*NEW* Buttanomics – When Equal Isn’t

So I should be talking about healthcare or the economy, but honestly those are both such a mess right now I’m not even going there.  Someone way smarter that I am is going to have to sort those out.  Or we can just leave it to Congress.

I thought I’d relate some knowledge recently dropped on me that can clarify some of the difference between conservatives and liberals.  So much about those two words has been distorted by both sides that most of us probably don’t think much about what they really mean.  Equality is at the heart of the issue.  Most conservatives would tell you that they believe in equality of opportunity.  Liberals tend to see equality in terms of outcomes.  So you can see then, for example, why conservatives back something like a flat tax (everyone pays the same percentage) while liberals would back progressive taxation (like our income tax…sort of).  A conservative would argue against progressive taxation by saying that you are penalizing people that have worked hard and should be rewarded.  Everyone had the same opportunity to make money, so those that did should get to keep it.  Liberals would counter that a flat tax disproportionally takes from the poorest among us, people who already are at a disadvantage.  If life is a race, then those folks are running with a peg leg.  If one person makes $17,000 a year, and another makes $170,000, taking 10% of that $17,000 is going to hurt a lot more than 10% of 170,000.  Both are reasonable arguments in and of themselves.

There’s another analogy that makes this point.  Imagine the country’s wealth as a pie.  Everyone has a slice.  Oprah has a relatively large slice.  The person that served you that burger you shouldn’t be eating at the drive-thru probably has a relatively small slice.  Conservatives and liberals agree on two things: as the pie gets bigger, so does the difference between the slices.  But as the slices get more equal, the pie gets smaller.  So there is an inherent contradiction.  Growth makes rich people richer, and redistribution makes everyone less well off.  A conservative would say that when the pie grows, everyone gets richer, so it’s all good (supply-side or “trickle down” economics).  More elegantly stated, a rising tide raises both the yacht and the rowboat.  To a liberal, the rowboats are full of holes, so the people in them need some extra love.

So what does all this mean for policy?  The “decision rule” for which projects gets funded is notably different.  Efficiency is most important to conservatives – they want to know which projects are going to bring the most benefit.  Liberals will want to know who pays the costs, who gets the benefits, and how much.  Distribution is the key.  Obviously no electable politicians exist at either of these extremes.  Political motivations (e.g. how much benefit is coming to my constituents) are at the heart of many, if not most policy decisions.  But where are you at?  Efficiency or distribution?  Opportunity or outcomes?

****Questions? Suggestions? What is this liberal-ass hippie clown talking about? Butta can be reached at butta@themixtapemonster.com ***

Buttanomics (April 2, 2009) – A Perfect World??

I’ve read a few utopia stories recently, and it seems that most “perfect” worlds have one thing in common: the people as a whole give up some individual liberties to ensure that the basic needs of all are met.  If we take Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (see below), basically everyone’s psyiological and safety needs are met.  That is, everyone has a roof over their head, clothes, food, etc.  Maslow claims that in order to get to the next level in the pyramid, all the levels beneath must be met.  Thus, those who don’t have their needs for safety met have no chance to realize their greatest potential.  Sounds pretty reasonable to me – if I’m worried about where I’m going to sleep, then I probably won’t be able to expend a lot of effort figuring out how I can best contribute something positive to the world.  It isn’t a perfect theory, but I see some truth in it.

Coming back to utopias, everyone gets through that first threshold automatically, but really the point is for everyone to make it to the pinnacle.  Does that mean everyone is a doctor or a lawyer?  Of course not.  But in one that I’ve read (Bellamy’s Looking Backward), to encourage people to take the jobs that are less desirous, those that take them work less hours.  Would you clean bathrooms if you only had to do it for 2 hours a day?

Another constant in utopia is equal access to resources.  This is achieved by either doing away with money all together, or giving everyone and equal amount of it.  Education also factors into this, as well as Maslow’s hierarchy.  If everyone is to contribute to their full potential, they need to get to the highest level possible.  Without an education, the young cannot be aware of all the options available, nor will they have been exposed to the basic skills necessary to be successful in whatever calling they choose.

I don’t believe that we will ever see a perfect society formed on this planet.  But I do think we should strive to create one.  Does that mean we all have to be socialist?  I’m not smart enough to know.  But it does seem that the basic tenets of capitalism work against the idea that everyone’s basic needs can or even should be met (assuming that’s a requirement of perfection).  This brings me to the question that sparked this article: Are we willing to give up the possibility of opulence to insure ourselves and our countrymen against destitution?

Bill and Melinda Gates have more money than they could ever hope to spend.  They worked hard to get it, and they have done incredible things for people less fortunate than they are through the Gates Foundation.  That is certainly to be applauded and encouraged.  But what’s the point?  Does any person or family need that much money?  Should we be idealizing that as the ultimate achievement of the American Dream?  Is that accumulation of wealth the result of one person’s work?  Is that their “fair share” of Microsoft’s success?  The highest tax bracket during WWII was 94%.  For every dollar that a person made over $200,000 in a year, they got to keep 6 cents.  In 2007 the highest rate was 35%, and it kicks in at just under $350,000.  ($200,000 in 1944 is like $2.3 million in 2007)

Let’s get back to the question – are we willing to take a significant majority of a wealthy person’s earnings to insure that our children are well educated, our poor are not homeless, and our elderly are well cared for?  If you made enough to buy a Gulfstream G5, could you be content with a BMW knowing that the difference paid for 20,000 students to get a year’s worth of quality education.  The first comment of any conservative-minded person to all this would be that instituting it would discourage hard work and encourage loafing (not to mention that caring for the masses is an outrageous expense).  That argument is valid, but I would point to potential savings in the long term – a better educated public that votes, works and lives smarter.  In the short term, how much less crime would occur?  Even if we could lift just one generation’s poor out of poverty, no matter the cost, what would the result be?

If you’re interested in reading any utopias:

Thomas More Utopia

Edward Bellamy Looking Backward
Charlotte Perkins Gilman Herland

Nathaniel Hawthorne Blithedale Romance

Know of any others that are a good read, let me know.

***Questions? Comments? Virtual-through-the-email-slap-to-Butta’s-grill? Butta can be contacted at butta@themixtapemonster.com***

Buttanomics! (March 3, 2009)

Obama’s State of the Nation

Since I was in high school when W took office, it was bizarre to hear the President address Congress and actually say something I agreed with.  Reform healthcare – sounds awesome if you can actually nominate someone that will make it through confirmation.  Invest in education and the environment – also sounds awesome, if you can make it happen.  Pull us out of this major recession/mini depression – as long as it doesn’t get any worse, I’m actually ok with Americans not consuming exponentially more than the rest of the world.

Now the question becomes how does President Obama go about getting it done?  He can take the Clinton approach from his attempt to reform healthcare – pick a group of people, don’t ask what anyone else thinks, and throw your legislation out there.  Remember, when Clinton did that, he had a Democratic Congress too, and that attempt fell to pieces.  Or he can take a cue from the last 8 years.  Bush decided he had a “mandate,” and stuffed whatever he felt like down the Democrats’ throat.  Now, neither of these approaches were successful (in the long term), but Bush did get a lot of legislation through the Congress by making sure everyone was voting lock-step with the White House.  I’d like to think that the Democrats’ inability to get shit done is a result of our “big tent” status.  We are a collection of causes – environmentalism, feminism, minority rights, protection of civil liberties, social awareness.  Often we forget our common bond.  Republicans are united in their conservatism, be it social, fiscal or otherwise.  I think that they’ve misplaced that identity because some Republicans just couldn’t bring Bush’s spending to terms with their ideology.  But they’ll be back, and Democrats have a limited window in which they can operate.

What unites Democrats, in my opinion, is progressiveness.  As Obama said, we can’t put off the problems of today for our children to pay for tomorrow.  We have to look forward, make investments in ourselves and our country.  They will pay off.  I’m glad that someone in the Democratic Party has finally linked environmentalism with economics.  Why is the environment important?  Because there’s only one, and I’m not buying the argument that our technology will always advance enough to keep us ahead of destroying it.  Many disagree with me on that point.  But no one can argue that building a new, more energy efficient power grid isn’t going to create jobs and provide some stimulus to the economy.  No one is going to argue that increasing our use of renewable energy is going to do the same (in addition to benefits in the national defense/foreign diplomacy arena).  This makes so much sense that a lot of Republicans were talking about it in 2008.  Does that mean it is a “moderate” issue?  I don’t think so.  I think that points to a real problem.  We have been so stagnant, as a country, that being forward thinking (progressive) has morphed into a short-sighted stop-gap mentality.  Without $4.00 a gallon gas and our friendly relations with the Middle East, the environment would have been much less of an issue.

So now is our chance to move forward.  But we’re so far behind that we’ve got to catch up first.  In light of this need, I say take the George W Bush approach.  Ram it down their throats.  Did we not get a mandate?  Is this antithetical to the Democratic (democratic) ideal that makes our tent so big?  Yes, but Democrats won a near filibuster proof majority in the Senate.  Bush had terrible approval ratings and left us with a mess.  Let’s clean it up and move on, so the next time the Republicans get control we have some cushioning.  Apparently a surplus wasn’t enough.

***Questions? Comments? Hate? Butta can be reached at butta@themixtapemonster.com***

Buttanomics – One Step Forward, One Look Back

I recently finished reading a book, Sam Ervin: Last of the Founding Fathers, that retells the history of North Carolina and the country via the personal story of Senator Sam Ervin.  Ervin served as a US Congressman, county judge, superior court judge, North Carolina Supreme Court justice and state legislator in addition to his 20 year tenure as a senator.  While less known than North Carolina’s  infamous Senator Jesse Helms, Ervin played an important role during two key moments in our country’s history.  Ervin led both the “soft Southern strategy” used to subvert civil rights legislation in the Senate and the fight against the Nixon administration that ultimately ended in his resignation.  It is the former that bears on my mind as I look back at last November’s election results.

“Senator Sam” as he was known, led the Senate’s charge against Nixon’s imperial presidency, clashing with the administration on many issues and ultimately chairing the Watergate hearings.  Ervin was a bull on civil liberties, challenging the executive branch’s authority to gather information about its own law-abiding citizens.  Sound familiar?  It was clear that Ervin held a citizen’s right to a life free from government intrusion as central to the maintenance of American democracy.  In the character of the “mountain people” of North Carolina’s west, Ervin was automatically suspicious of government activity and expansion of power.  As a lawyer and former judge, Ervin was considered one of the Senate’s foremost constitutional scholars, and was called on by his colleagues to defend constitutional rights on several occasions.  It was in this role that Ervin repeatedly crossed swords with the Nixon administration over various intelligence-gathering techniques that involved planting spies in public gatherings and infiltrating peaceful groups advocating policies opposed to those of the president.  As the Watergate scandal unfolded, Ervin was charged with leading a committee to investigate the break-in, bringing the scandal to a head and contributing to Nixon’s demise.  He was an invaluable tool in this regard, and was highly regarded for his intelligence and abilities as a constitutional scholar.

Unfortunately, sometimes good, intelligent and rational people can hold to antiquated views despite their obvious flaws.  Sam Ervin’s great constitutional mind was also put to use to subvert court rulings and legislation aimed at rectifying hundreds of years of slavery, violence and oppression in this country.  And Ervin, thought ultimately unsuccessful in his attempts to thwart the civil rights movement, did perfect the argument still used today against those that would ensure the protection of minorities (of all types).  Known as the soft Southern strategy, this tactic provided a cover for civil rights obstructionists by arguing the merits of the law instead of the racial politics so often utilized in that day.  Rather than stand in a doorway to bar black students from integrating a school, Ervin found legal and constitutional objections to civil rights bills.  While the schools of the South were eventually desegregated, the basic principle behind Ervin’s arguments is still heard today: affirmative action and similar legislation treats minorities as a privileged and special class to the detriment of whites.  A parallel argument is that social programs are wasteful government spending that creates dependence on “handouts.”

Sam Ervin was a consummate Christian Southern gentlemen, which afforded him with a paternalistic view of his African American constituents (even if they weren’t allowed to vote for him).  What he failed to view was the struggle of being black in a white-dominated society, and the resulting consequences on the economic and social well-being of African Americans.  Who can say what the effects of substandard education, political disenfranchisement, economic subversion and a history of bondage can have on a group?  Ervin’s view, like that of the slave-owning Southerners who preceded him, seemed to have been that African Americans were accepting of their natural place at the bottom of our society, and that as long as white men at the top were good stewards that bore no direct ill-will towards blacks at the personal level, the status quo was the proper order of things.

To see the legacy of Sam Ervin’s soft Southern strategy, one only need look at the 2008 electoral college map.  With the exception of Florida and Virginia (which have experienced significant demographic changes) North Carolina stands out as the only “blue state” in the South.  I wonder if Sam Ervin , a lifelong Democrat, would have voted for Barack Obama.  We have certainly moved forward since  Ervin’s day, but I’m reminded of how slow that change can be every time I hear otherwise decent people drop the “n bomb” or make a not-so-subtle statement about how the government wastes money attempting to help (black) people that don’t deserve it.  I don’t pretend to know what it is to be black in America, nor do I have a prescription to relieve our cultural and social ills.  While I am encouraged by the results of November 4, 2008, my excitement is tempered by the scene outside my door in Southeast Raleigh.  Young black men hawking the poisons of the hood all too eager to mete out violence at the end of a barrel.

*** Questions? Comments? Suggestions? Butta can be reached at butta@themixtapemonster.com***

BUTTANOMICS – New Column

DIRE STRAITS

Jan 12, 2009

Apparently our president-in-waiting has been using the phrase “dire straits” to describe the country’s state of affairs.  After consulting the Oxford American Dictionary, I find that a strait is a narrow passage of water, or a situation characterized by a degree of trouble or difficulty while dire describes something that is extremely serious or urgent, presaging danger.

Unfortunately for us, dire straits seems an accurate description of the situation we find ourselves in. Unfortunately for Barack Obama, he is in charge of guiding us through these straits without dashing an entire country against the rocks.

A quick survey of the hazards ahead:

· Increasing unemployment – most recent figures put total unemployment at 7.2%, but most telling is that the pace of job loss quickened at the end of 2008.

· Financial market woes – despite being bolstered by half of the $700 billion bailout, banks are still holding their cards (and their money) close.

·

Foreclosure/Mortgage mess – millions of Americans have lost their homes, millions more are in jeopardy of the same. Worst of all, renegotiating mortgages for those that could pay is near impossible because their loans have been divided up and repackaged into a tangled mess of securities.

· Detroit in a downward spiral – after years of banking on gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks for profitability and basically ignoring the car market, the Big Three are on the brink of collapse.  Thanks to all you taxpayers out there, they’ll be around at least for a little while longer.  Even Toyota posted a loss last quarter, and they don’t have to pay UAW wages or pensions.

· Middle East flareup – Israel and Hamas are at it (again) in the Gaza Strip. Hamas launches rockets into Israel, Israelis comes back with a full on military operation. And, as usual, the Palestinian people are caught in the middle.

· Russia thinks it’s 1960 – flush with oil money, Vladimir Putin is donning his throwback jersey and nationalizing major industry, throwing political weight around, bullying former Soviet Bloc countries, reversing democratic gains, murdering dissidents in London, and infiltrating British intelligence agencies.

· The world is holding our IOU – even China is starting to rethink the US as an investment. Lucky for us, they’re so far in at this point they can’t stop now.

· Hegemon no more – our cultural, political and economic dominance of the world is coming to a close.

· Last but not least, we are mired in two ongoing wars, neither of which is likely to end with a “Mission Accomplished” banner anytime soon.

Many of us that voted for Barack Obama did so because of what he promised us: universal healthcare, environmental stewardship, immigration reform, bringing our troops home, and an end to “politics as usual” in Washington. These are all noble, just and necessary causes. But they are, more than likely, causes that will have to wait until we make it through these dire straits.  Obama’s team seems to think that we can do both, as evidenced by his proposed stimulus package.  Investments in infrastructure are always needed.  Who can’t name a road that needs paving?  Investments in green energy and buildings can create jobs, save us money and benefit the environment.  Computerizing our health records can save both money and lives.  But it’s not all roses and sunshine.  Another tax break?  Don’t get me wrong, if you’re handing me another check for a few hundred bucks I’m going to cash it, but I’m pretty sure we tried that last year.

Many also voted for Barack Obama because he promised us something different from the last eight years. His promise is a new face for America, a new way of doing things. It is abundantly clear that the old way wasn’t working, so let’s hope that he is the man to navigate the treacherous waters ahead and on to a better US.

Questions? Comments? Butta can be reached at butta@themixtapemonster.com