America Has a White Millennial Problem

This is a very interesting and somewhat troubling picture of young adult America. I don't think the polls are presenting an accurate picture of where most of millennials are politically. I think young people want clean air, reproductive freedom of choice,  and a biosphere that is protected from brutish exploitation by mindless profiteers. 

Maybe young people aren't polling so strongly for Democrats because they recognize that the Democratic Party is part of the problem.  What they want is a progressive alternative that is forward thinking, life-affirming, and sustainable.  To get that, the corruption that is pervasive in American politics must stop.  We need a 28th Amendment that says 'Corporations are not People' and 'Money is not Speech'.  That is the way to energize millennials. Give them a worthy pathway into the future..EMPDX.

Sean McElwee wrote this piece for AlterNet. Nice work Sean...

Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)

---

Salon [1] / By Sean McElwee [2]          

 

December 17, 2014  | 

 

Nearly anytime Democrats lose an election, there is a pervasive narrative that, just around the bend, there will be an “emerging Democratic majority.” Originally projected to occur between [3] 2004 and 2008, it now appears further away than ever after last month’s midterm blowout. Republicans have a stranglehold on the House, where they control [4] their largest number of seats since 1948. That lead will be incredibly tough [5] to chip away at. Democratic chances of regaining the Senate in 2016, once considered a near certainty, are looking iffy [6]. Republicans control 31 governorships, as well as [7] 68 of 98 state legislative chambers. Democrats still have a strong chance of winning the Presidency, but given the importance of the states for shaping income distribution [8] and policy [9], even that victory will ring hollow.

Yet again, the Democratic Party faces bleak governing prospects in the short term, with only the nebulous promise of a demographic windfall somewhere off in the future — and even that prospect should be little comfort to progressives. While the “millennial” generation has widely been seen as the key to future of Democratic successes, there are reasons to believe that the liberalism of millennials, at least on certain key issues, has been overstated.

 

Yes, there is a strong case that younger voters on the whole are more liberal. For instance, a study by the Center for American Progress finds [10] that while the mean American’s ideological position is 209 (with 0 being most conservative and 400 being most progressive), those under 29 score 219.7 (Obama voters scored 244).  But while millennials are more socially liberal across the board, there are stark racial divides on economic issues. Younger voters are more likely than older voters to agree [11] with the statement, “Labor unions are necessary to protect the working person” and “the government should be doing more to solve problems.” These questions, however, are rather vague and positively worded. And other data suggest a large gap between white millenials and millenials of color. For instance, young white men [12] supported Romney in the 2012 election.
White millenials are also significantly less [11] supportive of Obama (54 percent) than black millenials (95 percent) and Hispanic millenials (76 percent). The most recent poll [13] of Obama finds that young whites and older whites have virtually identical approval ratings. A recent Pew survey of millennials finds [14] that on economic issues, there are strong gaps between young whites and young non-white millenials (see chart).
[15]
On social issues, however [14], these gaps are virtually non-existent. This suggests that while social liberalism will continue to be a political winner, economic liberalism may be tougher to sell to white millenials. Additionally, while white millenials say they [16] want to live in a racially equitable society, they are no more likely than their parents [17] to support policies to make that society come about. ”At the same time, whites [18] primed [19] with the reality of growing diversity become are less likely to say they support diversity and more likely to support the Republican party.”
Furthermore, even as minorities make up a larger and larger percentage of the electorate, these racial changes will not inevitably benefit Democrats. While Republicans have never won more than 40 percent of the Latino vote  – the claim  [20]that Bush won 44 percent in 2004, as widely reported, now appears to have been incorrect — they could do so in the future. Pew data, for example, show [21] that third generation Hispanics are more socially liberal, but more economically conservative than older Hispanics.
[22]
Additionally, a recent Gallup poll shows [13] support for Obama among younger Black Americans is modestly lower than support among their older counterparts. This actually hold strue among millenials as a whole; as there appear to be age gaps that would render the Democratic advantage ephemeral. Harvard’s Institute of Politics finds [23] that there is a distinct difference between the way young millenials (18-to-24) and older millenials (25-to-29) view Obama. Meanwhile, a 2012 American University poll finds [24] that college students in swing states supported Obama by 35 points, while high schoolers (13-to-17) in swing states supported Obama over Romney by only 7 points.
Discussing the future always presents challenges, particularly in the realm of politics. However, when we look at the ideologies that shape the parties, we can see a few general trends from these data. First, the economic liberalism of the millenial generation appears to be driven primarily by people of color [25], rather than by younger, more liberal whites. (On social issues, the generation appears to be more liberal across the board.) Second, while millenials lean Democratic, they are still effectively up for grabs. White millenials, the data show, may become suspicious of further government programs to advance racial equality, and young people of color may be open to a Republican party that eschews virulent racism. Finally, electoral structures combined with the geographic locations [26] of Democratic voters will bias the system toward Republicans for at least another decade, and possibly longer.
It’s difficult to know what parties will do to remain viable in a shifting American political landscape. However, it’s by no means certain that a new “Democratic majority” will be an economically liberal one. It’s plausible that the new Democratic party will embrace an Andrew Cuomo-esque neoliberalism. The Democratic party that appears to be emerging will be friendlier to finance and economically conservative, but also very socially liberal, particularly on gay marriage and women’s rights. The Democratic party will be committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions but not at a terrible price to businesses. Public goods will be sold off at bargain basement prices and the safety net will be expanded only slowly, if at all. Both parties will pretend that racial grievances are a thing of the past and present a rosy vision of color-blind America. The ideological distance of both parties on foreign policy will remain where it is today: virtually indistinguishable. This is not inevitable, but what we know about millenials, particularly white ones, suggest this is the most plausible scenario. In the battle for the soul of the Democratic party, millenials might not be on Team Elizabeth Warren.

 

---

Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/america-has-white-millennial-problem

Links:
[1] http://www.salon.com
[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/sean-mcelwee
[3] https://twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/status/542835205548310528
[4] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/09/in-the-states-the-gop-is-in-its-best-position-since-the-great-depression/
[5] http://cookpolitical.com/story/8123
[6] http://www.nationalreview.com/article/393732/will-democrats-take-back-senate-2016-michael-barone
[7] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/11/11/the_other_gop_wave_state_legislatures__124626.html
[8] http://web.utk.edu/~nkelly/papers/inequality/KellyWitko.pdf
[9] http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412635-state-approaches-to-the-tanf-block-grant.pdf
[10] http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2009/03/pdf/political_ideology.pdf
[11] http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2009/05/pdf/millennial_generation.pdf
[12] http://www.people-press.org/2012/11/26/young-voters-supported-obama-less-but-may-have-mattered-more/
[13] http://www.gallup.com/poll/179921/obama-loses-support-among-white-millennials.aspx
[14] http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/03/07/chapter-2-generations-and-issues/
[15] http://www.salon.com/2014/12/14/americas_white_millennial_problem_why_the_next_great_generation_might_not_be_a_liberal_one/millennial_1/
[16] https://www.evernote.com/shard/s4/sh/5edc56c3-f8c8-483f-a459-2c47192d0bb8/a0ba0ce883749f4e613d6a6338bb4455
[17] http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/content/73/5/917.abstract
[18] http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/02/0956797614527113.abstract
[19] http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/08/13/1948550614546355
[20] http://www.pewhispanic.org/2005/06/27/hispanics-and-the-2004-election/
[21] http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/04/v-politics-values-and-religion/
[22] http://www.salon.com/2014/12/14/americas_white_millennial_problem_why_the_next_great_generation_might_not_be_a_liberal_one/screen_shot_2014_12_12_at_8_55_48_pm/
[23] http://iop.harvard.edu/blog/iop-releases-new-fall-poll-5-key-findings-and-trends-millennial-viewpoints#sthash.Yk1PMHLA.dpuf.
[24] http://www.american.edu/media/news/20121101_poll_obama_romney.cfm
[25] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/11/19/midterm_demographics_didnt_sink_the_democrats_124701.html
[26] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/upshot/why-democrats-cant-win.html
[27] mailto:corrections@alternet.org?Subject=Typo on America Has a White Millennial Problem
[28] http://www.alternet.org/tags/race
[29] http://www.alternet.org/tags/millennials
[30] http://www.alternet.org/tags/economy-0
[31] http://www.alternet.org/tags/generation
[32] http://www.alternet.org/tags/republican-0
[33] http://www.alternet.org/tags/democrat
[34] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B






 

Top 0.1 Percent Has More Wealth Than Bottom 90 Percent

This post comes from an article on the Mother Jones  blog by Inae Oh.

It's a reflection of what is fundamentally wrong in America.  Less than 160,000 families have more money than the other 316 million of us combined.    Stunning, shameful, incredibly corrosive to our economy and our democracy:.. those are some words I would choose to describe this circumstance.

Economics is pretty simple at its most basic.  Markets are a place where sellers come to deal with people who have the need to buy at least the necessities among all those things for sale. But, when the vast majority of people are no longer able to participate in that marketplace, because they have almost nothing to exchange for even basic needs like  food, shelter, and healthcare; when that happens,  the entire idea of a marketplace is undermined.    Sad to say, that is exactly what is wrong with America's today.  In effect, our economy is trapped in a malaise caused a tiny fraction of us owning all the wealth. 

All of the political power in America has fallen into the hands of big bankers, bloated corporations, and the super-rich.  Until that changes,  nine out of ten of us will continue to get the very short end of the stick.
_________________

From Inae Oh's Mother Jones blog piece...

While a complex web of factors have contributed to the rise in income inequality in America, a new research paper says most of the blame can be largely placed in the immense growth experienced by the top tenth of the richest 1 percent of Americans in recent years. From the report:

The rise of wealth inequality is almost entirely due to the rise of the top 0.1% wealth share, from 7% in 1979 to 22% in 2012, a level almost as high as in 1929. The bottom 90% wealth share first increased up to the mid-1980s and then steadily declined. The increase in wealth concentration is due to the surge of top incomes combined with an increase in saving rate inequality.

So, who are the 0.1 percent among us? According to Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, the paper's researchers, the elite group is a small one, roughly composed of 160,000 families with assets exceeding $20 million, but their grip on America's wealth distribution is about to surpass the bottom 90 percent for the first time in more than half a century.  Today's 0.1 percent also tend to be younger than the top incomers of the 1960's, despite the fact the country as a whole has been living longer—proving once again, that there has truly never been a more opportune time to be rich in America:

Green World Rising

A new video produced by Leo DeCaprio and Thom Hartmann shows that with existing technology, our global human society can be completely free of our dependence on coal, oil, and natural gas in about two decades.

Clean, renewable sources of energy from wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro power derived from ocean tidal forces and river currents can provide all the power the world needs without generating any atmospheric pollution.  This new video, narrated by Leo DeCaprio presents that clean energy future very effectively. 

The impediments to this kind of life-affirming future are not technical. We can do it with technology that is already developed.  The obstacle to this kind of future is entirely political, driven by corporatists and elites who profit from the status quo and are unwilling to accept any change that threatens their income.

Bottom line: A clean energy future is imminently achievable, if the people demand it.

Here is a link to Green World Rising... http://www.greenworldrising.org/#!ep3-green-world-rising/ches

The U.S. Supreme Court - A Corporation's Best Friend

There is nothing written in law that gives corporations human rights, but that hasn't stopped the Supreme Court. Over the years, conservative majority's on the court have issued ten decisions that have bolstered corporate personhood, and seriously undermined the rights of the nation's human citizens in the process.

I pulled the article below from Mother Jones.
 ____________________________

10 Supreme Court Rulings—Before Hobby Lobby—That Turned Corporations Into People

Last week's decision is the latest in a 200-year-long line of rulings giving businesses the same rights as humans.

By Alex Park | Thu Jul. 10, 2014 6:00 AM EDT

 

                         

 

Hobby Lobby is the latest in a 200-year-long line of rulings giving businesses the same rights as humans. 

     

Last week's Hobby Lobby ruling charted new legal territory by granting corporations the same religious rights as real people. The rationale [1] behind the decision—that expanding constitutional rights to businesses is necessary to "protect the rights of people associated with the corporation"—is far from novel. A line of Supreme Court rulings stretching back 200 years has blurred the distinction between flesh-and-blood citizens and the businesses they own, laying the groundwork for Hobby Lobby [2] and the equally contentious Citizens United [3] ruling. Here's a timeline of the corporation's human evolution:

 

1809 (Bank of the United States v. Deveaux) [4]: In the early days of the republic, when state and federal courts were still working out their jurisdictions, the Bank of the United States—a precursor to the US Treasury—sued a Georgia tax collector named Peter Deveaux for property he had seized when the bank failed to pay state taxes. Deveaux argued that, because corporations weren't people, they couldn't sue in federal court. Chief Justice John Marshall agreed. This meant businesses could only sue or be sued in federal court if all the shareholders, and at least one member of the opposing party, lived in the same state. According to Burt Neuborne, a corporate law professor at New York University, Wall Street banks hated this decision because it restricted suits to state courts where judges were partial to the banks' local clients—typically Midwestern farmers.

 

1844 (Louisville, Cincinnati, and Charleston Railroad v. Letson [5]): It soon became apparent that Marshall's decision in Bank of the United States was unworkable because it put corporations outside the reach of the federal courts. Thirty-five years later, after hearing the Louisville, Cincinnati, and Charleston Railroad [5] case, the Supreme Court shifted course, ruling that corporations were "citizens" of the states where they incorporated. Still, it was difficult for a corporation to sue or be sued in federal court unless all its shareholders lived in the same state.

 

1853 (Marshall v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad [6]): The Supreme Court later upheld the notion that corporations were citizens, but only for the purposes of court jurisdiction; they did not have the same constitutional rights as actual people. The court also ruled that, for litigation purposes, shareholders would be considered citizens of their company's home state. This made it easier for corporations to sue or be sued in federal court by eliminating jurisdictional conflicts.

 

1886 (County of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad [7]): Now that corporations were legally citizens, corporate attorneys worked to expand their rights. When California officials levied a special tax [8] on the Southern Pacific Railroad, the railroad sued, arguing that singling out the company violated its rights to equal protection under the 14th Amendment, which was intended to protect freed slaves. In a strange twist, the court reporter—a former railroad man—wrote in the published notes on the case that the 14th Amendment did, in fact, apply to the company. Even though this notion appeared nowhere in the high court's actual ruling, 11 years later the court declared it was "well settled [9]" that "corporations are persons within the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment," citing Santa Clara. 

 

1898 (Smyth v. Ames [10]): Building on the Santa Clara decision, the court voided a Nebraska railroad tax, ruling that it was akin to the government taking a corporation's property without due process—a violation of its 14th Amendment rights. (The decision was overturned in the 1944 Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas decision [11].)

 

1906 (Hale v. Henkel) [12]: Having blocked unlawful seizures of corporate property, the court went on to shield companies from other kinds of intrusion. Writing for the majority, Justice Henry Billings Brown found that corporations, like people, are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment (although the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination did not apply). 

 

1931 (Russian Volunteer Fleet v. United States [13]): A Russian shipbuilder, Russian Volunteer Fleet, sued the US government, claiming that government officials had unlawfully seized property worth more than $4 million. The high court sided with the company, ruling that even foreign corporations are protected from unlawful government seizures under the Fifth Amendment, which ensures fair treatment by the legal system.

 

1977 (United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co. [14]): After a criminal trial for two linen companies and their owner was dismissed due to jury deadlock, federal prosecutors appealed the decision. The Supreme Court ruled that a second trial violated the companies' rights to be tried only once, expanding the double jeopardy rule to include both humans and corporations.

 

2010 (Citizens United v. FEC) [15]: In the run up to the 2008 election, the Federal Elections Commission blocked the conservative nonprofit Citizens United from airing a film about Hillary Clinton based on a law barring companies from using their funds for "electioneering communications" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The organization sued, arguing that, because people's campaign donations are a protected form of speech (see Buckley v. Valeo [16]) and corporations and people enjoy the same legal rights, the government can't limit a corporation's independent political donations. The Supreme Court agreed. The Citizens United ruling may be the most sweeping expansion of corporate personhood to date. 

 

2014 (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby) [17]: Corporations are legally people with the right to free speech, but do they have religious rights? Apparently, they do. In 2012, Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma-based craft store chain, sued the federal government, arguing that a provision in the Affordable Care Act requiring it to provide contraception coverage for employees violated shareholders' constitutional rights to freedom of religion. The Supreme Court sided with Hobby Lobby and found that corporations can assert the religious rights of their owners, greatly expanding the power of shareholders while creating a world of confusion [18] for corporate attorneys.

 

The Future: If a corporation has First Amendment rights, could it also claim Second Amendment protections? Amazingly, this is a question some scholars are seriously pondering. As Darrell A.H. Miller wrote in his 2011 article "Guns, Inc." in the NYU Law Review [19], "If Citizens United is taken seriously, the Second Amendment, like the First Amendment and like many other provisions of the Bill of Rights, guarantees liberties to natural and corporate persons alike." Bang!

 

---

Source URL: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/how-supreme-court-turned-corporations-people-200-year-saga

Links:
[1] http://www.omaha.com/money/court-rulings-trigger-renewed-debate-over-corporate-personhood/article_55f847ac-6d18-5c9b-acbe-c25de887a756.html
[2] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-obamacare
[3] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/05/citizens-united-amendment-flowchart
[4] http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a3_2_1s50.html
[5] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/43/497/case.html
[6] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/57/314/case.html
[7] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/394/case.html
[8] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/10/when-corporation-freed-slave
[9] http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=lawreview
[10] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/466/case.html
[11] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/320/591/case.html
[12] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/201/43/case.html
[13] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/282/481/
[14] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/430/564/
[15] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/08-205/opinion.html
[16] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/424/1/case.html
[17] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
[18] http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/07/hobby-lobbys-other-problem
[19] http://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-86-number-4/guns-inc-citizens-united-mcdonald-and-future-corporate-constitutional

McCutcheon Vs. FEC

Well, today the Supreme Court did it again. It ruled there should be no limits on campaign spending in our elections.   The floodgates have now opened for billionaires like the Koch Brothers to own America's political system.  It was bad enough when the slug bait conservatives on the court voted 5-4 for Citizen's United, the first step on the road to 'he who has the money makes the rules'. 

McCutcheon Vs. FEC effectively removes all remaining limits to the amount of money a corporation or an individual can spend to influence our elections.   We no longer have a democracy.  We have an oligarchy controlled by super-rich plutocrats.

The sad thing is most Americans still seem to be in the dark about this.  Just last week, a poll revealed that 52% of Americans don't know who the Koch Brothers are.   That is very disturbing, given the fact that the Koch's, who inherited their wealth from their father,  are the poster boys for egregious spending to buy the politics they want.

Though corporate conservatives, most of whom are Republican, are primarily responsible for the sewer money politics that prevail in this country, both parties are guilty of feeding on dirty money from the Koch's and other super rich political manipulators.

There is only one answer that will restore our Constitution. That is a 28th Constitutional Amendment that says specifically that Corporations are not people and money is not speech.  The people we elect to govern our country will not make this happen. They are part of the problem.  To make this right, the American people must step up and stand together in a grass root effort to rid our politics of big money influence.

There is a group called Move to Amend. It's one and only focus is on a Constitutional Amendment that says corporations are not people and money is not speech.  I support Move to Amend.  Every American has a duty to stand together to support Move to Amend's unambiguous and straightforward Constitutional remedy.

The Constitution is supposed to serve the interests of all the people, not just the rich and powerful.  If you aren't already onboard,  take the time to learn about Move to Amend, then join us and become part of the solution. We all have a stake in this fight.  It's time to step up and be counted.

Visit the Move to Amend website...www.movetomend.org

The Crash of 2016

Thom Hartmann's new book, The Crash of 2016 offers evidence and historical context for yet another economic collapse of our society. What happened in 2008 is about to happen again, only this time, it will be much worse.  That's the unambiguous conclusion of The Crash of 2016.  

I have read many of Hartmann's books. His worldview is built on solid research. In a nutshell, as he sees it, human civilization is on the precipice. Too many people, too few resources, and a  political system that is corrupt to the core.  What Hartmann calls Economic royalists have brought America to its knees before. In fact, there's a pattern. Hartmann's calls it the great forgetting, where every fourth generation removed from an economic meltdown caused by the hubris of corporations, banksters, and individuals exercising unrestrained self-interest, it happens again. In 1929, the world fell into a great depression, driven largely by the excessive gaming of the economic system by the rich.  In response, the people elected Franklin Roosevelt. As President, he launched a recovery with his progressive 'New Deal' ideas. Then World War Two came. In it's aftermath, America and the rest of the world moved into an extended period of economic growth and broadly realized prosperity.  Then, in 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected President. He and his neo-conservative cabal cut taxes on the rich and launched an era of deregulation that set us on an inevitable course for another collapse.  The American middle class has been eviscerated by conservative, 'supply-side' economic policy.  The first reckoning came with the 2008 economic meltdown. Unfortunately, the response was entirely inadequate. The neo-conservatives who caused the meltdown were not held accountable.  Because of inadequate policy reforms, the recovery from 2008 has been tepid at best.   Now, as Thom Hartmann so effectively points out, we are headed toward another collapse. This one will be much more severe than what happened in 2008.  Hartmann makes a very strong case for another economic breakdown in 2016, give or take a year or two.

So, what do we do?  First, we brace for what appears to be inevitable; another collapse of our economic system.  As before, there will be a lot of finger pointing. The neo-conservatives will blame everyone but themselves. We will have a choice.  We can stay the course and allow corporations, the banksters, and the rich to run roughshod over what's left of our civilization, or we can elect leaders who will choose a progressive course and make much-needed reforms to our system of governance...reforms that will restore 'of, by, and for the people' to our way of life.

Thom Hartmann's The Crash of 2016 delivers  a clear prescription for what we as citizens must do to rebuild from the ashes of the crash that's coming. His vision offers hope for a new order that is both life-affirming and sustainable over the long term.

Highest recommendation.


Here is a link to Thom Hartmann's website and radio show...  http://www.thomhartmann.com/

Top 10 Policies for a Steady-State Economy

Anybody who is paying attention knows that the economic engine that makes the global economy go has gone off the tracks.    It's too many people and too few resources, combined with the corrosive impact of the current predatory brand of market capitalism.  We live in a world where the super-rich and giant corporations use their money and influence to put their own interests first. The current market economic model serves the few at the expense of the many. We are squandering the planet's limited natural resources.  Our operating system needs a serious upgrade to one in which the needs of people - all people - are in balance with the planet's ability to provide.

Economist Herman Daly has long been a beacon for a steady-state economy, which is exactly what is required to balance a broadly realized quality of life for humanity with the enduring needs of our earth's natural systems. The article below by Herman Daly offers a clear prescription for reshaping our regulatory framework to foster a steady-state way of life.  It's not complicated. A number of European nations are already on this life affirming road. Norway, Denmark, and Sweden are prime examples.  

The impediments to achieving a steady-state paradigm  are entirely political.  Our current system is mired in corruption. The first step to a life-affirming, steady-state economy is a Constitutional Amendment that declares that corporations are not people, and that  'Personhood' is s status given only to 'flesh and blood' humans. Further, this amendment must declare that money is not the same as speech.  Blunting these two morally bankrupt legal constructs will go a long way toward restoring 'of, by, and for' the people to our democracy.

The good news is a group called Move to Amend is aggressively promoting just such a Constitutional change.

 I urge the visitor to read the article pasted in below. If you want to encourage a world that works for future generations, Herman Daly's 'Top Ten Policies' are a very good place to start.

_________________________________

Top 10 Policies for a Steady-State Economy

Posted By Herman Daly On October 28, 2013 @ 9:00 pm In Economic Growth,Economic Policy,Environment,Herman Daly,Jobs and Employment,Money and Investments,Population,Poverty Alleviation,Steady State Economy,Sustainability | 2 Comments

by Herman Daly

Let’s get specific. Here are ten policies for ending uneconomic growth ^[1] and moving to a steady-state economy. A steady-state economy is one that develops qualitatively (by improvement in science, technology, and ethics) without growing quantitatively in physical dimensions; it lives on a diet — a constant metabolic flow of resources from depletion to pollution (the entropic throughput) maintained at a level that is both sufficient for a good life and within the assimilative and regenerative capacities of the containing ecosystem.

Ten is an arbitrary number — just a way to get specific and challenge others to suggest improvements. Although the whole package here discussed fits together in the sense that some policies supplement and balance others, most of them could be adopted singly and gradually.

1. Cap-auction-trade systems for basic resources. Caps limit biophysical scale by quotas on depletion or pollution, whichever is more limiting. Auctioning the quotas captures scarcity rents for equitable redistribution. Trade allows efficient allocation to highest uses. This policy has the advantage of transparency. There is a limit to the amount and rate of depletion and pollution that the economy can be allowed to impose on the ecosystem. Caps are physical quotas, limits to the throughput of basic resources, especially fossil fuels. The quota usually should be applied at the input end because depletion is more spatially concentrated than pollution and hence easier to monitor. Also the higher price of basic resources will induce their more economical use at each upstream stage of production, as well as at the final stages of consumption and recycling. Ownership of the quotas is initially public — the government periodically auctions them to individuals and firms. There should be no “grandfathering” of quota rights to previous users, nor “offshoring” of quotas for new fossil fuel power plants in one by place by credits from planting trees somewhere else. Reforestation is a good policy on its own.  It is too late for self-canceling half measures — increased carbon sequestration and decreased emissions are both needed. The auction revenues go to the treasury and are used to replace regressive taxes, such as the payroll tax, and to reduce income tax on the lowest incomes. Once purchased at auction the quotas can be freely bought and sold by third parties, just as can the resources whose rate of depletion they limit. The cap serves the goal of sustainable scale; the auction serves the goal of fair distribution; and trading allows efficient allocation — three goals, three policy instruments. Although mainly applied to nonrenewable resources, the same logic works for limiting the off-take from renewable resources, such as fisheries and forests, with the quota level set to approximate a sustainable yield.


2. Ecological tax reform. Shift the tax base from value added (labor and capital) to “that to which value is added,” namely the entropic throughput of resources extracted from nature (depletion), and returned to nature (pollution). Such a tax shift prices the scarce but previously un-priced contribution of nature. Value added to natural resources by labor and capital is something we want to encourage, so stop taxing it. Depletion and pollution are things we want to discourage, so tax them. Payment above necessary supply price is rent, unearned income, and most economists have long advocated taxing it, both for efficiency and equity reasons. Ecological tax reform can be an alternative or a supplement to cap-auction-trade systems.


3. Limit the range of inequality in income distribution with a minimum income and a maximum income. Without aggregate growth poverty reduction requires redistribution. Unlimited inequality is unfair; complete equality is also unfair. Seek fair limits to the range of inequality. The civil service, the military, and the university manage with a range of inequality of a factor of 15 or 20. Corporate America has a range of 500 or more. Many industrial nations are below 25. Could we not limit the range to, say, 100, and see how it works? This might mean a minimum of 20 thousand dollars and a maximum of two million. Is that not more than enough to give incentive for hard work and compensate real differences? People who have reached the limit could either work for nothing at the margin if they enjoy their work, or devote their extra time to hobbies or public service. The demand left unmet by those at the top will be filled by those who are below the maximum. A sense of community, necessary for democracy, is hard to maintain across the vast income differences current in the United States. Rich and poor separated by a factor of 500 have few experiences or interests in common, and are increasingly likely to engage in violent conflict.


4. Free up the length of the working day, week, and year — allow greater option for part-time or personal work. Full-time external employment for all is hard to provide without growth. Other industrial countries have much longer vacations and maternity leaves than the United States. For the classical economists the length of the working day was a key variable by which the worker (self-employed yeoman or artisan) balanced the marginal disutility of labor with the marginal utility of income and of leisure so as to maximize enjoyment of life. Under industrialism the length of the working day became a parameter rather than a variable (and for Karl Marx was the key determinant of the rate of exploitation). We need to make it more of a variable subject to choice by the worker. Milton Friedman wanted “freedom to choose” — OK, here is an important choice most of us are not allowed to make! And we should stop biasing the labor-leisure choice by advertising to stimulate more consumption and more labor to pay for it. At a minimum advertising should no longer be treated as a tax-deductible expense of production.

5. Re-regulate international commerce — move away from free trade, free capital mobility, and globalization. Cap-auction-trade, ecological tax reform, and other national measures that internalize environmental costs will raise prices and put us at a competitive disadvantage in international trade with countries that do not internalize costs. We should adopt compensating tariffs to protect, not inefficient firms, but efficient national policies of cost internalization from standards-lowering competition with foreign firms that are not required to pay the social and environmental costs they inflict. This “new protectionism” is very different from the “old protectionism” that was designed to protect a truly inefficient domestic firm from a more efficient foreign firm. The first rule of efficiency is “count all the costs” — not “free trade,” which coupled with free capital mobility leads to a standards-lowering competition to count as few costs as possible. Tariffs are also a good source of public revenue. This will run afoul of the World Trade Organization/World Bank/International Monetary Fund, so….

 

Ten pieces of the policy puzzle for an earth-centric economy

 

 

6. Downgrade the WTO/WB/IMF. Reform these organizations based on something like Keynes’s original plan for a multilateral payments clearing union, charging penalty rates on surplus as well as deficit balances with the union — seek balance on current account, and thereby avoid large foreign debts and capital account transfers. For example, under Keynes’s plan the U.S. would pay a penalty charge to the clearing union for its large deficit with the rest of the world, and China would also pay a similar penalty for its surplus. Both sides of the imbalance would be pressured to balance their current accounts by financial penalties, and if need be by exchange rate adjustments relative to the clearing account unit, called the “bancor” by Keynes. The bancor would also serve as the world reserve currency, a privilege that should not be enjoyed by any national currency, including the U.S. dollar. Reserve currency status for the dollar is a benefit to the U.S. — rather like a truckload of free heroin is a benefit to an addict. The bancor would be like gold under the gold standard, only you would not have to tear up the earth to dig it out. Alternatively a regime of freely fluctuating exchange rates is a viable possibility requiring less international cooperation.


7. Move away from fractional reserve banking toward a system of 100% reserve requirements. This would put control of the money supply and seigniorage (profit made by the issuer of fiat money) in the hands of the government rather than private banks, which would no longer be able to live the alchemist’s dream by creating money out of nothing and lending it at interest. All quasi-bank financial institutions should be brought under this rule, regulated as commercial banks subject to 100% reserve requirements. Banks would earn their profit by financial intermediation only, lending savers’ money for them (charging a loan rate higher than the rate paid to savings or “time-account” depositors) and charging for checking, safekeeping, and other services. With 100% reserves every dollar loaned to a borrower would be a dollar previously saved by a depositor (and not available to him during the period of the loan), thereby re-establishing the classical balance between abstinence and investment. With credit limited by prior saving (abstinence from consumption) there will be less lending and borrowing and it will be done more carefully — no more easy credit to finance the massive purchase of “assets” that are nothing but bets on dodgy debts. To make up for the decline in bank-created, interest-bearing money the government can pay some of its expenses by issuing more non-interest-bearing fiat money. However, it can only do this up to a strict limit imposed by inflation. If the government issues more money than the public voluntarily wants to hold, the public will trade it for goods, driving the price level up. As soon as the price index begins to rise the government must print less and tax more. Thus a policy of maintaining a constant price index would govern the internal value of the dollar. The Treasury would replace the Fed, and the target policy variables would be the money supply and the price index, not the interest rate. The external value of the dollar could be left to freely fluctuating exchange rates (or preferably to the rate against the bancor in Keynes’s clearing union).


8. Stop treating the scarce as if it were free, and the free as if it were scarce. Enclose the remaining open-access commons of rival natural capital (e.g., the atmosphere, the electromagnetic spectrum, and public lands) in public trusts, and price them by cap-auction-trade systems, or by taxes.  At the same time, free from private enclosure and prices the non-rival commonwealth of knowledge and information. Knowledge, unlike the resource throughput, is not divided in the sharing, but multiplied. Once knowledge exists, the opportunity cost of sharing it is zero, and its allocative price should be zero. International development aid should more and more take the form of freely and actively shared knowledge, along with small grants, and less and less the form of large interest-bearing loans. Sharing knowledge costs little, does not create un-repayable debts, and increases the productivity of the truly rival and scarce factors of production. Patent monopolies (aka “intellectual property rights”) should be given for fewer “inventions,” and for fewer years. Costs of production of new knowledge should, more and more, be publicly financed and then the knowledge freely shared. Knowledge is a cumulative social product, and we have the discovery of the laws of thermodynamics, the double helix, polio vaccine, etc. without patent monopolies and royalties.


9. Stabilize population. Work toward a balance in which births plus in-migrants equals deaths plus out-migrants. This is controversial and difficult, but as a start contraception should be made available for voluntary use everywhere. And while each nation can debate whether it should accept many or few immigrants, and who should get priority, such a debate is rendered moot if immigration laws are not enforced. We should support voluntary family planning and enforcement of reasonable immigration laws, democratically enacted.


10. Reform national accounts — separate GDP into a cost account and a benefits account. Natural capital consumption and “regrettably necessary defensive expenditures” belong in the cost account. Compare costs and benefits of a growing throughput at the margin, and stop throughput growth when marginal costs equal marginal benefits. In addition to this objective approach, recognize the importance of the subjective studies that show that, beyond a threshold, further GDP growth does not increase self-evaluated happiness. Beyond a level already reached in many countries, GDP growth delivers no more happiness, but continues to generate depletion and pollution. At a minimum we must not just assume that GDP growth is economic growth, but prove that it is not uneconomic growth.

Currently these policies are beyond the pale politically. To the reader who has persevered this far, I thank you for your willing suspension of political disbelief. Only after a significant crash, a painful empirical demonstration of the failure of the growth economy, would this ten-fold program, or anything like it, stand a chance of being enacted.

To be sure, the conceptual change in vision from the norm of a growth economy to that of a steady-state economy is radical. Some of these proposals are rather technical and require more explanation and study. There is no escape from studying economics, even if, as Joan Robinson said, the main reason for it is to avoid being deceived by economists. Nevertheless, the policies required are far from revolutionary, and are subject to gradual application. For example, 100% reserve banking was advocated in the 1930s by the conservative Chicago School and can be approached gradually, the range of distributive inequality can be restricted gradually, caps can be adjusted gradually, etc. More importantly, these measures are based on the impeccably conservative institutions of private property and decentralized market allocation. The policies here advocated simply reaffirm forgotten pillars of those institutions, namely that: (1) private property loses its legitimacy if too unequally distributed; (2) markets lose their legitimacy if prices do not tell the truth about opportunity costs; and as we have more recently learned (3) the macro-economy becomes an absurdity if its scale is required to grow beyond the biophysical limits of the Earth.

Herman Daly

 

 

Well before reaching that radical biophysical limit, we are encountering the classical economic limit in which extra costs of growth become greater than the extra benefits, ushering in the era of uneconomic growth, whose very possibility is denied by the growthists. The inequality of wealth distribution has canceled out the traditional virtues of private property by bestowing nearly all benefits of growth to the top 1%, while generously sharing the costs of growth with the poor. Gross inequality, plus monopolies, subsidies, tax loopholes, false accounting, cost-externalizing globalization, and financial fraud have made market prices nearly meaningless as measures of opportunity cost. For example, a policy of near zero interest rates (quantitative easing) to push growth and bail out big banks has eliminated the interest rate as a measure of the opportunity cost of capital, thereby crippling the efficiency of investment. Trying to maintain the present growth-based Ponzi system is far more unrealistic than moving to a steady-state economy by something like the policies here outlined. It is probably too late to avoid unrealism’s inevitable consequences. But while we are hunkered down and unemployed, enduring the crash, we might think about the principles that should guide reconstruction.

---

Article printed from Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy: http://steadystate.org

Threshold: The Crisis of Western Culture

I have been a fan of Thom Hartmann for close to two decades. He writes about what is wrong with America and what needs to happen to make it right. He does it eloquently, persuasively, courageously.

I just finished Threshold, the fifth book I've read by Hartmann.  I admire the man tremendously. 

 

 

 

Many well-meaning  people are toiling in the trenches to make a difference on a broad range of global scale challenges. Though many of these issues are unprecedented, climate change being just one example, they are really symptoms of a broken human culture, largely disconnected from the  natural world. Thom Hartmann cuts to the core. He focuses on  the bloated brand of legalized bribery that has perverted our political system. He makes the case that our system of governance has been hijacked by multi-national corporations  and the super rich,  who use their wealth and undue influence to shape public policy for their own narrow interests.   Corporate conservatives employ two morally bankrupt legal constructs to get away with their pathological behavior...

1. Money is treated as a form of speech under U.S. law, which allows the rich and powerful to use their wealth to pervert our political process.  

2. Corporations are considered 'persons' under the law,  giving them 'rights' that should be reserved for human citizens.

In Threshold, Thom Hartmann offers a thoughtful curative prescription for restoring democracy to America; a genuine democracy built on a foundation of compassion, inclusiveness, reconnection with nature, and  governance that is accountable to all citizens rather than a privileged few.

Five stars for Threshold.  Another powerful, enlightening, life affirming book by an author whose work illuminates a pathway to a sustainable future worthy of our best human instincts.


Thom Hartmann is the progressive radio antidote to the bilge spouted daily by right-wing radio icon, Rush Limbaugh. 

Thom Hartmann's weekday radio talk show can be heard at his website...  http://www.thomhartmann.com/tv/watch

We The People Amendment

Today, in Washington, D.C., a bill to amend the Constitution is being introduced in Congress. It's focus is to eliminate corporate personhood and also to declare that 'money' is not speech.   In all the world, there is no legislative effort more important than this.  Every important issue we face, every challenge we must deal with is affected profoundly by the corrosive and corruptive influence of dirty money in the political process.

There is so much that is broken about our economy, our culture, our system of governance.  A large share of the dysfunction can be traced to ethically vacuous, corporate lobbyists, heavily armed with influence money.   

Wall Street controls and corrupts the nation's financial landscape with it's money. Big oil controls the energy agenda and blocks any meaningful action on climate change. The timber industry shapes the rules on forests. Big Pharma and the health insurance industry get their way with fat campaign contributions to their elected minions in the house and senate.  

Where public policy is involved, legalized bribery is what we have in America. He who has the money makes the rules. Until that is no longer true, nothing will really change. No matter your particular issue, genuine corrective action will not come until we get rid of the two morally bankrupt legal constructs that allow corporations and the rich to make the rules.

Corporations are not people, but the law treats them as such. Money is not speech, but the courts say it is.  As long as this is true, there is little hope for meaningful action on the critical issues we face as a society.

There are a number of efforts underway to deal with corporate personhood and money as speech. What is required is a constitutional amendment.  The group, Move to Amend, is focused like a laser on delivering just that - a constitutional amendment that will abolish corporate personhood and money as speech.  Today, February 11th is a big day. It's the launch of a first effort to push through an amendment. It won't be easy. In fact, it will be very challenging to pull off.  We all need to get on board with this and stay with it for the long haul. Eliminating the improper influence of corporations and the rich must become  a goal every American citizen embraces with enthusiasm and resolve.

Here is a link to the webpage for the 'We The People' Amendment. https://movetoamend.org/wethepeopleamendment

America the Possible

James Gustave Speth is the former Dean of the Yale University School of Forestry.  He was a founder of the National Resources Defense Council. He's written a number of books, the most recent of which is, America the Possible: Manifesto for a New Economy. 

James Gustave Speth

I had high hopes when I began reading America the Possible. When an author uses the word 'manifesto' in the title of a book, one  expects it to offer a specific prescription; a remedy for what ails that can be embraced by the masses. In a word, Dr. Speth's new book is terrific. It's an effecive and most worthy effort  from a genuinely good soul, who certainly qualifies as one of the world's most distinguished voices for the environment.

The arguments in this book are presented succinctly and with great aplomb. Speth begins with a review of  the social, economic, political, and environmental consequences of our government's current status as a wholly owned subsidiary of giant corporations and the super wealthy.  In effect, argues Speth, the American people have allowed the jackals to take charge of Uncle Sam's henhouse. 

On a  global scale,the evidence is clear. All of the human culture is in a tailspin.  Speth calls for a democratic transformation of the institutions society depends on. Public policy and governance must be reinvented to moderate and manage the destructive forces at work in the modern world.  This effort must be driven from the bottom up by citizens galvanized into a political force that can stand up to the daunting influence of the rich and powerful.

America the Possible is a very important book. Speth paints from a global perspective, but focuses mainly on the United States. It's all too clear that we Americans are a big part of the problem.

Speth covers a lot of bases.  He urges the nurturing and participation in a national scale, even global scale movement.  It turns out, the organized grass roots are already deep. Paul Hawken's book, Blessed Unrest reports on the hundreds of millions of people who are engaged in grassroots progressivism around the world. An extraordinary amount of human potential; the problem at the moment is all that human energy is unfocused.  Imagine what might be possible if you could get all those people on the same page.

That's where I think America the Possible comes up a tad short.  If it's me trying to galvanize the grassroots, I would put the focus on something that will inspire Americans who want to see the restoration of our nation's core democratic princples.  I'm talking about a goal, a rallying cause that can power the evolution to a human civilization that every person would or should wish for. It has to be something that will get grassroots social, political, economic, and environmental leaders all together on a single formidible task.

Leaders are not generally good at being followers. There are many single issues that ignite passion among the tens of thousands of leaders who fall under the progressive umbrella. The leaders of those single issue groups must be mobilized to an unprecidented degree. They must choose to channel a significant portion of their energy toward a great shared goal.  

Restoring genuine representative democracy to America is a very tall order.   If I were responsible for instilling inspiration, I would focus on two morally bankrupt legal constructs as a rallying point for progressives.  One is the treatment of corporations as persons under the law. The other is money being protected as a form of speech.  These two ideas allow the rich and powerful to own public policy and the process of governance in America. Neither concept has ever passed muster in the legislative process. Neither has ever been signed into law. In both instances [Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific in 1886, Buckley vs. Valeo in 1976], it was overreaching by conservative Supreme Courts that provided legal standing. 

More recently, the current conservative dominated Supreme Court doubled down with a ruling called, Citizens United.  Because of this ruling, corporations and the rich are allowed to flood the American elective process with limitless amounts of campaign cash anonymously.  Hundreds of millions were invested by corporations and the rich into influencing the 2012 election, almost entirely to support conservative candidates and initiatives.   In essence, these two repugnant ideas provide the framework for a deeply entrenched political brand of legalized bribery.  We are where we are at the moment in America because rich and powerful corporations and individuals are unaccountible for the massive, undemocratic influence they wield over public policy and governance.

There are a number of very worthy efforts underway to push back against corporate personhood, money as speech, and the stench of  Citizens United.  I hope the smart and dedicated leaders of these groups will soon come together and pool their energy rather than competing with eachother. Before I go further, in the interest of full disclosure, I need to say that I came to embrace this particular focus after reading Thom Hartmann's book, Unequal Protection.  Hartmann urges his followers to give their attention to a group called Move to Amend.  This group is focused entirely on pushing a constitutional amendment that would eliminate corporate personhood and money being treated as speech.   I also urge support for Move to Amend.

The leaders of every progressive advocacy group, every trade union, every organization that prizes the restoration of genuine representative democracy in Amerca should rally around Move to Amend.  While we're at it,  let's demand that all political candidates seeking local, regional, state, and national elective office take a public position on corporate personhood and money as speech. 

Focusing on corporate personhood and money as speech does two things. First, it offers a real chance to actually change the law on those issues. Second, the process of getting everyone on the same page would create a single movement rallying point of amazing scale.   Such a movement would make James Gustave Speth's bold and life-affirming vision for America the Possible, not just possible, but maybe even genuinely probable.

Here is a video of James Gustave Speth talking about building a new economy
http://vimeo.com/47118890

Here is a link to a video of Thom Hartmann talking about corporate personhood... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hziy7WR9TQc