Great Fallacy, Part 1: The Faults of Small Government

Greetings all!


This post comes as a special occasion, one that breaks a short dry spell. In the past week, I have been confronted often by the phrase "a government is best which governs least." This quote, created by Henry David Thoreau in 1849, was partially inspired by the Mexican-American War and slavery at the time. However, it has become a rallying cry for conservatives of today against any and all expansions of federal government size. This phrase can only be buoyed by two tenets: that smaller governments are better and more efficient, and that larger governments do not work and are rife with inefficiency. These beliefs trouble me deeply, seeing as they call into question the very social contract made long ago. Government exists because it can and does help people, and because people can unite together to solve common issues. This wave of attack against government in general is a highly threatening concept, one which owes itself in part to anarchism. While I can see the problems of inefficiency and corruption, expanding government size does not guarantee further troubles. In order to dispel the great fallacy of the quote mentioned above, I have decided to attack both of its tenets. In this first part, I will obliterate the belief that small governments have a better chance of functionality and less opportunity for corruption or inefficiency. This week's quote comes from Jawaharlal Nehru, the co-founder of modern India and a huge part of said nation's original development.


A big rallying cry of conservatives of days past was states' rights; this was a big part of the arguments going on whilst our constitution was being written. Because the United States were founded after breaking free from a tough monarchy, many felt that widespread political freedoms would be best suited to the new nation. At the time, this was seen as a justified cause. It was believed that the formation of states with powers against the federal government would prevent tyranny, a great fear of our founders. However, there has always been a limit to how much power the states can have; the Articles of Confederation more than proved that point. This system of governance only worked because of the Revolutionary War, when the states had a common enemy to motivate against. Without Britain striking America down, the states pointed themselves in widely separate directions. The federal government had very little power at all, and the union was very nearly dissolved. As such, a constitution was made to expand the federal government and preserve the union. Yet the struggle for state powers would continue for over a century since then, from the presidency of Thomas Jefferson to the Civil Rights movement. And while the question of states' rights still pops up from time to time, it is now largely ignored except during elections.


The trend of American governance, while slow, has been towards expansion of the federal government. There was a time when public parks were decried as socialism. Nowadays, no person would even try to argue against their existence. Why break this trend in order to empower states? After all, we often tout ourselves as the world's remaining superpower; do we not owe our success to our federal government and its progress? And while the time has passed where states' rights arguments threatened our nation's existence, the importance of the issue has still laid other marks upon the United States. The question of states' rights has been called upon during times of great stress. The two moments I will look upon are the Great Depression and the Civil Rights movement. 


The Great Depression of the 1930s was primarily the fault of a stock market crash and the following results from it, which went unmitigated due to laissez-faire economic policies up until that point and the fact that markets cannot correct themselves all the time. The sheer inequality at the time became unstable, and the result was an enormous crash that devastated the world. Herbert Hoover had been elected just months prior to the crash, and then promptly did nothing about it. And so, our nation spiraled into Depression immediately, and the situation became horrible very quickly. Only in 1933 did things begin to improve with the election of Franklin Roosevelt, who would endorse the New Deal which would vastly increase the federal government size and scope. While the Depression would last through much of that decade, it was not nearly as bad with these programs in place. However, at the time there was significant backlash against the new policies; those who know American history well remember Roosevelt's clash with Congress over the Supreme Court, which FDR had threatened with his court-packing plan (http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/history/CourtPacking.cfm). Fears of heightened executive influence over the judiciary spread to Congress, which saw this as a future threat to the elected representatives of the states. While not thought of now, this represented a dark fear which the states had to deal with at the time. If the president could force justices to retire, why couldn't he do the same to Senators? Of course, the measure failed, but nevertheless the Supreme Court from then on began to agree more often with the liberal point of view on issues. The needs and desires for federal power had been met.


The Civil Rights movement of the 1960s was primarily concerned with racism that had become de jure in the southern states and de facto in the northern states. And while most people remember those years as being a step forward in race relations alone, a large part of why the South wanted to maintain Jim Crow laws was state power. Once the Civil War and Reconstruction had ended, the only federal statute on racism was that no race could be made into slaves legally. Of course, it was still quite easy to repress those of color anyway. Poll taxes and literacy tests kept most blacks from voting, and segregation of schools and neighborhoods kept blacks from attaining a secure and equal lifestyle. Religion also played a part, seeing as churches and other religious institutions of the day didn't want to perform interracial marriages. Martin Luther King Jr.'s position as a reverend certainly helped in that aspect. Yet, back then much of the argument against ending segregation was that the states should be able to pursue their own policies towards race as long as the federal government does not pass laws that inhibit said policies. Since churches banned interracial marriage, the states should not have to let them happen, no? No. While religious freedoms are important to us, there is a fine line between freedom and dominance, especially when the civil rights of minorities are concerned. As such, civil rights legislation was passed to force the end of segregation by Jim Crow laws. The call to arms of states' rights was once again silenced. And we are far better off for it. 


And now, for my final point. A government which regulates its economy the least is not necessarily the best either, although I consider social issues to be typically more important. I've already shown how having no regulation can destroy our economy through the example of the Great Depression, so I'll be taking a brief look at other nations to back myself up here. Namely, Somalia and Ireland. Why those two? I choose Somalia to make a sharp yet immediate point; the nation of Somalia is the pinnacle of failed states. The country has not had a fully-operating federal government since 1991, and suffers under some of the worst conditions imaginable. The black market dominates the Somalian economy, and Al-Shabaab retains significant strength throughout the southern portion. The autonomous northern portion, claimed as Somaliland, has only had mixed successes in stability. Somalia has one of the smallest and least active governments known to man, and said country is often considered one of the worst places to live in the world. I think my point is clear. As for Ireland, I point to the Irish as an example of what happens under Republican economic recommendation. When the Irish crisis hit, they did everything the Republicans have been stressing. They cut public pensions and froze paychecks, weakened national unions, released economic regulations even further, etc. And yet Ireland still required a bailout. Ireland still suffers more harshly than the rest of the European Union, if only because they took the wrong path. As such, deregulation of the economy and removing government influence does not necessarily cause improvements.


And so concludes this first part, and in the second part I will seek to prove why larger governments can be a good thing. I hope I have provided a good analysis on my part, and I encourage you to ask questions or comment on my work here in the comments section. If you would prefer other means of communication, my email at zerospintop@live.com is still active, along with my Facebook, Twitter, and Google+ accounts. That is all for this week, and this is SuperJew McLovin signing off.

Mobilization: The American Immigration Problem

Greetings all!


This post arrives to you as my summer truly begins, with quite a bit of free time to go with it. As such, my postings are likely to get longer and more detailed, just as some of my readers have asked for. Today, I will take on the issue of illegal immigration to America, a contentious and racially charged debate which has been going on for years now, yet which I haven't got around to until now. There are two big concerns here: the economic and social implications of new hispanic immigrants from our southern border. I will explain my thoughts on both, and hopefully change a few minds in the process, or at the very least open a few to new ideas. This week's quote comes from the right honorable Ed Miliband, the leader of the British Labor Party and Opposition, a respected politician whom I support with a heavy hand.


Let's start with the social contingencies of illegal immigration to America. These United States were founded by "illegal" European immigrants centuries ago, and for a large portion of our history immigration (and immigrants) have been a touchy issue. From the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 to the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII, we've never been particularly trustful or happy around people of different skin colors or nationalities. And in the past, most of our fears and hatred were based around nothing real; the former act was passed because apparently the Chinese were to blame for digging up too much gold in California for lower wages. Too bad it was actually because we had simply dug up the gold together (gold is finite, after all). And during WWII, we only locked up the Japanese citizens out of pure fear; no logic or reasoning backed us up, even though the Supreme Court somehow ruled our actions constitutional in 1942 (http://www.momomedia.com/CLPEF/history.html). And just as history famously repeats itself, we are doing the same thing today with Hispanics. In a society whose economy is based upon greed, we really shouldn't be surprised by this at all.


Hatred and racism are dominating parts of culture in significant portions of the U.S. territory. Just as the south was the bastion for anti-Black hatred during the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement, the south has now taken up the fight against immigrant Latinos. But, in a move somewhat unlike the past, the Midwestern states have also taken up the same fight with surprising heft. While some of these states are fair-weather friends to the movement (Wisconsin, Ohio, etc.), most of them are die-hard attached to it. And whether we are willing to admit it or not, racism is a big part of why this issue exists. We still are a majority white nation (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html), and despite reports that minority babies will soon outnumber white babies the fact of the matter is that we will stay a majority white nation for years to come. Since our democracy is based on majority rule, it seems only fitting that we would want to exclude and turn against those not in said majority, in this case the ethnic white one. But is it right or justified to fight against those of Hispanic descent? The answer is a resounding no.


This is especially true when considering the extremes of this conservative argument, like the example of an electric fence on the border. This idea has been proposed by top-ranking conservatives in the past and endorsed by Republican candidates as well (http://www.newser.com/story/131206/cain-i-was-joking-about-killer-electric-border-fence.html). Sure, running across the border is illegal, yes. But illegal enough that each and every one of these immigrants and their children deserve instant death without trial? Not so much. The fence itself is overkill; former candidate Herman Cain wanted it to be 20 feet tall, with active guns and barbed wire along with the electricity. Do you see the idiocy in this? If the fence will kill on contact, why spend millions making it 14 feet higher than it would need to be? Why mount guns on it if touching the fence will zap you to death anyway? Why put barbed wire on top if no person will be able to climb it in the first place? The scale of reaction to immigrants here is an indication of more than just political motivation towards an issue; it is a showing of intolerance, to the point where sheer anger inspires policy rather than facts. We must realize that immigrants of all races, languages, nationalities, and cultures are always an enriching factor to a society which has not true culture of its own, other than eating lots of fried foods. 


And now, the economic aspect of my argument. A common theme among those trying to curb/eliminate illegal immigration is the belief that "Mexicans are stealing our jobs". First things first, a job is not stolen. It is earned. If an employer hires an illegal immigrant, it is their choice to do so, and therefore it is the fault of employers that we have a problem with immigrants taking jobs. If employers turned down immigrants more willingly, this debate would not be so easy to bring up. Second, a lot of the jobs that illegal immigrants take are those of menial labor with relatively low pay; I know for a fact that most American citizens are likely too lazy to take on these jobs anyway. It is far better to get a job done by illegal immigrants than have it not done at all. Our country has problems and things that need to get done, and we shouldn't be so stringent about who helps us get those things done. Third, if immigrants are taking jobs from Americans, it would stand to reason that the jobless rate among Hispanics would be more steady than that of whites. The opposite is true, with Hispanics and other minorities being hit hardest by our recession, while whites have stayed a little healthier on the job market (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/us/26hispanics.html). And yet with all this, we still blame those of Latino descent for our national concerns. 


One last thing I feel I should address, is the effect Hispanics have on our educational system. Many have decried the influx of immigrants for lowering our standards and national averages on tests. However, education in America is very decentralized, with each state and district holding somewhat different standards. It is the job of each school system to provide a quality education, and I am sure nobody would dispute this. However, because of this decentralization there are portions of the United States with far better standards and averages than others. A good marker of the educational rates in a region is a presence of top-tier colleges. States with stronger education can generally afford better universities and can provide better quality learning for students. However, the majority of immigrants coming to this nation aren't flying in, so they end up, for the most part, in California or Texas. And while California has an excellent education system, Texas has been certainly been lacking in the past years. I can name but one excellent college in Texas, in this case Rice University. I can name several in California, and said state wasn't one to attempt putting creationism in textbooks. If we want immigrants to truly work to our benefit, they must receive a good education in order to get the jobs that make our economy strong and innovative. It's time we made sure that everyone gets a quality education, rather than excluding some because they may not have been born here. Mexico is an ally to us, and we should treat their people as such. 


That is all for this week, and I hope I have made an understandable and thought-provoking argument. Questions and comments may be posted here directly, and anonymously if you prefer to do so that way. My Facebook, Twitter, and Google+ accounts are always open, and my email at zerospintop@live.com will be frequently checked if you would like to communicate with me through it. A happy summer to all, a happy (and belated) Russia Day to my readers from the motherland, and this is SuperJew McLovin, signing off. 

Time Again, Part 2: The Welfare State

Greetings all!


This post comes as the second part to my closer for May, this time focusing on a domestic issue rather than a foreign one. Today, I will tackle the status of America in terms of welfare, and will attempt to determine how much change is necessary to improve ourselves. I will disprove the conservative claim that we are a "nanny welfare state," and will show why a welfare state is actually a good idea. This week's quote comes from Otto Von Bismarck, the founder of Germany and the key to establishing one of the first European welfare states.


Moving on from that, a welfare state is a form of governance characterized by several factors depending on the model. In general, a welfare state is a concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. This means that the government must create strong revenues, and as a result has more money to spend on social transfers which buoy the populace. Let's start off with the assumption that the United States, while being a first-world nation with substantial national income and gross GDP, is not a welfare state, as this is mostly true. There are some things we can do to make America into a welfare state, but it is not a quick road to take. There have been two large steps taken towards this goal: the New Deal, and the Great Society.


The New Deal was a series of measures taken throughout the 1930s by then president Franklin Delano Roosevelt to keep the United States from being destroyed by the Great Depression. While largely successful in stabilizing the American economy and laying the foundations for the government we know today (http://www.fdrheritage.org/new_deal.htm), this did not fully pull the U.S. economy out of the Depression. The Great Society followed in a similar path, with former president Lyndon B. Johnson using his Congressional tactics to push through whopping amounts of legislation. Significant milestones were reached because of this, including the creation of Medicare/Medicaid, the end of immigration quotas, and other steps forward towards addressing American poverty rates (http://countrystudies.us/united-states/history-121.htm). However, the hanging shadow of the increasingly unpopular Vietnam War would lead LBJ to forgo running again in 1968. These two efforts combine to form the basis of American social spending and how government treats citizens in terms of income equality, healthcare, etc. Since then, there has been little true movement forward, although a push backward was made under Reagan. As such, a new push is necessary, and a few things need to be addressed.


I'm going to take the models of welfare states in France and Denmark as the "ideal welfare states" here, that way I have some sense of background on what we need. The first, and most obvious, necessary change is significant increases in progressive tax reforms. As the world's single largest economy, we need revenue for our government to function more than ever due to our relentlessly high debt. The overall tax burdens in both France and Denmark are considerably high (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/the-tax-burden-around-the-developed-world/); both nations lump together large sums which are then used to finance all sorts of government programs, from the military to public pensions. As you can see in the graph, a typical citizen in France or Denmark can expect to cough up over 40% in taxes as a percentage of GDP. Meanwhile in the U.S.A., the tax burden is almost half that of the aforementioned countries, but at the same time we spend comparatively little on our populace. Of all the OECD nations, we spend less than 17% of our gross GDP on social expenditures, whereas the other members generally spend more (except in certain cases like Ireland and Japan). This has many reverberating effects on our economy, including low union membership and strength, high health care costs, little national investment, and significant leeway for corporations. While we may be a bastion of small business, our economy is not entirely suited to foster these small businesses. Our free trade policies coupled with comparatively low burdens on transport of goods lead to a nation which cares little for its workers, and provides for them as such.


I'm going to get a little protectionist here, so be prepared. Yes, I know protectionism, especially for a huge country like ours, may sound like a poor idea, but hear me out. Two of our smaller yet highly important sectors include manufacturing and farming. Both of these sectors were hit particularly hard by the recession, with auto bailouts being used to help out manufacturing some but not as a whole. Meanwhile, agrarian interests were largely left untouched outside of some help provided by the national stimulus package. We're a highly liberalized economy, so the duties on our export and import in both of these sectors are low. It is argued that freeing up the markets for these sectors increases competition and sales, keeping them vibrant. Unfortunately, this is no longer true. Manufacturing costs in other nations such as India and China are callously low, and our farming sector has become so small it no longer yields the capacity to fight nations that have simply become better than us on this matter. As a result, we have left manufacturing and farming to suffer under the whims of a market that no longer desires them. Therefore, should we increase duties on both sectors and develop strongly protectionist policies on them, we can keep them from falling under and allow them to recover and grow without market interference. Given time, I'm sure both of these sectors can improve and innovate enough to make it without protectionism. But until that time, we must keep these sectors under tight wraps so that we don't lose money and jobs through some of our most vulnerable yet important economic bulwarks.


And lastly, as a nation we must commit to spending more on our citizens if we wish to establish a stable and prosperous welfare state. It may seem lazy to get several weeks of paid vacation, but that hasn't stopped many European nations from staying in the top 10 concerning economic freedoms and performance. I believe that now more than ever we must be willing to provide more for our public sector employees. Many have not seen a raise in years, and as a percentage of the total job market our rate is quite low (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/08/us-usa-states-employees-idUSBRE83706720120408), and has been dropping. Is it no surprise that large portions of the French and Danish labor forces are public sector workers? We have become so concerned that our private sector needs help, that we have forgotten the other side of a damaged economy. Should we raise the average pay rates for public sector workers and increase the availability in pensions, that would buoy quite a bit of our workforce. As a result, we would have the immediate opportunity to add jobs. We certainly have quite a bit that can get done by the public sector; there are roads to be built and local governments to run. Why not value those that do the things we seem to take for granted? We desperately need these changes, and without them we run the risk of creating an economy that is permanently frozen in a state of liberalization, where no workforce sector is truly safe from outside intervention. If we backtrack on "free market policies" now, we can ensure that our modern, mixed-market economy stays intact.


That is all for my two-part end to May, which had to extend into June due to end-of-school antics. I hope I have provided reasonable suggestions for what we should do, and I hope I have proved that we are not a welfare state (yet). Constructive criticisms and questions are more than welcome, and can be put in the comments right here. If you feel scared to do so, my email at zerospintop@live.com is always open, along with my Facebook, Twitter, and Google+. And as always this is SuperJew McLovin, signing off.