Do do that Voodoo that we do...not so well

No one will disagree that America is in the midst of an economic crisis but how we handle this crisis is the topic of much debate.

Crying "Socialist", it seems, has become the preferred soundbite of the conservative right, both in politics and in the media. Preying on the fears and insecurities of the ever dissolving middle class in America, the Republican party and its proponents have attempted to define President Obama's endeavor to drag our nation out of its current economic cesspool as a slow, steady march toward Socialism. As evidence of this administrations socialist agenda, R's point to the Health Care Reform Law, tax increases for the wealthiest 1%, big business bailouts, and various social welfare policies. But is this Socialism, or rather, a form of Protectionism? Capitalism and Protectionism are not mutually exclusive.

Protectionism has historically been defined as the policy of restraining trade between states, through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, restrictive quotas, and a variety of other government regulations designed to discourage imports. A country as innovative as the United States could certainly implement a retooled version of Protectionism where rather than placing tariffs or taxes on imported goods, we implement taxes on exported jobs. With a nearly 10% unemployment rate, discouraging companies from shipping jobs overseas could provide a significant boost to our economy by lowering the unemployment rate and putting cash in consumers pockets.

Founding Father Alexander Hamilton was an advocate of Protectionism, which supports government intervention in favor of business. Hamilton was firmly opposed to the British policy of Free Trade, which America didn't entirely adopt until the 1980's when Ronald Reagan instituted Supply-Side economic policies.

Those who subscribe to the idea of Free Trade generally believe that any business should sink or swim on its own merit. They believe that supply and demand should be the ultimate determining factor in the price of goods and services, therefore, if a company is sick it is because it failed to create enough demand, subsequently becomes irrelevant and should be allowed to die.

Good parents may say it is important for children to learn to be independent. Encouraging a child to solve their own problems allows them to take credit for their own accomplishments while learning from their mistakes. The "sink or swim" philosophy may be good parenting, still, any good parent would not hesitate to interfere if their child were actually drowning in a body of water. So the question remains: Though "sink or swim" may build strong character, does it build a strong economy? We are all the parents, in a sense, to our country. We created it, we love it, we nurture and protect it. Now that it is drowning, is it un-American to interfere?

Supporters of Supply-Side economics (sometimes known as "trickle down" or "voodoo" economics) believe that relaxing government regulations and lowering taxes for wealthy business owners creates an environment where businesses can more easily produce goods and services at a lower cost, which in turn, allows them to sell their goods at a more reasonable rate to the public and should increase sales and boost the economy. Opponents of this idea believe the policy doesn't take in to account human greed. Though it may cost you less to produce goods, there is no incentive to reduce the end price. Lower taxes and less government regulation combined with high prices allows the rich to get richer; which is why many believe that a more logical solution would be to focus on protecting consumers rights and lowering taxes for the lower and middle classes which would create more disposable income for consumers, increasing sales and boosting the economy.

Jean-Baptiste Colbert was famous for bringing the French economy back from the brink of bankruptcy by implementing Protectionism, encouraging the increased manufacture of goods, and creating consumer protection laws. Many economists have argued that a fatal flaw in the American economic system is that it failed to anticipate the current situation wherein our country, for the most part, no longer manufactures anything. We could kill two birds with one stone (those being our economic albatross and our fossil fuel dodo) by reducing our import of foreign oil with the creation of American made green energy. Getting America building, creating, and innovating once again would undoubtedly not only provide a boost to our economy, but a boost to our national self-esteem as well. New green energy jobs would put more Americans back to work and purchasing our energy locally rather than importing it from volatile foreign countries keeps American dollars in American pockets. With fossil fuels being an ever disappearing finite resource it makes sense to create alternatives now. And with the current situation in the middle east we can all agree that we would like to eliminate our dependency on relationships with oil producing countries.

It should be noted, however, that despite Jean-Baptiste Colbert's efforts, France ultimately became increasingly impoverished because of the King's excessive spending on wars. Unfortunately, our own war spending could be the determining nail in Americas economic coffin.

Show Us Your Papers

Once upon a time there was a state which suffered through a horrible economic recession. A major war had recently caused a large drain on the economy and, as with all wars many lives were lost. Those who had returned home from the war found themselves significantly under skilled and without a job. Employment was hard to find for anyone and a large percentage of the working poor were self employed small business owners without a social security net to rely on. Adding to the tension was a rise in crime, and a widely publicized immigrant population which was a perceived threat of competition in the job market as immigrants were willing to work longer hours for less pay. The citizens of this state were in an uproar, demanding that something be done! Then, one day, an elected official stepped up and signed into law a decree that police would require all people living within the state to show them papers proving that they were natural born, true citizens. The citizens were convinced that this law would bring about a new era of prosperity, as everyone knew it was these unlawful immigrants who were causing the rise in crime rates. And these immigrants too were to blame for the poor economy and lack of jobs. The only option was to identify and remove these immigrants from the state. The year was 1937. The state was Germany. And I think we all know this story did not have a happy ending.

The Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana famously remarked, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Unfortunately, if Mr. Santayana were living in Arizona today, that remark would have been met with the response, “Show me your papers.” for apparently Governor Jan Brewer does not remember the holocaust.

Friday, Governor Brewer signed Arizona SB1070 into law, which states: “WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.” Aside from the obvious implications that this law promotes racial profiling, another aspect is the dangerously vague language of the law, both of which have civil rights groups up in arms. As anyone who has ever been awarded “reasonable visitation” in a custody dispute knows, the term “reasonable” is virtually undefined and unenforceable by the law.


Arizona officials have stated that it was a lack of federal immigration reform that provoked this new controversial law into being. In response to that I would have to quote my 7 year old daughter in saying, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

An African American by any Other Name

Authors John Heilemann and Mark Halperin this month released their new book Game Change in which they expose dirty laundry of politicians involved in the historic 2008 Presidential race. Several quotes from the controversial book have been dominating the headlines Monday morning, squelching reports coming out of the White House about jobs. Among the many disturbing quotes from Heilmann and Halperin's book, which include claims that Sarah Palin stated her V.P nomination was "Gods plan", were reports from anonymous sources which portrayed Senator Harry Reid and former President Bill Clinton as making racist remarks.

Former President Bill Clinton was quoted as saying (regarding now President Barack Obama) "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,". This remark was interpreted by many, as being a reference to Obamas skin color. While foxnews.com reports Al Sharpton as stating in an interview that President Clintons remarks were "disturbing", Rev. Sharpton gave an interview on MSNBC's morning show The Daily Rundown in which he stated that Clintons remarks would have been far worse if in fact the quote were accurate. In the Sharpton interview host Savannah Guthrie points out President Clintons statement was more likely regarding Obamas age, and that due to his youth, a few years ago he would have been a staffer fetching coffee.

The most popularly covered portion of the book was probably a statement made by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) in which he said that Barrack Obama was the most viable candidate to be the nations first black President because he was "light-skinned" "with no Negro dialect".

Republicans have been comparing Senator Reid's remarks to the famed debacle in 2002 during Strom Thurmonds 100th birthday party in which Trent Lott spoke stating, "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either." Strom Thurmond ran for President in 1948 as a segregationist. Soon after the speech was made, Lott resigned from the Senate. Rev. Al Sharpton says the comparison of Reids statement to Lotts speech was "an insult to the American public".

Senator Reid has apologized to President Obama for the statements he made in the book, and has similarly contacted African American leaders to make apologies as well. Obama and Rev. Sharpton have said they forgive Reid and want to put the incident behind them. Democrats seem to accept that Reid was not saying that he preferred Obama as a candidate because of the lightness of his skin or the dialect he spoke with, but rather that voters who may be uncomfortable with a non-white candidate would be more likely to vote for a black man with those traits.

The context of Senator Reids statement may not be offensive to some, but the use of the word negro may be difficult for most to fathom. Harry Reid was born in December of 1939, when the word negro was the most commonly accepted term in use. It wasn't until the late 1960's, when Reid was in his 20's, that because of the civil rights movement the term negro became associated with the long history of slavery and discrimination and was deemed a racial slur. Now the most acceptable terms in use are black or African American. The word negro can still be found in use in historical contexts such as in the name of The United Negro College Fund.

The ease in which many African Americans have forgiven Harry Reid may have been due to his long standing record of promoting and defending civil rights. In 2006 the NAACP rated Sen. Reid 96% in his stance on affirmative action. In 2009 the NAACP applauded Reid for his leadership and support in passing the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Reids voting record also includes: Voting YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women, voting NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage, voting YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation, voting NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds.

The fact remains that Game Change, regardless of the deeply personal and at sometimes trivial nature of its content, has left Americans with many questions that we each need to ask ourselves. Is giving a public speech stating that electing a President who supports segregation would have improved the U.S. a comparable offense to using antiquated racial terminology in a private conversation remarking that a black man with light skin and an ethnically neutral dialect may be more palatable to American voters? Does forgiveness from a handful of prominent African Americans constitute an absolution from the entire black community, or is offending even one person, one person too many? Is a slip of the tongue, even with the best of intentions, unforgivable? Does a long standing record of supporting civil rights define a man, or can a single sentence reveal a persons true nature? The truth is that no one can know for sure what is in another persons heart no matter how much research is done or how many interviews are conducted. We can only hope for the best in people, but sadly more often than not, we assume the worst.