ENVIRONMENTAL DETERIORATION

ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION

 

In the Biblical book of Genesis God supposedly gave Adam dominion over plants and animals. Depending on how long ago one believes that occurred, one could argue that few of the animals and plants living today resemble those over which Adam was given dominion. A more relevant question is, did God approve of man's using his superior cunning and technology to cause unnecessary harm to plants and animals and to cause entire species to be exterminated?   Does "dominion" entitle man to poison the air other species breathe, to unnecessarily pollute the water other species drink and live in?  Does "dominion" excuse man from the responsibility to care for all of God's creatures?   Regardless of how one answers those questions, the bottom line is that unnecessary poisoning and destruction of the natural environment by people results from an attitude of superiority and/or indifference.  People who do care about preserving environmental quality and species diversity are regarded by materialistic humans as being on the fringe, eccentric, unrealistic, valuing the preservation of that which could be turned into someone else's wealth.  The attitudes of indifference and/or superiority toward all things natural not only results in harm to plants and animals, but also threatens the quality of human living.

Ignorance also plays a role in environmental degradation.  Even the most concerned person can unconsciously and non-maliciously harm the environment.  Consider our use of energy.  If we are poor and receiving energy assistance, we may think nothing of leaving our outside lights on 24 hours per day. If we can afford to shop at the mall, how many times have we, who are able-bodied, used the handicap doors to enter and leave the mall? These doors are clearly designated with a wheelchair symbol and close more slowly that the other three or four pairs of entrance/exit doors.When the handicap doors are used, the amount of heat in the winter and cool air in the summer that escapes to the outside is greatly increased over the amount that would escape if the regular doors are used. In many areas of the country, electric power is produced from the burning of coal. Even if one does not believe in global warming, one should realize that increased emissions of sulfur, mercury and small particle pollution from coal burning endangers human health and property. I imagine that the handicap doors in thousands of malls across the nation are used hundreds of times per day by able-bodied persons.

There are many ways in which we may harm the environment without being aware. When we litter and when we release helium balloons (which have been found to be consumed by animals) into the atmosphere we are potentially harming Nature.

It is possible to threaten the survival of endangered species by hunting them and supporting the destruction of their environment, without realizing it.   If we purchase products made from endangered species or from their environment, we are supporting extinction.

Some of us have more individual responsibility for environmental destruction than others. If you are in charge of operating a coal-powered power plant without the best available technology for containing mercury and sulfur emissions you bare the responsibility for the effects on the environment and on human heath. If you are responsible for the dumping of toxic waste in poor neighborhoods you are a responsible for the human sickness and suffering that results.

 Corporate environmental polluters just don't care and don't want to know what they can do to help preserve the well-being of nature and of the human species. They willingly violate environmental regulations to increase profits particularly when the potential gain in profit is greater than the levied fine if they are caught. There is more disease in human beings than there would be if there were not so much unnecessary poisoning of the environment. Corporate environmental bullies rationalize that more environmental regulations will cost them more thus preventing them from expanding their businesses and hiring more people. In other words, human health costs should increase so that more people will have jobs that will result in more unnecessary poisoning of the environment and more human sickness and disease. But the corporations don't feel they should be responsible for paying for the increased health costs that result from their indifference.

Nor do they feel responsible for depriving present and future generations access to wild unspoiled natural spaces. If corporate bullies believed they could make a sufficient profit by building a dam that would flood the last unspoiled natural area on earth, they wouldn't hesitate for a second.

Destroying environmental quality deprives most of us of our intrinsic right to enjoy unspoiled nature without having to travel extensively to find it. Poisoning the environment causes more sickness as well as higher health care costs. Cutting trees unnecessarily and not replacing cut trees, whether it entails rain forest clearing or a tree in one's yard, results in the destruction of valuable carbon storing organisms.  The travesty in Los Angeles where 400 trees were sacrificed for the sake of transporting the space shuttle to the space museum is an example.  Is the resulting amount of carbon that will be released into the upper atmosphere rather than reabsorbed by those 400 trees worth not figuring out how to raise the shuttle so that the wings would clear the tree tops?  Would setting up an exhibit at the airport to be administered by the museum (so that they would still make money from it) so inconvenient that 400 trees had to be sacrificed?

Each of us can be part of the problem of environmental deterioration or part of the solution. It's easy for sophisticated 21st Century adults to believe that no matter how bad things get, that technological innovation will save the human race. Unfortunately, polar bears cannot design and construct artificial, non-melting, vandal-resistant ice flows. Humans alone can use technology to preserve their species.

                                                                      ADDENDUM

10/30/12 Hurricane Sandra - Mother Nature's response to the above mentioned sacrifice of 400 trees.  I wonder if New York City could sue Los Angeles for storm damages caused by Sandra?  If LA had not sacrificed those 400 trees, there would be less carbon in the atmosphere on 10/30 and perhaps the ocean would have been a bit cooler which would have resulted in a less violent hurricane.  To those naive souls who think that planting a new tree can compensate for a full grown downed tree, think again.  While planting new trees is always a positive thing to do, the uptake of carbon by new trees is much less than full grown living trees.  If something killed all the fully grown trees on earth, the amount of carbon compounds in the air would immediately and dramatically increase.  And, all things being equal, the carbon levels would not decrease to the former level for many years, even though more new trees were planted.

 Scientists think that the severe weather events we have been seeing lately are due to global warming.

There is no doubt that the polar ice shells are melting, sea levels have risen, and the oceans are warmer.  These are all indications that global warming is taking place.  There is also evidence that suggests that the amount of carbon compounds in the atmosphere have increased.  Whether or not the increase in carbon is a factor related to global warming, global warming is taking place.  If global warming is not the result of a greenhouse effect caused by increased carbon in the atmosphere, what is causing the earth to warm?  Is the core getting hotter?  Is the earth rotating closer to the sun?  Or is it getting warmer because more energy-producing heat is emanating from the earth's surface due to a rapidly growing human population?  The most effective solution to the problem of global warming must be based on its cause(s).  To stop slaughtering full grown trees and plant as many new ones as possible would be a good thing even if excessive atmospheric carbon is not a problem.

I heard some news which I found deeply disturbing.  Most informed people know about the serious draught conditions affecting parts of this country as well as other parts of the world.  It is believed that this is an effect of global warming.  Scientists are now studying the effect of drought on trees.  They have discovered that the drier the soil becomes the harder a tree's roots will try to suck moisture from the soil.  Just like when the glass runs out of liquid, air gets sucked through the straw, so do the tree roots suck air molecules from the soil when there is no more water molecules available.  The air being sucked into the roots is equivalent to gas molecules in a person's blood - not at all healthful - and can hasten the tree's demise.  Global warming results in the death of drought-stricken trees that can no longer help mitigate the effects of global warming by absorbing carbon dioxide.  The dead trees will also result in the release of carbon compounds as the leaves and wood decay.  

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

The American Economy

The American Economy

What is the relationship between the government and the economy?  Is the Federal government responsible for the condition of the nation's private economy?  Where does government end and private enterprise begin?  I am not an economist.  I don't work for the government.  I work for a non-profit organization and I am a tax payer.  I am also curious as to what the boundaries, if any, there are between government and private enterprise.  We all know the only interest of  private enterprise is the bottom line, i.e., maximizing profit.  In order to do that, competition takes place.  Your business tries to get as many customers as possible and hold on to them which deprives your competitors of the same customers and the income those customers would generate for your competitors.   Government gets involved in your business by establishing regulations you must follow in order to protect the health and safety of your employees, to protect the public from potential fraud, to protect your competitors from unfair competition,  to protect the environment from being negatively affected by your business. 

There are some people who think the answer to the recession in this country is to eliminate all these regulations.  The regulations are not what caused the recession.  China, which has very few government regulations of their businesses, is also experiencing a downswing in their economy.  If regulations were responsible for economic problems, China would have no problems.   Eliminating regulations is not the answer.  In fact, it would cause more problems than it would solve, if not for businesses, then for people in general.  Who is helped by the regulations?  Consumers and workers.  Who would like to eliminate regulations? Entrepreneurs, business owners, politicians eager to do the bidding of the citizens with the most wealth.  You may recall seeing news reels of the days when Pittsburgh was so polluted one could not see the sun for days and crippled workers injured on the job had to beg for sustenance for themselves and their families.  That is not what most people would be willing to accept in return for a swifter economic recovery.  The people who benefited from those conditions were the factory owners.  What stands between us and a return to those conditions is government regulations.  Businesses in this country exist to make money - not to create jobs, not to protect the environment, not to protect the health and safety of their workers nor of the public.  The only reason to create jobs is if it will result in more profit.  The only reason to do the rest is because it's the law.  In fact, many businesses will disregard the regulations in hopes of not getting caught.  Others don't care if they get caught because the consequential fines will not be as great as the profit made by ignoring the regs.  Then we have government inspectors that are willing to look the other way for a price.  I understand that Romney, if elected, can deny funding to the EPA so they will be unable to enforce regulations designed to protect the environment.  There are many, many examples of the government itself destroying environmental quality because it would cost something to do the right thing.

I am of the opinion that government should set the framework of what is best for society, not for business.  For seven of the last ten years the incomes of the most wealthy Americans, the so-called job creators, have increased.  This happened in spite of all these supposedly crippling regulations.   For the wealthiest Americans, the economy is doing fine.  They feel no obligation to help the rest of us improve.  They can afford to hire lobbyists in Washington to influence legislation in such ways as to help them increase their personal fortunes.  Their increase means a decrease for the rest of us.   And yet there seems  to be so many people who are willing to sacrifice the quality of life for themselves and their descendants in return for the promise of increased personal financial security.

I ask myself, ":What good is increased financial security if I don't have a decent park to enjoy; if I can't go outside without protection from the sun; if I can't plant a productive garden because of climate change; if I can't purchase affordable, wholesome, completely natural food; if I can't take a walk on public land without seeing an oil or natural gas well; if I get permanently injured at work; or lose all my savings to Wall Street; or get cancer because my environment is so polluted?"   If I were one of the 1%  wealthiest Americans, I could own my own park; I could build a large solarium; I could afford a green house in which to grow my own organic produce;  I would not have to work in hazardous nor unhealthy conditions; I would be collecting other people's hard earned money; if I got cancer, I could afford the very best care available.  And yet some people are willing to vote for politicians that will preserve the status quo for the richest while sacrificing the quality of life for the rest of us.  It baffles me.

Right now the Federal government is doing the bidding of the rich.  They refuse to increase rich people's taxes.  (It's not a coincidence that a great many congressmen are rich.  Sounds like a conflict of interest to me.  Perhaps we need to declare millionaires and billionaires ineligble to occupy public office.)  They want to do away with regulations that will help the rich make an extra dime.  They want to put unemployed people to work - not for the sake of the unemployed but rather for the sake of business.  More employed people means more people spending money on things they don't really need in order to make small business people richer and the banks they depend upon and the upper 1% even richer.  A natural, healthful environment is worth more than all the money in the world and yet it is being increasingly destroyed by the day. 

Back to the relationship between government and business.  In the sense that the government has a duty to protect all the people and business has the duty to make as much money as it can for its owners and/or shareholders, the relationship should be intrinsically antagonistic.  Government sets reasonable boundaries on business practices in order to protect the health, safety and financial security of consumers and workers.  Some businesses have to get government permission to operate in the form of licensing, fees, etc.  In addition to that, they have to pay different taxes to various government municipalities.  In return they have access to infrastructure built and maintained by taxpayers such as water supply, roads, bridges, and sewer system.  They also benefit from a mostly public educated work force.   Some businesses are subsidized with government funds.  Some are given tax breaks and grants.  Some make a lot of money from government contracts.  All the paper, pipes, sewers, cement and other construction materials, paper, pens, clips, computers, vehicles, gasoline and ad infinitum that the government uses is purchased from private companies.  There has been a suggestion made that wherever possible these supplies should be purchased from American companies rather than from foreign competitors.  I heartily agree.  That would be one step to boost our economy and would hopefully increase tax revenue for government.  The only caveat I would add is that no purchase of goods or services by government should result in an excessive profit for private companies.

Another way private enterprise benefits from the government is to get ideas, data, methods, from government-sponsored research.  The space program made many innovative products possible and producible.

Government also affects businesses by regulating the minimum wage for most industries.  Right now the farming, restaurant, and home health care businesses are excluded from that regulation.  This is unfair to those workers and they should have the same minimum wage as the rest of American workers.  The minimum wage has not been keeping pace with inflation.  This needs to change, but politicians are reluctant to do so because such a measure will detract from the employer's bottom line and they don't want to lose the financial support of employers for their personal political campaigns.  Meanwhile, business and government executives accept generous pay hikes and at the same time are laying off employees.  Greed will not help our economy grow.

Government gives businesses various tax breaks, deductions , exemptions, etc. to the point where some businesses don't pay any taxes at all.

When it comes to foreign trade, the federal government evidently has the option of making trade arrangements with foreign countries to benefit private enterprise in this country.  That seems like the mother of a girl scout helping her daughter to sell cookies.  Of course, the Federal government can and has made it illegal for American companies to sell certain products to certain countries.  So maybe trade agreements are designed to make up for trade restrictions.

Another thing I did not know is that American companies, working in other countries, have the legal option to invest the profits they make from those foreign countries in American banks without paying taxes on that money.  I imagine the reverse is true.  Foreign companies operating in this country have the option of investing their profits, tax-free in non-American countries.  This does not seem fair to me.  Using the infrastructure, labor, resources of a country to make a profit without having to pay taxes on that profit to that country-isn't that like taking unfair advantage?

Something which is interfering with job creation and thus slowing down the economic recovery is  the cheaper goods being imported into American stores.  Try to find an American-made winter coat at Sears or Walmart.  It was a challenge for me to find Christmas ornaments last year that were not made in China.  I try not to buy anything made in China because I don't like supporting the country that has been bullying Tibet since the 1950s and does the same to its own political dissidents.  I understand that the Chinese government unfairly manipulates the value of its currency.  (What else would you expect from a mega-bully?)  I suspect tariffs are not the best solution.  When one country imposes tariffs, what is to stop the other country from reciprocating?  If there was an additional 8% Federal sales tax added to goods made in China, it would help make the price of American made goods more desirable, which would help American business and thus increase tax revenue to government.  And the 8% Federal sales tax should be dedicated to extra payments toward the debt we owe China.

In regard to American companies that "ship jobs overseas", they certainly don't deserve tax breaks for doing so.  In addition, if  they want  to sell their products made in another country in this country, their products should also carry a sales tax that will make those goods as expensive as they would be if produced in this country.  The Federal sales tax idea may seem to penalize American consumers.  Think about it.  These cheap goods are contributing to our economic crisis and slowing our economic recovery.  Purchasing cheap stuff made in other countries helps the economies of those countries, not yours.  To purchase that stuff and then  blame the government for the state of the U.S. economy is senseless.

On the one hand, individuals who try to live above their means sooner or later encounter hardship.  Why buy a $100,000 house when a $25,000 house is sufficient?  At least some individuals bare some responsibility for their economic hardship.  On the other hand, I cannot overlook the role of business in creating economic hardship for Americans.  I don't believe people become millionaires by accident.  I'm sure it involved hard work (unless you won a million dollar lottery).   I am also sure you charged more for your goods or service than you needed.  Which means your customers paid more than they would have otherwise.  Which means they have to charge more for their goods or services in order to pay you enough to become a millionaire.  And they will pay their employees less in order to emulate your excessive success.  Which means their employees will have to borrow money from the bank in order to purchase goods and services that would be cheaper if people like you were not so greedy.  This is why Gandhi said, "There is enough for every one's need: there is not enough for every one's greed."  This is where government fails us completely.  Not only do government lawmakers kowtow to the richest, they won't even charge them more taxes in order to level the playing field in the least.  Wealth is power in this country. Greedy people don't care about anything more than satisfying their own greed.  That's why American businessmen ship jobs overseas.

If we had a different mindset, would things be better?  What if we all worked together to create the maximized quality of life for everyone?  Everyone would like to be a millionaire.  Unfortunately, whether or not everyone deserves to be a millionaire, there is not enough money in this country for everyone to be a millionaire.  The question is why don't we all deserve health care, clean air and water, wholesome healthful natural food, adequate healthful shelter, adequate clothing, free green space within walking distance of our shelter, soil in which to plant,  a safe and healthful work environment?   Why don't American business people try to make their goods and services as affordable as possible without sacrificing quality?  We have more millionaires in this country than ever before.  That indicates to me that there are a lot of goods and services that could have been made affordable to many more people.

This is simply my perception.  But over the years I have sensed a trend toward determining price on the basis of how much people are willing to pay rather than how much one needs to charge in order to stay in business.  You know we are paying more for petroleum-related products than is necessary for the oil companies to make ends meet.   Otherwise they would not be declaring billions of dollars in profit every year.

Many things have changed over the years.  For a dedicated conservationist like Theodore Roosevelt to be elected President would be a miracle these days.  When I was growing up universal nuclear disarmament was viewed as an achievable goal.  No one even talks about it these days.  President Kennedy talked about people's right to clean air and clean water.  Today those things are defined as having less than so many ppm (parts per million) of a witch's brew of toxic chemicals.  I think many i influential people in the country have become materialistic pragmatists.  They may talk about morality and religion but how often do they relate morality or religion to the almighty dollar?

For the truth as I see it about other aspects of the economy see my posts on Unemployment, The Foreclosure Crisis, The National Debt, and Wall Street.

Let me know your thoughts about our economy and what needs to be done to make it work for every one's good.

 

The National Debt

My name is not significant.  I am not in the middle nor upper economic classes.  I am 65 years old and have been working 42+ hour weeks for the past five years with no vacation nor days off.  I'm tired, so tired. What tires me is not work.  It's this uncle of mine.  Even though he is deeply in debt, he spends money like there is no tomorrow.  He pays contractors any price they ask.  He owns empty, unoccupied buildings he doesn't need.  He supports the child of any woman who claims he's the father, even if he doesn't know the woman.  He invests money he doesn't actually have in large corporations.  He contributes huge sums to charities.  He leaves lights on all over his house, even when he's not home, and leaves the attic windows open during the winter.   But the worst thing is that my uncle depends on hard-working relatives like me to pay for his wasteful spending.  And year by year the problem grows worse as his cumulative debt and the interest due grows.

Then there's Uncle Sam's legal representatives who support his bad  habits and help him spend more of the money he doesn't actually have.  I'm afraid these legal representatives are people who have been so well off financially for so long, they have forgotten how to save money (if they ever knew).  They seem indifferent to all the ways Uncle Sam is wasting money.  But my uncle does pay his legal representatives well.

There are a number of steps that could be taken without delay to help pay off Uncle Sam's debt and balance his budget.  These include simplifying the IRS tax code, limiting the percentage of profit companies can make on government contracts, reforming the budget allocation process to government departments/agencies, energy audits on all government buildings, eliminating the practice of giving additional financial assistance to mothers on public assistance when they choose to have more children, eliminating "corporate welfare",  decreasing congressional salaries, ending subsidies for coastal flood insurance.  Our willingness to help every foreign country with a crisis needs to be curtailed. Street drugs and prostitution need to be legalized and regulated.  Taxing political contributions of $1000 or greater would also be helpful.  Putting a cap on the amounts of money going to non-profits and not-for-profit organizations until the debt is paid off.  Before examining each of these suggestions separately, let's examine why politicians don't want to bother with them.

 My premise is that no amount of tax dollars, no matter how small, is too insignificant to scrutinize; especially when one is in debt to a mega-bully like China.  The politician's approach is to find the largest program that can be cut from the budget.  How practical is that?  That's like a person in debt giving up their car to save money on car payments without considering the difficulty in getting to and from work and the grocery store without a vehicle.  Wouldn't it make more sense to try to save money by eliminating numerous smaller unnecessary daily purchases?  If you spend $2.50 on Starbucks coffee every morning on your way to work you are spending $650 yearly.  That could amount to more than two monthly car payments.  Now multiply $2.50 times the number of government employees in this country.   If each of them wastes only $2.50 a day that could add up to hundreds  of millions of dollars that could potentially be saved yearly.

Politician's have an alternative to gutting the biggest program they can find.  It is to simply cut 25% of spending in all departments.  The latter approach is ridiculous because you are not necessarily cutting out wasteful spending.  A department could theoretically waste as much as it did before the 25% cut.   I define waste as unnecessary spending.  On a personal level, most of us spend money unnecessarily by purchasing things we don't need, by not shopping around for cheaper prices, through impulse buying, and buying things just because they are on sale. Perhaps wasting money is simply human and it does help to boost the GPA.  On a personal level, each of us wasters don't owe China or any one else trillions of dollars.  If we did we would probably declare bankruptcy.  DECLARING BANKRUPTCY AS A RESULT OF WASTEFUL SPENDING IS COMPLETELY IRRESPONSIBLE AND PROBABLY SHOULD BE UNLAWFUL.  Wasteful spending by someone in debt is senseless.  If that is true of individuals, it is also true of organizations including the Federal Government.  No one wants to see the U.S. Government go bankrupt.  So what steps can be taken now?

It seems to me the best way to avoid bankruptcy is to pay one's debts.  For the federal government to pay its debts, not only will wasteful spending have to be stopped, but the incoming revenue will also have to be increased.  It seems wrong to me that people with lower incomes pay a higher percentage of those incomes to the government than people with higher incomes.  If we remove all tax loopholes, deductions, write-offs, etc. and enact one tax rate for all sorts of income so that even a child would be able to figure out how much tax a corporation or individual owes, it will result in thousands of IRS workers and private tax consultants being laid off.  But I think it would help generate more revenue for the federal government.  Some will object to doing away with deductions that favor people with large families.  Perhaps the dependent deduction should continue for existing dependents but should be phased out for dependents born in the future.  My reasoning is that if one chooses to have a large family one should be able to afford a large family without needing tax deductions.  Even Catholics are allowed to use the rhythm method to avoid pregnancy.  It may have once been in the best interest of the country to increase the population.  It no longer is.  There are a limited number of paying jobs available for an increasing number of people.   Just as illegal immigrants theoretically exasperate the unemployment problem by taking jobs unemployed Americans could do,  so will a shrinking economy plus a growing population make the problem of unemployment worse.

In regard to illegal immigrants, I am not as progressive as some.  I believe there should be consequences when a person is caught breaking the law.  Those who wish to grant amnesty and even citizenship to illegal immigrants already living in the country, are sending an unspoken message for any and all people from foreign countries to enter the U.S. illegally, to establish productive lives here and to have children here.  Is there not a practical limit to how many people America's infrastructure, physical resources, medical, social and governing services can support without additional damage to public health, the environment, the economy?

The money one saves by decreasing wasteful spending needs to be used to pay down the debt.  The self-defeating way to spend the saved money is on new programs.  If one saves $650 by cutting out lattes and then one spends that money on a fancy flat screen TV, one is simply perpetuating one's indebtedness.  New and improved programs that help the country in general are fine.  But unless these programs also allow the government to save more money than they cost, they need to be put on the back burner until the national debt is paid off.

Eliminating unnecessary spending is one source of revenue that can be used to pay off the National Debt.   Another potential source of revenue for paying down the debt is to eliminate overspending in government, not only on the federal level but also on the state and local levels.   This seems to be a non-issue anymore.  There used to be a regular feature on TV news called The Fleecing of America.  I have not seen it included in the news broadcast in a long time.  The Obama administration has taken positive steps to regain money from over billing by private companies, etc., but we don't hear a lot about that.  Nor is anyone telling us how big that drain on the treasury actually is.  I don't want to pay taxes in order to enable private government contractors to become millionaires.  I would like to see a policy put into place that would limit the percentage of profit that private contractors could make from federal contracts.  I think 20% maximum profit would be appropriate.

Government budgeting on all levels needs to be reformed to discourage wasteful spending.  As it is now, revenue is divided among individual government agencies, departments, etc.  Each department gets a certain allowance for each fiscal year.  If the department does not spend the entire allowance, they are supposed to give it back.  The more a department gives back, the smaller next year's allowance is likely to be.  This encourages wasteful spending by departments, such as parties costing thousands of dollars to boost employee morale.  I would think someone could come up with a less expensive method of boosting employee morale as well as some way to motivate departments to spend less wastefully.  It's a fine thing that the federal government helps states financially with grants, etc. and that the states help needy municipalities.  It's fine as long as those states and those municipalities don't need money because of all the money they have wasted 

Another source of wasted tax dollars that goes directly to utility companies is inefficient heating and cooling as well as lighting in government buildings.  There should be energy audits on all such buildings and requirements for the workers in those buildings to follow the recommendations of the auditors.  Windows left open in the winter while the heat is left on, leaving lights burn while no one is there-these sorts of practices are unacceptable.  The same type of audits should be required of any buildings owned by organizations supported by taxpayer dollars.

I like children. Children are great.  The old saying, "too much of a good thing is not good",  is applicable to the number of children one has.  If you can afford a large family without depending on others to support it, fine.  To have a lot of children and then depend on the government to pay for their support is irresponsible.  The government cannot afford it; it benefits creditors like China; and middle and upper class families would rather use that money to benefit their own families.  In the present system poor families get more money from different government programs if they have more children.  Studies have found that most children from poorer backgrounds, do not excel in school nor do they do well finding permanent honest full-time employment as adults.  Encouraging lower income women to have more children is not productive public policy.  There needs to be a point at which women with more than two children would be eligible for public assistance payments for the children they have at that point in time but not for any children they have past that point.  At that certain point in time, women with less than three children would not be eligible for additional welfare money if they choose to have more than two children.    I would favor an exception in the case of  a pregnancy resulting from a properly reported and verified rape.  Not to set limits invites an increasing drain on the national treasury and forestalls the time when we can pay off our debt to China.  These same guidelines should be applied to any government program like Section 8 that financially benefits people who have more children.

Government giveaways to certain large industries needs to stop.  Some call it "corporate welfare".  $2.8 billion dollars to the oil industry annually may not seem like a lot.  However the government also gives millions away to big agribusiness, king cotton, high speed rail, etc.  Why?  It may have made sense years ago whenever it started.  It doesn't now.  Nor should the lumber companies be allowed to cut trees on public land for a cost that is less than what they would pay for the same trees on private land.  The government should not be in the business of helping big business make more profit.

Another measure that would help to balance the budget is for Congress to limit their salary to the median income of American workers (excluding millionaires and billionaires) and eliminating all the perks like expense accounts, etc.  This would help in that it would require less money to run the country but also because Congress would be motivated to increase the minimum wage for all American workers.  Higher wages would result in more revenue generated from income tax.

The federal government needs to stop subsidizing coastal flood insurance for individuals and businesses.  The ocean level has risen considerably in recent years and will continue to do so.  This is inevitably going to result in more serious flooding from more frequent violent storms.  If people choose to build and live near the sea shore, they ought to have to pay for the full cost of their insurance .  Why should those of us who are not so foolish have to pay to help insure people who choose to live or do business in a location that is bound, sooner or later to be at risk?

Foreign aid paid for by the American government and sent to needy people in other countries that never reaches the needy people, should be terminated.  For example, if the first shipment of emergency supplies is still sitting on the tarmac two days after it arrived, we need to stop sending more until the problem of delivery to those in emergency need is resolved.  Also we can not afford to get involved in armed foreign conflicts while we are in debt.  However, I think we must honor our defense treaties with other countries.

There is a problem with the idea that money no longer needed to wage the wars in the Middle East can be used to improve education in this country.  The problem being that that money is borrowed and to continue to spend that much requires continued borrowing.  This perpetuates a deficit and the National Debt. 

Instead of borrowing money to fund education, why not use the revenue that could be generated from the legalization and regulation of prostitution and illegal drugs?  No matter how much money and manpower we dedicate to these "problems", they will persist. They have been around for thousands of years and will continue to exist no matter how much money we throw at them.  Whether they would generate the same amount of interest and number of customers if the stigma was removed, is a legitimate question.

Regulating prostitution as they do in Nevada, would make it safer from the public health perspective.  It would also generate revenue for the government in the form of licenses, fees and taxes.

Legalizing and regulating all drugs would solve a number of problems.  The price of addictive street drugs would decrease.  With more reasonable pricing, addicts would not have to commit robberies and thefts in order to support their habit.  Revenue for the government in the form of fees and taxes would be collected.  Law Enforcement could direct more energy to crimes involving victims.  Addicts and non addicted users of street drugs would be less likely to accidentally overdose.  According to the Drug Policy Alliance, The War on Drugs has failed and will continue to fail, costing taxpayers more millions of dollars.  Prisons are overcrowded due to drug arrests.  Putting drug users in jail for using drugs does not solve their drug problem, if they have one.  Not everyone who uses recreational drugs has a drug addiction.  Addiction, however, is a problem for the addict and for society.  Why not make it  mandatory for any drug addict convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor to complete a drug rehab program in addition to whatever sentence he/she receives for the crime?  It could also be a condition of parole that the person remain clean and sober.  Failure to do so would result in another mandatory rehab program.   

Why not include addiction to any substance in the above suggested law, i.e. prescription drugs, recreational drugs, alcohol and cigarettes?  Diseases associated with habitual use of alcohol and cigarettes result in every one's health insurance premiums increasing as well.  There are numerous low-income people who must rely on taxpayers to pay for the treatment of the diseases they acquire as a result of  habitual smoking and drinking.   The result is higher government deficits which is the least of their concerns.  But is it fair that the rest of us have to pay for the results of their bad habits without at least trying to get them to stop if they are convicted of breaking the law?

Another suggestion came from a friend, Karen Ciccone.  Why not put  a 50%  federal tax on all political contributions of $1000 or more from any individual, corporation, or other organization, including superpacs?  This revenue should be dedicated to the patriotic cause of paying off the National Debt.

The Republicans, believe it or not, have made some good suggestions for cutting wasteful spending.  One idea is to sell unoccupied buildings owned by the federal government.  I would favor this measure as long as the buildings are not serving some useful purpose like storage, FBI safe houses, buildings of historic significance, etc. and as long as they are sold at fair market value rather than cheaply to some politician's wealthy campaign contributor.

The Republicans also point out that hundreds of millions of dollars annually go to not-for-profit/non-profit organizations in the form of endowments and grants.  These organizations include cultural organizations such as museums, historical preservation efforts,as well as volunteer programs. These are significant, culturally-enriching activities and I am not in favor of eliminating their government funding entirely.  I would favor a maximum cap of $500,000 to any organization now being funded.  Just because your organization is not run for profit, doesn't mean you can't learn to make less money go farther, especially when the middle class is forced to struggle financially and the country's debt continues to increase.

I believe that compassion is a strong part of the ethos of our nation.  It is why we have laws that benefit people with disabilities and handicaps.  I favor government financial support given to people who, through no fault of their own, cannot support themselves financially.  Thanks to modern science, potential parents can know the probability that they will have a child born with a birth defect, disability, or handicap that will make their care unaffordable and/or may prevent the child from ever being self-supported.  The government cannot afford to take care of these children and it is unfair to burden taxpayers with the result of parents who choose to take a chance rather than adopt.  I am not saying anyone should not have the right to bare children.  I am saying if parents choose to bring children into this world that they know will probably not become productive members of society or whose care will probably be beyond their means to provide, then the responsibility for that child should be the parents', not the taxpayers'.

I suspect that wasted tax dollars is an issue people of all income levels can relate to. First, the politicians "on both sides of the aisle" need to acknowledge that there is a problem and then work together to solve it.  I just thought of something that might be helpful.  Why not install a giant digital U..S. National Debt Clock that would track the debt in real time on the front of the platforms in both houses of Congress so that all present would be constantly mindful of this growing problem?

For views on other aspects of the economy check out the posts The American Economy, The Foreclosure Crisis, Unemployment, and Wall Street.

I'm sure I have not included all the ways in which the National Debt can be decreased.   Please add your suggestions in the comments box.

ADDENDUM

 

It is now December 8, 2012. Congress and the President are "engaged" in trying to find a way to avoid the"fiscal cliff" which , in reality, would be more like a slope. This slope which would slide the economy toward recession, would be the result of the Bush era tax breaks expiring and automatic spending cuts takin place. In my opinion, the Bush tax breaks should have never gone into effect while the country was engaged in a war. Every other war has seen accompanying income tax increases designed to pay for the increased cost to the government of waging the war. To correct that mistake, it seems that every one's taxes should go up now. But that would make politicians unpopular. It would also supposedly put us into another recession. If the President and Congress believe that the national debt, now over $16 trillion dollars, is never going to be paid off, they should tell us. If the debt ceiling continues to increase, this will be an indication that they have no intention of paying it off. Especially if wasteful, i.e., unnecessary spending, continues indefinitely.

There are moral implications which I have been reluctant to point out. I do wonder what kind of ethical training, if any, our representatives and President receive before taking office. Such training really ought to be required. If it was, our government might not be $16 trillion dollars in debt and growing. Here's the thing, borrowing money from anyone or any entity that collects interest on the debt benefits the lender. If the lender is a bully, he/she does not deserve to be benefited, and when he/she/it is benefited, it helps perpetuate suffering of the bully's victims. That, my friend, is not something for which the borrower should feel proud.  And yet the U.S. borrows money from countries like China with histories of human rights abuses, illegal occupations of other countries, unfair labor practices, and environmental abuse.

Why does the President want to perpetuate our unethical behavior by raising the national debt ceiling rather than doing everything necessary to pay it off ASAP? Is the interest on the national debt so high that more money needs to be borrowed just to pay that? If any normal, sane person suddenly realized they owed 50% more than their annual income, that person would do everything possible to cut expenses and increase income rather than borrowing even more money. I wonder if there is a virus that politicians are vulnerable to that causes them to lose their common sense. Why do they think that borrowing more is a good thing while wasteful spending is less than relevant? Why attack social security and medicare, which are not in the unnecessary spending category?

We either pay off the national debt and stop paying interest to countries that don't deserve it or we give up on paying off the debt. The latter choice would set a bad example. If my government has no intention of paying its debt, why should I, and individual citizen, pay off mine? But individual citizens have the option of declaring bankruptcy. How would mass bankruptcy affect the National Economy?

I don't know how we went from a surplus of government funds at the end of the Clinton years to being $16 trillion dollars in debt today. I used to blame the wars in the Middle East. Now I have been informed that their cost was just over a trillion dollars. I guess that means that if income tax had been raised to pay for the wars, our debt would now be in the $14 trillion dollar range.

Maybe you don't realize how big a trillion dollars is. It is equal to 1000 billion dollars which is equal to one million million dollars. Multiply that by 16. To pay off the debt it is estimated that every U.S. citizen would have to contribute in excess of $50,000. To start to pay it off, unnecessary spending needs to stop ASAP, costs to government need to be controlled, and other sources of income need to be established, including increased income tax, federal sales tax on such things as goods from China, campaign contributions, etc. I was going to write another letter to Congressman Boehner. I decided that is a waste of time. I have written plenty of letters so far, but letters can't fix whatever is afflicting our politicians!

I just learned the other day that sports franchises don't pay income tax.  Not only should they pay.  There also needs to be a federal law prohibiting tax payer money being used to help build stadiums, arenas, etc. which allow these franchises to make millions of dollars.

 



Third problem: Unemployment

I heard Mitt Romney at the Republican convention say that, if elected President, he would create 12 million new jobs.  He previously said that jobs come from the private sector which seemed to imply that the government does not create them.

The more pressing question is, what kind of jobs will these be?  One would hope they would be jobs performed in this country by American citizens, although he did not specify that.  They would probably be mostly minimum wage jobs.  That would be better than jobs below minimum wage or volunteer jobs.  There is dignity in working for any wage.  But what sort of work would these 12 million jobs entail?  Republicans seem not to be big on details, preferring sweeping generalities instead.  Details like what effect will these wonderful new jobs have on public health and the environment?  Or how about how many of these jobs will involve clear cutting of our national forests including the redwoods?  How many of these new jobs will involve fracking, mountain top removal, oil drilling on the devastated landscapes of our public lands?

I believe unemployment can be a stressful source of depression.  I've experienced it more than once in my life.  I am sympathetic to those who have lost jobs.  But I believe that not all jobs are created equal.  Some of us, hopefully most of us, would rather be unemployed than do the following jobs:
1.  Professional assassin.
2. Mafia hit man and other organized crime activities
3. Stealing antiquities from sacred burial sites
4. Poaching
5. Smuggling
6. Burglary
7. Running a business that deliberately fails to follow safety and environmental regulations
8. Illegal logging
9. Running a business that fails to follow financial regulations and ethical principles
10. Illegal drug trafficking
11. Human slavery and forced prostitution
12. Organizing animal combat, such as cock fights
13. Selling products made from endangered species
14. Terrorist
15. Kidnapping women and children and selling them into forced prostitution and slavery

It is work to buy small businesses, sell the physical assets, fire the employees thereof, depriving them of promised pensions and health benefits in the process.  This is the type of job Romney probably has first hand experience doing.  It is a job that certainly does not enhance the lives of those whose jobs were eliminated.  Would you agree that many people would be better off if the Bernie Madoffs of this world were employed on prison chain gangs rather than engaged in ripping people off?  What about high-priced defense lawyers that get guilty wealthy clients acquitted so they are free to offend again?  The only people whose lives are enhanced by that job is the rich criminal and their law firm members.
Do we really want more of those jobs?

If we had a national goal of enhancing the quality of life for ALL Americans, that national goal could be the basis of guidelines for determining the kinds of work we should be willing to create and pay for in America.  Those would be jobs that contribute to the health and well-being of all life forms.
Desirable jobs would include those that produce clean renewable energy from wind, waves and sun.

Thousands, perhaps even millions, are employed in the acquisition, distribution, and use of coal, natural gas, and oil to produce energy in this country.  On one hand these jobs have been beneficial, especially in the past, before alternative renewable energy-producing technologies were common.  Oil rig workers, coal miners, natural gas producers were essential to creating American prosperity.  They worked hard and we should be grateful to the non-renewable energy companies for their contribution to the creation of modern conveniences.  The problem is there is an increasing demand for energy in this country which, when it comes from non-renewable sources like coal, oil and natural gas, causes an increase in pollutants like mercury, small particles, sulphur, etc.  These pollutants damage human health, property and the environment.  If there was a way to contain all poisons from these sources, that would be excellent, but it would also be expensive.  Instead of trying to contain 100% of the poisons, the utility companies, car companies, etc. pass on the cost of the damage their poisons cause.  Yes, renewable energy sources seem more expensive because the cost of the negative effects of non-renewable energy sources is never considered.  To create more jobs that increase production of non-renewable energy rather than increasing clean renewable energy production jobs would not be conducive to a national goal of enhancing the quality of life for all Americans.

The corporations that control the production of non-renewable energy seem to care more about profits than helping the country to transition to clean energy production.  The government is also complicit in preventing the creation of jobs that would support clean energy production by subsidizing companies that produce dirty energy and by giving them tax breaks.

Yes, unemployment is a problem.  But creating any sorts of jobs is not the best solution.  Not if we care about the quality of life of all Americans.  If there is something I am missing or if you agree, please comment.

Foreclosure crisis

I have to admit that I, who have never in my life owned a house, have been known to be less than sympathetic to those who are foreclosed upon. Why buy a house that's bigger or more expensive than what you need? Nevertheless, the banks have not been innocent in financing houses for people they knew would not be able to keep up the payments indefinitely. But regardless of who is to blame more, there is a problem.

My suggested solution benefits those home buyers who have lost their homes to foreclosure. It does not benefit the banks which could not find any way to allow these people to remain in the homes they were buying. What if the government would purchase abandoned land such as unused industrial property in large cities and use that land to construct green, energy-efficient, non-allergenic houses with solar power, great insulation, car ports with crushed limestone driveways, yards for gardening and recreation?

To be eligible to live in one of these homes, one would have to be a U.S. citizen, have a source of income, and not be able to live in a house of one's own because of foreclosure. A lottery based on people's foreclosure dates may be necessary if the demand for such homes by eligble citizens exceeded the initial supply.

The houses would be built by the government, owned by the government, and rent would be paid to the government. The monthly rent amount would be based on the income of the renter(s). The total cost of the building would be determined upon completion of construction. There would be no sub-leasing allowed. If the renter stayed in the house indefinitely, when the total amount of monthly rent paid equaled the original cost of the property, the title to the property would be signed over to that tenant. That tenant would then own the property with full legal rights and responsibilities.

If a tenant chose to move out of the government-owned house before the total rent amount equaled the initial cost of the house, what they had paid in rent would be non-remittable. The government would maintain ownership and the house would be made available to the next needy eligible citizen with the same financial agreement.

This solution encourages the development of clean alternative energy sources, contributes to national energy independence, helps keep down health care costs, and may even prove to be profitable to the government in the long run. It would also help to eliminate tent cities. It would also create green building construction and supply jobs. It would add tax income to cities where these houses would be built. It might even prompt lending institutions to be more flexible with their mortgage customers. What do you, the reader, think of this solution? Please comment.

NATIONAL ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

The problem as I see it is how to eliminate America's need for foreign sources of energy. That includes Canada since Canada is a foreign country.
Building a pipeline to supply this country with Canadian oil does not contribute to energy independence. Nor does selling oil or natural gas refined in this country to other countries help the U.S. achieve greater energy independence. It simply makes the energy companies richer.

If we stop exporting energy, that would be part of the solution. Another big part of the solution would be to stop wasting energy. Lots of energy gets wasted in this country. Why? Because it's cheap and most people don't know or aren't aware of the harmful effects of producing energy from non-renewable sources such as coal. I have nothing against coal miners. They have served the country's energy needs in times of war and in times of peace. It is not their fault that burning coal releases mercury and sulphur and small particle pollution into the air we breathe and contributes to acid rain which is responsible for the destruction of trees as well as human-made structures.

If less energy was produced from non-renewable sources, human health and the environment would benefit. How to discourage wasting energy from non-renewable sources, thus contributing to energy independence? When gas prices increased past a certain point, consumption of gasoline dramatically decreased. No one likes to feel limited in terms of mobility or how many lights they can afford to burn. But if it is a choice between having to attend to energy conservation or forsake the idea of national energy independence....

The Republicans think they can let you have your pie and eat it too through off-shore drilling and opening up public lands to drilling. Their attitude is eat, drink, and waste energy until all the coal, natural gas and oil are used up. I suppose they think that the rich people will have figured out some other scheme for providing energy for us in return for our hard-earned cash when non-renewable energy is completely used up. I would suggest that the best solution to the problem does not involve ruining the public's national parks and wilderness areas by opening them to drilling nor increased offshore drilling. The best solution does not involve further endangering public health and property from the continued use of coal, natural gas and oil.

Part of the solution involves discouraging the massive waste of energy by businesses, homes and institutions, including government entities. How to do that? Increased taxing of non-renewable energy production and use. Make it expensive enough and people will use less. This would also help to encourage the development and spread of wind, wave, and solar energy by making them more economically feasible. These are sources of renewable energy that can always be depended on and which don't threaten public health nor poison the environment. It would also be helpful for the national government to redirect the subsidies it pays to non-renewable energy companies to renewable energy producers. The increased non-renewable energy taxes could be devoted to paying down the national debt or to mitigating the adverse effects of non-renewable energy use on human health and the environment.

What does anyone think?