As some states' primary elections approach, people will be deciding whether or not to vote and, if so, for whom. This diary will explain why it matters if one votes for a conservative or less conservative candidate.
This is my fifth diary about why Ayn Rand and the Tea Party will fail America. This diary will explore how "fair" the proposed Tea Party agenda would be. It will cover the goal of the Tea Party; their attitude toward the Common Good and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the possibility of the states assuming the "unconstitutional" powers (and responsibilities) now exercised by the Federal Government; taxing by the states; motivation of tax-resistors; the "legitimacy" of American wealth; why the rich don't care; and "legitimizing" Federal power to prevent abuses by the rich and Big Business.
Tea Party Goal
The Tea Party seems to have one of two main goals. (1) To create a laissez-faire economy. That can not be done without limiting the Federal Government to the powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. That would mean the Federal Government would be powerless to protect human health and the environment. Or (2) To limit the size and power of the Federal Government. A more laissez-faire economic system would be a natural consequence of that limitation as would be the increased power of Big Business. If their main goal isn't either of these, then I do not understand why Paul Ryan called Ayn Rand "the reason I got into politics". It certainly does not seem to be her staunch defense of individual rights. If it isn't her strong endorsement of pure laissez-faire, I have no idea what the attraction was.
The Common Good
The Preamble of the Constitution reads
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 Article I, Section 8 reads
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...
If the general Welfare is the same thing as the Common Good (see
Daily Kos diary, 9/23/14, 2:01 P.M.), these sections would indicate that the federal government should have the power to do what is necessary to ensure that everyone has access to those services that are part of the Common Good and which are provided by all levels of government. The problem with that from a Tea Party viewpoint is that some of the government-financed services I consider to be part of the Common Good are not specifically designated by the Constitution as "enumerated powers" of the Federal Government. Also, I think there is a strong possibility that Tea Party leaders may interpret the "general Welfare", i.e. the Common Good, as the condition of the Upper 1%'s income and net worth.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
As far as our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that comes from the Declaration of Independence. Even though the wording implies that the authors of the Declaration felt that a purpose of governments was to secure these rights, technically the securing of these rights is not a power nor duty of the federal government as enumerated in the Constitution. There is also an opinion that the federal government is not obligated to protect those rights but only obligated not to deprive citizens of those rights without due process of law. One can read the text for oneself and see if it sounds like a purpose of government is to secure those rights for men in a positive fashion or for government to restrain itself from taking away those rights. If the Tea Party wants a system in which the federal government does not have the power to defend the individual's rights when threatened by another individual or group of individuals, perhaps their members should move to Syria. They would fit right in there.
States' Rights
The Tea Party goals are related to laissez-faire, at least on a national scale. Whether the idea/goal of laissez-faire motivates at least some Tea Party members or whether some Tea Party members are simply righteous letter-of-the-law fanatics who don't understand nor care about the consequences of limiting the Federal Government, is debatable. In the event that the Tea Party succeeds in taking away the Federal power or assumed responsibility for securing a quality environment, public health, and educational system, theoretically, individual states could still enact laws to adequately protect those things within each state's borders. Each state could also enact legislation designed to preserve each citizen's individual right to live healthfully, to guarantee the safety of workers and the products and services sold to consumers, to maintain a quality Common Good for each of their citizens, to ensure that every able-bodied adult could have a decent job that paid at least a healthful living wage. The alleged problem the Tea Party has with the Federal Government is that, by assuming responsibility (and thereby the power) to pass and enforce certain laws, the federal government is interfering with states' rights. The unspoken implication here is that each state has the right to determine the tonnage of toxins that their states' industries are allowed to release into the air, water and ground; that each state is allowed to determine how to handle its most economically disadvantaged citizens; that each state has a right to determine which of its elementary and secondary school students will get free nutritious lunches and which will remain undernourished; that each state has the right to determine the quality and purity of the food sold in that state [except when it comes to GMOs (beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4432/text)]; that each state has the right to make their own food and drug regulations [except when it comes to marijuana (www.salon.com/2014/10/tea_partys_reefer_hypocrisy_why_states_rights_is_a_situational_sham")].
Before we accept the possibility of giving the states more power and, thereby, more responsibility, let's look at the "track record" of some states. The following is a quote from "The Myth of States' Rights" by Leon Friedman, Professor of Law:
... the banner of States' rights has been used to perpetrate and defend the greatest evils in our nation's history. Slavery was justified on the ground that each State should be free to determine its own economic practices. In the 1890's, corrective federal legislation against monopolies (such as the Sherman anti-trust act) was attacked on the grounds that the States and not the federal government had the sole right to regulate business. In the 1930's, important New Deal measures that would have alleviated the worst problems of the depression were challenged and struck down by the Supreme Court on the grounds that the new laws invaded the prerogatives of the States. After the Civil War, the Southern states used every means possible to keep the black population in a subservient position and engaged in "massive resistance" to school desegregation orders issued by federal courts on the grounds that the States should control education. (www.huffingtonpost.com/leon-friedman/the-myth-of-states-rights_b_4057947.html)
Giving the power/responsibility to protect all individuals' rights, health, safety, and access to a quality Common Good to the states will
not guarantee those protections for all individuals.
Lower Taxes?
One of the appeals of the Tea Party is the promise of lower federal income tax. If the states were to supply the same protections that now come from the federal government, federal income tax could be lowered a whole lot. But in order for states to have enough revenue to do even a portion of what the Federal Government does now in regard to those protections, their personal income tax programs would have to change radically. They probably should change anyway. There is a 2009 study by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, entitled
"Who Pays?". This study at
http://www.itepnet.org/... states
Fairness is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. Yet almost anyone would agree that the best-off families should pay at a tax rate at least equal to what low- and middle-income families pay. Virtually every state fails this basic test of tax fairness: as this study documents,only two states require their best-off citizens to pay as much of their incomes in taxes as their very poorest taxpayers must pay, and only one state taxes its wealthiest individuals at a higher effective rate than middle-income families have to pay.
A progressive income tax structure for individual states would meet with stiff resistance by the middle and upper class citizens in those states. The loss of the protections now supplied by the Federal Government and the failure of the individual states to accept responsibility for those protections would result in increased economic inequality, poorer quality drinking water, more pollution, more unsafe products, higher health care costs, continuing unemployment, inferior quality food, etc. The most financially disadvantaged would suffer the most. The wealthiest, however, would gain the most.
The attitude of people who resist paying more in taxes even though they are able to do so without sacrifice, can be expressed as follows:
Anyone willing to work hard can achieve as much as we have and there is no justification to expect us to "sacrifice" any of our hard earned wealth to support those less fortunate than ourselves.
Altruism and Greed
I support the idea that one has no moral obligation to sacrifice his/her health or well-being in order to "help" the less fortunate. I do, however, have a problem with people who earn more than enough to live a comfortable, healthful lifestyle but resent paying taxes because, by doing so, they might not be able to afford a new Mercedes or a Rolex or the latest 24-carot yellow gold I-phone.
If my main goal in life was to be a millionaire, I would probably agree with the Tea Party's narrow interpretations of government powers because, if implemented, the Tea Party goals would result in my having to pay less income tax and would make my investments more profitable, thus enabling me to reach my personal goal sooner. I would not concern myself with those less fortunate. I could easily rationalize that they should and need to be responsible for themselves. If some altruistic sucker do-gooders should decide to help the less fortunate to survive, it would not be an issue as long as I did not have to help finance their efforts. If I were hell-bent on making a million dollars during the administration of Franklin Roosevelt, what would motivate me to oppose the New Deal as unconstitutional? Patriotism? Try old-fashioned greed. Only greed would have motivated me to oppose the WPA, the Conservation Corps and the rest of the New Deal programs that employed millions whose families would have starved otherwise.
Whose wealth is it anyway?
Maybe it's my imagination, but it seems to me that some Americans expect wealthier individuals and families to naturally be entitled to more rights and privileges than those less financially fortunate. But then I perceive a common attitude of the wealthy to be the following:
I worked for this. Anyone else could do the same. I have nothing to be ashamed of nor to apologize for. I owe nothing to anyone.
It would seem that people with that attitude believe in the myth of "the self-made man". Actually, no one has risen from rags to riches without a lot of help and support and reliable counsel. Attaining great wealth is not simply a matter of "pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps". A number of the country's wealthiest families did not have to work for the wealth that they keep increasing through investments, etc. They
inherited it.
Then there are those that make a great deal of wealth from oil, real estate, precious metals, coal, natural gas, chemical manufacturing. One reason that it is possible for specific individuals to profit so much from natural resources in this country is that the U.S. government allows it to happen. In contrast, the government of Norway decided in May of 1963 to claim the natural resources in its part of the North Sea. It established a state-run oil company. All of the oil taken from Norway's off-shore wells are taxed at 78%. Results? A national fund worth $880 billion. In this country, that money would be part of the wealth of the Upper 1%. In Norway it theoretically belongs to all citizens.
I don't know that this country could handle such a progressive approach to sharing the wealth of our country's natural resources. But, from a strict moral and ideal legal viewpoint, the natural resources of the American continent and its territorial waters belong to the descendents of the Native American tribes that occupied the continent when the first Europeans landed in the "New World". There was never an international legal justification for Europeans to "claim" land in the Americas for their Monarchs. Their standing on it did not make it their land to claim. For kings to parcel out land to their favorite subjects wasn't legal. Nor was it ideally legal nor strictly moral for "ownership" of American territory to pass from Mexico or France to the United States, since those countries stole the land from the original occupiers. It is the equivalent of China marching its army into Tibet in the 1950s and claiming that Tibet was now part of China. Nothing legal or moral about it. What right did Britain have to possess India? Too bad our Indians did not have a Ghandi to lead them.
Buffy St. Marie wrote a powerful line in one of her songs about the plight of Native Americans. Actually the whole song is quite powerful. I first heard it over 30years ago but I never understood that line as I do now (another unfortunate side effect of white privilege?). The line is
Can't you see that their poverty's profiting you?
(
http://www.allmusic.com/...) )
How much have the European invaders profited from acquiring the land in the continental U.S. ? According to an article on
Moneybox, the total value of land owned by households and non-profit organizations in America, based on data from the Federal Reserve was $7.812 trillion as of Dec., 2013. This figure does not include the cost of structures on that land. (
http://www.slate.com/...).
I don't know how many Native Americans privately own land in the U.S. Wouldn't it be somewhat ironic for a Native American to pay money for real estate located on land his ancestors occupied before it was stolen from them? It would be like a person's grandfather stealing a brand new 1957 Chrysler and preserving it in a garage. The grandfather leaves the car to his son. Then the car passes to the grandson, who then decides to sell it as a vintage car in mint condition. It would be ironic if the person who buys it was a descendent of the original owner of the stolen Chrysler. The statute of limitations on the crime may have run out, but the transaction would still be wrong, wrong, wrong.
Attitudes of the Rich and Famous
The people who profit from exploiting natural resources in this country are respected, admired, and envied, even though these resources don't legally or morally belong to them. Wealthy families whose ancestors originally became rich and powerful through bootlegging, smuggling, illegal arms running, or slave trading get the same respect, admiration, and envy. And yet all of these rich people, in order to grow even wealthier, depend on millions of "peons" to do good work. As more money flows from the bottom of the economy to the top, those toward the bottom have to get along with less.
Studies have shown that those with more wealth, in general, are less caring about the plight/problems of those less fortunate ( see Aug. 20, 2013 issue of Personality and Social Psychology,"Wealth and the Inflated Self: Class, Entitlement, and Narcissism"). Perhaps it is unreasonable to expect the wealthy to allow laws to be passed that would give the impoverished a "hand up" rather than a "hand out" or to be willing to pay more income tax. Considering the source of their great wealth, a social conscience might be a very uncomfortable encumbrance.
I may not seem grateful for the creation of the highest standard of living the world has ever known. That standard of living was not achieved without a whole lot of sacrifice. But it was the standard of living of the wealthy class that rose more than anyone else's. Our nation is quite blessed, in a material sense. Great wealth is not the problem. There is more than enough to ensure that every one can live a healthful lifestyle. The problem is that the wealth of the nation is disproportionately distributed to the extent that some of us are unfairly deprived of the opportunity to earn enough from a decent job to afford a healthful lifestyle.
Constitutional Amendment
If we, as a nation, believe all people are created equal and have inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and we believe that governments should be purposed with the protection of those rights, then we, as a nation, need to step up to the plate. If the Tea Party has its way, there will be a substantial portion of our population that will be doomed to hopeless dependence on hand-outs, living in endless extreme poverty, increasing illness, etc. As a step toward preventing these negative effects and creating a fairer system of government, a constitutional amendment would be helpful. This would not be unconstitutional as Article 5 of the Constitution makes provisions for its being amended.
Article I, Section 8 lists about 18 powers of Congress. I suggest that 16 powers of the Federal Government be added to the Constitution. This would hopefully relieve the legislative gridlock in Congress as well as giving every American the opportunity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The suggested 16 additional powers of the Federal Government are as follows:
1. To ensure that all citizens have access to a quality Common Good.
2. To protect and defend the individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all citizens whenever state and local governments fail to do so.
3. To provide for all citizens who are disabled to the extent that they are able to live as healthfully and fully as possible wherever and whenever the states fail to do this.
4. To ensure that all financially-challenged adults who are able and willing to work have a decent job that pays at least a minimum healthful living wage (Amount necessary to live a healthful lifestyle).
5. To ensure the safety and nutritional value of all foods sold and/or produced in the U.S. and full disclosure of all man-made additives, genetically modified ingredients or organisms, as well as any known allergens, whenever the states fail to do so.
6. To ensure the safety of all products and services marketed in the U.S. whenever the states fail to do so.
7. To establish and enforce safety and health procedures to protect workers whenever the states fail to do this to an adequate extent.
8. To protect environmental quality and establish the most environmentally-friendly practices on and for all federally owned and/or administered properties.
9. To prevent unnecessary pollution, that is, any health-threatening emissions from the manufacturing of non-essential products. To prevent health-threatening emissions from the manufacture of products necessary for human health and well-being and/or for preserving environmental quality when such emissions can be contained by the Best Available Technology. To prevent the emission of toxins from any source of human activity when those toxins can be contained by the best affordable available technology.
10. To eliminate or compel landlords to remediate or demolish any sub-quality rental units when state and local governments fail to do so.
11. To make rules for the reasonable treatment of workers by employers when the local and state governments fail to do so.
12. To require full disclosure by producers of all man-made chemicals or other naturally-occurring toxins that workers/and or consumers have been exposed to or might be exposed to in the future.
13. To extend the benefits of these powers to ensure access to a quality Common Good and the opportunity to afford a healthful lifestyle to all individual Native Americans living on reservations if their tribal governments fail to do so.
14. To access the success of all primary and secondary educational systems in the U.S. and its territories in terms of preparing students for gainful employment or additional education/training upon graduation from high school. To intervene in schools with unacceptable rates of success when states fail to do so.
15. To take the necessary steps to ensure that the federal government can afford to exercise these powers into the future and still pay off the National Debt as soon as possible.
16. These powers of the federal government are not designed to usurp the authority of the states to exercise the same powers within their boundaries. The states may establish stricter regulations as long as those are not unconstitutional. All citizens, businesses, local municipalities within a state are legally obligated to follow the strictest regulations.
Despite the federal government's exercise of allegedly unconstitutional powers, the problems of economic inequality, injustice, lack of opportunity,chronic disease(http://www.fightchronicdisease.org/...), etc. are all increasing. We need to decide if we want to live in a country dominated by the greed of the powerful or in a country in which the government has the power and will to oppose that greed for the sake of all the people.
In the next section I will discuss some of the steps referred to in #15.