(Positions of the Progressive Political Movement of SW PA)
A. INTRODUCTION
1. Ayn Rand and the Tea Party
One purpose of the Progressive Political Movement of SW PA (PPM) is to present a viable alternative to the Tea Party Movement while exposing the weaknesses and dangers of the Tea Party's goals. This post examines the differences in positions taken by PPM and those of the Tea Party.
The thinking of at least some Tea Party leaders is allegedly influenced by Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. There is an article in the New York Times
(
www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/opinion/ayn...), "Atlas Spurned" by
Jennifer Burns who described Ayn Rand as a "novelist of heroic capitalism".
Burns writes that Paul Ryan, Wisconsin federal representative, regards
Rand as "the reason I got into public service". The article indicates
that Tea Party members agree with Ryan's portrayal of the current
political situation as individualism vs. collectivism. Collectivism is a
catch-all term embracing communism, fascism, nazism, and socialism. In
Rand's writings it also refers to any associated collection of
individuals, e.g. a political party or society as a whole.
There is an Ayn Rand Lexicon at
http://aynrandlexicon.com/....
This is the source of the shaded quotes in this post unless otherwise noted. Ayn Rand wrote a
lot about both individualism and collectivism as well as the function of
government and the value of capitalism.
2. Tea Party Goals
According to The Right Post (http://www.rightpost.com/editorials/what-is-the-tea-party-movement), "the main goal of the Tea Party movement is to
change the institution of the federal government to the effect that
American’s freedoms are restored to the ideals of the founding fathers." According to this article, these ideals include:
- More individual freedom
- Dramatically smaller government with a much reduced role
- Substantially less central government (Washington) and a preference for states rights
- Low taxes
- Free market prosperity
Each of these goals will be examined through Ayn Rand's writings and from the perspective of PPM.
B. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
1. Rights in general
The first listed Tea Party goal is "more individual freedom". Rand uses the term "individual rights". According to Webster, rights are standard
privileges set by law or reason that all humans and animals should
possess. Basic animal and human rights include the privilege of
consuming healthful food and drinking water, breathing healthful air,
sharing a quality Common Good, living free of abuse.
There are other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The right
to free speech, the right to assembly, the right to vote, etc. There are limits to many of these rights. The right to
free speech is limited in that one does not have the right to cry "fire"
in a crowded theater nor to destroy another's reputation by spreading
lies about the person. A licensed driver has the right to drive his
car. That right does not include flaunting the rules that govern
driving.
If and when a person or persons violates the rights of another in a
criminal fashion, those people take the risk of forfeiting some of
their rights for a time as punishment for their crime. Some believe the punishments for many abusive crimes are not severe enough. On the other
hand, there are laws that punish otherwise responsible adults for
non-abusive activities that some believe should not be illegal.
2. Rights according to Rand
Ayn Rand wrote a lot about individual rights. One can decide for one's self if these statements sound reasonable. PPM agrees with each of Rand's quotes presented in this section on Individual Rights. It may be helpful to understand Rand's view of good and evil. She wrote
An organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil.
This idea of good relates to how she views the "right to life".
There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its
consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life...the right
to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated
action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the
nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the
fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of
the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)
Rand does not believe rights and individual freedom are dependent on society's permission.
A right is that which can be exercised without anyone’s permission.If you exist only because society permits you to exist—you have no right
to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time.If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of
society—you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or
not. Only a slave acts on permission.
Rand believes rights are inalienable.
It is not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to
kill—but the inalienable individual right of another man to live. This
is not a “compromise” between two rights—but a line of division that
preserves both rights untouched. The division is not derived from an
edict of society—but from your own inalienable individual right.
Rand emphasized preserving
every one's rights. In today's
society, it seems there are some people who think that because of the
color of their skin or the size of their bank account that they should
have more rights than other less fortunate citizens. Then there are
those who are less fortunate who think their rights should have no
limits because they have less material resources than others. Rand
indicates they are both wrong.
Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that
the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at
all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate
the rights of another.
Of rights and obligations, she writes:
A right means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or
interference by other men..... As to his neighbors, his rights impose
no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from
violating his rights.
Put another way:
One man cannot deprive another of his life, nor enslave him,
nor forbid him to pursue his happiness, except by using force against
him. Whenever a man is made to act without his own free, personal,
individual, voluntary consent—his right has been violated....No man has
the right to initiate the use of physical force against another man.
Since the state is not the source of one's inalienable rights, Rand
does not believe individuals have any obligation toward the state due
to the possession of rights.
The only “obligation” involved in individual rights is an
obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality
(i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means
the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own
rights to be recognized and protected.
In regard to how individuals relate to collectives, Rand wrote
Man holds these rights, not from the Collective nor for the
Collective, but against the Collective—as a barrier which the Collective
cannot cross; . . . these rights are man’s protection against all other
men.
One may hear some people asserting that businesses have or should have
certain rights. PPM agrees with Rand that business people do not have special rights. Many businesses can be conceived of as collectives. Rand is not opposed to collectives
(totalitarian regimes being the exception). But, for her, the individual takes
precedence over the collective. PPM concurs.
The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means man’s right to
live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own private, personal,
individual happiness and to work for its achievement, so long as he
respects the same right in others. It means that Man cannot be forced to
devote his life to the happiness of another man nor of any number of
other men. It means that the collective cannot decide what is to be the
purpose of a man’s existence nor prescribe his choice of happiness.
There are no “rights” of special groups, there are no “rights of
farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the
old, of the young, of the unborn.” There are only the Rights of
Man—rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as
individuals.
A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by
joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess. The
principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or
associations.
It would seem that Rand would not agree with the Supreme Court
decision (McCutcheon vs Federal Election Commission) that held that
corporations are people. This decision removed limits on campaign financing by corporations. The Tea Party favors this decision. PPM favors its reversal.
3. The Right to Health
Rand's view
of human rights is consistent with the Declaration of Independence
which declares "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed..." Everyone is
entitled to their own opinions and beliefs. Either one believes in
inalienable human rights for everyone or one doesn't. One either
believes that life has intrinsic value and that what supports human life
is good and that which threatens human life is evil or one does not
believe that. Those who don't believe everyone has an equal right to life might be
categorized as communists, fascists, radical Muslims, white
supremacists, plutocrats, oligarchs, etc. All of these people are abusers. It is a futile waste of time and
energy to try to reason with or to try to appeal to an abuser's
"humanity". That is also true of corporations that disrespect human rights.
To support or even condone any type of abusive behavior while giving lip service to
universal individual rights, e.g. the right to life, is
hypocritical. PPM supports human rights and stands against abuse.
Rand wrote that what
favors life is good; that which threatens life is evil. And she
believed that the right to life is the primary right on which the other
individual rights are based. PPM believes that this is so and that since good physical
health furthers life, people's ability/opportunity to live a healthful lifestyle is an expression of the right to life.
What is
more basic to life than health? I remember reading an impressive quote
which I think was authored by a Greek philosopher. I could be mistaken
but it went something like, "He who loses his money, loses much. He who
loses his family, loses more. But he who loses his health, loses
all." If one values life, one must logically value health. If one
believes everyone has the right to life, then one must logically believe
everyone should have the right to a healthful lifestyle and the ability to live healthfully.
The
more physically healthy one is, the greater is one's ability to live
freely and pursue happiness. To unnecessarily and coercively deprive
people of that ability is a violation of basic rights and is abusive.
Most people cannot be as healthy as possible for the long term unless
they live a healthful lifestyle. The necessities for staying healthy
for most people are a good balanced quality diet (minimally processed,
preferably organic), the ability to exercise, hot running water, a warm
safe healthful living space, quality health and dental care, the help
one needs to kick health-threatening habits. Some people have specific needs such as allergen-free food and living space, special
diets, prescribed medications, food supplements, etc. Strong concentrations of toxins and/or pathogens can be health-threatening.
No adult has the right to force another to live a healthful
lifestyle. On the other hand, PPM believes that neither society nor the
government has the moral obligation to pay the medical expenses for injuries or diseases of those
who willingly participate in risky behaviors for the sake of excitement and/or personal gain. Abusing drugs and alcohol, smoking, and drag racing are examples of risky behaviors that may result in injury or disease.
C. GOVERNMENT
1. Rand's View of Government
Ayn Rand wrote some sensible things about government with which the Progressive Political Movement agrees. For example,
The source of the government’s authority is “the consent of the governed.” This
means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the
citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights
delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.
and
.... a government holds a legal monopoly on
the use of physical force.
No individual or private group or private organization has the legal power to
initiate the use of physical force against other individuals or groups and to
compel them to act against their own voluntary choice. Only a government holds
that power.
Rand believed that government should protect all individual rights of its citizens.
The political function of rights is
precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest
minority on earth is the individual).
Of rights protection and the use of force, she wrote
The only function of the government, ..... is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting
him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of
self-defense; as the means of placing the retaliatory
use of force under objective control.
Rand believed that government is a necessary institution in society.
If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an
institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an
objective code of rules. This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task,
its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.
Lest one think that Rand is advocating total control of society by government, she also wrote:
....a
government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. It has to hold
such a monopoly, since it is the agent of restraining and combating the use of
force; and for that very same reason, its actions have to be rigidly defined,
delimited and circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice should be permitted in
its performance; it should be an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only
motive power. If a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled.
PPM would like all members of law enforcement departments and agencies in the United States to memorize that quote.
Rand distinguishes between private citizens and government officials.
A private
individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a
government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted.
Rand seems to be saying that individuals in a society contract with
the government to allow their actions to be governed by laws in return
for the government establishing domestic tranquility, protecting
individual rights, and providing for certain aspects of the general Welfare (sometimes referred to as a quality Common Good). The citizens give
the government the power to enforce the laws and statutes that
accomplish this purpose. PPM realizes that some people might be happier living by themselves in a jungle making and living by their own laws. But as long as one lives in a society, one is probably going to be
happier following the fair rules, written and unwritten, set by that society.
2. Size of Government
The second Tea Party goal listed in the
INTRODUCTION was
"Dramatically smaller government with a much reduced role". T
he Tea Party thinks the Federal Government is too big.
Some people question the idea that "big" must be better. As things grow bigger they become more unwieldy and
less sustainable. Think giant dinosaurs.
But the subject is the Federal Government.
There is a lot wrong with the government. But is size one of those
things? One can find a number of articles on the web that claim the federal government has actually been shrinking since 2008 (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3696, e.g.). That may sound positive. The government is spending less money. Yea! The question is, on what is
it spending less? Less wasteful spending would be good. PPM believes that less spent on
ensuring every one's individual rights are protected and that every one
has access to a quality Common Good would be a bad
thing.
Imagine a small town with a
population of 50. Law enforcement might require one sheriff and two
part-time deputies. Once the population reaches 2000, a whole police
department working 24 hours/day may be needed to keep the peace. Other
services provided by the local government might also be overwhelmed
without additional personnel. As population increases, the growth of
government is a necessary inevitability. The alternative is
inefficiency and gridlock. The same people who complain about the large
size of government also complain about inefficiency of government
functions. While government efficiency could and should be greatly
improved, no matter how efficient each government employee is, there are limits to
how much one person can accomplish.
Size can be a big problem at either extreme. Being too small to
deal with the problems of the nation would be a negative thing.
When a politician promises to cut every one's taxes by shrinking the
size of government, most people think that would be a good thing. They
don't consider the negative effects that reduction would have on future
generations , e.g. more polluted air, higher health costs, general
deterioration of infrastructure, etc.
If
all citizens respected each other's individual rights; if industries,
banks and corporations prioritized the Common Good and public health
over profits; if state and local governments did a better job
maintaining the infrastructure; if America would be more respectful of
the rights of non-Americans, the Federal Government could easily be
smaller but still efficient. PPM favors the government being as
big as it needs to be to accomplish its mission as efficiently as
possible and no bigger.
Ayn
Rand might agree with the PPM's position that it is unacceptable to downsize government
to the point where it is incapable of protecting the rights of each and
every individual citizen. Each person
tends to
look at issues, problems, etc. from his/her own subjective viewpoint. That
can result in one being indifferent towards the rights of others as
long as one's rights are not being violated. Looking at things from a more
objective viewpoint
would yield better results for society. Objectively speaking,
no citizen's rights are any more important, more relevant, more deserving than any other citizen's rights.
One example of the Tea Party's plan to downsize the Federal Government is its desire to do away with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
There are some government agencies entrusted with the task of
protecting human health and environmental quality (which also impacts on
public health). One of these is the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) established by President Nixon in 1970 with the mission of
preserving human health and environmental quality. There are numerous
articles such as "The EPA's War on Modern Civilization"
(http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012/07/16/the-epas-war-on-modern-civilization/)
which assert that the EPA has overstepped its authority on numerous
occasions. Some people prefer that those charged with protecting the
environment
and human
health be overzealous at that task rather than lax. .
There
is definitely a conflict between individual business owners who are too
busy making profits to be concerned about public health and
environmental quality and those charged with protecting human health and
environmental quality.
One critic claimed that the EPA
has, on occasion, opted to protect the lives of non-human organisms when
that protection threatened human health. If there
is a conflict between protecting the lives of non-human organisms and
protecting human health, PPM believes that human health should be the
priority. This writer, who has an MS degree in Sustainable Systems,
asserts that
those situations are rare. Usually, the protection of environmental
quality is supportive of public health.
No matter how much evidence there is to support
any scientific theory, there are always going to be people who disagree with the credibility of the
theory. A good example of this is the Flat Earth Society that promotes
the idea that the Earth is really flat. If law makers had to wait for a
consensus that the Earth is actually round before making regulations
designed to save the Earth from imminent destruction, the Earth would be
doomed.
Does the Tea Party actually want to due away with
legislation designed to protect human health and the environment and
the agencies charged with enforcing those protections?
The following is an excerpt from a letter to the U.S. Congress from the Lehigh Valley Tea Party:
We respectfully petition you to take steps to
eliminate the Internal Revenue Service, Department of Education, the
Environmental Protection Agency and every governmental agency that is
not constitutionally mandated so that they may never be used to
intimidate any American citizen again. We call on you to take steps to
eliminate and defund every agency and program that stifles the
principles of free enterprise, individual rights and free will and
return those powers to the states as outlined in the 9th and 10th
Amendment. (http://lehighvalleyramblings.blogspot.com/2013/06/lv-tea-party-abolish-irs-epa-and-dept.html)
House bill H.R. 2584, introduced in the House of Representatives in
2012, if passed, would defund many EPA programs, designed to
protect environmental quality and public health, but thought by the Tea
Party to be "job killers".
According to an article in
The Guardian,
Michelle Bachman "advocates abolishing the EPA as soon as God puts the
Tea Party in charge". One may wonder if Michelle spent even a New York
minute
to consider the more than 16,000 EPA employees whose jobs will be
"killed" if the EPA is abolished. There are thousands more jobs that
have been created in the private sector by businesses whose purpose is
to help industries comply with EPA regulations. Those jobs would also
be killed if the EPA is abolished. In August, 2013 there were 2,721,000
people employed by the federal government. If the Tea Party succeeds
in shrinking the federal government, where will all those people find
jobs?
Whose individual freedom is being stifled by regulations designed to preserve human health? As
Ayn Rand said, "the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the
rights of another". Industry cannot and does not have the right to
unnecessarily threaten public health. "Unnecessarily" refers to emitting
poisons from the production of products that are not essential to human
survival or emitting any toxins from the production of essentials if
those toxins can be contained.
Nor does the Tea Party seem to care about diseases like Black Lung and
Asbestosis. If they did they would not want to abolish the agency
charged with protecting workers from contracting these diseases. Or
maybe they believe that Black Lung isn't really caused by coal dust
inhalation and it is just coincidence that the only people afflicted
with asbestosis are those who have inhaled asbestos fibers. So who
needs an agency to protect people's health? Perhaps volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), mercury, sulphur, small particulates and all the rest
actually make us healthier! Especially those people with asthma and
other cardio-vascular conditions. And global burning will turn out to
be a positive thing, good for human health and the environment.
I remember JFK in 1963 saying, "And is not
peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human
rights—the right to live out our lives without fear of devastation—the
right to breathe air as nature provided it—the right of future
generations to a healthy existence?" That is part of the EPA's mission -
to protect the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink.
It would seem the Tea Party does not care about those rights. Maybe
they think people don't deserve clean air and pure drinking water unless
they have earned it. In that case, those rights would be unattainable
for those who are financially challenged. Nor does the Tea Party
seem overly concerned with "the right of future generations to a
healthy existence". It seems contradictory for a political party that
claims they believe in the principles on which this country was founded,
one of which is that "all men are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights", to deny those rights to the less financially
fortunate as well as to those not yet born. The PPM, however, will
continue to assert that those who unnecessarily pollute the air and
water (i.e., emit harmful chemicals that are technically controllable)
whether out of ignorance, indifference or for financial profit,
are violating the rights of other people. And the government should
protect those rights. It is wrong to take away the funding necessary
for that protection.
3. The General Welfare
The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution reads
We the People of
the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish
Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare...
and Article I, Section 8 reads
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts
and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States...
The U.S. Constitution refers to the national government
as promoting the "general Welfare".
A more modern expression would be the "Common Good". The general Welfare refers to that which citizens need to freely live as
healthfully as possible but which the majority of individuals could not
personally afford. Most people could not afford to erect street lights
in their neighborhood, establish traffic lights and roads and bridges to
allow them to
get to work or to the grocery store. They could not afford to hire
teachers for each of their children. They could not afford their own
fully-functioning library. They could not afford to build and maintain
their own water supply and sewage systems. Not everyone can afford
their
own private quality playground and park.
Other aspects of the general Welfare provided by the various levels of government are those services anyone may need at some point in their lives. Services such as the police, the courts, the armed forces, and those whose task it is to preserve environmental quality and public health.
The Constitution indicates that the
federal government should have the power to do what is necessary to
ensure that everyone has access to those services that are part of the general Welfare. PPM believes the government has a
duty to provide for the general Welfare.
Tea Party people don't necessarily
disagree with that. It may be that Conservatives, Tea Party
followers, etc. believe that the general Welfare refers to a
prosperous economy. It may also be true that Conservative and Tea Party
leaders, although loathe to admit it to their followers, personally
measure prosperity by the rate of growth of the American Upper 1%'s
income and net
worth. That would explain why the Tea Party seems to care more about
the jobs of those that support the millionaire and billionaire income
classes than the jobs of those whose task it is to support environmental and educational quality and human health.
Another problem
, from a Tea Party viewpoint, is that some of the
government-financed services the PPM considers to be part of the general Welfare
are not specifically designated by the Constitution as "enumerated
powers" of the Federal Government.
4. Power of Centralized Government
The third goal of the Tea Party listed in the INTRODUCTION is "Substantially less central government (Washington) and a preference for states rights". This is another way of saying the federal government has too much power and that the states should have more power.
When the Tea Party complains about the central government having too much
power, they are referring to those powers allegedly exercised by the
Federal Government that are not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution and
which are supposedly states' rights.
In the event that the Tea Party succeeds in taking away the
Federal power or assumed responsibility for securing environmental,
public health, educational quality, etc., theoretically, individual
states could still enact laws to adequately protect those things within
each state's borders. Each state could also enact legislation designed
to preserve each citizen's individual right to live healthfully, to
guarantee the safety of workers and the products and services sold to
consumers, to maintain a quality general Welfare for each of their citizens,
to ensure that every able-bodied adult could have a decent job that
paid at least a healthful living wage. The alleged problem the Tea
Party has with the Federal Government is that, by assuming
responsibility (and thereby the power) to pass and enforce certain laws,
the federal government is interfering with states' rights. The
unspoken implication here is that each state has the right to determine
the tonnage of toxins that their states' industries are allowed to
release into the air, water and ground; that each state is allowed to
determine how to handle its most economically disadvantaged citizens;
that each state is allowed to determine which of its elementary and
secondary school students will get free nutritious lunches and which
will remain undernourished; that each state is allowed to determine the
quality and purity of the food sold in that state [except when it comes
to
GMOs (http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4432/text)]; that each state should be able to make their own food and drug regulations [except when it comes to marijuana
(http://www.salon.com/2014//10/tea_partys_reefer_hypocrisy_why_states_rights_is_a_situational_sham/)].
Perhaps the Tea Party thinks each state should have the exclusive legal
power to make regulations to protect the right of life in relation to
public health and the environment. How would that work? If
Ohio has old inefficient coal burning power plants on their border with
Pennsylvania emitting copious amounts of mercury, small particulates,
and sulphur dioxide that the prevailing winds carry through Pennsylvania
into upper state New York which suffers property damage as a result of
acid precipitation, what would compel Ohio to do something to remediate the problem? Since
their citizens'
health, environment, and property are not being negatively impacted,
why should Ohio act? Especially since the citizens of Ohio would have
to spend their taxes for the benefit of other states. Remember the Lehigh
Valley Tea Party petition to eliminate the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS)? The IRS collects federal taxes. Without federal
taxes the Federal Government won't be able to help Ohio remediate their pollution.
Before accepting the possibility of giving the states more power and,
thereby, more responsibility, the "track record" of some
states should be examined. The following is a quote from
"The Myth of States' Rights" by Leon Friedman, Professor of Law:
... the banner of States' rights has been used to
perpetrate and defend the greatest evils in our nation's history.
Slavery was justified on the ground that each State should be free to
determine its own economic practices. In the 1890's, corrective federal
legislation against monopolies (such as the Sherman anti-trust act) was
attacked on the grounds that the States and not the federal government
had the sole right to regulate business. In the 1930's, important New
Deal measures that would have alleviated the worst problems of the
depression were challenged and struck down by the Supreme Court on the
grounds that the new laws invaded the prerogatives of the States. After
the Civil War, the Southern states used every means possible to keep
the black population in a subservient position and engaged in "massive
resistance" to school desegregation orders issued by federal courts on
the grounds that the States should control education.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leon-friedman/the-myth-of-states-rights_b_4057947.html)
Giving to the states the power/responsibility to protect all individuals' rights,
health, safety, and access to a quality general Welfare will
not guarantee those protections for all individuals.
There is another type of power which big government has a potential to wield.
There are those who are alert to any signs of the Federal Government turning into a 1984 Big
Brother type of Authority. The revelations of Edward Snowden, seem to
reinforce Thomas Jefferson's claim that "Eternal vigilance is the price
of liberty".
To suggest that
increasing the power of the Federal Government to protect every one's right to health and access to the general Welfare would make the government more of a Big Brother type of authority is doublespeak and totally bogus.
Certain people would disagree with that. Smokers who feel they should
have the right to destroy their own health as well as anyone else's who
can't manage to hold their breath within the smokers' plumes of second
hand smoke, may feel that smoking bans are unconstitutional. People should probably have a right to suicide. But not to sudden
suicide, nor to self-destruction that takes place over a number of
years, if the killing endangers the health and well-being of others.
If one has a drug company and the government refuses to approve a new
drug because the drug trials weren't reliable, one may feel one's right
to engage in free commerce is being impeded. As if American consumers
have no right to refuse to be guinea pigs for poorly tested drugs. When
the government refuses to approve another toxic pesticide that would
kill more bees, the agro-chemical company might feel the government is
exercising draconian powers.
White racists probably think the Federal Government is exercising
illegitimate power when it enforces anti-discrimination laws. If one
owns an industrial enterprise, one may think the government is
interfering with one's right to make a profit by imposing regulations
designed to protect the environment, worker safety, the quality of goods
and services, etc.
Power is neither good nor bad. But it can be used in a way that
benefits everyone or in a way that favors "special" interests to the
detriment of others. Individual rights and the general Welfare are not special interests. PPM favors fixing America's problems by living up to the promise of "liberty and justice for all", thereby making the United States the model to which all people in other countries aspire.
There is plenty wrong with the Federal Government. The main
problem is not too much power. It is how that power is used or
distributed. Congress passes legislation, the Executive Branch makes
policies, and the Judicial Branch makes rulings that benefit Big
Business and the banks and which give these institutions the power to
threaten citizens' individual rights. (For a good example check out www.gmoboycott.blogspot.com).
Another way to express this problem is that the Federal Government
takes power away from the people and gives it to the corporations.
Who or what should have the most power to protect every one's
individual rights and ensure every one's access to the general Welfare? Private
enterprise has no compelling interest to exercise that power. The states and local governments, while they
ought to be supportive of individual rights and the general Welfare, are not
entirely reliable. The Federal Government is the entity with the
greatest interest and the most potential for reliable performance.
As it is, there exists an antagonistic relationship between Upper Class
earners/banks/big corporations and the rest of the population. The former has more
political power and more money. The government, in particular the
Federal Government, is the only entity powerful enough to oppose the
Upper Class/banks/big business. The Tea Party wants to make the Federal
Government smaller and less powerful which will allow the Upper Class
(Tea Party leaders included)/banks/big business to become even more
powerful and wealthier. So, for the rich and powerful a smaller, weaker central government would be a good thing. Unfortunately, those in the lower classes will suffer greater deprivation if the Federal Government is weakened.
There is a quote that goes, "
You
can please some of the people all of the
time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all
of
the people all of the time" (John Lydgate). This is relevant
to the government acting in the best interest of all the people. If and
when the actions of government are directed, in an objective fashion,
to preserve every one's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness by protecting people's individual right to a healthful
lifestyle and access to a the general Welfare, all of the people will
not be pleased at any time. As things stand now, those with the most
money and power do whatever is in their best interests and the
rest pay the price for their privilege. And what is in the best
interest of the rich and powerful? From their viewpoint, accumulating
and holding on to more wealth than they need is a good thing. At the
same time, there are people who are struggling just to make ends meet.
The strugglers do not have the time nor energy to realize why
their situation is worsening. They may think they are not working hard
enough or long enough. They may have no idea the Upper 1%'s hoarding of wealth and income contributes to their deprivation (http://www.alternet.org/economy/5-reasons-rich-are-ruining-economy-hoarding-their-money).
So, how much power does PPM think the people should allow the federal government to
exercise? As much as, but no more than, is required to serve the total
population responsibly, with accountability, and without favoritism.
5. The National Debt
The
National Debt is a burden on every taxpayer living and some not yet
born, except for those taxpayers who benefit financially from the banks
to which the Federal Government pays some of the interest on the debt.
Those are probably some of the same taxpayers that resist paying higher
tax rates that would enable the government to pay off the debt faster.
Go figure. The sooner the government pays off the debt the faster the
money that now goes for interest can be devoted to the
general Welfare
.
6. Government Waste
In order for PPM suggestions to be funded effectively, it would help to reduce
government waste, including corruption. Wasteful means
unnecessary. Unnecessary government spending is not profitable for
citizens, except for those who are the direct recipients of the unnecessary
spending, as well as the bankers from whom the government borrows the unnecessary funds. A significant reduction in government waste on the Federal
level would require massive cooperation and willingness on the part of
Congress, government agencies, and individual government employees. For
examples of federal government waste check out Senator Coburn's annual
wastebook
(http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=e7359436-1572-414e-8acc-0222cad1c7d5).
For an additional detailed discussion of wasteful spending see www.socialproblemsrg.blogspot.com, The National Debt
post. Let's take one small example. If every federal employee wasted
just $2.00 per day, be it from requisitioning a fancy pen, spending
extra minutes on break, etc., that waste would equal $5,442,000 per
day. If all federal government employees worked just 230 days per year
and wasted only an average of $2.00/day the total waste of tax payer
dollars would be $1,251,660,000 in one year.
7. Taxes
The PPM believes a purpose of government
should be to provide for the general Welfare and citizens should be
willing to pay their fair share toward that end. Rand would agree, at
least, in part. She writes:
Since the proper services of a government—the
police, the armed forces, the law courts—are demonstrably needed by individual
citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should)
be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance.
The
same can be said of the other services that promote and maintain the general Welfare.
a. raising taxes of the wealthy
The question that naturally arises is how is the general Welfare to be financed?
PPM objects to the idea of the general Welfare being something owned and
controlled by private enterprise for the sake of creating profit. The cost of the general Welfare should be shared. Those who earn the most should contribute the most to its upkeep. One way of raising revenue to pay for the promoting of the general Welfare is levying taxes. The fourth goal of the Tea Party listed in the INTRODUCTION is "Low taxes".
The Tea Party doesn't believe raising taxes of
those with the highest incomes would solve anything. Why? The following quote
may shed some light:
In view of what they hear from the experts, the people cannot be blamed for
their ignorance and their helpless confusion. If an average housewife struggles
with her incomprehensibly shrinking budget and sees a tycoon in a resplendent
limousine, she might well think that just one of his diamond cuff links would
solve all her problems. She has no way of knowing that if all the personal
luxuries of all the tycoons were expropriated, it would not feed her
family—and millions of other, similar families—for one week; and that the
entire country would starve on the first morning of the week to follow . . .
Rand should have stuck to philosophy. There is a difference between net worth and income. "Personal luxuries"
are part of a
person's net worth. If a tycoon making a million dollars annually were
to have all his personal luxuries taken away, he would still be
thousands of times better off economically than the struggling
housewife; it's not his luxuries that allow him to make a million
dollars every year. Rand may be correct that the value of all the
tycoons' luxury items would be insufficient to feed millions of families
for a single week. But what would cause "the entire country to starve
on the first morning of the week to follow"? Would the luxury items be
toxic to the lower classes? Would the items cause them to be unable to digest food? Would they ruin the earning
ability or welfare collection ability of millions of families within
that week so that they could not afford as much food as they did before
the luxury item expropriation? This makes no sense. And why would the
tycoon who would still be earning in excess of $19,200 per week starve? Her
reasoning is faulty on this issue.
Rand may have believed
that if society demands too much from the millionaires and
billionaires in terms of taxes, businesses will fail, the tycoons will go broke and not be
able to pay taxes, and there will be no jobs to be had. So
no one would pay taxes. Since the government would be unable to collect taxes nor to
borrow money, the government would not be able
to feed the hungry poor. That's a doomsday scenario.
But
how realistic is it? If the total annual reported income of U.S.
earners for 2012 was
divided evenly among all earners, each of 155.5 million American workers
would
benefit from and pay taxes on $86,179. If all the reported private
income in the nation in 2012 were divided
evenly among America's 316 million citizens, each person would receive
$42,410. If each of the families of the almost 47 million Americans
living below the Federal poverty level in 2012 were to add even
half
of that to their annual income, it would mean a vast improvement in
their ability to stay as healthy as possible. The point is
that Americans, as a whole, earn more than enough to pay a healthful living wage to
everyone who is willing and able
to work. Can that be done
without raising taxes on the Upper 1%? NO. According to an article
posted at
www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html,
in 2010 35.4% of all
private wealth in the country was owned by the upper 1%. That is net
worth, not personal income. Higher personal income tax rates for the
upper 1% will not impoverish them.
While PPM opposes raising lower and middle class taxes, PPM does favor raising the income rates on top earners. For example, a
50% rate on earnings of $500,000 increasing to 90% for those earning the
most might not be unreasonable. Once the National Debt is paid off,
the rates could be gradually lowered to a level sufficient to pay for
all necessary expenses of the federal government. In addition, all tax exemptions,
deductions and loopholes should be eliminated for the upper 1%.
b. tax payer resentment
Tea Party's
"solution"
to the country's problems, obviously would benefit those in the Upper 1-7% income bracket. But what hooks lower income earners into supporting the Tea Party is probably the promise of lower
taxes.
Many Americans seem to resist and resent the idea of paying personal income tax. The same
people who like the Tea Party's plan to decrease taxes by decreasing the
size of the government may agree with the idea that one
can't get something for nothing. One wonders what these people are
willing to give up in order to pay fewer taxes. Americans have more
security than Iraq because America has a superior military. capability. Are the reluctant tax payers
willing to do without national security? Without the FBI? Without
federal courts? Without limits on corporate polluters? Without safe
food and drugs? Without federal highways? Without National Parks and
Monuments? Without Federal lunch programs in schools? All of these things cost money.
The
answer, or part of it, is that Tea Party people resent paying taxes for
those
things that benefit
other people, people less financially blessed than
themselves. One example is "safety net programs". According to the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
(
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258), in 2013 the Federal
Government collected $2.8 trillion but spent $3.5 trillion. Of that,
$398 billion (ap.12% percent of the federal
budget) was spent on safety net programs. These are programs that
give support (other than Social Security benefits or health insurance)
to financially-challenged
individuals and families.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
(
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3822), 47% of federal revenue
collected in 2013 came from personal income tax. 10 % came from
corporate income taxes. 9% from other sources. 34% came from payroll
taxes. $680 billion was borrowed. Personal federal income tax
collected in 2013 totaled $1.316 trillion which is approximately 37% of the total
$3.5 trillion spent by the government. 12 % of the $3.5 trillion
dollars was spent on safety net programs but only 37% of that 12% came
from personal income tax. So 4.4% of the total personal income tax
collected in 2013 was spent on safety net programs. It would seem that no matter how much a citizen paid
in income tax in 2013, only 4.4% of that amount went to pay for safety
net programs. For example, if one paid federal personal income tax in
2013 as a head of household on $51,371, of the $7484 paid in taxes, $329
would have gone to pay for safety net programs.
Admittedly, a percentage of that $329 was spent on unnecessary
expenditures. However, some of it may have
actually kept some poor, blameless people from starvation or
homelessness.
Where does that $329 end up? Perhaps the
person who paid it owns a grocery store or two. Some of the income from
that store probably
comes to him/her in the form of food stamps. If the tax payer owns a
retail store,
some of the people shopping there may be on public assistance. There is a
virtual army of federal employees who administer the safety
net programs. These people spend money in retail stores also, as well
as paying taxes that help support the safety net programs. Even if
the tax payer of the $329 is an employee of an establishment patronized
by people
dependent on government assistance or by government employees that
administer safety net programs, the tax payer's wages are being
partly paid by those patrons.
In other words, some of that $329 could end up helping to support the
person who paid it.
Taxes paid to the government don't
disappear. The government
is not hoarding that money the way the Upper 1% is hoarding theirs (http://moneymorning.com/ext/articles/rickards/55-billion-gamble.php?iris=252777). All
revenue the federal government collects is spent. The fact that the
government does not always buy American is a
separate problem that needs to be fixed. PPM would like to see Congress pass a law
that the Federal Government must buy the most affordable
American products
and services unless they aren't available in this country. A provision
of this law should restrict all purchases by the Federal
Government to
necessities. Another provision of this law should require the Federal Government to purchase necessary goods and services from small businesses whenever practicable.
c. taxing low income earners
Even the Tea Party probably does not expect people below a certain low economic income level to pay taxes. PPM suggests that the low income level should correspond to the minimum healthful living wage amount for each specific earner/family [see Section C. (ECONOMY, #7 "a healthful living wage")]. Only income in excess of the person's/family's healthful living wage should be taxed).
d. taxing investment income
A suggested reform that PPM supports is taxable investment income being taxed by the Federal Government at a
rate equal to regular income. As
it is now, investment income is taxed at a lower rate than personal
income. That is why Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher percentage
of her income in taxes compared with Buffet's percentage.
e. taxing large corporations
Tax exemptions,
deductions and loopholes should be eliminated for the large corporations.
If tax reforms are made, there would
be a possibility that more American companies would relocate their
corporate headquarters and/or operations overseas in order to avoid
paying increased American Federal corporate taxes. PPM regards such
companies as "American" in name only. There are a number of possible
solutions to this problem. Passing a law requiring any company
operating within the U.S. to pay corporate taxes, regardless of the
location of their corporate headquarters would be one measure PPM would favor. It
seems sensible that if one uses American property, etc. to make money,
one should be willing to pay taxes on that money.
An even better solution, but one that would require more
time and effort to implement, would be an international agreement among
all the world's countries to charge the same corporate tax rate in every
country in the world.
Another solution that would preserve rights and the separation of
government and business, would be for American consumers and other
businesses that are truly American, as well as all governments within
the U.S. to voluntarily boycott the goods and services sold by any
tax-dodging company. If a company does not wish to support the country,
why should the country support the company?
The same thing could be done with "American" millionaires and billionaires
who forsake their citizenship to avoid paying personal income tax. True
Americans could boycott the sources of these people's personal income.
An
international standard personal income tax for millionaires and
billionaires, regardless of citizenship, would probably be more
effective.
f. payroll taxes
About 40% of federal government revenue comes from payroll taxes. All
earners
have payroll taxes deducted from their pay checks. Payroll taxes are
supposed to pay for social security and Medicare. The more one earns
the more is deducted except for those who earn in excess of $110,000
annually (http://gawker.com/...).
One of two things could be done. (1) Eliminate the $110,000
limit on payroll taxes; or (2) Eliminate payroll tax entirely while
retaining social security and medicare for those eligible people who
need it.
g. the choice
The
choice is clear.
1) Raising taxes on the wealthy while protecting the human rights of all Americans and preserving a quality Common Good, or
2)
The Tea Party solution. Downsize the government; decrease taxes for
wealthy individuals and corporations; do away with government
regulations. The end results of which will be
allowing America's millionaires and billionaires to continue to
increase their share of the nation's wealth while not paying what many consider to be their fair share of the tax burden; the loss of more environmental quality;
a decrease in worker safety and the safety/quality of consumer goods
and services; and a continuing decline in the quality of the general Welfare, at least for those who are more economically disadvantaged.
PPM supports the first choice.
8. Separation of Government and Private Enterprise
Ayn Rand believed the economy and government should be separated.
When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated
laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the
same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
While PPM believes in a separation of government and private enterprise, the nature of the separation for PPM does not entail an absence of government regulation of businesses, banks, and industries. The separation PPM advocates is based on the idea that governments exist for the benefit of people, not businesses. A purpose of government should not be to turn business owners into millionaires nor to help them stay wealthy. The government does not control a free-market economy. The government should not be held responsible for the unemployment rate of private enterprises, the stock market gains or losses, etc.
PPM's idea of separation would include a prohibition of permanent federal employees being hired by large corporations and employees of large corporations being hired permanently by the federal government sooner than two years from their employment termination.
Rand believed there should be no barriers to trade between nations-no
tariffs, export/import taxes, etc. Her idea of separation of the economy and
government is consistent with the philosophical thinking of politicians
who support free trade
agreements like NAFTA, even though such agreements have had such
negative consequences for
American workers and for the general Welfare. PPM believes that
the
government should not be in the business of supporting private
enterprise by arranging trade deals with other countries, subsidizing
private businesses, giving businesses tax exceptions, nor giving
businesses financial entitlements. There might possibly be some
circumstances that would justify a close collaboration between
government and private interests for the sake of preserving the general Welfare. But giving financial advantages to businesses that already make
billions in profits annually? No
justification.
D. ECONOMY
While Paul Ryan, a Tea Party leader reportedly regards Ayn Rand as "the
reason I got into public service", Ryan was apparently not referring to Rand's defense of individual rights
nor to the role of government in protecting those rights. He was
evidently referring to her valuing of capitalism, in particular
laissez-faire capitalism,
i.e., a system in which the owners of industry and business dictate the
rules
of competition, the conditions of labor, the cost and safety of
products and services, the negative effects of their activities on the
environment and on public health, etc. as they please, without
government regulation or control. The fifth goal of the Tea Party as listed in the INTRODUCTION is "free market prosperity", i.e.,
laizze faire capitalism.
Ayn Rand wrote
Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights,
including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.
1. Origin of Capitalism
Of the origin of capitalism, Rand wrote
The nineteenth century was the ultimate product and expression of the
intellectual trend of the Renaissance and the Age of Reason, which means: of a
predominantly Aristotelian philosophy. And, for the first time in history, it
created a new economic system, the necessary corollary of political freedom, a
system of free trade on a free market: capitalism.
No, it was not a full, perfect, unregulated, totally laissez-faire
capitalism—as it should have been. Various degrees of government interference
and control still remained, even in America—and this is what led to the
eventual destruction of capitalism.
Webster defined laissez-faire as
"the policy of letting the owners of industry and business fix the rules
of competition, the conditions of labor, etc.as they please, without
government regulation or control." Laizze faire capitalism will be the effect, if successful, of the Tea Party's efforts to cancel the power of the federal government to regulate corporations. Rand touts laizze-faire
capitalism as the best possible economic system even though she seems
to be saying that it never existed in a full and perfect way. But how
can something that never existed experience "eventual destruction"?
Rand says of the effects of the fledgling capitalism of the nineteenth century,
Never mind the low wages and the harsh living conditions of the early years of
capitalism. They were all that the national economies of the time could afford.
Capitalism did not create poverty—it inherited it.
The
captains of industry "of the time" lived like wealthy European
aristocracy. An economy that produces that much profit, can, in
fact, afford to pay its workers higher wages and create better working conditions.
Many people were poor before capitalism. Yes, the income of a
portion of the impoverished masses were improved because of the
industrial revolution. Extreme poverty was the reality for a number of
families before the beginning of the industrial period just as it is
today. In Rand's view, the greed of the robber barons should have been
allowed to persist without government interference. One may wonder how that would have
resulted in eradicating poverty.
2. Rational Thinking
Rand relates Capitalism to freedom as well as to "rationality".
Capitalism demands the best of every man—his rationality—and rewards him
accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to
specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as
far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him. His
success depends on the objective value of his work and on the rationality of
those who recognize that value. When men are free to trade, with reason and
reality as their only arbiter, when no man may use physical force to extort the
consent of another, it is the best product and the best judgment that win in
every field of human endeavor, and raise the standard of living—and of
thought—ever higher for all those who take part in mankind’s productive
activity.
Theoretically,
under a capitalistic system devoid of government "interference" (which has never actually existed in pure form),
everyone would produce what they needed to survive physically and
everyone would live happy and fulfilling lives without threatening each
other's individual human rights. Ayn Rand might admit that such a
society would have to consist of individuals who are rational thinkers.
What is "rational" thinking? The following quote explains what it is
not:
Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his
basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you
practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful
suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the
refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of
unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of
judgment—on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you
refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the
verdict “It is.
This
quote perfectly describes (1) the Tea party's seeming
denial or lack of concern for the growing economic inequality in this
country and the inability of less fortunate Americans to realize their
right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and (2) the Tea Party's
faith in a
laissez-faire economic system.
From the above quote it seems logical to conclude that a pure laissez-faire system cannot exist until people become truly rational thinkers. Since the Tea Party wants to create a laissez-faire economic system in this country, PPM wonders how they are going to teach Americans to be rational thinkers. PPM suspects there is no plan. How can irrational thinkers teach others to think rationally?
3. Highest Standard of Living for whom?
Rand claims that
Capitalism has created the highest standard of living ever known on earth. The
evidence is incontrovertible. The contrast between West and East Berlin is the
latest demonstration, like a laboratory experiment for all to see. Yet those
who are loudest in proclaiming their desire to eliminate poverty are loudest in
denouncing capitalism. Man’s well-being is not their goal.
The
"highest standard of living" for whom? For the 1.5 million American
households existing on an income of less than $2.00 per day before
government benefits? For the people in America living without electricity in their homes? Or is Rand speaking of the 1,556,000 American
earners with an annual income exceeding $394,000? Or is it the top .5% of
earners with an annual income of $611,000 and up. Then again, the top
.1% have an even higher standard of living at a minimum $1,900,000 income
annually. But the .01% have the highest standard of all at $10,200,000
and up.
Nor does Rand credit the post-WWII Marshall Plan for the better economic conditions in West Berlin. She certainly would not have described the Marshall Plan as laissez-faire.
Maybe Rand was thinking about "rags to riches" stories when she wrote
about the poorest citizens' standard of living being raised to the
heights. But there were such stories before the capitalist era as well
as such instances in collectivist systems. Capitalism can not take
credit for all instances of rags to riches
More people dream about attaining great riches than those who actually
experience it. Unless one wins a mega-lottery drawing, there are factors that must
be in play in order for a poor person to become dazzlingly rich in this
society. Some of these factors may include a personality that won't impede one's success; a well-developed skill or talent; a number of competent, trustworthy, influential people willing to support one; a great hunger/desire/ambition leading to persistence; and a good networking system that results in meeting the right people at the right times. In some
cases, an unscrupulous willingness to do whatever is necessary to
advance oneself would also be helpful. Even with all that going for
one, there is no guarantee of riches.
4. Greed and Justice
Rand wrote
Capitalism
has been called a system of greed....
She does not try to deny that capitalism is a system based on greed. She rather tries to justify the greed because more people living under capitalism have benefited financially than those living under dictatorial systems. In other words, if one system has a poverty rate of 50% and the second system has a poverty rate of only 10%, the second system is almost perfect, even though it depends on greed for its success. PPM disagrees with this assessment. Greed exists even in dictatorial systems. It can not be legislated out of existence.
PPM supports the idea that no person has a
moral obligation to sacrifice his/her health or well-being in order to
"help" the less fortunate. However, there is still the question of people
who earn more than enough to live a comfortable, healthful lifestyle but
resent paying taxes because, by doing so, they might not be able to
afford a new Mercedes or a Rolex or the latest 24-carot yellow gold
I-phone.
If one's main goal in life is to be a millionaire, one would
probably
agree with the Tea Party's narrow interpretations of government powers
because, if implemented, the Tea Party goals would result in one having
to pay less income tax and would make one's investments more profitable,
thus enabling one to reach one's personal goal sooner. Such a person
would not concern him/herself with those less fortunate. The would-be
millionaire could easily rationalize that those less fortunate
should and need to be responsible for themselves. If some altruistic
sucker do-gooders should decide to help the less fortunate to survive,
it would not be an issue as long as the would-be millionaire did not
have to help finance their
efforts. If one were hell-bent on making a million dollars during the
administration of Franklin Roosevelt, what would motivate one to oppose
the New Deal as unconstitutional? Patriotism? Try old-fashioned
greed. Greed would have motivated the rich and the would-be rich to
oppose the WPA, the
Conservation Corps and the rest of the New Deal programs that employed
millions whose families would have starved otherwise.
Today we have a growing gulf in this country between the haves and
the have-nots. The super-rich have the power to create jobs and to
eliminate jobs. There are a lot of people in need of jobs and there is
plenty of money to pay them to work. The super-rich and the large
corporations have more than enough wealth to create jobs. Why don't
they? Because they don't like the black President for whom they did
not vote? Because they are protesting government regulations designed to
preserve the general Welfare? Or is it just because of old-fashioned human
greed? Human
nature hasn't changed. The people with the most money were greedy in
the nineteenth century and they are greedy today - greedy for wealth and
power.
Rand believes in contractual relationships.
If the good, the virtuous, the morally ideal is suffering and
self-sacrifice—then, by that standard, capitalism had to be damned as evil.
Capitalism does not tell men to suffer, but to pursue enjoyment and
achievement, here, on earth—capitalism does not tell men to serve and
sacrifice, but to produce and profit—capitalism does not preach passivity,
humility, resignation, but independence, self-confidence, self-reliance—and,
above all, capitalism does not permit anyone to expect or demand, to give or to
take the unearned. In all human relationships—private or public, spiritual
or material, social or political or economic or moral—capitalism requires that
men be guided by a principle which is the antithesis of altruism: the principle
of justice.
Is a fair contract more likely to be made with a just person or a
greedy person? Rand asserts that the worker is free to work for an
employer or not, free to quit his job or not. That may work well for
skilled and professional workers. But what about millions of unskilled
workers? Their only choice may be to work for the greedy boss or be
unemployed. This situation raises two questions. (1) How can one call
that justice? (2) Is that an endorsement for laisse-faire
capitalism? Rand and the Tea Party would say each and every unskilled
worker has the power to better themselves. If all unskilled workers decided to better themselves
at the same time, would there be enough skilled jobs to employ them all? Whenever there is a surplus of available jobs, the
unfairly treated worker is free to quit. In a market with a surplus
of workers, skilled or unskilled, a worker may have to choose between
unsatisfactory working conditions and joblessness. And who would do the
work the formerly unskilled millions were doing before bettering
themselves? Would employers import millions of foreign people like they do in
Saudi Arabia, people who don't mind working for next to nothing? Then
again, they do that already. Migrant farm workers.
Laisse-faire
capitalism would not have been a system that would be fair to everyone
in the nineteenth century and it would even be more unfair to more
people today.
5. The Effects of Laizze Faire
If one trusts the leaders of business and industry to simply
respect individual rights, one should become acquainted with the
robber baron period of American History at the beginning of the
Industrial Revolution. There is a book by Howard Zinn entitled
History is a Weapon (
http://www.historyisaweapon.com),
the eleventh chapter of which is entitled "Robber Barons and Rebels"
that addresses the problems of that period. Or one could check out the
diary "Historic Repetition and Soylent Green" posted Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 09:00 AM PDT on
Daily Kos. The Tea Party's goals listed in the INTRODUCTION seem to express the aim of "turning back the
clock" to a time when the federal
government only exercised what the Tea Party claims are those powers
enumerated in the Constitution. If one watched Ken Burns' PBS documentary "The Roosevelts:
An Intimate History", one may suspect that the powers of the federal
government were more limited during the period preceding the administration
of Theodore Roosevelt. The robber barons were doing their thing
at that time.
Why would the Tea Party
think that conditions would improve for the lower classes today if all
that power was returned to the captains of business and industry? The lower classes suffered under the robber barons more
then than they do today. Why would anyone want to repeat that?
If one thinks, that in the absence of regulations, one will simply
and easily be able to secure redress for damages through the court
system, one should watch the movies Flash of Genius or The Insider, or Erin Brockovich. One
may be able to successfully sue a corporation for
environmental/health damages if one has enough time and money. But
aren't those who possess enough time and money living in
neighborhoods that aren't exposed to nearby illegal dumping of
chemical waste or contamination of their ground water from fracking? The
same people who can afford to feed their families organic food without
toxic
chemicals and GMOs.
What
can be expected if the Tea Party has its way? A higher rate of
environmentally-related diseases, more accidents from unsafe products,
higher incidence of sickness from contaminated and unsafe foods and food
additives, more health complications from changed agricultural growing
methods. More industrial accidents. Also, the rate of global burning
will increase resulting in more violent storms, more forest fires,
faster rising sea levels, worse drought conditions. Health care costs
will increase due to increased numbers of patients. There will be more
unemployment and underemployment. There will be a decrease in energy
efficiency in office buildings and an increase in all types of toxic
emissions.
Who would benefit from laissez faire? Who
would profit the most from the Tea Party's plan? Bankers, corporation owners
and large stock holders would benefit
the most in a financial sense. Not only would the production cost of
products and services be less without government regulations, consumers
would buy more products and services with the extra money that would
result from lower taxes. Would the cost of goods and services
decrease? Not necessarily. Business owners might increase prices figuring that consumers have more to spend.
The other people that would benefit from laissez-faire are
the legislators who would no longer be responsible for protecting
individual rights and promoting the Common Good by regulating private enterprises. It would not be
surprising, however, if the legislators expected the same pay and
benefits for less work.
6. Capitalism and Unemployment
Ayn Rand thinks of work as producing that which others value.
It is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his
work.
But she says no one has a right to a job.
There is no such thing as “a right to a job”—there is only the right of free
trade, that is: a man’s right to take a job if another man chooses to hire him.
PPM believes the government should never force
owners of business and industry to hire any one person nor number of
people. Also, people have the right to establish their own business
within lawful parameters. PPM believes that if the business start-up
process were cheaper and less complicated, more people would do it.
Bureaucracy needs to be "streamlined" and made more affordable.
Many people fail at establishing a profitable business for various
reasons. A program on NPR radio recently reported that only 30% of new business
start-ups survive for the first ten years. Some people know they would
not succeed in starting a business even before trying. If one is unemployed and is one of the
aforementioned, and there are no jobs to be had, should society simply
ignore the person? If there are no jobs in the private sector to be
had, whose fault is that? Some would say the fault is the government's
because of government regulations that protect individual human rights,
or because corporate taxes are too high, etc. I am not willing to
sacrifice my human rights in order for everyone to be employed. Many
corporations don't pay their fair share in taxes as it is.
7. A Better Economic System
Rand wrote
What greater virtue can one ascribe to a social system than the fact that it
leaves no possibility for any man to serve his own interests by enslaving other
men? What nobler system could be desired by anyone whose goal is man’s
well-being?
A fair question. How about an alternative
system that respects and protects every one's individual rights; provides
everyone accessibility to the general Welfare;
takes care of those who are disabled from working; and provides a job
to every able adult who needs one, decent jobs that pay at least a
healthful living wage (see section #8 below). This is not a description of a laissez-faire system nor the system we presently have. How would this PPM endorsed alternative system be structured?
If private business is unwilling or unable to hire to the extent
that every adult citizen willing and able to work has a job that pays at
least a healthful living wage, PPM believes it would be proper and right for the government to create temporary jobs for the unemployed that enhance and
maintain the general Welfare. These jobs could be designed to suit the abilities/talents of the hired workers and
should pay at least a healthful
living wage to start. There should be total freedom for the temporary
employees to switch employment to the private sector whenever
the desire and opportunity to do so presents itself. There should be a
guarantee of temporary government employment for as long as it is
necessary as well as opportunities to apply for permanent government
positions. The temporary workers would be held to job standards
equivalent to permanent workers and receive benefits comparable to other government workers doing similar jobs. Failure to meet those standards of performance could be interpreted as
an unwillingness to work.
PPM does not believe
that there are Americans with the ability to work and who have a need for
money, but who are unwilling to work ever, under any circumstances, if
given the opportunity. But, as a general principle, PPM doesn't believe society nor the government has an obligation to provide for adults who are able but unwilling to perform available decent productive work in return for at least a healthful living wage.
Some would say the fault is the government's
because of government regulations that protect individual human rights,
or because corporate taxes are too high, etc. I am not willing to
sacrifice my human rights in order for everyone to be employed. Many
corporations don't pay their fair share in taxes as it is.
What is the purpose of a job? If you are a boss
or business owner the purpose for hiring help is for you to compel your
workers to do what is necessary for you to make as much money as
possible. From another point of view, a job is a means of giving a
worker a purpose, of enabling him/her to survive, and a means of earning at
least enough to live a healthful lifestyle. This, in turn, allows the
worker the opportunity to experience life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.
All people who work should be able to afford a
healthful lifestyle. With a government funded work program, private
businesses would be motivated to pay their employees at least a
healthful living wage, since, if they did not, workers earning less
would have the option of earning more by going to work for the general Welfare. The need for unemployment compensation and welfare payments would decrease dramatically
8 . A Healthful Living Wage
The concept of the healthful lifestyle was described in Part B (INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS), Section 3 (Right To Health).
A healthful living wage is an amount that allows one to afford a healthful lifestyle. The formula
for determining the amount of a healthful living wage might be a bit
complicated but would be similar to the formula for determining the
amount of food stamps for which each applicant is eligible. The cost of
living where the person resides would be one factor in determining the
cost of his/her healthful lifestyle.
One needs a warm, safe place to live in order to remain healthy.
The cost of renting an apartment varies greatly depending on where one
lives. The average monthly cost could be as low as $623 or as high as $4000 according to CBS MONEY WATCH
(http://www.cbsnews.com/media/top-10-cheapest-us-cities-to-rent-an-apartment/).
The average rental cost nationwide is $1200/month according to this
source.
To be healthy, one must heat one's residence and one's water supply.
The average energy cost for residences in the U.S. according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration is $107.28 monthly (http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3).
The right to health should include the cost of an organic diet. One study
found that cost was 70% higher than the USDA's Thrifty Food Plan
(http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/26759/1/36010020.pdf). According
to the USDA
(http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/26759/1/36010020.pdf) an average
American male 19-50 years old, as of August, 2014 could feed himself
adequately on $43.30 per week. If an organic diet is 70% higher, that
cost would be $73.61.
One needs a reasonable amount of exercise to stay healthy.
One can get an minimum of healthful exercise through walking or
jogging. A good pair of jogging or walking shoes can be purchased mail
order for ap. $90. Two pairs would hopefully be adequate for a year.
In regard to dental care, one can purchase a dental plan for about
$50/month. But that will not pay 100% of crowns, etc. If one is
working for the government or a large business, one's benefits package
hopefully includes medical coverage.
So far, for an average American male 19-50 years of age, a
healthful living wage could be $20,280/year or $1690/month or $9.82/hour
for a 40-hour work week. The healthful living wage might be lower than
that for someone whose rent is only $623/ month. But if one lives in
San Francisco where the median rent rate is $4000, $9.82/hour could be
grossly inadequate for a healthful lifestyle.
In regard to children of working parents, PPM favors quality government-funded day care for low-income parents. This would allow single parents to work full-time.
9. Socialism?
Some will call the positions of the PPM "socialism". One may wonder which of the following
items these name-callers think is socially acceptable in a country that calls itself
the leader of the free world?
1. Homeless citizens
2. Unemployment of able adults needing jobs
3. Inability of some citizens to afford adequate health care
4. Citizens living in extreme poverty
5. Inability of some citizens to afford a healthful lifestyle
6. Large corporations and the super-rich not paying enough in taxes to eliminate these conditions
The above question is relevant to the next
election. Voting for Tea Party candidates and most, if not all,
Republican candidates is a vote for those six conditions listed above.
It is also a vote for increasing the wealth of the richest Americans while other Americans continue losing net worth.
(According to an article at
www.pewsocialtrends.org/.../a-rise-in-wealth-for-the-wealthydeclines-for... entitled "A Rise in Wealth for the Wealthy; Declines for the Lower
93% - An Uneven Recovery, 2009-2011" by Richard Fry and Paul Taylor, the economic net worth of households of the 7%
most affluent Americans increased an average of 28% from 2009 to 2011.
The net worth of the less affluent 93% of Americans fell by 4%.)
The Progressive Political Movement of SW PA should not be confused with
either of the two major political parties. The PPM is independent of
both. But the positions taken by the PPM are more in alignment with
Democratic Progressive candidates than with Republicans.
10. Proposed Constitutional Amendment
The "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is found in
the Declaration of Independence. Even though the wording
implies that the authors of the Declaration felt that a purpose of
governments was to secure these rights, technically the securing of
these rights is not a power nor duty of the federal government as
enumerated in the Constitution. There is also an opinion that the federal government is not obligated to protect those rights but only obligated not to deprive citizens
of those rights without due process of law. One can read the text for
oneself and see if it sounds like a purpose of government is to secure
those rights for men in a positive fashion or for government to restrain
itself from taking away those rights.
The Progressive Political Movement of SW PA believes that all
people are created equal, have inalienable rights, and deserve to have those rights protected. PPM also believes that all Americans, including Native Americans, deserve access to
the general Welfare. There
are those who believe that the "original enumerated constitutional
powers" of the federal government don't
include protecting individual rights and promoting and maintaining the
general Welfare. If the Founding Fathers possessed the scientific and
medical
understanding of human health that is common knowledge in our time,
perhaps they would have made more specific Constitutional provisions for
keeping every one's health from being threatened by factors that did
not even exist in their day.
If the Tea
Party has its way, a substantial portion of the American
population will be doomed to hopeless dependence on hand-outs,
living in endless extreme poverty, increasing illness, etc. As
a step toward preventing these negative effects and creating a fairer
system of government, a constitutional amendment would be helpful. This
would not be unconstitutional as Article 5 of the Constitution makes provisions for Constitutional changes.
Article I, Section 8 lists about 18 powers of Congress. The PPM suggests
that 16 powers of the Federal Government be added to the Constitution.
This would hopefully relieve the legislative gridlock in Congress as
well as giving every American the opportunity to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.
The 16 suggested additional powers of the Federal Government are as follows:
1. To ensure that all citizens have access to a quality Common Good.
2.
To protect and defend the individual rights to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness for all citizens whenever state and local
governments fail to do so.
3. To provide for all citizens who are
disabled to the extent that they are able to live as healthfully and
fully as possible wherever and whenever the states fail to do this.
4.
To ensure that all financially-challenged adults who are able and
willing to work have a decent job that pays at least a minimum healthful
living wage.
5. To ensure the safety and nutritional value of all
foods sold and/or produced in the U.S. and full disclosure of all
man-made additives, genetically modified ingredients or organisms, as
well as any known allergens, whenever the states fail to do so.
6. To ensure the safety of all products and services marketed in the U.S. whenever the states fail to do
so.
7.
To establish and enforce safety and health procedures to protect
workers whenever the states fail to do this to an adequate extent.
8.
To protect environmental quality and establish the most
environmentally-friendly practices on and for all federally owned and/or
administered properties.
9. To prevent unnecessary pollution,
that is, any health-threatening emissions from the manufacturing of
non-essential products. To prevent health-threatening emissions from
the manufacture of products necessary for human health and well-being
and/or for preserving environmental quality when such emissions can be
contained by the Best Available Technology. To prevent the emission of
toxins from any source of human activity when those toxins can be
contained by the best affordable available technology.
10. To
eliminate or compel landlords to remediate or demolish any sub-quality rental units
when state and local governments fail to do so.
11. To make rules for the reasonable treatment of workers by employers when the local and state governments fail to do so.
12.
To require full disclosure by producers of all man-made chemicals or of
other naturally-occurring toxins that workers/and or consumers have been
exposed to or might be exposed to in the future.
13. To ensure access to a quality Common Good
and the opportunity to afford a healthful lifestyle to all individual Native
Americans living on reservations if their tribal governments fail to do
so.
14. To access the success of all primary
and secondary educational systems in the U.S. and its territories in
terms of preparing students for gainful employment or additional education/training
upon graduation from high school. To intervene in schools with
unacceptable rates of success when states fail to do so.
15. To take the necessary steps to ensure that the federal
government can afford to exercise these powers into the future and
still pay off the National Debt as soon as possible.
16.
These powers of the federal government are not designed to usurp the
authority of the states to exercise the same powers within their
boundaries. The states may establish stricter regulations as long as
those are not unconstitutional. All citizens, businesses, local
municipalities within a state are legally obligated to follow the
strictest regulations.
Despite the federal
government's exercise of allegedly unconstitutional powers, the
problems of economic inequality, injustice, lack of opportunity, chronic disease, etc. are all increasing. Do most Americans want to
live in a country dominated by the greed of the powerful or in a country
in which the government has the power and will to oppose that greed for
the sake of all the people?
E. OPPOSING THE PROGRESSIVE POLITICAL MOVEMENT
The suggested Constitutional changes listed above will not gender general support among those who possess power in America. This section will try to explain why that is and PPM's response.
1. Attitudes
Attitude is a factor that seems to be often overlooked in attempts to explain the problems of American society. Unproductive attitudes can not be legislated away. They can, however, interfere with the process of positive change. Unproductive attitudes can also be exposed. Since PPM exists for the cause of positive change, PPM exposes unproductive attitudes in this section.
Many Americans, even some of those less fortunate, seem to
expect wealthier individuals and families to naturally be entitled to
more rights and privileges than those less financially blessed. A common attitude of the wealthy can be expressed as
follows:
I
worked for this. Anyone else could do the same. I have nothing to be
ashamed of nor to apologize for. I owe nothing to anyone.
Perhaps rich people with that attitude believe in the myth of "the
self-made man". Actually no one has risen from rags to riches without a
lot of help and support and reliable counsel. Attaining great wealth
is not simply a matter of "pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps". A
number of today's wealthiest families in America did not have to work for the
wealth that they keep increasing through investments, etc. They inherited it.
Then there are those that make a great deal of wealth from oil, real
estate, precious metals, coal, natural gas, chemical manufacturing.
One reason that it is possible for specific individuals to profit so
much from natural resources in this country is that the U.S. government
allows it to happen. In contrast, the government of Norway decided in
May of 1963 to claim the natural resources in its part of the North
Sea. It established a state-run oil company. All of the oil taken from
Norway's off-shore wells are taxed at 78%. Results? A national fund
worth $880 billion. In this country, that money would be part of the
wealth of the Upper 1%. In Norway it theoretically belongs to all
citizens.
PPM does not believe this country is ready for such a progressive
approach to sharing the wealth of the country's natural resources. But,
from a strict moral and ideal legal viewpoint, the natural resources of
the American continent and its territorial waters belong to the
descendants of the Native American tribes that occupied the continent
when the first Europeans landed in the "New World". There was never an
international legal justification for Europeans to "claim" land in the
Americas for their Monarchs. Their standing on it did not make it their
land to claim. For kings to parcel out land in the "new World" to their favorite subjects
wasn't legal. Nor was it ideally legal nor strictly moral for
"ownership" of American territory to pass from Mexico or France to the
United States, since those countries stole the land from the original
occupiers. It is the equivalent of China marching its army into Tibet
in the 1950s and claiming that Tibet was now part of China. Nothing
legal or moral about it. What right did Britain have to possess India?
It is unfortunate that Native Americans (Indians) did not have a Gandhi
to lead them. Unfortunate for them, fortunate for the conquerors.
Buffy St. Marie wrote a powerful line in one of her songs about the plight of Native Americans. Actually the whole song is
quite powerful. The line is
Can't you see that their poverty's profiting you? (http://www.allmusic.com/song/my-country-tis-of-thy-people-youre-dying-mt0012073438/lyrics).
How much have the European invaders profited from acquiring the land in the continental U.S.? According to an article on Moneybox,
the total value of land owned by households and non-profit
organizations in America, based on data from the Federal Reserve was
$7.812 trillion as of Dec., 2013. This figure does not include the
cost of structures on that land.
(http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/12/20/value_of_all_land_in_the_united_states.html).
One may wonder how many Native Americans privately own land in the
U.S. Wouldn't it be somewhat ironic for a Native American to pay money
for real estate located on land his ancestors occupied before it was
stolen from them? It would be like a person's grandfather stealing a
brand new 1957 Chrysler and preserving it in a garage. The grandfather
leaves the car to his son. Then the car passes to the grandson, who
then decides to sell it as a vintage car in mint condition. It would be
ironic if the person who buys it was a descendant of the original owner
of the stolen Chrysler. The statute of limitations on the crime may
have run out, but the transaction would still be wrong, wrong, wrong.
The PPM is not advocating returning the land and natural resources
of the United States to the tribes from whom the land and resources were
essentially extorted. PPM would like this issue to be taken into
consideration by those who tend to explain away or to justify the
economic disparity in this country. It may change their attitude.
The people who profit from
exploiting natural resources in this country are respected, admired, and
envied, even though these resources don't legally or morally belong to
them. Wealthy families whose ancestors originally became rich and
powerful through bootlegging, smuggling, illegal arms running, or slave
trading get the same respect, admiration, and envy. And yet all of
these rich people, in order to grow even wealthier, depend on millions
of "peons" to do good work. As more money flows from the bottom of the
economy to the top, those toward the bottom have to get along with less.
Studies have shown that those with more wealth, in general, are
less caring about the plight/problems of those less fortunate ( see Aug. 20, 2013 issue of Personality and Social Psychology,"Wealth
and the Inflated Self: Class, Entitlement, and Narcissism"). Perhaps
it is unreasonable to expect the super-wealthy to
be willing to pay more income tax or to support legislation that
would give the impoverished a "hand up" rather than a "hand out". Considering the source of their
great wealth, a social conscience might be a very uncomfortable
encumbrance.
America may have the "highest" standard of living the world has ever
known. But that standard was not achieved without a whole lot of
sacrifice. The United States is quite blessed, in a
material sense. Great wealth is not the problem. There is more than
enough to ensure that every one can live a healthful lifestyle. The
problem is that the wealth of the nation is disproportionately
distributed to the extent that some citizens are unfairly deprived of the
opportunity to earn enough from a decent job to afford a healthful
lifestyle.
PPM believes this is a problem worth caring about and worth solving. An attitude of indifference on the part of those who have the power to solve it is counterproductive.
2. The Opposition
The attitude of indifference is counterproductive to implementing the positive changes advocated by the Progressive Political Movement of SW PA. But there are also a number of entities that will actively resist these positive changes. Who are they and why do they oppose Federal government support of individual rights, universal access to the general Welfare, and full employment?
- The Tea Party won't like PPM ideas because Tea Party followers believe the Federal Government has no constitutional power to defend individual rights and because the PPM is not pro-laissez faire.
- Some church leaders and the Religious Right will
resist the PPM because of the suggestion that birth control would be
helpful in preserving individual rights and access to a quality Common Good for future generations. Many Church leaders seem to care more about people’s souls than they care about keeping peoples' bodies healthy. Someone
needs to be concerned about people's physical health and well-being.
That role could be filled by society and government.
- Government employees, those who
prefer to remain complacent and indifferent, will dislike the PPM suggestions
because PPM would expect these employees to take some initiative to cut waste and
save revenue while still performing responsibly.
- Conservative politicians
won't support the PPM because its goal is not to help Big Business which
the conservatives depend on for generous political campaign
contributions.
- Big Business won't like PPM because it advocates a separation between government and
private enterprise that would deprive big business of billions of
dollars in government subsidies (entitlements). Also Big Business does
not favor protections for consumers,
workers, and the environment. These protection expenses decrease profits, at least in the short run.
- The conventional food industry will object because they don't want to grant consumers the right to know what's in their food.
- Some Native American tribal leaders won't care for PPM ideas because they might threaten the power of the leaders' political status.
- Slum landlords will not favor PPM because its implemented ideas would decrease the demand for sub-quality housing.
- Educators may resent
intervention by government. The PPM favors governments having the power
to intervene if and when it is determined that educational programs
have not prepared high school students for post-graduate life.
- The wealthy won't like the PPM suggestion that the taxes of those who earn the most should be increased.
- IF there are poor lazy citizens
who would prefer to accept hand-outs rather than earning a healthful
living wage they would object to the PPM because it would allow the
government not to reward those who are able but not willing to work.
- Reckless people who engage
in health endangering behaviors will not support the PPM because of PPM's position that it would be fair to the rest of the population to
not have to pay more in health insurance premiums because of the behavior of reckless
people.
- White Supremacists will
oppose the PPM's assertions that people of all races are
created equal and that whites do not deserve more than non-whites because of skin color.
- Materialists won't like PPM because it asserts that individual rights are more important than the values of Materialism (see www.savingrepublic.blogspot.com, Section D Materialism).
- Ordinary racists will not
approve the positions of the PPM because these positions challenge the racist
belief that the lower classes are disadvantaged because they are lazy
and don't care to be industrious.
- Abusers will be threatened by the PPM. Abuse means to treat badly, insult, use coarse language, injure,
deceive, violate individual
rights. PPM suggests that our country is full of abusers
at all socio-economic levels and in all sectors of society. Abusers
need victims, those they perceive as weaker, poorer, inferior, etc. PPM ideas, if implemented, would give the weaker the opportunity to get stronger; the
poorer, richer; the inferior, less inferior. It would make it harder
for abusers to find victims. Abusers would hate the PPM.
- Members of Organized Crime would resist PPM for the same reasons as other abusers.
*****
One thing the Tea Party and PPM agree upon is
that America is not living up to its potential. By "potential" PPM is
not referring to more money for the Upper 1%. It doesn't mean an
unemployment rate of
3%. It doesn't mean more millionaires. Potential for PPM does mean
liberty and justice for
all the people. Freedom from abuse for everyone. No one forced to live
in poverty or sub-quality housing or homelessness. There is enough to
prevent anyone from being deprived of the necessities for a healthful
lifestyle and access to a quality Common Good. Why are the
17 categories of people listed above allowed to get in the way of
America's
realizing its potential?
F. INTO THE FUTURE (POPULATION GROWTH)
The goal of ensuring the continuing right of all citizens to a
healthful lifestyle and access to the general Welfare could fail in
the future due to
overpopulation.
At the present time, there is enough income in this country for all
adult citizens to earn enough to live a healthful lifestyle. Imagine that there are twice as many American citizens living in the
U.S. (632 million instead of 316 million), but no more total private
wealth/income than there is today. If that were to occur, there may not
be enough money in the whole country for all 632 million people to live
a healthful lifestyle and to have access to the general Welfare.
The physical resources necessary to survive and thrive on the
planet Earth are limited. Even if all resources were evenly distributed
among an expanding population, everyone would have to get along with
less and less over time until eventually people started dying from
exposure, starvation, etc. Before that happened, the most powerful
individuals would form groups to hoard the remaining resources in order
to ensure their own survival. The Tea Party laissez-faire solution would simply allow that process to accelerate and intensify.
The PPM does not endorse
laws requiring people to be licensed in order to birth a
child. Nor does PPM endorse requiring passing a parental training test
to acquire such a license. At this time PPM does not endorse anyone
convicted of domestic abuse from being prohibited
from becoming a parent.
This is America where most adults are free to have sex with any
willing partner. That being the case, PPM favors the Federal Government being more
pro-active in encouraging voluntary population limits.
A government campaign for
voluntary population limitations could attempt to encourage people who
want more than two children, to save enough money to ensure that they
can take care of the additional children before conception.
It will cost $245,340 to rear a child born in 2013 from birth up to age 18 according to www.usatoday.com/story/.../raising-child-cost...4236535/. The alternative is say nothing and
hope that
the family will not need financial support from government.
Government could also stop rewarding people financially for having more
than two children. The same with government programs that give more
financial assistance to families with more children. These benefits to
those with more than two children could be phased out over 18 years.
There will be those who think that encouraging the limitations on
family size based on affordability is racist. Is limiting home ownership to those who can
afford to purchase and maintain a home racist? So why would
encouraging people to limit the number of children to that which they
can support, be racist?
Because numbers of non-whites are increasing
faster than whites?
If
it were the other way around and the
white population was increasing faster than the non-white population,
the position of PPM on population limits would remain unchanged and
still it might be called racist
because more whites have enough money to support additional children
without depending on the government.
Economic disparity in this country
favors more whites
than non-whites. But there are poor white people. It can be said that even if a white man is as poor as a
black man, the white man is still better off because the white man has “White
Privilege”. PPM does not disagree with that. But the PPM solution would improve the living conditions and
human rights of poor non-whites as well as poor whites.
What if there were only whites in America?
There would still be growing economic
disparity.
Poorer white people would be
discriminated against by richer whites.
There would still be a health care crisis.
There would still be hate groups opposed to white
homosexuals, transsexuals, and the super rich.
There would still be abusive behavior in all sectors of society; it
would be all white on white abuse.
An
all-white America would have the same problems and the PPM Solution would still be helpful in solving those problems.
There are some who think all humans should one day have the opportunity to live in a massive mansion in the sky and that people should keep having more and more
children until that one person is born who can figure out how to construct such
a monstrosity.
Will future
generations appreciate being left with a legacy of deprived rights
and resources due to an ever expanding human population?
Then there’s the immigration
issue. Even if Americans could manage
to limit their
population growth,
massive numbers of immigrants could threaten the workability of the PPM solution.
Perhaps the immigrant quota could be determined by the number of
Americans dying or leaving the country compared to the number of
newborns, that is, babies born to American citizens and to legal and/or
illegal and/or undocumented immigrants.
G. CONCLUSION
The present condition of our country is unacceptable. On that point, PPM agrees with the Tea Party. The federal
government, as well as other branches of government, mismanage government funds through numerous unnecessary
expenditures. The elimination of those wasteful expenditures
would save multi-billions yearly. PPM, however, does not believe in downsizing
government so that the rich will have to pay less in taxes.
The very rich
minority (number-wise) are legally hoarding more and more wealth for
themselves, rather than using that increasing wealth to create good
jobs for the unemployed, jobs that would not violate rights nor
threaten the general Welfare, and that would pay at least a minimum healthful living wage.
Everyone should have the right to do with the money they earn legally
whatever they desire as long as it respects the rights of others, is
legal, etc. PPM does not advocate trying to make greed illegal. PPM
does not believe in legislating morality. However, there is
something intrinsically unfair about a system in which some
people are able to limitlessly accumulate thousands of times more wealth
than they need, while others are forced to live in extreme poverty. If
the reader has any doubt that this is the present state of America,
he/she is
welcome and encouraged to check out the research-based Plutocracy Blog at www.savingrepublic.blogspot.com.
Securing universal individual rights and full employment into the future requires a pro-active commitment of American citizens rather than the passive "let's wait and see" approach.
Note: There is no fund raising connected with the Progressive Political Movement of SW PA. If any
one requests money in the name of PPM, know that it is a bogus request.
To contact the Movement, send email to rgphilo1@gmail.com.
11/10/14
Adding the November 4th votes from the four
counties of the 18th Congressional District of PA reveals that 4,109
write-in votes were cast for the position of U.S. Congressional
Representative for that District as of 11/8/14. In spite of these
write-in votes (ap. 2.5% of the votes cast for that position) and in
spite of thousands of people from that district who voted on Nov.4 but
not for that position at all, the PA Department of State website will
show that Tim Murphy got 100% of the votes. Seems a bit disingenuous to
me. However, the Progressive Political Movement of SW PA congratulates
Tim Murphy on his victory and thanks all those voters who wrote in the
name of its candidate Sheila Griffin for the position of 18th
Congressional Representative.
2.5% of the vote isn't much. But it demonstrates what a campaign by an
inexperienced, unknown candidate starting three weeks before the general
election can accomplish with limited financial resources, without fund
raising, without signage, and without negative attack ads. If that
campaign appeals to people's higher ideals.
