Is it time to consider social democracy? – Part 5

Many Americans react with dismay when told the U.S. mirrors a European-style social democracy, according to Klaus Zimmerman, a Bonn, Germany labor expert, writing in the Washington Post. Others think our “social net” has been established for some time, and we are, in fact, an “undeclared” social democracy. Since in Europe most all political parties engage in social democracy, is it inevitable that it will officially travel across the Atlantic?

Zimmerman’s Germany, a social democracy and Europe’s largest economy, is the strongest it’s been in 20 years, although some of its social programs have been trimmed due to the downturn. France, another social democracy, has come through the global economic crisis thanks to some expansive consumer and government spending.

Denmark, whose fiscal position is among the strongest in the European Union, along with other Scandinavian social democracies, has suffered from global problems, but is on the way to recovery.

Zimmerman brings up an excellent point when he indicates that, except for the Great Depression, the driving force behind the U.S. Economic model has always been “the great American job machine.” In the past it has recharged the economy when taking over after a recession. This isn’t happening today in the U.S. because so many jobs have been relocated out of the country, and technology has put millions out of work.

We may have reached the point of discovering the fact that we will have to accept a leaner America, and build on that strength. Zimmerman feels there is a need to change our tax structure away from favoring the more-wealthy, and work on balancing the budget. To do that, it may be necessary to raise taxes, where, I am certain, he loses all conservatives in the U.S.

He remarks in closing that we are an “un(der)funded social democracy.

Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.

Is it time to consider social democracy? - Part 2

In Part 1, there was some brief background on where social democracy is practiced and the whys of its need. The two major items in the latter include hot buttons for the conservatives, particularly the Tea Party faction: welfare and free insurance. It’s the “Why should we give it away when I worked so hard for it.” mentality.

And much of this is based on the premise that the poor don’t want to work when they can just sit back and accept handouts. But experts are now saying that won’t hold up with the repression of social programs that actually assist the poor in finding work. As the pendulum swings, all these arguments are moot until it is decided just how government is planning to govern.

So what is a social democracy? Yes, it did spring from the socialist movement, and stayed very close to that ideology in many of the countries where it is practiced. But the literal development of a social democracy is the creation of a welfare state that combines capitalistic and socialistic institutions and practices. Kind of like what we already have in the reformation of democracy in the U.S. with the U.S. Postal Service, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid.

In a successful social democracy, the hypothesis is that if all its citizens have at least a minimum standard of living that is adequately above the poverty level, the whole country will thrive. This includes income, as well as housing and in most cases free medical care. The British Labour Party defines itself as a “democratic socialist party” and Gordon Brown and Tony Blair considered themselves social democrats.

Has the U.S. become so accustomed to the “good life” that we cannot understand that there are those in need, and that something must be done to allay these needs in order to stabilize the economy, as well as help our fellow human beings? This has become even more apparent in the recent downturn, and is now affecting those who once thought they were not vulnerable.

Part 3 tomorrow.

Is it time to consider social democracy? – Part 6

If you haven’t already, you will have to read Parts 1 through 5 of this series to understand why the U.S. is in some ways already a social democracy, and why we should move even further into this political philosophy in order to get things right in America. It is, in fact, a balancing act, but right now over 13 percent of the country is under the poverty level, soon to go to 15 percent. Folks, that’s 45 million of your fellow Americans.

Because some are skeptical, even afraid, of anything with the word “social” in it—except those receiving Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, of course—The Dunning Letter will conclude this series of articles by identifying the kind of ideology held by contemporary social democrats. In other words, what you might expect should a social democracy be more prevalent in the U.S. in the future.

• A mixed economy with both private enterprise and publicly owned or subsidized programs for education, universal health care, and related social services for all citizens.

• A far-reaching system of social security to combat poverty and for support in times of job loss, or during retirement.

• Regulation of private enterprise in the interest of workers and consumers.

• Enact environmental protection laws.

• A value-added/progressive tax system to run the government.

• Secular and progressive policies.

• Immigration and multiculturalism.

• Fair trade over free trade.

• The promotion of Democracy and protection of our human rights.

• Advocacy of social justice and civil rights.

Social democracy is an issue that requires considerable research and discussion before embarking on a political philosophy that will virtually change the way we live. But even before that, we need to overcome the barriers preventing many from even giving consideration to this form of government. It may not be right for the U.S., but it at least deserves close examination.

Please read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.

Is it time to consider social democracy?

Many of the world’s developed countries are social democracies with mixed economies, some with very large governments, and they provide a large bundle of social programs including welfare and insurance. They do it by equalizing wealth where the proportion is beyond reasonableness. It is a concept some think must be considered in the U.S., and it is open as to just how much SD is needed.

In a piece J. Bradford DeLong did for TomPaine.common sense, he said:

“America was thus a special place. It had its cake and ate it, too: a combination of security with opportunity and entrepreneurship. It seemed that this was the natural order of things. Hence there was little pressure for government-sponsored social democracy: Why bother? What would it add?”

Then he added: “Now things are very different.” That was in 2004. And things today are far more different than then or as they have ever been, especially when you consider the state of poverty in this country. According to a new Census study, it is approaching 1960s levels, which prompted a national war on poverty. It was called the Great Society.

The poverty rate is 13.2 percent and is expected to increase to as much as 15 percent. That would mean 1 in 7 are poor or a total of 45 million people. The Census report from 2009 will also show that child poverty is over 20 percent; and Blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately hit. Yet Lawrence M. Mead, a New York University conservative, said: "Poverty is not as big an issue right now as middle-class unemployment. That's a lot more salient politically right now,"

It may be more “salient” politically, but tell that to the 45 million just trying to stay in their homes and put food on the table. Since the hardest hit are Blacks and Hispanics, it makes you wonder why these two groups haven’t combined forces to elect congressional leaders that are favorable to their cause. It is obvious it would be no problem getting this kind of legislation past President Obama.

TOMORROW: More on social democracy.

Read more about social democracy here.

Is it time to consider social democracy? – Part 4

What is poverty? On Dictionary.com it is defined as: “the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor; indigence.” Ah, indigence is a good place to start because its opposite meaning is wealth. In other words those in poverty are in the extreme, indigent, with those on the opposite side of the spectrum also in the extreme, but very wealthy. Put simply, does that seem fair?

Poverty has been defined as being “cyclical,” which would indicate some fluctuation of significance over a period of time. And according to the Census Bureau, it has been cyclical for at least ten years in a steady growth pattern from 11.9 percent of the population to 14.3 percent in 2009. And now the projections are that it will hit 15 percent in 2010. That figure may even be conservative, considering the wave of new foreclosures expected, and the slow decline in joblessness.

The Census Bureau’s “Summary of Key Findings” in their 2009 poverty report makes for good reading. No kidding, unless you have absolutely no empathy for this issue. And if you have never felt the fear of losing a job or your business, losing your house, or having to decide between rent and food, eventually experiencing this bad fortune, you’re in a select group these days, so perhaps your concerns are limited.

Most of the well off population isn’t particularly interested in broadening their horizons on this subject, so we experience an abject apathy from the very group that could help. Others like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are trying to do something about it. This personal approach by two billionaires is in its own way a type of social democracy, a leveling of the playing field by donating their fortunes to charity.

It will be interesting to see what effect, if any, their philanthropy will have on the 2010 projections on poverty.

Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

The epitome of…not the American dream

You are probably better off by just remaining jobless and staying on unemployment benefits.

A lesson we were supposed to have learned from the Great Depression was that the U.S. government is strong enough, and smart enough, to be able to care for all of its citizens. A combination of business and government is supposed to provide the proper environment for all those who want to work to have a job. Somehow the lesson and the dream have shattered in the last twelve years to the extent that, all of a sudden, you’re better off on welfare.

The fact that folks quit looking for a job because they can earn more collecting unemployment benefits should trouble all Americans, no matter how secure you are in your particular circumstances. We have an election coming that has pitted two political parties against each other using tactics that are both demeaning to the tradition of this country and an insult to their constituents. Their only concern is reelection.

Having said it before, I say it again: is it time to consider a social democracy?

Read more here on joblessness.

Read my series on social democracy here.

Is it time to consider social democracy? – Part 3

George Orwell, author of 1984 and Animal Farm most notably, is also known for his essays on politics. In 1946 in “Politics and the English Language,” he wrote: “All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia.” It was his opinion that deteriorated and vague language was what had brought political thought to its lowest level.



George Orwell

Orwell was a democratic socialist who lived the life he was hoping to provide salvation for, going as far as Burma where he described himself as being in a land “…whose people did not want him there.” Jennie Yabroff in a 2008 article in Newsweek says that is where the writer learned to hate all forms of imperialism. Orwell’s life of denial to help others eventually landed him on the Scottish island of Jura where he died of tuberculosis after finishing 1984.

Animal Farm had given him financial security, but he lived as a tramp and beggar, working for low wages in England and France. He picked hops as a migratory laborer and once tried to get himself arrested as a drunk so he could find out about life in prison. All of this to prove the inequality of life then for those in need.

That was over sixty years ago and we still haven’t come close to doing something about the great separation between wealth and poverty.

Read Part 1 and Part 2.

Government's Ceaseless Meddling in the Identity Crisis

Big Brother-In-Chief Does Another About-Face

After almost five years of monitoring our phone calls and e-mails, Bush said on Wednesday that he has decided to allow the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor his monitoring, according to an MSNBC article by the Associated Press. Apparently the FISA court assured both speed and agility in the future, which sounds hollow since this was guaranteed all along. W’s mouthpiece, Tony Snow, “…could not explain why those concerns could not be addressed before the program was started.” When do we start on impeachment?

Government Data Mining “Could” Be Investigated

I say “could” because this new Democratic Congress hasn’t shown any indication of getting seriously interested in protecting your privacy. More on the Dems later in this post. Rebecca Carr, reporting from Cox News Service, quotes privacy experts that feel the government is so captivated by data mining being able to reveal terrorists with the touch of a computer keyboard that anything goes. Both the ACLU and Center for Democracy and Technology check in with concerns. A former FBI agent who handled domestic terrorism cases says data mining isn’t even that effective.

Defense Department Database Forced to Purge “Good Guys”

In another MSNBC article, “US protestors found in Defense database,” reporting on a Pentagon memo released by the ACLU, after Defense Department examination of the database called TALON that collects info on potential threats to the military, almost 9 percent of the reports involving Americans justified deletion. Of those, 186 were “anti military protests or demonstrations in the U.S.” An earlier evaluation by Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), which manages TALON, reported only 1 percent of the reports questionable. Are we surprised at yet another example of incompetent governmental oversight?

Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy Weighs in on Data Privacy

Senator Leahy from Vermont seems to have always been in the consumer’s court, and now he vows to regulate government and commercial “databanks.” In his speech, “Ensuring Liberty and Security through Checks and Balances” to Georgetown University Law Center, Leahy comments on the unilateralism of the Bush administration. Paraphrased, he thinks Big Brother-In-Chief has unlawfully spied on the lives of innocent American citizens. The Senator maintains he will shoot for stronger legislation protecting individual sensitive data. No mention of my concept to give consumers control over their names and personal data, and pay them when it is sold. Can’t imagine why since I have written him about this twice.

Pentagon Keeps on Prying Into Your Finances…Cheney Says OK

Big Brother II says “…the Pentagon and CIA are not violating people’s rights by examining the banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans and others suspected of terrorism or espionage in the United States.” This from an Associated Press article quoting Cheney on, where else, Fox News. The only thing he left out of this arrogant and absurd statement was “innocent” Americans. But the Pentagon keeps on prying, using the Patriot Act as its authority to request and receive—no questions asked—these private records from financial institutions, according to the Washington Post. The FBI does it but they have to issue a National Security Letter, which allows them scrutiny of innocent US residents. Is it possible to impeach a President and Vice President simultaneously?

Democrats Still Soliciting From Recent Turncoat

I keep getting requests for donations to the Democrats, although I reregistered as an Independent before the 2006 election. I’m glad they keep coming because it allows me to keep track of their efforts toward consumer privacy, or lack thereof. Received such a piece of mail on last December 7, with another “Key Democratic Party Planning Survey.” It’s almost identical to the one received earlier, and which became an integral part of a post. It asks questions about Dems in my state, Arizona, going then to “National Focus.” There are seven issues from Social Security to Iraq and terrorism to the environment. Not one mention of privacy. Just like last time. Are they deaf, dumb and blind? Folks, if we can’t get this side of the aisle on our sides, there is no hope. Unless…we start a grassroots effort to give individuals control over their names and sensitive data. Think about it!


NEW

This Mailing List Could be Hazardous to Your Privacy

“Cruise Travelers” from Mokrynski Direct labels over 700 thousand households as “enthusiastic” travelers, away from home for extended periods of time. They can also identity your age, income and lifestyles, potential profiles for burglary if in the wrong hands. There are a total of almost 800 travel lists on the market, many with your sensitive data like the one above.