Lets Kill the Environment

Across the United States, funding is being cut, mostly by Republican governors who just happen to align themselves with the almight Tea Party, that directly affects our environment.  In Maine, the governor is seeking to open up 3 million acres of forest for development seeing it as a way to boost the economy of that state.  At the opposite end in Florida, the governor there is cutting funding to the restoration of the dwindling Everglades from 50 million to 17 million dollars in addition to allowing urban sprawl to continue unchecked.  What this will amount to will be the devastation of local environments across the country.  These two states are not the only ones with new ideas to let the environment be subjected to the whims of the population.  Instead of looking in depth at ways to fix their budgets such as pension reform or other options, they are going for the easiest culprit, the environment.  These governors across the country, allies of the Tea Party, are not taking into consideration the tangible connection that we have with the environment and are in essence, allowing the environment to be killed off. 

Our population is continually growing and as we are growing we our pumping more and more pollution into the environment without taking into consideration the effect it will have.  I am not even alluding to the effect it has on global warming, which some people believe and some don't, but I am alluding to effect that it will have on our health.  Our environment is the number one filter we have for carbon dioxide and other pollution.  Almost every plant thrives on carbon dioxide and through photosynthesis, converts it into oxygen for us to breathe.  If we allow, as in the case of Maine, 3 million acres of forest to be opened up for development, it will inevitably mean that we will have that much less of a filter to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen for us to breathe.  The very health of our population depends in large part upon the environment.  If we reduce spending for environmental convservation programs and allow delopment into large swaths of nature that were previously held either as nature preserves or open land, then we will all suffer.  Simply cutting, cutting, cutting, will do us no good.  In the short term, it may boost the economy somewhat, but there are a slew of other areas in the budget that need reform and if not adjusted will drive us right back into a recession. 

Another issue that needs consideration in this whole debacle is funding for development.  How is simply opening up land for development going to boost the economy?  In order for businesses and individuals to expand or develop, they must first obtain money to do so.  Banks are still not opening up their doors for loans that could support the necessary development that these states seek.  There must first be reform in the financial and real estate sector in order to free up more money for individuals to obtain loans.  In our current situation with the amount of foreclosures and bankrupt businesses, there are plenty of abandoned properties that are ripe for new growth and expansion should money become available.  In my mind, there is a significant lack of foresight by these governors in what would actually stimulate local economies.  They feel that, in part through pressure from the Tea Party, that cutting spending any way they can will make a difference.   They are unable or unwilling to confront the current issues in their budgets that would actually make a difference. 

The Tea Party activists are perhaps the biggest group of loonies that has come about because of this recession.  They speak of financial and government reform, yet are not willing to look at all aspects of the problem.  I keep on coming back to pensions because I feel that this is a big part of the problem that many states are facing.  In Connecticut, there are some individuals who recieve pensions larger than the salary of our current governor.  Our state is losing money because of this, yet no one is willing to give an inch, they simply want the budget issues to go away.  When a governor proposes cuts in public programs, there is outrage, when he proposes concessions needed by unions, there is outrage, when he proposes tax hikes, there is outrage.  It seems that while we want reform and a means to affect reform, no one wants to hear about it.  So what happens, the environment suffers because that seems to be the only area that people seem to care the least about, yet also happens to be the area that will affect them the most in the long run.  Everyone wants a quick fix, yet there is no quick fix to be had.  Our current problems have been years in the making and unless we all buckle down, accept the necessary reforms to pensions, state programs, and unions, we will continue to suffer from these budget problems.  What happened to the automakers in the upper midwest when their prices became to high for people to afford?  They shut down, mostly because they were driven by unions that demanded high wages and pensions for employees.  They turned out to be unsustainable and the factories closed, leaving thousands without jobs.  Turns out the unions forced bankruptcy upon some automakers.  What is going to happen at the state level if unions don't make concessions, hopefully not the same thing. 

Using the environment as a scapegoat for our budget problems will only be a temporary solution unless governors are willing to look more deeply at their budget problems and take the necessary steps to resolve them.  In the process, we will potentially lose millions of acres of forest, wetlands, and vibrant species of flaura and fauna at the hands of unscrupulous individuals.   If we want to preserve the unique landscape of our country, then we must stand up to these republican governors who want to literally kill our environment.  They have no concept of what is at stake and are unwilling to take the stance necessary to fix our local budgetary problems.  If you want your children to grow up being able to breath easily and explore the natural beauty of our country, then we all need to take a stand and protect our environment from these bastards.  Our welfare is at stake and we need to confront the issues at hand.  Today, lets take a walk outside and look around at nature.  Enjoy it while you can, because if our Republican Tea Party governors have their way, it won't be there for long.

Continuing Budget Problems

Last week the United States government almost shut down because our elected officials could not seem to drag themselves out of kindergarten and compromise on a budget.  This week we have Obama speaking about his ideas of how our country needs to reduce its deficit, not even its debt, and make some fundamental changes in taxes and welfare systems.  Oh, and yes, more budget issues.  There is no perfect solution to this issue, mainly because it has been building for so many years that to try and tackle it in just a few is not feasible.  Simply cutting spending, or instituting austerity measures as they like to call it, have proven not to entirely work.  England tried this last year and just last month suffered a 3.5% decline in retail sales, the worst in 15 years.  Keep in mind that they tax their wealthiest citizens almost 50%, something that would probably never happen in the U.S. although Obama wants to increase the tax on the wealthy.   The problem now is how do you balance spending and cutting in the midst of trying to recover from an economic recession.  To be honest, I don't have the answer.  But a good start would be our elected officials in Washington actually having bi-partisan discussions about the best solution, putting their entrenched ideologies aside temporarily, and actually listening to each other's ideas.   Here are some tentative compromises that might be made if people actually talked.

Obama was incredibly vague in his speech this week.  He mentioned what he wanted to do, cut 4 trillion in the national deficit in 12 years.  Now keep in mind, the deficit is vastly different from our national debt.  Our deficit is simply the difference in the amount of money our government makes via taxes and other sources versus the amount it spends every year.  Our government has spent more than it makes every year for God knows how long and Obama wants to slightly reduce this over the next 12 years.  If any household did this on the scale that our government does, they would lose their house and cars and have to file for bankruptcy.  The average family can't just go to the wealthy family down the street and say, "Hey buddy, I'm spending more than I make every year, want to help me out and give me a loan?"  That other person would laugh in his face, especially if the potential borrower said, "Oh, and I plan on keeping on spending more than I make for quite some time, so just keep the money coming."  It is ludicrous, yet this is exactly what our government is doing.  Unfortunately at this point, with so many people depending on government jobs and money, to drastically cut our spending would greatly endanger our fragile economic recovery and potentially send us into another recession.  However, for us to spend more money to try and stimulate more recovery would affect our debt even more and potentially cause our financiers, mostly China, to come knocking and tell us to pay up on our debt in which case we would be royally screwed.

Hence, no easy solution.   There are some areas that we could start to look at however that might make a difference.  First lets look at the corporations that send work abroad, wherever it might be, and increase the taxes on them.  They send the work out so they can increase their revenue and put more money in the pockets of those running the corporations.  If we increase the taxes on them with the stipulation that they will go down if the work returns to our country, we might actually see jobs increase in this country.  Conversely, for those corporations/companies that keep work in our country, we might actually want to offer some tax cuts for them with the stipulation that any extra money must be re-invested into their company either towards R&D or job growth.   Next, lets look at the size of our military.  I have mentioned this before, but it needs to be mentioned again, our military is too damn big and the spending that goes into the military is utterly ridiculous.  Does some of that money create jobs here, yes, but to spend over $500 billion every year is outrageous.  Obama in his speech asked the Pentagon to find areas to cut.  Do you actually think they are going to look that hard on ways to cut spending when asked politely?  I don't.  They might get rid of a few offices here and there and stop ordering expensive chairs for their top commanders, but I don't see it gong far beyond that.  Part of the problem is the military-industrial complex.  I will not go into it in depth here, but in essence, it is a vicious circle that increases spending due to expensive programs for fighter jets, new military technology, etc. and the lobbyists who push these ideas and get them passed through congress.  If we took some of the military's money and re-invested it in our own country, we might start to see a difference.  And, oh yeah, we need to reduce the size of our government as well.

As I mentioned before, our budget, debt, and deficit problems have no easy solution.  The problems have been cemented into our society and our way of life for so long that it will be admittedly painful to change things.  Unfortunately, if we can not figure out a solution thats workable, we are all in trouble.  It took our government almost 6 months to pass a budget for our current year which we are almost 4 months through.  If this happened at a corporation, those in charge of passing a budget would be fired.  We should be outraged that we have such ineptitude lurking in D.C.  The unfortunate part is, we put them there and now must live with them.  To me, there really is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats, they are both blood sucking leeches.  We get them into D.C. and their public image is drastically different, but behind closed doors they probably sit down to figure out ways to screw us even more.  Maybe if they listened to their consituents, which some of them might, and work for us, which few of them do, we might actually get somewhere.  In any case, we are on the cusp of the almighty weekend where we might be able to forget about some of these problems for a few days and actually enjoy ourselves.   So lets all get through this day, send some stinging letters to our representatives informing them of how displeased we are with their inability to work, and then sit down with a beer or two and watch the sun go down over another lost week of budget reform and foward movement in our government.  Maybe next week will be different, we can only hope. 

Democracy in the Middle East

Democracy seems to be part of the driving force behind many of the protests in the Middle East.  If not democracy as we know it in the United States, at least more freedom and citizen participation in how the government is run.  These protests, at least for now seem to be winding down, in part because the successful ones are now working on transitioning to a more democratic government and the others because they have been excessively shut down through brutal beatings and killings by those in power.   In reading an article last night in the NYTimes by Thomas Friedman, new factors were brought to light that I personally had not considered before.  It is well worth reading the whole piece he wrote as I will only sum it up here.   To sum it up, he feels that a good number of the countries where protests occured such as Yemen, Bahrain, Syria do not have a good chance at seeing democracy flourish if their rulers are removed from power.   This is because most of those countries as they stand now are divided between tribal disputes, issues over religious sects, and internal power struggles that if given free reign, would more likely lead to "civil war versus a civil society."  As an example, he sites the Eastern European country of Yugoslavia, who after the Iron Curtain came crashing down in the late 80's, fell into civil war between clashing ethnic groups. 

In order for democracy to flourish as it did in other Eastern European countries after the Cold War ended, there must be strong leadership and a general consensus amongst the whole population of the country as to how the country should be run.   Often times we forget to look to the past to learn the lessons we need today.  So this brings up the issue, how are these countries going to reconcile their differences in order to bring about democratic change?   It must first come with an acceptance of the tribes or religious sects that they are embattled against.  In Bahrain there are the Shiite's and the Sunni's, and in Yemen, you have the same issue plus various tribal issues to contend with.  Each group believes that they are correct and are unwilling to accept the other's point of view or even the fact that they should exist all together.  What they really need is a charismatic leader, someone accepted by different sects and tribes to work with all of them to reach some sort of consesus as to their vision for their country.  Without a distinct vision of democracy or even a constitutional monarchy that is based on a vision of unity with freedom of expression and religion, any effort to reform government will break down.  It seems that one of the biggest struggles that these countries face is between the differen sects of Islam.  When you boil it down, they amount to different interpretations of the Koran and how one should worship and lead one's life.  Every religion has differences in how they worship, different sects, and different beliefs.  If you look at Christianity, you have Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Baptists, etc.  The same goes with Judaism where you run the gammit from ultra-orthodox to "light" Judaism as I will call it.  What it all boils down to is acceptance and a willingness not to force your opinion on someone else. 

So then how can Egypt and Tunisia seem as successful as they are right now even with their non-homogenous populations?  While Egypt does have a variety of religions represented, the majority are Muslim.  Regardless of that fact, they were able to rally behind the fact that every single person, either Muslim or Coptic Christian, were being suppressed equally by in essence a dictator.   In rallying behind the need for everyone to live in freedom, there was unity in purpose and a common cause, something that is absent in Bahrain and Yemen.   Is Egypt scot free yet?  No, simply because democracy is not a simple idea to implement into a society that was subjected to tyranny for so many years.  Everyone has their specific idea of what they want and what needs to be done, and there will be disagreements and issues along the way.  The main thing that they must keep in mind is the ultimate goal that they set out to accomplish, a desire to live freely, and in keeping that goal in mind, they must also resist the temptation to get sidetracked by minute differences of opinion or minor obstacles on their path.  If Yemen and Bahrain especially, due to their tribal and religious differences, can find a common cause to rally behind, accept each other for who they are and fight for freedom for everyone (not simply Sunni's or Shiite's) then perhaps democracy can succeed. 

Democracy will take time to implement in the Middle East.  In the United States alone, it took years before the details of how the country should be run were ironed out.  And even then, we plunged into civil war after democracy was in place for decades.  Finding a common ground amongst people is perhaps one of the most difficult things we can do as humans simply because we all have widely varying opinions on how a government should be run, who is right, who is wrong, and what the ultimate goal should be.  One needs only to look at our current political landscape to see this in action.  Even in perhaps one of the most democratic countries in the world, we can not reach agreements on how big or small the government should be, or what the government should actually do.  The big difference is, we don't resort to physical violence when we can't agree, we listen, debate, listen some more, and then debate even more.  Nothing will ever be perfect and this is perhaps the key to success in the Middle East.  People need to realize that no matter what form of government they decide to stand behind, nothing will satisfy the needs of everyone.  The most we can hope for across the world, but especially right now in the Middle East, is freedom to express one's opinion without being beaten, freedom to protest without being killed, and freedom to worship whatever and however we choose without being chastised for our choice.  If they can achieve this, democracy will come, albeit slowly, but it will come.   Let us only hope today that they can resolve their differences, find their cause, and move forward in peace and diplomacy.