The Garden

There are at least two ways of critiquing the economic “rescue” packages that have been squirting out of Washington lately—morally and practically. The moral side of it asks “Is it right?” while the practical side asks “Will it work?” Both the Legislative and Executive branches of government want you to believe that the answer to both is “yes,” but, I’m here to disagree.

I think the answer to both is a resounding “No!” Let’s look at the moral question first. What the government is proposing is a redistribution of wealth. That is, after all, the only tool the government really has in the first place. Uncle Sam has the ability to tax those who create things of value on His turf. I.e., those who put their minds or their labor to productive use must submit a portion of the things of value created by their efforts to the government for redistribution. Presumably, this is done under the flags of justice, fairness and security. If each individual were to reap 100 percent of the benefits from his or her efforts, then societies’ levels of justice, fairness and security would go down, or so the theory goes. It is, therefore, these flags of justice, fairness and security that make the government’s redistributive powers morally valid. The government is right to tax your efforts because it will redistribute your wealth in a way that is fairer, more just and more secure than if you were to spend that wealth yourself.

Now, most of us are accustomed to this redistribution of our wealth because we have been taxed since birth. Since we have all accepted it for so long, I suppose we’re not as interested in the question of whether the government ought to have this power at all; rather we’re generally more interested in the question of how much the government ought to tax us, and for what purposes. This is where we find ourselves when we consider the implications of the trillions of dollars in economic rescue packages. Is it morally right for the government to decide for you that these trillions of your dollars ought to be spent to prop up failing banks, failing automotive companies, indebted consumers, the unemployed, and many other expensive failures? Since the sum of these rescue packages is in the trillions of dollars, we’re talking about an enormous redistribution of wealth. I.e., those who are able to produce will have more of their created wealth taken away from them (either through taxation or inflation) in order to give that wealth to those who have not been able to produce for themselves, for whatever reason. This is the moral question: Is such a massive redistribution of wealth right?

It is worth noting that there are two layers to this moral question: A) the event of taking wealth from the one who created it; and B) the event of giving wealth to one who did not create it. Now, few would have a problem with (B) by itself—this is what we might call “charity.” I, therefore, do not have a moral problem with (B), so long as the one doing the giving is doing so voluntarily. My moral objection to the government’s redistribution of wealth thus lies exclusively within (A). To (forcefully) take wealth away from the one who created it is a moral violation in my opinion, and it is exceedingly immoral when the quantity of wealth taken is inordinately large, as is the case with these rescue packages. I therefore answer “no” to the moral question.

The United States, however, is not a particularly “principled” nation these days so moral questions aren’t all that important to people anymore. We’re more of a consumerist, ego-centric, hedonistic society so all we really care about is whether something will actually “work”—more specifically, we only care whether something will work for us. This is where the practical question comes in: “Will these rescue packages work as advertised?”

Having paid fairly close attention to the news reports about the rescue packages, my best estimate is that the only measure of the efficacy of the rescue plans is the avoidance of an economic apocalypse. In other words, in exchange for our trillions of dollars, our lives are expected to get worse—substantially worse according to some estimates—regardless of the rescue spending. This makes the practical question rather difficult to address; instead of measuring improvements in the functioning of society, we’re measuring rates of deterioration. It’s sort of like treating cancer: there’s no such thing as a “cure,” but there’s plenty of business out there for those who find ways to slow it down. In any case, I think there are ways to estimate the practical value of these rescue packages.

One way, and the only one I’m going to consider here, is to look at the human side of the economic equation. Humans are of course central to a functioning economy in that they are the ones doing the producing and consuming of the things of value. Therefore, if you know something about human nature, you know something about whether a rescue plan will work. The aspect of human nature I want to draw on here is the school of thought developed in psychology known as behaviorism.

What behaviorist theories propose is that a target human behavior can be escalated or deescalated based, partially, on the nature of the consequences associated with the target behavior. When a target behavior is tied to a desirable consequence, that person is likely to repeat the target behavior. Likewise, when a target behavior is tied to undesirable consequences, that person is likely to abstain from the target behavior. Knowing this, we can estimate what the effects of rescue packages might be on the humans impacted by such policies.

On the one hand, those who produce the wealth (the target behavior) in the society will experience a greater loss of their earned wealth (an undesirable consequence). According to the behaviorist model, this scenario, taken by itself, would have the effect of making the person less likely to perform the target behavior; i.e. the person would abstain from producing wealth. On the other hand, those who do not produce wealth (the target behavior) in the society under the rescue plan would then experience an increase in redistributed wealth (a desirable consequence). Therefore, the behaviorist model would predict that the target behavior would be rewarded, and therefore more likely to be repeated. In other words, the rescue plan would encourage people to be unproductive.

Now, I think it is safe to say that the rescue packages are advertised as increasing productivity in society. But, if we look at it from this behaviorist model, the rescue packages would be doing the exact opposite. The plans would be rewarding unproductive behaviors while penalizing the productive ones. This fact gives me good reason to answer “no” to the practical question. These rescue plans will not work as advertised.

President Obama’s enormous $787 billion economic stimulus plan passed through the Senate last week, on Friday the thirteenth no less. I have my own misgivings about the plan itself, but the passing of it on a Friday the thirteenth adds a particularly foreboding feel to the mix. I think this bill, and Obama’s massive government spending strategy in general, could very well be an instance where the cure is far worse than the disease.

The plan is mostly about spending money, pure and simple. As Republican Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio said of the bill, “The president made clear when we started this process that this was about jobs. Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. And what it’s turned into is nothing more than spending, spending and more spending.”
This emphasis on increased spending is supposed to be happening during a time when money is tight and many people are out of work. It is therefore odd to think that the U.S. is in a position to increase spending on the whole. Spending implies the possession of money; however the government’s plan is to spend when there is a lack of money. This is like putting the proverbial cart before the horse. With this stimulus bill, and the rest of the government’s overall spending strategies, the government in effect plans to continue to “deficit spend” the country out of an economic crisis which is itself defined by deficits of money. And it plans to do this with such an inordinately large sum of money that should the stimulus fail to initiate the productivity required to repay the debt, the country will be crippled by far more debt than it was before the stimulus money was spent. Even if it does work as planned, the size of the debt would still require years and years of taxpayer’s money to offset it. As The New York Times reported in a February 13 article, “If nothing else, the plan is a striking return of big government…Whatever the result, future generations will get the bill.”

Perhaps what is most odd to me about this whole idea of stimulus spending is the extent to which saving and paying off debts is supposed to be discouraged. The government’s plan seeks to encourage individual beneficiaries of stimulus benefits (e.g. tax credits, unemployment compensation, infrastructure-related job opportunities) to spend rather than save their new money. The government wants people to go out and buy new houses and cars as if everything is just fine. I don’t know if it was the way I was raised or what, but I was always of the opinion that it was wise for a person to save money until they could afford something, not before. The age of credit cards and such have changed all that, obviously, but isn’t that largely the reason why we are in this so-called crisis in the first place? Didn’t a bunch of these banks fail because their loans were not repaid? Aren’t people perhaps not buying new cars and houses because they cannot afford the cars and houses they already have?

Many college students, and to a greater extent college graduates, know the burden tremendous financial debt can weigh on a person. How convenient would it be to have your college tuition paid for before you graduate? To do so, though, would require strict financial discipline—that is, it would require one to save money rather than spend it recklessly and frivolously. Why then would the government want us to assume more debt by spending rather than saving?

Well, one reason might be that the more debt one accrues, the more that person is forced to work harder and longer in the future. When one has the luxury of being debt-free, he or she has more discretion over where to work and for how many hours. However, when there is a debt to repay, the owner of that debt must force him or herself to continue working as long as that debt exists—while continuing to pay interest. This eliminates the option of quitting an unpleasant job where a more pleasant job is not yet found or desired. Of course, the economy as a whole will benefit more when as many people who are able to work are working. More workers equals more productivity, and more productivity equals more goods and services available for consumption. And businesses and business owners thrive when goods and services are exchanged—not to mention the government that taxes all of these transactions. Therefore, according to one perspective on this issue, the economy can thrive through increased consumer spending, but, if spending is done before the money is earned, it is at the expense of the consumer’s ability to enjoy debt-free living. The fact that this stimulus bill will force taxpayers into repaying an enormous government debt, while also discouraging stimulus money recipients from saving or paying off their debts, suggests to me that the government has little concern for the individual’s desires to live a debt-free life. What is even more disturbing is that all of this seeks to include the future generations who don’t even have the chance to oppose it.

I therefore encourage everyone to resist the government’s pressure to spend rather than save their money. Pay off your debts and wait until you have enough money to make a large down payment on a major purchase like a car or house. Quit relying on credit cards and buy what you can afford to pay right now. Humans are not to supposed to live in service of unneeded debt. Even though we cannot stop the government from spending these hundreds of billions of dollars, at least we can decide what to do with it if it trickles down into our hands.

President Obama spoke about “our” economic crisis Saturday, Feb. 7 in his Weekly Address and attempted to comfort me about what he and his fellow politicians are doing to make my “dreams” come true. I’m so pleased to have someone other than myself looking after my dreams. Thanks, Barack, one less responsibility I have to worry about.

Obama said “We can’t expect relief from the tired old theories that, in eight short years, doubled the national debt, threw our economy into a tailspin, and led us into this mess in the first place.”

Alright, as we know, no good Obama address gets off the ground unless it takes a shot at that grossly inept administration that preceded his, so I’m glad to see Obama casting blame so readily and effortlessly in this address. But what are these “tired old theories” that Obama is referring to? Well, it can’t be exorbitant military spending because Obama has already made clear that he wants to escalate our military efforts to get those nasty Al Qaeda operatives threatening to blow the world up and everything. So I don’t think that theory is all that “tired” or “old.”

Perhaps Obama wishes to abandon the “tired old” theory that citizens appreciate empty political rhetoric from their leaders that mean absolutely nothing? Well, according to Obama in his Saturday address, “The American people know that our challenges are great. They don’t expect Democratic solutions or Republican solutions—they expect American solutions.” Wow, did you hear that? We expect American solutions. My chest is swelling up with pride as I write this. I can’t even count the number of times I’ve solved a problem in life by simply throwing an American flag at something. Clearly, American solutions are ten times better than tired old “regular” solutions.

Seriously though, what on Earth is an “American” solution? How do I even go about wanting such a thing anyway? Maybe an American solution involves fireworks or shiny things that blow up and make loud noises? Maybe it involves hotdogs and baseballs? Until anyone can tell me what President Obama is referring to when he talks about “American solutions” I’m just going to chalk this one up as empty rhetoric.

Since Obama is speaking about an economic crisis, maybe one of the “tired old theories” he’s talking about is the reckless printing and spending of value-less money that the previous administration and Federal Reserve took part in—you remember, the 700 billion dollar “bailout” bill that passed last October when it was oh so imperative that we give failing banks more capital to “get lending” again? So surely, this time around (a mere 4.5 months after the October bill) Mr. Obama would not be supporting another bill aiming to print 700 billion more dollars? Strictly speaking, I suppose, he’s not; but rather he’s supporting an 800 billion plus dollar bill referred to as a “stimulus package.” Fire up those printing presses, Mr. Obama, because that strategy is apparently anything but “tired and old.”

If the Bush administration was known for anything throughout its eight years of dominion, it was the strategy of fear mongering and pleading for quick action. Surely President Obama would not want to repeat this “tired and old” strategy? Well, here’s what Obama said on Saturday: “[I]f we don’t move swiftly to put this [stimulus] plan in motion, our economic crisis could become a national catastrophe. Millions of Americans will lose their jobs, their homes, and their health care. Millions more will have to put their dreams on hold.”

Whoah. A “national catastrophe!” Not only might I lose my job, house or health care if “we” neglect to “move swiftly,” but I might also have to, gasp, put my dreams on hold! I can handle jobless, homeless and maybe even disease-stricken, but dreamless? That I could not possibly bear. Please Congress, quit your bickering and pass this oh so important stimulus package immediately so President Obama can save my dreams and the dreams of millions of other Americans. The danger is far too great to waste time debating, thinking, or worrying about the devastating consequences of printing money out of thin air. Even though this theory has been tried before, it is obviously far from “tired” or “old.” With that in mind, I will put my dreams in your hands Mr. Obama, for I trust that you will do more with them than I ever could.

On Friday, Jan. 23, President Obama approved an air strike inside the border of Pakistan, which, according to guardian.co.uk, killed at least 18 people. Obama’s policy on this issue is incidentally a continuation of the Bush administration’s, as this attack was one of about 30 unmanned air strikes carried out by the U.S. within the Pakistani border since September 2008 which were reportedly aimed at suspected Al-Qaeda targets. According to numbers reported by Reuters, these 30 U.S. air strikes have killed some 250 people. All of these air strikes have apparently been carried out with drone aircraft controlled by the Central Intelligence Agency from locations within the U.S.

The fact that Obama approved these air strikes raises some concern amongst individuals who were hoping for a break from Bush’s policies—especially those involving the bombing and killing of people. Although I interpret the killing of people to be bad policy, I understand that others do not see it that way. For example, according to a January 24 article in guardian.co.uk, “The strikes will help Obama portray himself as a leader who, though ready to shift the balance of American power towards diplomacy, is not afraid of military action.” Following this writer’s thinking, the act of killing people can be seen as character building. Now that a few dozen people have been killed, we now know that President Obama is not “afraid” of doing such.

Aside from the problems I have with killing people in general, there is something particularly irksome about those who do their killing from miles away in the comfort of their control rooms, or, in President Obama’s case, his office. It is odd that anyone would consider the use of military drones as an indication that one lacks fear regarding military action. In my mind, rather than demonstrating courage or bravery with respect to the use of military force from afar, I would think that bombing by remote control would be the epitome of cowardice. If it isn’t cowardly enough already to bomb people from the safety of a jet hundreds of feet in the air, how much courage does it take to push a few buttons from a control room across the ocean to drop a bomb?

Most importantly though, I have to take issue with the idea that a reluctance to use military violence indicates that a person is “afraid.” In our society, it appears as though there is something “tough” or “courageous” about using violence to solve problems. I don’t understand why that is. Perhaps I would understand it in an old fashioned sense if the fighting were done hand-to-hand, up close and personal. But when the violence is waged from afar with superior firepower and technology, the element of courage dissolves into cowardice. Especially when it is “popular” to support military violence, as it is in the U.S., it is far more courageous to oppose military violence in the face of this majority. Therefore, just as President Obama might not be afraid of military action, he likely is afraid to abandon the use of it.

As if the use of remote controlled bombing machines weren’t cowardly enough, members of the Obama administration didn’t even have the wherewithal to discuss the killings. Both Vice President Joseph Biden and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refused to answer questions from reporters about the air strikes. In a January 25 interview on CBS’s Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer, Bob asked Biden a question about the drone attacks, to which Biden replied, “Bob, as you know, I can’t speak to any particular attack. I can’t speak to any particular action. It’s not appropriate for me to do that…I always try to be completely candid with you, but I can’t respond to that question. I’m not going to respond to that question.” Likewise, in a January 29 press briefing, Robert Gibbs evaded questions about the air strikes from reporters by persistently replying, “I’m not going to get into these matters.”

Apparently, in addition to keeping a “safe” distance between themselves and the victims of their remote controlled bombs, the Obama administration is also interested in keeping a “safe” distance between themselves and the American public. Who’s afraid of what again?