I'm back! And just in time.

I had an interesting conversation the other day with a fairly staunch Republican but it turned out that we were able to agree on a surprising amount. Having an open discussion while carefully navigating the Charybdis of polarization, I found myself clarifying some points in my own mind.

I've always told people that if they don't understand something, explain it to your dog. By the time the dog understands it, you'll understand it. In this case, I hasten to clarify, my discussion was not with a dog but it was with someone who holds very different views on most things political.

The essence of my thoughts was as follows:

1. I believe that it is the purpose of government to provide a safe haven for its people. This should include an opportunity to provide for the family, safety from threats both foreign and domestic, access to quality healthcare, a quality infrastructure (roads, clean air and water, etc.) and the opportunity to better self and family.
2. I believe that the current state of politics in the US has come down to two parties that are both wholly dependent on the Corporate state. Every single politician from the President to the local dog-catcher is elected based on the donations of corporate sponsors. Re-election is therefore dependent on their keeping those sponsors happy.
3. I believe that the difference between the party platforms has far too little impact on how decisions are made. By definition, most politicians are well-heeled. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a poor man to be elected to high office. That being said, I consider myself a Democrat because they at least purport to believe in #1 above. There is an absolute abundance of evidence that making the rich richer does not improve the quality of life for most people.
4. I believe that those same corporations, or rather the upper echelons of power in them, in order to ensure their continued increase in power and wealth, use every means at their disposal to convince the very people who suffer most by their actions that they are acting in their best interest. Religion, national security, xenophobia, racism, conspiracy theories, welfare recipients - all are used to convince people that only by increasing the wealth of the very rich can we survive as a nation.

Now. Imagine for a moment that #2 and #3 were not true. What if the government undertook to actually level the playing field? Here are some things that just might happen:

1. The government could initiate a huge national infrastructure re-furbishment program - roads, sewers, bridges, trash clean-up - all the things that are currently collapsing of old age. The welfare program could be changed so that everyone would have to actually contribute to the program if they want to continue to receive government support. Unless you are physically or mentally incapable of contributing, you have to. Immediately, the welfare population is drastically reduced and the country benefits. For those who are not fit enough to do physical labor, there are a million other tasks that need doing: delivering meals to the elderly, picking up trash etc.
2. Taxes could be increased on the wealthy. Not by Use Taxes, which proportionately hurt those who have to spend their entire income to survive. Not by a Flat Tax, which guarantees the rich will walk away with the cream. Rather, by providing a sliding scale so that those whose income comes mainly through the work of others would pay proportionately more. Also, we could just get rid of the loopholes that allow the rich and the corporations to shuffle their wealth around and avoid paying anything close to their fair share.
3. We could remove all unnatural benefits associated with outsourcing jobs overseas, at least until US unemployment reaches a sensible level. Even then, if there are not enough workers here, companies will not need subsidies to oursource, they will do it through necessity.
4. Here's the big one. Capitalism has one rule. It is the primary purpose of a public company to make as much money as possible for its shareholders. This is the justification for cutting quality, for asset stripping, for buying up successful companies and milking them as cash-cows, and for buying the government to provide subsidies and loopholes. It's time to change that rule. I'm all for profit but it shouldn't be based on this quarter's numbers. It should be based on a 5, 10 or even 20 year plan that allows for investment (and possibly less or even no profit now) so that true growth will follow later.

OK, enough for this post. I'm sure I'll have more to say soon!

/eclectos..