have been priced out by rising real
estate value and consequently missed the only significant wealth creation of the
past 5 years—it could be rolled out along the gulf coast, the area of most
immediate need, and then spread to the rest of the country next year.
If our nation has the wealth to fund regime change in order to better the lives of non-citizens, then it seems morally untenable for the same government officials to claim we cannot afford domestic assistance programs.
Now is the opportunity for every elected Democrat to put their action where their campaign rhetoric has been. This is a critical political moment; the ideas that capture the public’s imagination will shape the political landscape for years to come.
It’s difficult for me to advocate supporting Democrats, for years I have been disillusioned and angry with their lack of action, and inability to passionately defend their ideas to the public.
On a deeper level, however, I wish I wanted to support the Democrats. I wish that America had a progressive political party with a national presence—or at least a truly progressive wing of the party to put my support behind.
If the Democratic Party has any intention of regaining the ideological high ground and shaping policy debates, then let’s see them try. I’m sick of a party that exists to offer tepid criticism of those in power.
|
|
|
| |
| 7. Why the Left Lost its Roar |
| 09.11.05 (9:56 am) [edit] |
It used to be that lefty’s were full of ideas. Good ideas like social security, ending slavery, letting women vote, not imprisoning people without trials, and so forth. But recently, we have become timid, afraid to offer positive accounts, and obsessed with infighting.
As far as I can tell, this started when we decided to be enemies with the Soviets after we beat Germany. Our government encouraged us to hate the Soviets and their ideologies. Good Americans had to be against communism and in favor of free enterprise.
With this backdrop, crafty conservatives had the idea to link progressive social programs of the left and The Soviet Union. Every time someone pointed a camera at them or handed them a pen, they repeated the mantra that, “____ is socialism” weather the topic was health care, education reform, contraception, or corporate responsibility.
Then in the 1970’s liberals had a bunch of dumb ideas, like ‘We can fix everything with bureaucracy’, and ‘Congress always knows what’s best’. Most of these schemes just wasted a bunch of money and created more “departments” and “agencies” but didn’t really do much to help people.
As these social experiments failed, republicans kept up the rhetoric and opposed all new social programs as socialist, and scared the heck out of any lefty brave enough to propose an idea. This lead to second guessing, and paranoia on the left and a hyper sensitivity to every idea they encountered—In fact I imagine that while reading this, even most people who broadly agree with my positions are finding faults and looking for reasons to dismiss my ideas.
Today the left is fractured into distinct camps with distinct agendas, vocabularies, and mythologies. One lefty’s hero, is another’s misogynist. Most debate on the left is now about problems among each other rather than problems in our society.
Republicans love this, if they can keep us infighting, they can accomplish their agenda without obstacle. So, they use the media to emphasize disagreements on the left. They use the CIA to ferment violence and introduce drugs designed to destroy social movements. They discredit the few voices that do manage to inspire social progress. And when anyone on the left has a new idea, they call it ‘communism’.
|
|
|
| |
| 6. Is size a problem? |
| 09.11.05 (9:54 am) [edit] |
“Sure countries like Norway can have better health care and lower crime, but they are ethnically and socially homogenous and small.”
Ok, I’m sympathetic to the conservative idea that our country is too big. But, I reject it as an excuse. If our country is too big, then that is the problem. The size of our nation-state is not a good reason to tolerate poverty and crime
Maybe we should abandon the USA and return to our state governments. Or maybe we should reorganize ourselves into regional governments. But, maybe first we should look at what else is different about countries like Norway.
It is true that Norway is more homogeneous that America, but so what. The Irish and English have been tormenting and killing each other for centuries, and only they know what’s ethnically different between them. Even the Norwegians used to be Vikings and they pillaged all their neighbors, but then they stopped.
And then, what about Canada? They have similar ethnic diversity to the US and much less crime, better health care, and much funnier comedians (per capita).
One thing Canada and Norway have in common is much less social inequality than the US. They have progressive tax and social policies, and as a result income distribution clusters much more around the middle—their bell curve is much skinnier and taller than ours. In the US we have both more millionaires and more people in abject poverty. This creates social tension and anger; it causes the poor to resent the rich and the rich to fear the poor.
Canada and Norway also have better access to family planning, generous maternity leave, better public education, free health care, and a host of other social programs that allow people to control their own lives. Consequently, I assume, there are less people in Canada and Norway who are pissed about their luck in life, who feel stuck in a bad situation with no way out, who might be angry enough to hit someone, or feel justified in taking my bike.
So, I suggest that we address social inequality in America; we try to be more like Canada and Norway, before we blame all our social problems on the size of our country.
|
|
|
| |
| 5. We have come a long way, but we still have far to go. |
| 09.11.05 (9:53 am) [edit] |
Another objection conservatives make to progressives is the claim that we are doing as well as we can—some version of the phrase “this is the best, freest, richest country on earth, and if you don’t like it leave.” As if walking away from the US meant abandoning luxury or freedom.
But we are far from the richest country in the world—unless the only way you measure is in dollars. We have more cars, but worse health care—and we spend more on it than anyone. We have put more than two million of our citizens in jail—a higher percentage than anyone else, and we still have more crime than almost every other developed country. We also spend as much money on weapons and war as the rest of the world combined (even though we are only about 5% of the population.)
The point is not that we suck—we don’t—the point is that we could do much better. We are not the climax of liberal democracy; we could do more to promote freedom, lesson social inequality, give everyone health care, actually rehabilitate criminals, and drastically reduce our environmental impact without sacrificing our standard of living. Other countries do it all the time.
So, once and for all, I like America and I’m not leaving, I just want to see it get better. I’m not so blinded by patriotism that I cannot see the real problems that challenge our country. I believe that our America is, at its best, a mechanism for people to improve their lives, and if we don’t use democracy to make things better then we are wasting it.
|
|
|
| |
| 4. Progress is Possible |
| 09.10.05 (4:40 pm) [edit] |
Progressives must defeat the idea that progress is an illusion. We must convince people that the social problems we seek to change are not inevitable.
Conservatives love to disparage their opponents by sarcastically attacking their optimism.
“They think they can end poverty, they can just make people be nice and not hurt each other…”
These conservatives claim that crime, poverty, and a host of other social problems are beyond the abilities of humans to fix—they are a result of our imperfect nature, our original sin, or our personal shortcomings.
But this is simply not true.
Humans have existed for millions of years during which time we have progressed from animals in trees to individuals with careers. In between, we have organized ourselves in countless societies with good and bad results.
Some of these societies have brutally oppressed individuals, subjugated enemies and denied freedoms to themselves. Other societies have produced philosophy, music, literature, invented ideas like freedom, and promoted the happiness of the individual.
One possible objection to the idea of progress is to simply deny that humans have evolved, to insist that we were created as is, with sin and evil implanted into our nature (at least some of us).
But even creationists cannot deny progress. They cannot refute the fact that 500 years ago nearly all humans alive were the subjects of some ruler. That ideas like life, liberty, and happiness were not considered the rights of any human beings except those in charge.
Today, nearly every government is at least nominally a democracy—they may not all listen to the people, but they all claim to. Today, most people alive have access to education, health care, and the ability to choose their own course in life.
And the progress is explosive; every day, hundreds of thousands of people log onto the internet for the first time and read about Gandhi, John Brown, Woody Guthrie or Martin Luther King. Punk rock is now played in almost every country—which makes me optimistic about the future. Chinese dissidents are organizing with e-mail and cell phones. The last regimes that deny women the right to vote, and other basic human rights are crumbling or will soon.
Social progress is not only possible, it is inevitable. Some people liberate themselves, others allow the powerful to become oppressors, but no society remains static. Our job, is to provoke, guide, and encourage, this change so that it occurs in whatever way benefits as many people as possible.
|
|
|
| |
| 3. Wal-Mart, Corporate Citizen |
| 09.10.05 (4:37 pm) [edit] |
Attention Please….Wal-Mart is coming. Their sights are set on Portland, and they want you to save money soon! Location scouts are considering sites in SE Portland, Beaverton, and Gresham, and your neighborhood may be the next place to save.
When Wal-Mart opens, they will contribute many things to our community. They will create jobs, pay taxes, provide affordable products to Portland, and maybe even build a traffic-light or sidewalk.
Wall Mart employs an army of handsome consultants and lobbyists to repeat these high points at every possible opportunity. Nobody can argue with the benefits of Wal-Mart, they really do all the things they say. Their colors are also red, white, and blue.
However, if you look just a little bit deeper—say, the last two paragraphs of most major media stories about Wal-Mart—the value of their community contribution vanishes.
Wal-Mart will create jobs, but probably less than will be lost when local businesses that cannot compete close. Nearly all Wal-Mart jobs will be lower paid than the jobs lost, which depresses Portland’s economy. Sure, Wal-Mart prices will be low, but if you lose a decent job and replace it with $8/hour, no health care, and a free blue vest, you might decide you want the old prices back.
The effects of Wal-Mart will not be evenly distributed in portland. For every laid-off worker, or family that looses health insurance, someone else will get a $29 dvd player, or Gigantic Bag of Doritos for only $3.99—you might be lucky.
But in the long run, the effects Wal-Mart will trickle down. Portland will spend millions of dollars at our new SuperCenters. Then, our economy will contract as our money leaves in armored trucks bound for Arkansas .
But, Wal-Mart will pay taxes, exactly as much as they must. When Wal-Mart opens, however, you can bet they will do everything possible to avoid them—maybe even set up a few yards outside of city limits. They will defiantly spend millions on aggressive lobbying for tax breaks, wage-law exemptions, and zoning variances, because it works.
And the taxes they pay will probably not equal the financial burden they impose. In most states, Wal-Mart employees are the largest recipients of taxpayer supported social services like Medicaid. Their employees will probably need to be on the Oregon Health Plan, because Wal-Mart provides benefits less often than most employers .
In the long run, Portland will pay dearly for the low prices Wal-Mart brings
Footnotes.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is the world’s largest retailer, with $285.2 billion in sales in the fiscal year ending Jan. 31, 2005.
According to Wal-Mart’s own website, they employ 1.6 million associates, and only 568,000 (36%) receive health insurance. Those lucky enough to be covered pay “as little as” $151.57 a month for a family. http://www.walmartfacts.com/d...
“We’re proud of what we’ve accomplished; we’ve just begun.” – Sam Walton, Wal-Mart Founder.
All material on this site is copyright, 2005 by Jason Maxfield. All rights reserved. If you are interested in reproducing any essays found here, please e-mail me at JasonMaxfield(at)yahoo(do t)com. Also, please post criticism of my ideas in the comment section rather than sending them to me, thanks.
|
|
|
| |
| 2. The Iraq Tax—Bringing the war (costs) home |
| 09.10.05 (4:35 pm) [edit] |
Jason Maxfield
The other day, my wife gave me “the truth pen,” a propaganda knickknack created by TrueMajority.org. This pen looks ordinary until you tug a tab, and unfurl a surprisingly large chart wrapped inside. Both sides are covered with comparative statistics demonstrating how much our nation could accomplish if we reallocated a small fraction of military spending for social programs.
This is a creative idea, and it is fairly well executed, but it occurred to me that none of the information True Majority presents is really relevant to my life. They point out that we could provide health care to every uncovered child, end hunger, fund head start…but not a single statistic about how military spending is affecting us as individuals, families, or communities.
Now, I’m all for readjusting national priorities, but it seems to me that if you want to change minds, you need to talk to people on their own level, and make policy discussions relevant to their lives. It’s too easy for war supporters to dismiss national policy discussions as partisan politics and ignore strangers’ deaths as the inevitable cost of keeping their own loved ones safe.
If we want Bush supporters to listen—and I do—I believe we need to talk about the effects of war on their own lives. We need to articulate the personal costs of the President Bush’s decision to invade—The Iraq Tax.
I had no real idea what my share of the Iraq war costs was, but the numbers are not hard to find. One good place to start is the website of a group called National Priorities . They break down the cost of war by state, city, and county based on tax and census records.
According to their website, Portland’s share is $256,700,000, so far. Meanwhile, our city government is trying desperately to find $90 million to fix the decrepit Sellwood Bridge—one of our city’s critical transportation arteries. Imagine what else Portland could have accomplished with the $166 million left over after fixing the bridge if we hadn’t spent all the money in Iraq.
But better yet, imagine what you could have done with your share.
Portland has about 550,000 residents, which makes the average individual Iraq Tax $476.66—and growing. You could have bought a cheap car, or a sweet bike. You could have gotten 47 lap dances at Union Jack’s and a pitcher of Pabst. For $476.66 you could even splurge on a Blazers season ticket—I don’t know why you would, but hey, it would have been your choice.
For an average family of four, the Iraq Tax is $1,906.62. That’s two mortgage payments, a new set of appliances, or hot air balloon rides every day for weeks. Instead, all this money is steadily draining into the sands of Iraq.
By the way, these numbers are only for the war, they don’t include normal peacetime Pentagon spending or the costs of maintaining our military. They also only include money actually spent, if you include all your money that congress has scheduled for Iraq, the numbers would nearly double. And, the costs continue to grow. We are averaging over 6 billion more dollars every month, or about 20 bucks each—just think of it as another utility bill you cannot avoid.
And I for one, didn’t ask for any of this. I voted against Bush twice, I marched against the war, I wrote letters to the editor, and none of it mattered. Bush did exactly what they wanted to do, and I am stuck paying for it. I have no use for depleted uranium rounds, up-armored humvees, or tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, but I sure could have used a sweet bike.
|
|
|
| |
| 1. An Intentional Failure of Government |
| 09.10.05 (4:33 pm) [edit] |
Jason Maxfield—September 8, 2005
Did you hear the story about how President Bush caused Hurricane Katrina to destroy New Orleans? No?
Well, apparently he used secret weapons to create the storm over the ocean, went up in Air Force One and personally huffed and puffed and blew it right into the coast—directing it to the homes of poor minorities whenever possible.
Well, actually I haven’t heard this either. In fact, the only remotely similar story out there comes from writers, and talk show hosts who are attempting to refocus public attention away from the serious failings of our government. Once again, they pass the buck—rather than joining the policy debate serious people are trying to have, they would rather make snarky jokes and unfounded insinuations.
Well, the buck stops here (wouldn’t it be nice to hear something like that from any politician today?) I for one am willing to hold our current government responsible for their real failures. President Bush did not create hurricane Katrina, but he did create a society that cannot adequately respond to it. His administration had no good plan to restore civilization in the aftermath of a disaster that had been predicted for decades.
Their inaction left a social vacuum; where there should have been relief there was none for days, and where there should have been leadership, we found only excuses.
Team Bush had no plan because they believe that ‘government is the problem, not the solution.’ For thirty years, the conservative movement has pedaled slogans about keeping government off of our backs. They have worked to ‘starve the beast’ with tax cuts, they have appointed bureaucrats that don’t believe in the missions of their agencies and they have scoffed at the notion that government has the responsibility to protect the weak.
In times of peace and prosperity, these slogans win elections when coupled with calls for tax cuts. However, when the chickens come home to roost, we find ourselves with a deliberately inept government that can’t get the job done. Disaster inevitably strikes and in such times a confident—not cocky—and effective federal government is what we need.
America used to be an optimistic nation with confidence in it’s ability to make things better. During the 20th century, American citizens used the mechanisms of government to vastly improve our standard of living and the conditions of the workplace, to extend civil rights, to build the interstate highway system and to create a social safety net.
Unfortunately, most of this progress happened in the first half of the last century, before the rise of the modern conservative movement. Since then, our government has been infected with the idea that it should just stay out of the way or maybe bomb some other country. Now our schools are slipping, health care costs rising, poverty is increasing, wages are stagnating, and President Bush is riding his bike.
If one shred of good can come out of the disaster on the gulf coast, I hope it will be a new national dialogue. Far too many talking heads waste our time arguing abstract ideologies that describe fictional worlds. We need activists and politicians with solutions for the real problems we face. Americans must remember the successes of the past and find purpose in the struggle to create a better future for ourselves.
All material on this website is Copyright, 2005 by Jason Maxfield. All rights reserved. If you are interested in reproducing work found here, please contact the author, jasonmaxfield@yahoo.com
Thanks for reading.
If you find fault with any of my reasoning or facts, thanks for paying attention. Please post your coments on the site rather than in e-mail, I enjoy open debate of ideas.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
