An excerpt from A President's Manifesto by James A. George (c)2019 All Rights Reserved.
The book is offered free on request by emailing: jimgeorgeauthorarchway@gmail.com
Chapter 3: A Good Life for All Citizens for an Entire Lifetime
Is it too much for citizens to expect their government to create an economic environment in which all citizens can “earn” a good life? In nation states like the US where the ratio of population to resources is favorable, meaning plentiful, the expectation is reasonable at a minimum.
When a baby enters into the world, it comes to life under whatever economic and social environment that its parents can provide. It is a matter of chance to be born more or less off from the average conditions. Newborn children may have assurance of an equal opportunity to succeed in a pluralistic democracy and under the U.S. Constitution. That means that they should not be forced to endure an impoverished life. Government acts on behalf of citizens to close the gap. That requires providing assistance for poor and underperforming parents to help them improve their situation.
In today’s political environment, the incumbent government and Congress may not agree, or may hedge. By requiring answers that are part of party platforms and presidents’ manifestos, the intentions are made certain and clear.
Escaping the grip of poverty requires individuals to enhance their education and to acquire job skills, knowledge, and experience. Citizens who are victims of poverty may need sociological and behavioral support in the form of services.
Self-improvement begins with individual will and desire. Given the considerable resources of the United States of America, it is reasonable for the nation to seek to eliminate poverty. Doing that has the effect of boosting the entire economy. So, what do presidential candidates believe about these ideas? What does it mean to “earn” a good life?
From the outset of childhood, American citizens are encouraged to work hard to develop their abilities and capacity for self-sustainment. It begins with public education. Placing a high value on hard work is called the “work ethic.”
“Work ethic is a value-based on hard work and diligence. Capitalists believe in the requirement of hard work and its ability to enhance character. In the context of class conflict, Marxists view the cultural ingraining of this value as a means to delude the working class into creating more wealth for the upper class. In the (former) Soviet Union, work ethic was seen as an ideal to strive for.”[i]
It is not a digression to consider and to debate economic models such as capitalism versus socialism and communism, for instance. The requirement to work hard to earn rewards and benefits is shared among economic models. One variable is the amount of individual liberty and self-reliance. Also, there is a matter of providing a balance of consequences such that extraordinary performance is rewarded more than average performance. Deficient performance is rewarded less or punished.
To review, “to earn” means the following: “1a: to receive as return for effort and especially for work done or services rendered b: to bring in by way of return <bonds earning 10 percent 2a: to come to be duly worthy of or entitled or suited to <she earned a promotion> b: to make worthy of or obtain for <the suggestion earned him a promotion>”[ii]
Every citizen who is able is expected to work to earn a sustainable living, beginning with themselves. If citizens decide to have children, they should do so only if and when they have the economic capacity to support their children.
Unfortunately, the basic rules governing this behavior are so free and lax that persons who have deficient intellect and education may not respond to societal rules and basic common sense. That is when government intervention is required. Of course religious beliefs that affect values about birth control may exacerbate the problem.
Some politicians express the belief that some citizens will become victims of themselves and their parents. Some politicians believe that offering assistance will just make matters worse as people may become welfare dependent. Others believe that aggressive intervention by government to rescue children and to force better parenting will result in stemming the tide of perpetual welfare.
Historical attempts by government have not solved the problem. However, the reasons for failure include many possibilities:
1. Legislative incompetence
2. Deficiencies in problem definition
3. Deficiencies in solution development
4. Wrong solutions
5. Deficiencies in the balance of consequences
6. Executive incompetence
There is a belief among some that all welfare recipients who are able should be required to perform some kind of work to earn welfare benefits. To accomplish that, adults with children may need childcare support. This is a complex problem in society and a presidential manifesto should address the topic.
There is serious debate about how good capitalism is serving the nation’s interest. Critics argue that the profit motive has run amuck. They believe that capitalists are neither socially and environmentally irresponsible, nor are they patriotic. Bill Gates has acknowledged that on occasion.
“One of the most peculiar but least understood developments of our time is the emergence of billionaires against capitalism. Even some of the greatest beneficiaries of the market system seem deeply disillusioned with it.
Bill Gates provided a striking example this week when he slated the market for distorting important priorities. He reportedly told a Royal Academy of Engineering conference that governments and philanthropic organizations need to counter this flaw. The software billionaire gave the example of the malaria vaccine getting virtually no market funding, whereas male baldness gets ample. His remark was striking because of Gates' stature, not because of its content. Socialist critics have argued for over two centuries that the market is poor at meeting human needs. The rich, in contrast, have tended to dismiss such criticisms."[iii]
America’s current economic situation shows that there is an extraordinary high concentration of wealth into too few hands. It shows that those with wealth are not investing properly in the nation’s business to address market needs and to create jobs.
Should government adopt a policy to redistribute wealth? Should government explore the development of sustainable capitalism?
At a time when fossil fuels have fouled the air and water, and when their consumption has exacerbated diminishing supply, advocates for a new energy paradigm argue for investment in renewable energy.
Capitalism as we know it is not sustainable when it is driven by sources of fuel for which supply is near empty. Some argue for the development of sustainable capitalism. Others argue for open mindedness in engineering a new sustainable economic model.
Observe that “Big Oil” interests may have compromised the integrity of elected officials as their interest is to run out the clock on fossil fuels at the expense of developing renewable replacements.
“’Big Oil’ is a name used to describe the world's seven or eight largest publicly owned oil and gas companies, also known as supermajors. The supermajors are considered to be BP plc, Chevron Corporation, ExxonMobil Corporation, Royal Dutch Shell plc, Total SA and Eni, with ConocoPhillips Company also sometimes described as forming part of the group.[iv]
Government leaders in the executive and legislative branches are expected to address the problems and challenges associated with transforming the nation’s economy to that which is sustainable.
What is the government’s role in accomplishing this? That should be a very high priority topic for presidential candidates to attend. In December 2014, the author published the following article at Examiner.com as the National Politics Examiner.
“Aimlessness is not malaisiness: Carter to Obama, December 12, 2014
Leadership with a plan for a sustainable U.S. economy, The White House
Outgoing Defense Secretary Hagel nailed it this week when he said ‘Hope is not a strategy.’ A majority of Americans voted for Barack Obama in 2008 because hope was going down the drain.
Foreign policy that we could not afford combined with tax benefits to the wealthy that we could not afford and the combination of resulting debt and deficit drained the Middle Class of assets and opportunity. So, the hope deficit was filled by an articulate and enthusiastic community organizer who rallied the spirit by stopping the financial bleeding and by acting to restore a functioning economy. Obama did that.
Once a new equilibrium was established, Americans looked around to assess the situation and saw a continuing dysfunctional government. It saw a President that they believed was charging too aggressively into a socialistic answer to affordable healthcare with ‘big brother-type’ mandates, and that frightened them. They didn’t like the quality of legislation coming from a Democrat-led House of Representatives, so they changed that to Republican leadership.
The resulting government still wasn’t functioning properly and Republicans didn’t offer ‘hopeful’ alternatives, so Americans reinstated President Obama. They wanted him to step up his game to become a more effective organizer at least, and less of a politician. That means, Americans wanted leadership from a President who isn’t constantly campaigning. They wanted his brainpower without the political baggage from the Obama Party.
They didn’t get that, so voters went to the polls and strengthened the Republicans hand on Congress by giving to them full throttle.
Now, the result is a government that still isn’t operating and performing on all cylinders. Leaders are not appearing stronger except John Boehner, maybe, who at least got a budget passed in the House. Mitch McConnell will do fine in the Senate at the basic business of government too.
That leaves the question, to where is America headed as an economic force? What is the relationship between government and the private sector and the economy? What is the state of the union?
The news today describes American malaise, a term associated with the Jimmy Carter administration. It described a nation of uneasiness and lacking direction. It is worse than that.
Racism remains in America and is aggravated by President Trump’s caustic and careless language the seems to promote it.”[v]
Violence is returning as a result. The American government remains at war in the world while doing a cake walk with senior executive positions creating instability and a state of leaderlessness.
Here is a list of what it will take to restore and to renew the American dream:
• Leadership with a plan for a sustainable U.S. economy
• Leadership with a plan to transform the U.S. economy from fossil fuels to a renewable energy strategy
• Leadership that can engage and work with business and industry to produce a harmoniously regulated economy
• Leadership that can reduce world tensions and effect higher resolve toward peace and stability
• Leadership that can help wealthy Americans focus their mental and financial powers toward greater invention and investment resulting in more upward mobile opportunities
• Leadership that can motivate American private and public sector institutions to steadfastly committing to creating a good life for all Americans in the absence of poverty.
If you consider the Obama administration with regard to these things, you may discover:
· Obama did not have a plan for a sustainable economy.
· Obama had a strategy and direction for transforming the energy paradigm, though without Congressional support it languished. Obama got caught up in a more esoteric subject, climate change, when the focus should have been energy transformation.
· Obama failed to engage wealthy Americans and corporations to advance invention.
· Obama, like Democrats in general, professed the right values, but had not workable plan to end poverty.
Observing Donald Trump’s initiatives, it was too soon to know. He was very skimpy about details and therefore his ideas are not actionable. That brief critique will be debatable and is addressed more in later chapters.
What qualifications and credentials are required of an American President and from representatives of government to produce the superior outcomes? What can restore and renew America’s direction and aim toward greatness? Who can do that?
Leadership may begin with an executive order, but it takes hands on CEO skill and experience to put it into practice. Furthermore, one of President Obama’s EOs uses the word “sustainable economy”. He never explains that capitalism is unsustainable as we know it.
His EO jumps into details omitting the scope and scale of change that is essential to making baby steps meaningful. Leading the discussion with the environment is not the place to start. Start by explaining the economic model for the future of America.
Presently, the greatest positive addition to America’s Gross Domestic Product is from weapons sales. Is that what we want?
[i] Work
ethic is a value based on hard work and diligence ....
https://www.coursehero.com/file/p7prrh8/Work-ethic-is-a-value-based-on-hard-work-and-diligence-Capitalists-believe-in/
[iii] Bill
Gates' attack on capitalism is nothing to cheer ....
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/15/bill-gates-capitalism-attacks
[iv] World Supermajors Oil and Gas
Jobs - Worldwide Jobs.
https://www.gulfjobcareers.com/world-supermajors-oil-gas-jobs-worldwide-jobs/
[v] USA Today, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/08/14/times-president-trump-comments-called-racist/985438002/
No comments:
Post a Comment