Blurts & Spasms

Answer to Quora question: "What policies created the current large U.S. public debt?"

I think to fully understand U.S. debt we have to understand a certain kind of psychology that David Durham touched upon - albeit quite humorously - in his answer.

Imagine that you have a popular government program that actually funds itself, but that by doing so this program deeply offends a fundamental belief about how the world works, a belief that cries out "No big government!" at every opportunity, and uses the same big hammer of lower taxes to operationalize this belief. What is a person to do about such a successful, self-funding program? Why it needs to be gutted of course. It needs to be made so dysfunctional or controversial that it either loses popularity or can no longer fund itself...or both. And when U.S. Postal service was forced to pre-fund its employees' pensions 75 years in advance (see the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, which was passed without a recorded vote), the impact was predictable. Since that time, the Postal Service has not only struggled to stay comfortably in the black (as it had in the past), but also has eliminated popular but less profitable products and services, and been unable to maintain the customer service level that previous generations have so admired. In fact, in 2012 the USPS experienced its first ever default on a treasury payment.

We see the same psychology behind attempts to roll back Obamacare (which, even by conservative estimates, is clearly projected to help reduce the federal deficit) and countless other government programs. It doesn't matter if those programs benefit all Americans while reducing federal spending, because such success represents an ideological threat to the "no big government/we want lower taxes" camp.

But who are these dastardly naysayers...? Since Republicans are often the loudest and most transparent proponents of this ideology, it would be easy to make this a partisan issue. But Democrats are not innocent here, they are just less vocal. For example, that 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act had plentiful Democratic support for its first (failed) vote in 2005. So who or what is really behind this idealogical movement...?

It's pretty simple really: just follow the money. The parties that benefit most from the hamstringing of government - either those agencies that regulate commerce, or programs that compete with free market alternatives - are the largest multinational corporations. From the perspective of these megaconglomerates, a strong U.S. government is a pesky barrier to profit that must be brought to heal. And, in the best case scenario, the U.S. government should be making money for these corporations, not just staying out of the way. Thus pork barrel projects and excessive military spending do, strangely, go hand-in-hand with an insistence on lower taxes and smaller government, revealing the true motivation behind all of these habits. In contradiction to the battle-cry of libertarian freedom, all of this is really just carefully orchestrated propaganda intended to bend "big government" to capitalism's will, and create a reliable flow of cash into the pockets of folks who have essentially become plutocrats. It is these same influences, after all, who are increasingly successful at manipulating the U.S. political process with Dark money. In support of this overall view, I recommend you watch these: The Billionaires’ Tea Party, Hidden Wars Documentary and United States of ALEC | Moyers & Company | BillMoyers.com.

In specific answer to your question, crippling deficits and accumulation of huge debt are the natural consequence of the "no big government/we want lower taxes" meme. Just as the Postal Service will continue on its downward spiral, so will the the U.S. Government as a whole, becoming more dysfunctional, gridlocked, incompetent and unpopular, to the point when a majority of Americans have lost confidence in the whole affair. Oh wait...that's already happened! Which is exactly what benefits the plutocrats the most, so that they can continue the manipulation without entirely undermining the rule of law that sustains commerce, or losing the lovely cash machine of federal overspending. They are counting on the U.S. government to be "too big to fail," but just weak enough to be easily controlled. Of course many folks at the top of the capitalist food chain would like you to believe that big government inherently causes its own inefficiencies, when in reality many of its greatest failures (including the current paralyzation of Congress) are deliberately orchestrated. Are organizations like the Bilderberg Group behind this orchestration, or is this government-debilitating strategy just the natural habit of commercialism and huge concentrations of wealth? Time will tell. But the point is that there is a specific agenda driving every policy decision that leads to larger U.S. deficits and debt, and that most Democrats and Republicans at all levels of government are just pawns in the game.

My 2 cents.

Answer to Quora question: Why does the media concentrate on conservative political donors?

Because the conservatives spend a lot lot more. Billions more. But they do it through what is called "dark money." See below. I also agree with Scott D. Feldstein that the nefarious intent is a lot more explicit, and efforts are specifically tailored to get people to vote against their own best interests. I copied the following quote from a similar discussion at: T Collins Logan's answer to Why do so many Americans believe limiting corporate election financing violates freedom? I recommend you read that post as well for additional context.

"In 2014, some 71% of all spending was "dark money;" that is, the donors were undisclosed (thanks to Citizens United and other activist rulings.), see Undisclosed spending in elections threaten American democracy. A lot of this involves groups funded by both sides, but the vast majority are conservative, and that has been true for some time (88% of dark money in 2010 was from conservative orgs, 85% in 2012, and in 2014 it was about 2:1 in favor of conservative orgs, so the liberal orgs are slowly catching up). For more info see Ad Spending Tops $1 Billion; Dark Money Groups Buy Significant Share. And guess who was behind the lion's share of conservative organizations flooding these elections with dark money? The Koch brothers (see Record spending in 2014 midterm elections result of 'dark money' from unidentified donors). We're talking $400 Million here from the Koch orgs in 2014...which of course dwarfs Steyer's measly $73 Million. But the real point IMO - and circling back on the main theme of my post - is that when you read through these articles, everyone is concerned about the same thing: too much big money in politics, whether undisclosed or not, and regardless of political leaning. And so yes, to directly answer your question: we need to curtail this trend in ALL political campaigns, and from ALL ends of the political spectrum. Otherwise this is effectively the end of a democracy that represents anyone but the plutocrats."

Answer to Quora question: Why does the media concentrate on conservative political donors?

Because the conservatives spend a lot lot more. Billions more. But they do it through what is called "dark money." See below. I also agree with Scott D. Feldstein that the nefarious intent is a lot more explicit, and efforts are specifically tailored to get people to vote against their own best interests. I copied the following quote from a similar discussion at: T Collins Logan's answer to Why do so many Americans believe limiting corporate election financing violates freedom? I recommend you read that post as well for additional context.

"In 2014, some 71% of all spending was "dark money;" that is, the donors were undisclosed (thanks to Citizens United and other activist rulings.), see Undisclosed spending in elections threaten American democracy. A lot of this involves groups funded by both sides, but the vast majority are conservative, and that has been true for some time (88% of dark money in 2010 was from conservative orgs, 85% in 2012, and in 2014 it was about 2:1 in favor of conservative orgs, so the liberal orgs are slowly catching up). For more info see Ad Spending Tops $1 Billion; Dark Money Groups Buy Significant Share. And guess who was behind the lion's share of conservative organizations flooding these elections with dark money? The Koch brothers (see Record spending in 2014 midterm elections result of 'dark money' from unidentified donors). We're talking $400 Million here from the Koch orgs in 2014...which of course dwarfs Steyer's measly $73 Million. But the real point IMO - and circling back on the main theme of my post - is that when you read through these articles, everyone is concerned about the same thing: too much big money in politics, whether undisclosed or not, and regardless of political leaning. And so yes, to directly answer your question: we need to curtail this trend in ALL political campaigns, and from ALL ends of the political spectrum. Otherwise this is effectively the end of a democracy that represents anyone but the plutocrats.

From Quora discussion: "Why do conservatives oppose environmental causes?"

Only a few decades ago, you couldn't generalize about this topic as you have in your question. There were, for example, a lot of conservative hunting groups lobbying Congress, happy to be in league with various "liberal" conservation movement organizations, to preserve wilderness. There were Nixon's extensive efforts as Tom Buczkowski mentioned. And further back you may recall that it was the conservative railroad industry that teamed up with "liberal" folks like John Muir to secure our National Park system. More recently, though, you will see phrases like "Green is the new Red" bantered about by both conservative and progressive pundits. There's a lot more vitriol and polarization than ever before. It seems the natural antagonism between those who wish to prioritize profit in unsustainable ways, and those who wish to preserve natural resources for future generations, is heading for a climax. And I think this is actually a fairly predictable development, for one simple reason: natural resources that were once easily obtained are becoming less plentiful and harder to procure, while at the same time the environmental damage of unregulated (or poorly regulated) industry is reaching a scope that was never imagined. To put it another way: at the same time that profits a naturally constrained by resource scarcity, the negative externalities of current and historical industrial activities are threatening to undermine new avenues of profit. [Think petrochemical companies vs. Colony Collapse Disorder (bees); fertilizer companies vs. massive fish die-offs in the ever-expanding "Dead Zone" in the Gulf (Mississippi Delta, etc.); timber companies vs. soil depletion (can't grow trees); mining companies vs. toxic runoff and silt clogging (decimated fisheries); pharmaceutical companies vs. medical efficacy (drugs that do more harm than good, or don't perform as well as placebo); fracking vs. toxic aquifers, etc.]

So it makes perfect sense that this has become a more aggressive ideological battle, and one on a much grander scale, than it has ever been before. It is in this context that Exxon-Mobile (and other Big Oil) spent millions to promote skepticism about climate science - until they were called out on it and the CEO resigned. It shouldn't surprise us at all that there is a sort of panicked groupthink that reflexively pushes back on scientific consensus, environmental concerns, corporate whistleblowers, outcomes resulting in human disease or loss of life, or other obvious negative externalities, because the engines of industry need to keep running full speed ahead, the coffers need to remain full, and the shareholders happy...and all of this is becoming a lot more difficult. Remember when the Tobacco industry insisted that a) tobacco wasn't hazardous to human health, b) adamantly denied that their companies had carefully researched how to create a more addictive product, and c) declared that nicotine wasn't addictive at all? Yeah. They even lied to Congress about it - right before all those internal documents were leaked revealing their hypocrisy. As you suggest in your question, that is indeed the psychology of profits over people, profits over the environment, profits over the future for our kids, and profits over all forms of sanity. But because the stakes are now so high - because the tensions between profitability and environmental concerns are so great - the rhetoric is that much more hyperbolic, and the lies and distortions that much more pronounced.

As an afterthought...you may be interested in reading about the Precautionary principle. It makes sound, reasonable, agreeable sense in every regard except one: it slows down capitalism. Slightly. And why is that bad...? And that there is the crux of the issue, IMO.

From Quora discussion: "If we can all agree that I know what to do with my own money (needs), then why does the Democratic Party think this principle changes on a national scale?"

I'm not sure why you are singling out Dems, since Congressional deficit spending has been leapfrogging over itself for decades, regardless of which party has had the majority (let's hear it for "pork barrel!"). But to the heart of your question, I would simply ask:

- When was the last time you had a group of 100 or more U.S. veterans over to your house for dinner...and then provided them medical care...at no charge?
- Are you an expert in developing immunizations for lethal viruses, and do you have a lab in your basement to work on those? How's that going?
- Can you deliver some legal documents for me, from a California address to a Florida address, in less than four days, for 49 cents?
- Can you explain, in detailed economic terms, how an unregulated banking system could avoid boom/bust cycles?
- When was the last time you negotiated an international trade deal (G8 or otherwise)?
- Do you know how to pilot an aircraft carrier? Can you do that single-handedly?
- Do you own a Roadtec RX500 Cold Planer Milling Machine, and if so would you mind if I borrow it to resurface my street?
- And of course: what is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow...?

I actually sympathize with the sentiment behind your question: I feel there should be a lot more direct democracy in the U.S., a lot more citizens councils (selected by civic lottery) making decisions in specialized areas of government, and lot fewer self-selected megalomaniacs in any positions of power who don't really represent the electorate's interests. But it is specifically the scope, complexity and specialized knowledge of collective decision-making that has necessitated representative democracy in the U.S. since its inception. In fact we would do better to call it "technocracy" as that scope, specialization and complexity continues to increase exponentially. But this trend also requires that we have smarter, more educated, and wiser "technocrats" to help us make good collective decisions. A salient example of this is research into basic science. When Congress voted down funding for a new particle accelerator back in 1993 (see Superconducting Super Collider), they effectively eliminated U.S. research from this essential area of physics. Now American physicists court the folks at CERN. So much for American exceptionalism. But the point is that if we had a panel of preeminent U.S. scientists who were selected by lottery to both inform the public and advise Congress on such decisions, and whose recommendations had more political weight than the voices of the largest donors to election campaigns, then I suspect the outcome would have been quite different.

From Quora discussion: "Do governments have a moral obligation to use tax dollars to assist poor people?"

In an ideal world, any form of government would champion consensus morality, and enable a rule of law that reflects that consensus. That is the whole point of government, after all, and the attraction of democracy is that it is intended to broaden that consensus. You can quickly identify some of the moral fundamentals in the formation of U.S. federal government in our Constitution's preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

To understand what terms like "blessings of liberty," "domestic tranquility" and "general welfare" actually mean (in a moral sense), you need only study the Constitution further...well, and study the full unfolding of U.S. history since then! But speaking to your question (again, in the U.S.), we read further in the Constitution:

Section 1, Article 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..." Section 8 then goes on to enumerate the scope of government tax spending, such as in regulating commerce, establishing post offices and roads, printing money, promoting "the progress of science and useful arts" through trademarks and copyrights, maintaining a military and waging war, and so on.

So the U.S. government, from its inception, has been (morally) empowered to collect taxes and "provide for the general welfare of the United States" in various ways. That is, it was intended to have this moral authority imbued by a consensus of "We the People." Again, though, how has the meaning of these terms (liberty, welfare, tranquility) evolved in this context...?

There has been understandable debate over how narrow or broad of an interpretation the U.S. Congress has in its discretion to define general welfare, liberty and domestic tranquility, and to tax and spend accordingly at the federal level. You can read about some of this debate at these links: General Welfare clause and General Welfare. However, by following the development of both the Constitution itself (via the Amendment process), court rulings over many decades, and the elaboration of specific rights in State constitutions, what constitutes the expression of these moral imperatives in U.S. law has become more and more refined. It is exceptionally clear, for example, that the federal government has a critical role in championing civil liberties (our individual rights to practice religion, have free speech, own a rifle, not be searched without a warrant, to have speedy trials by a jury of our peers, to not be subject to cruel or unusual punishments, etc.). And of particular importance is the 9th Amendment, which states that the previously defined Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In other words, we have a lot more rights not enumerated in the Constitution. This is, in fact, how all Americans were secured the right to use contraceptives (Griswold v. Connecticut) and have access to assisted abortions (Roe v. Wade).

In keeping with the spirit of Article V and the 9th Amendment, we have additional amendments that secured additional rights (again at the federal level), such as freedom from slavery or involuntary servitude (13th), the right to due process and equal protection under the law (14th), and the right to vote regardless of race, skin color, previous servitude, gender, ability to pay a tax, or being 18-20 years old (15th, 19th, 24th & 26th). And all of these obviously contribute to liberty, domestic tranquility and providing for the general welfare. However, some state constitutions go a lot further, and are very clear about the inclusion of assisting the poor, providing education, and promoting public health as part of the moral scope of their governance and taxation (see 'To Promote the General Welfare' | ACS). New York's Constitution is particularly transparent when it reads in Article XVII that “the aid, care and support of the needy are public concerns and shall be provided by the state."

As you can see, the use of tax dollars to "assist poor people" is an ever-evolving issue. The 24th Amendment and the subsequent Voting Rights Act were specifically targeted to assist the poor in voting - an instance which irrefutably supports the use of taxes to fulfill moral obligations to the underprivileged. The 13th Amendment certainly targeted the poor as well, as did the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. And how can the 5th/14th Amendments' Due Process clause be fulfilled (i.e. no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law) without poor folks being appointed a public defender? Again, here taxes are being spent (predominantly) on poor people. But of course the extent of governmental powers to proceed in this fashion is still a hotly debated topic. At one end of the spectrum are those whose romantic, unrealistic ideals of anarchy or unfettered capitalism resist any authoritative form of government, and at the other end we have folks who unrealistically romanticize the extent to which government can act for the public good. In reality, our current "mixed" political economy (see Mixed economy) is somewhere in the middle, struggling to balance variations of these interests and ideologies. But the point is that, until the U.S. Constitution is specifically amended to limit the government's moral obligation to promote the general welfare, liberty and domestic tranquility through taxation, that is precisely what government is intended to do. The only substantive debate in the political mainstream regarding this obligation has been what should occur at the state level vs. what should occur at the federal level.

I hope this was helpful.

From Quora response to "Why are more liberals not libertarians?"

I think it would be helpful to clarify your terms. Both progressives and neoliberals can be classified as "liberal," but with very different political orientations. Left-libertarians and right-libertarians are both "libertarian," but they are at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of economic models and vision of what the anarchistic endgame looks like. After reading through all 108 answers here, I was surprised that so few folks who answered your question actually clarified these variations, which are pretty essential. Sure, it is easy to conflate "libertarian" with anarcho-capitalist, since the Koch brothers and their ilk have done an excellent job reframing the Tea Party movement in that light. And it's easy to assume anyone who self-identifies as a liberal is NOT a "classic liberal," but left-leaning on issues of social justice. However, IMO it is absolutely essential to differentiate and use the appropriate terms for the ideologies being discussed. That said, kudos to the half dozen folks who did elaborate on these nuances in their answers.

With this said, I am definitely both a "progressive" and a "left-libertarian." It's quite easy to be both, because on the one hand a progressive prioritizes improving the quality of human existence for all people, however that may be accomplished (see Progressivism) and on the other some form of transitional libertarian socialism (see Libertarian socialism ) seems like an excellent direction to take from where we are now to reify progressive values. The details of how to get there is - as with any new vision - where the real debate begins. I have some ideas I proposed in a recent book (you can download a free copy here: Political Economy and the Unitive Principle : T.Collins Logan : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive), and Noam Chomsky is also of course a great source for this brand of libertarianism.

So the real issue here as I see it may be that not many people have informed themselves about what the terms "libertarian" and "liberal" really represent.

My 2 cents.

From Quora response to "Why do so many Americans believe limiting corporate election financing violates freedom?"

To understand why so many Americans believe things that are actually counter to their own best interests, I recommend watching The Billionaires' Tea Party (2011) (this a link to the full film). Like so many corporate-driven agendas, this is really just another example of wealthy individuals deluging folks with carefully tailored propaganda that energizes tribal groupthink in favor of plutocracy. Here's the substance of the underlying challenge, to my mind: wealth, influence and cultural privilege have always tended to distort the democratic process. This is why, for example, wealthy white folks in the South used complicated voting requirements to discourage or entirely disable poor black folks from voting - they were simply afraid of losing their position of power, wealth and privilege in southern society. In very much the same way, rich white men today are trying to use the courts and the political process to protect their position in society, and the Koch brothers (see the film referenced above) are the poster kids for this ongoing manipulation.

More specifically regarding your question, however, I recommend researching how "corporate personhood" came into being, and how, really, it has no basis in the U.S. Constitution (see Corporate Personhood Challenged - Top 25 of 2004 for a concise summary). But the issue can be described even more simply than that. Let's say you and I are attending an auction. This auction, however, is about buying free speech. Various items are brought up to the auction block: 72 hours of primetime TV advertising is one; 82% of talk show host's on-air interviewing time is another; 4,000 inches of major newspaper op-eds is another; 65% of major network election news coverage is another; and so on. Each time you and I try to bid for the items, we are outbid by the corporations in attendance. We keep bidding for these essential elements of any election campaign, but we just can't match the multi-million-dollar bids from the corporate bidders with whom we, as individuals, are competing. And the thing is, these are "winner-take-all" situations; there is no sharing here, because whoever bids the highest gets ALL of these items, and therefore ALL of the tools to reach and persuade the public.

So this really isn't about "fair and equal" representation, it's about having any representation at all. For when corporate interests control the election process so completely that politicians feel they must represent those corporate interests instead of the electorate, democracy is essentially destroyed. What happens then is...well...things like ALEC - see Bill Moyers expose ALEC here:



So IMO this isn't about fairness or freedom in the abstract, it's about the fundamental functioning of democracy.

My 2 cents.

Comment from James Cribbs:

With regards to the Koch Brothers, you might want to see how they stack up against others.

2014 Top Donors to Outside Spending Groups

The funny thing here is that no one can even come close to Thomas Steyer, who supports liberals exclusively. The Koch brothers gave a total of $7,000,000 in the 2014 cycle. Steyer gave over $73,000,000.

The questions is, since you are willing to call out the Koch Brothers, are you also willing to call out Steyer and all the others on the list?

My Response:

You make a good point, James, as there are folks like Steyer, Bloomberg, Eychaner, etc. on the left who donate a LOT of money to political campaigns. They donated enough, in fact, to offset 17 of the top 25 donors in 2014 who were solidly Republican (see Top Individual Contributors: All Federal Contributions) Here's the rub though: in 2014, some 71% of all spending was "dark money;" that is, the donors were undisclosed (thanks to Citizens United and other activist rulings.), see Undisclosed spending in elections threaten American democracy. A lot of this involves groups funded by both sides, but the vast majority are conservative, and that has been true for some time (88% of dark money in 2010 was from conservative orgs, 85% in 2012, and in 2014 it was about 2:1 in favor of conservative orgs, so the liberal orgs are slowly catching up). For more info see Ad Spending Tops $1 Billion; Dark Money Groups Buy Significant Share. And guess who was behind the lion's share of conservative organizations flooding these elections with dark money? The Koch brothers (see Record spending in 2014 midterm elections result of 'dark money' from unidentified donors). We're talking $400 Million here from the Koch orgs...which of course dwarfs Steyer's measly $73 Million. But James the real point IMO - and circling back on the main theme of my post - is that when you read through these articles, everyone is concerned about the same thing: too much big money in politics, whether undisclosed or not, and regardless of political leaning. And so yes, to directly answer your question: we need to curtail this trend in ALL political campaigns, and from ALL ends of the political spectrum. Otherwise this is effectively the end of a democracy that represents anyone but the plutocrats.

-

From discussion on Karen Molenarr Terrell's Facebook post:


There is just as much of "an implied threat of force" to sacrifice individual and collective well-being on the altar of negative liberty. It is a much greater (and more destructive) "entitlement" to demand freedom without any constructive reciprocation to society via mutually beneficial social contract. Prosocial traits evolved to support collective thriving - our species could not have survived at all without them - but since those who gravitate towards right-wing Libertarian ideologies tend to lack these prosocial instincts, they dismiss or deny their importance. Yet it is the non-rational desire for the well-being of others - not rational self-interest - that has always sustained social cohesion and inspired humanity to its greatest achievements. It was not until the postmodern, highly commercialized, technological era that the illusion of self-sufficiency fully undermined this commonsensical understanding of reality. And as more and more people have felt isolated and disconnected (even though they are actually still quite dependent on each other), the Randian (objectivist) perspective has grown in popularity.

And of course pro-capitalist sentiments dovetail perfectly with this I/Me/Mine mentality, because the ideal consumer is one who believes they can empower themselves alone through consumption and materialism, rather than thriving through cooperation, collaboration and more collective or egalitarian goals and values (which are the natural antagonists of commercialism). And yet, since this isolation, independence and self-sufficiency is a profound deception - since we are, on the contrary, all increasingly interdependent - acting from that deception and imposing it on all expectations, conditions and institutions in society, just as these right-wing Libertarians do, is actually an extreme form of violence. It is no different than a cult leader holding his followers hostage to his egoic whims, or McCarthy excoriating gay people, or the Catholic Church burning witches at the stake. To disable democratic will and mutually beneficial social contract in favor of individual freedom that is unencumbered with the collective good returns us to the Dark Ages of human civilization. It is as caustically egocentric as it is ignorant of human history and evolution. But as with any meme, once an ideology becomes infected with tribalism and intolerance, it is extremely difficult to counter, even with the greatest compassion. So this ignorant, arrogant, egocentric Randian (objectivist) fad may just have to run its course. Hold on to your horses.