Economic policy

Source: http://www.goldismoney2.com/showthread.php?1067-Great-cartoons-about-the-economy

What is the process to develop economic policy that provides services and sustainability?

The government develops both fiscal and monetary policies to try to sustain governmental services and provide for the future economic health of the country. "Fiscal policy manipulates the total amount of government revenue and spending so as to manage overall demand in the economy" (Katznelson, Kesselman, & Draper, 2011, p. 294). This is done through tax collection and spending programs. "Fiscal policy envisions government budgets as thermostats, adjusting autmatically to counteract the economy's market swings...It also establishes the priorities and values of the government" (Katznelson, Kesselman, & Draper, 2011, p. 294). Monetary policy is another important aspect of government economic policy. "Monetary policy attempts to fine-tune the economy by manipulating interest rates, the cost of money" (Katznelson, Kesselman, & Draper, 2011, p. 303). Monetary policy affects people of different socio-economic groups differently depending on where they are. High interest rates benefit the more wealthy while low interest rates benefit the poor because they are more likely to be in debt. The goal is to develop fiscal and monetary policy that benefits the greatest number of citizens fairly and equitably as well as provides for the long-term economic health of the nation.

Of course, this is how it is supposed to work. The current economy in the US is weakened and the suffering of its citizens widespread. "...Because of anemic U.S. savings and growth rates, coupled with massive purchases of imports, the United States has become a debtor nation. Its economic stability depens on the willingness of other countries to provide the resources to balance its books" (Katznelson, Kesselman, & Draper, 2011, p. 376). With an official unemployment rate hovering around 9% (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000) and the political system hovering dangerously close to defaulting on US debt for the first time in history, the difference between the ideal theory and procedural reality in the economy has not been so vast since the 1930's.

How does a government create social policies to facilitate comprehensive care for its constituents without sacrificing equity?

Government creates social policies to care for citizens through a variety of means. One method is through regulation on both the economic and social levels. The development of the Environmental Protection Agency, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and Consumer Products Safety Commission are examples of social regulation that attempts to ensure equitable and safe delivery of free-market services (Katznelson, Kesselman, & Draper, 2010, p. 311). Economic regulation through the Federal Drug Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission are designed "to regulate specific industries, a process that often involved managing competition and setting industry standards" (Katznelson, Kesselman, & Draper, 2010, p. 311). Along with social programs such as Medicare and Social Security, these regulatory agencies have a goal of allowing free markets to thrive and yet providing an equitable playing field for the most number of citizens.

 

With the false "disaster capitalism" dichotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_capitalism) framing the current debt ceiling, the safety net for the weakest of American citizens is under attack since its inception. 

 

Can individuals and groups of individuals influence economic policy? If so, how?



Judicial Fairness

(Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/american/justice/)
The judicial branch in the US, comprised of state and federal courts, is responsible for the interpretation of the laws of the land. They can set precedent, overturn laws enforcing inequality, and make decisions that uphold the status quo. An "impartial judiciary", one not swayed by the will of popular opinion or political influence, is the ideal. "But, in practice, judges do make rules; and thus courts act as political as well as legal institutions...And just like other political actors, judges have their own policy goals and are influenced by public opinion, election results, and their own worldviews when they issue rulings" (Katznelson, Kesselman, & Draper, 2011, p. 249).

Because judges are appointed at the federal level and not elected, they have been the source of contention over their role in a democracy. This is especially true in the case of the Supreme Court. The composition of the highest court in America is determined by the political leanings of the President in power when there is a vacancy. The contention over these nominations has grown over the last 30 years, as has the accusations of corruption. Clarence Thomas is currently under suspicion for conflicts of interest related to his private political activities and his refusal to recuse himself on cases where he has personally gained. That is just one example of how the judicial branch is clouded with suspicion of impropriety.

Ideally, the judicial branch would interpret the laws of America in relation to the Constitution without any partiality toward the impact of their decisions. This is rarely the case.

The Presidency and Democracy

 

How does one answer the question of how the President in America supports or limits "ideal democracy"?  I'm not sure the American people agree on what an ideal democracy is. Equal access, equal opportunity, and equal reward for effort would be hallmarks to me of a fair and socially just democracy. So I'll answer the question from that viewpoint. The President can use his "bully pulpit" as the leader of the country to change the national conversation toward issues that either support or detract from the goals of a socially just democracy. He or she can also use executive powers to veto legislation passed by Congress and make the bar of passage more difficult. Under George W. Bush, we saw an expansion of presidential power to unprecedented levels. The executive branch is a key component of the "balance of powers" in the Constitution, and was drafted in such a way to provide a check on the Congress. "The constitutional architects specifically designed the newly created office of the president to be independent of Congres in order to check what they perceived ats the latter's democratic excesses" (Katznelson, Kessleman, & Draper, 2011, p. 175). It was a revolutionary idea that has defined American Democracy.

The relationship between Congress and the President can be supportive and constructive or poisonous and destructive, as we see in current American politics. With such an ideological split in the country, reflected in our government, it is naturally going to be acrimonious to work through issues. However, it has gone beyond ideological differences on shaping the future of America and has instead devolved into moral judgments, such as "if you don't agree with me, you must be evil and bad and hate America". This has contributed to a deadlock in American government we have not seen in decades. The current "debt ceiling" fight is an example of this.

The U.S. Congress was drafted in such a way to give balance of power as equally as possible to the citizens of America. By having representation in the U.S. House depend on population, you have a branch that is as equally representative of population as possible. The Senate was designed to be a check on that branch so as to not grant too much power to popular opinion and instead represent equally the states of the Union. The Presidency was designed to be a check on both the House and the Senate, and is the only position in government elected by the entire population of the country. Unfortunately, corporate money and power have poisoned the wells of all the branches of government, including the tainted Supreme Court. The unlimited use of money in American politics means we have the best corporatocracy money can buy. Until real and substantial campaign finance reform and lobby reform happens, we will continue to be a country by the dollar, of the dollar, and for the dollar.

Social Movements and Interest Groups

Source: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-06-24/news/29719466_1_marriage-bill-gay-marriage-gay-divorce

Individual citizens joined together in groups have power to influence democracy and decision-making up to a point. Depending on their funding sources and how much pull they have with the media, their stances on issues can be felt in the decision making done in the legislature. However, that is a big caveat. Some groups have funding that some might consider far from grass roots. Dictionary.com defines grass roots as "the common or ordinary people, especially as contrasted with the leadership or elite of a political party, social organization, etc.; the rank and file" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/grass+roots).

When organizations present themselves as arising out of the will of the common man and yet have funding from very elite corporate powers, corporations have a way to disguise themselves as grass roots. It is becoming more common today as the normal checks and balances of the Supreme Court are giving way to more corporate-friendly laws. It is now easier for corporations to disguise themselves as the wbill of the people. "Groups that represent corporate interests-such as policy offices representing individual firms, trade associations representing specific industries, and peak associations representing businesses across industries-remain the most influential , largely due to the extensive resources at their command" (Katznelson, Kessleman, & Draper, 2011, p. 137-8).
However, there are still plenty of influential groups and social movements, especially at the local level. Indeed, local politics seems to be where individuals and groups have the most sway. There have been times when this has trickled up into the national discourse. In order for true grass roots organizations to be given national attention, it seems more effective to begin at the local level.

In just the past year, there has been a growing outcry over the perceived class warfare being waged against middle and lower class people in America. The spontaneous and surprising uprising in Wisconsin, fed in part by the inspiration found in the Middle East's Arab Spring, have inspired individuals and groups in America to bypass the political process they perceive is stacked against them. And that perception is not unfounded. It seems more and more that the polarization of American politics is designed by corporations to distract and poison the public discourse to make Americans believe they have less and less in common.

Hopefully the increasing protest movements around the gutting of environmental and labor laws as well as the dismantling of our social safety net in favor of corporate profits will make Americans realize they have much more in common than not. The thing the corporate powers fear the most is a united America, for there they would face a real adversary. Tuning out corporate media and taking the conversation to a more organic platform (like meetings, Twitter, Facebook, and the like) could indeed influence the outcome of the class war being waged on American citizens. But that...is up to us.

Public Opinion in the New Media Age

It's difficult to answer this question in a superficial manner. In order to have reasonable public discourse in a democracy, one must have a reasonably informed public. As is stated in our textbook, there is the ideal/procedural democracy and then there is the real democracy. And the reality is that public opinion, while it may have been influential in the formation of our country, matters little these days. Due to the size of the country and our stated belief in local control, one would think that "a rational system for a nation with such a vast diversity of people and places would be hundreds of individual local media owners, each familiar with the particular needs of his or her own community" (http://www.beacon.org/client/pdfs/6187_ch1.pdf). However, in the case of America, one would think wrong. In truth, what we read and hear is almost completely controlled by 5 transnational corporations. It is hard to overstate their influence in the public's understanding of relevant issues and the effect of political decisions in their lives. Indeed, even WHAT the nation is talking about is steered by their decisions. "These five conglomerates are Time Warner, by 2003 the largest media firm in the world; The Walt Disney Company; Murdoch’s News Corporation, based in Australia; Viacom; and Bertelsmann, based in Germany. Today, none of the dominant media companies bother with dominance merely in a single medium. Their strategy has been to have major holdings in all the media, from newspapers to movie studios. This gives each of the five corporations and their leaders more communications power than was exercised by any despot or dictatorship in history" (http://www.beacon.org/client/pdfs/6187_ch1.pdf). So the answer to the question of the ways public opinion influences democracy is largely determined by private entities. To discuss issues in America feels that we are really just discussing kabuki theater and the actors therein. That is not to say it is not important to be involved and participating in issues that affect our lives. A responsible citizen should be. However, it is important to realize just how difficult that is and how vast the invisible barriers in place fighting against an informed and mobilized citizenry really are.
In study after study, results have indicated that public opinion is both directly and indirectly swayed by content in news media, whether accurate or not. The ability of corporate controlled media to control the national conversation is proven.

Politicians and the News Media: How Elite Attacks Influence Perceptions of Media Bias: http://hij.sagepub.com/content/15/3/319.abstract

This study, titled Communication Forms In U.S. Presidential Campaigns: Influences on Candidate Perceptions and the Democratic Process, found that "after controlling for respondents' age, gender, education, strength of party identification, and the number of candidate ads recalled, the results indicated that use of nontraditional communication forms (such as political talk radio and, to a somewhat lesser extent, television entertainment talk shows, television talk shows, and television news magazines) exerted the most influence on perceptions of presidential candidates" (http://hij.sagepub.com/content/6/4/88.abstract).

Another study, titled The Impact of the News Media on Public Opinion: American Presidential Election 1987-1988, also found similar results. Using a mathematical model to track appearances of stories in the Associated Press, they were able to develop a mathematical formula to predict election results with astonishing accuracy. "Using this model and a new method of computer content analysis applied to Associated Press stories retrieved from the Nexis electronic data base, it was possible to forecast actual opinion poll results for the American Presidential election of 1988 with very high accuracy. The average deviation between the computer predicted values and over 120 measured poll values was 2.7 per cent for George Bush versus Michael Dukakis. On election day, the deviation was 2 per cent" (http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/content/1/2/151.abstract)

It is clear that where we get our news, who owns it, and who writes it is just as important as the potential impact of the content. Targeted attacks to plant a perception of "liberal bias" in the media have been very effective, with devastating results to our democratic process, for example, as explained in the first study posted.

My question is this: How does the new social media (Twitter, Facebook, news comment sites, and the like) serve as a counterbalance to the relatively fact-challenged  "soft news" infotainment programming present on TV and radio programming?

Art and the Great Depression

Putting the current situation in America in the context of major historical events is an important part of creating a basis of conversation for ideas about how to proceed in the future.  While there are important debates and disagreements about the significance of different events in America, there is general agreement on major historical events that have had repercussions throughout our history.

When speaking specifically about the economic situation in America, there are few events that still reverberate more than the Great Depression.  Few events have had such personal significance for so many American families. Most people, regardless of their current economic conditions, were affected by the fallout from the Great Depression. “The depth and persistence of the Depression undermined people’s faith in capitalism, in capitalists, and in the government” (Katznelson, Kesselman, & Draper, 2011, p. 71).

Because of the removal of top soil, lack of crops, and very dry conditions, areas in the Midwest experienced what is now known as the Dust Bowl in the 1930’s. I can remember my grandmother telling me how it was to grow up in Dodge City, KS during the Dust Bowl era following the market crash of 1929. My grandmother would tell me stories of putting wet cloths over every visible crevice, not being able to see the sky for days, having to wear t-shirts over their faces just to breath. Jobs were scarce, food was scarce.  A new wave of artistic expression to communicate the desperation of these days continues to influence political artistic expression today.

Back in Nineteen Twenty-Seven,
I had a little farm and I called that heaven.
Well, the prices up and the rain come down,
And I hauled my crops all into town --
I got the money, bought clothes and groceries,
Fed the kids, and raised a family.

Rain quit and the wind got high,
And the black ol' dust storm filled the sky.
And I swapped my farm for a Ford machine,
And I poured it full of this gas-i-line --
And I started, rockin' an' a-rollin',
Over the mountains, out towards the old Peach Bowl.

Way up yonder on a mountain road,
I had a hot motor and a heavy load,
I's a-goin' pretty fast, there wasn't even stoppin',
A-bouncin' up and down, like popcorn poppin' --
Had a breakdown, sort of a nervous bustdown of some kind,
There was a feller there, a mechanic feller,
Said it was en-gine trouble.

Way up yonder on a mountain curve,
It's way up yonder in the piney wood,
An' I give that rollin' Ford a shove,
An' I's a-gonna coast as far as I could --
Commence coastin', pickin' up speed,
Was a hairpin turn, I didn't make it.

Man alive, I'm a-tellin' you,
The fiddles and the guitars really flew.
That Ford took off like a flying squirrel
An' it flew halfway around the world --
Scattered wives and childrens
All over the side of that mountain.

We got out to the West Coast broke,
So dad-gum hungry I thought I'd croak,
An' I bummed up a spud or two,
An' my wife fixed up a tater stew --
We poured the kids full of it,
Mighty thin stew, though,
You could read a magazine right through it.
Always have figured
That if it'd been just a little bit thinner,
Some of these here politicians
Coulda seen through it.

Guthrie, W. (1936). Talking Dust Bowl Blues [Song lyrics] Source: http://www.woodyguthrie.org/Lyrics/Talking_Dust_Bowl_Blues.htm

Due to the desperation created by economic conditions, workers around the nation demanded change and more political power. “Farmers struck, refusing to bring their crops to market because prices had dropped below production costs. Workers in the great manufacturing centers began to organize into unions”  (Katznelson, Kesselman, & Draper, 2011, p. 71). Music and art brought a sense of community and camaraderie to these movements. “Unemployment insurance and Social Security created at least a minimal safety net where none existed previously. The labor market also came in for a degree of regulation as child labor was outlawed and a minimum wage law was passed” (Katznelson, Kesselman, & Draper, 2011, p. 72-3).

With current conditions in America reflecting similar conditions like existed at this time in America, it is important to remember the roots of the labor movement and the social safety net. They are under attack in the current political climate, but their roots in America run deep and are an important part of the fabric of our country and our middle class.

Critical Question: Are there current examples of creative artistic expression of popular movements in America today?

Democracy in a Post-Citizens United World

"At the heart of the American political economy is a tension between the undemocratic organization of capitalism and the democratic procedures that regulate the elected branches of national government" (Katznelson, Kesselman, & Draper, 2011, p. 36). Or, in the case of the Supreme Court, the appointed brance of national government. Supreme Court justices are not elected, they are appointed by the President of the United States and approved by Congress in whatever year a vacancy becomes available. Due to the hightened polarized nature of our politics in America today, this process is inherently political.

On January 21, 2010 the Supreme Court issued a ruling on a case known as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This ruling stated that "political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast" (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/). There have been points of argument over this ruling, but the general consensus is this ruling may have opened the floodgates to increased corruption through corporate engineering of our election process as well as codifying into law, more than had been the case before, the idea of "corporate personhood".

As explained in the video above, corporations are comprised of individuals but do not operate in the real world as an individual citizen. While they may influence the political process as individuals, their interests lie in maximizing profits only. They are also not equally responsible for the fallout of their negative decisions. It is impossible to send a corporation to prison for murder, for example, even though in rare cases an individual employee might be prosecuted for wrongdoing. The corporation continues to operate unabated regardless of the consequences for individual employees. So "corporate personhood" seems an idea designed to privatize profits and socialize losses.

Procedurally, the Supreme Court is designed to be a non-political check to the inherently political executive and legislative branch of government. But, as we have seen throughout the history of the United States, the Supreme Court can be used to advance political agendas. In this case, the "mobilization of bias" toward business interests and corporations seems to have been further entrenched in our democracy. "The US economic and political system is fundamentally biased in favor of business. This bias is deeply embedded in the political framework. Even before the first vote is cast, the first campaign contribution is made, and the first lobbyist contacts a member of Congress, business possesses a political advantage stemming from its ownership and control of the productive system" (Katznelson, Kesselman, & Draper, 2011, p. 38). I argue this decision has removed an important check on the unfettered influence of corporate power in our democracy. And the Supreme Court failed to address the question of transnational corporations, money from other countries. No influential corporation is confined any longer to national borders. Are we as citizens comfortable with the idea of international money pouring into our political system and our democracy?

Some argue this decision has overturned an unconstitutional limit on free speech. Indeed, that was the position of the Supreme Court and some advocacy groups (including the ACLU). However, this decision fails to explain the deeper question, that of "corporate personhood". I will explore this idea in further posts.

So my critical question is this: "What, in short, is the relationship of capitalism and democracy" (Katznelson, Kesselman, & Draper, 2011, p. 12) in a post-Citizens United world?