More revenue, and not budget cuts alone, needed to balance budget

Debate continues to rage in Congress of the U.S. budget and deficit. We face governmental shutdown over the lack of will to compromise. The framing of the debate have lead the American public to believe the we are broke, that there is no money to be found, and that we have spent beyond our means.

With a deficit in the trillions of dollars a party and ideological line rift has grown larger and larger, all over a miniscule amount when considering the entirety of the U.S. budget. The idea is that there is not enough money to cover our spending, and dramatic budget cuts across the board are the end all, save all.

Indeed, our nation has engaged in wasteful spending; even excessive spending. Indeed, their need to be a reevaluation in our priorities and our expenditures. Indeed, we need to make budget cuts. But to balance the budget cutting a little here, and a little more there, will not bring us out of this crisis.

The current discussion is lopsided, monopolized by the idea that budget cuts will bring us out of the red. We ought to pay more attention to the other side of the equation, sources of revenue. We some how have gained the misconception that our nation is broke. And if fact we, America as a whole, are far from it. There is more to America than its governing institutions. We are made of individuals, groups, and yes, corporations.

People tend to tip-toe around this discussion, afraid to hinder and over burden U.S. corporations. We fear that asking them to pay their dues will mean loss of jobs, out sourcing, and the collapse of the American economy. While families across the country struggle daily to make ends meet, and out government faces complete shutdown, U.S. corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars. Hordes of money are lying unused. Not invested and not providing jobs. Meanwhile, large corporations are dodging taxes by finding legal loopholes.

They blame the taxation system, saying it broken, crying that it isn’t their fault they’re seemingly immune to taxation. Despite their high priced lawyers and economic consultants, they have just accidently stumbled into the loopholes.

"No crime here," they say, "just plain ignorance and a broken system."

These tax loopholes and massive corporations are what we need to focus on if we are going to balance our budget. Yes, budget cuts are needed, but will only help as a supplement to sources of revenue. It is time that we demand that our corporations pay what they owe, to pay their dues, and to quit dodging their fair share. It is time that they rejoin the American public in making our country strong and great again.

Arizona law address symptom, not cause of illegal immigration, Rocky Mountain Collegian 04/28/2010

Along the U.S.-Mexican border, the illegal immigration debate continues. A recent Arizona law has inflamed passions of people, and rightly so. This new law permits local and state police officers to stop individuals on the grounds of suspicion of being an illegal immigrant. This is their effort to dampen the flow.
The number of illegal immigrants crossing the Mexico border is a problem, one that affects all legal American citizens. I absolutely believe that there has to be something done to correct this problem to protect Americans from the consequences of such large and unchecked flow of immigrants.
With that said, the strategy that Arizona has adopted is not the solution, nor will it effectively deny access into America. The law passed was not a sincere effort to stop illegal immigration, but a political ploy to give the appearance that they’re doing something about the problem.
Many people from my camp disagree with, if not despise, the actions of Arizona on the grounds of racial profiling. This is not my stance. I recognize the value and effectiveness of profiling within the criminal justice system.
Racial profiling is only wrong when race is the sole distinction made by a police officer, and is not the reason I oppose this law.
The law passed by Arizona only addresses a symptom of the underlying problem and not the problem itself. Any action taken retroactively or after the immigrants have already arrived is futile.
To simply believe that we can corral illegal immigrants and send them home is foolish. First, we would need a 24-hour bus service, departing every 30 seconds, to make dent in the problem (yes, unsubstantiated, but you get my point). Second, they are likely to return just to face that same bus ride later. This is not the solution.
Those who propose building a wall the entire length of the border are even more naïve. It does not take too much thought to find the flaws in this plan.
The only true solution to the problem of excessive illegal immigration is to eliminate the desire, nay, the need to illegally cross the border.
Despite what American xenophobes believe, Mexican immigrants do not wish to leave their homes, communities and country to join the American lifestyle. They do not wish to overcome our nation and bring the Hispanic culture to dominance. They do not wish to spit in our face by speaking Spanish, “stealing” our jobs and refusing to assimilate.
These are all unfortunate realities of the dire situation in which they were dealt.
These people leave their homes and communities because they see no other viable option. They see their local economies undermined by free trade agreements, multinational corporations and a corrupt government. Many are forced to the northern Maquiladoras for work, not by gun point, but by issues of subsistence.
When they arrive to work, they are faced with dangerous and degrading jobs for little money at all. Meanwhile, they are fully aware that working for the same companies on the American side of the border provides better labor standards and a subsidence living.
Is it any wonder they would risk life and limb and discrimination for a lifestyle that will at least keep them and their families alive and well?
This is the issue we have to address. To solve our problems, we must solve theirs. This should not be out of charity but of responsibility. We Americans, and our corporations and trade agreements, are largely responsible for the problems Mexicans face, and so it is our responsibility to cooperate in realizing a solution.
Talks of fences, concentration camps and mass deportations are an insincere remedy for the problem. Realistically, it is an attempt to hide our own role in this problem that we have created for them and ourselves.
Wade McManus is a senior political science major. His column appears on Thursdays in the Collegian. Letters and feedback can be sent to letters@collegian.com.

Protestors expose Olympic socioeconomic problems, Rocky Mountain Collegian 02/19/2010

The whole world’s attention is turned to Vancouver for this year’s Olympics. Media from around the world continually stream footage of the games around the globe. Merely turn on a TV or radio, and you can be taken to Vancouver to partake in the ceremonial global sports duel.
It’s easy for spectators to distinguish between winning athletes and losing athletes. A Canadian crosses the finish line, stands atop a podium, is awarded a medal and is hailed as the winner.
But the more important action is going on outside the games, though you’d be hard pressed to find much coverage of this struggle in the mainstream media, and distinguishing between the winners and losers is more difficult.
During the opening ceremony of the 2010 Olympics, 3,000 protestors and organizers united diverse backgrounds and interests in a march through downtown Vancouver, and ultimately, a rally at the B.C. Place stadium denouncing the Olympics. Anti-corporate, anti-poverty, environmental and anti-war, among many others, joined the call to the streets.
Collectively, this ensemble of social activists makes a pretty compelling argument against the Olympics, or more particularly, the primary organizing body, the International Olympic Committee. The collective message is that the symbolic relationship of international participation and cooperation is not worth the social and environmental degradation that follow in every Olympic host city.
The action in the streets reminds me of a joke a professor of mine once told in class. He asked, “How do you get 500 Canadians out of a swimming pool?” We all sat, curiously batting around crude ideas in our heads when he says, in a kind of matter-of-fact way, “You ask them.”
Well it’s not the easy to get 3,000 protestors out of the streets. In all, $1 billion have been spent on police, military and private security to lock down the city. Though the protestors were only confronted with a few hundred police officers, many of the protestors have dubbed Vancouver a military state.
Of course, the Canadian government has every reason to protect the city in such a way. God forbid anything terrible happen. It does highlight, however, the massive price of hosting the Olympics. $8 billion will be spent on the Vancouver Olympics. This is a fact that has motivated many of these activists to take to the streets.
It is undeniable that hosting the Olympics does bring benefits. A spike in the local economy, the spotlight on the global stage, etc. However, these are short-lived, and the negative consequences live long after.
Historically, when the Olympics come into town, it requires a shift in funds from civil and social spending to Olympic services and infrastructure construction. Meanwhile, the homeless population is growing in Vancouver and growing quickly. It is estimated that there are 15,000 homeless in the host city.
Yet they can afford the $8 billion to host a two-and-a-half week event. Even worse, the process of gentrification, the displacement and removal of impoverished and minority groups, consistently follow the games. These groups are often pushed farther and farther toward the outskirts of the city, replaced by an Olympic park that will rest as a ghost town a short time after.
Though this is a clear illustration of social irresponsibility and wasteful spending driven by shortsightedness, Canada probably has the luxury to absorb these consequences with relatively low harm, but I cannot imagine that Rio de Janeiro has the same resources to spare as Vancouver.
When there are losers, there are usually winners as well. And again it is the global corporate class taking home the gold. Coca-cola, General Electric and Panasonic are among the likes standing at the top of the podium. A global audience and exclusive marketing make corporate sponsors the biggest winner out of the heat. But that is for another column.
_
Wade McManus is a senior political science major. His column appears on Thursdays in the Collegian. Letters and feedback can be sent to letters@collegian.com._

Fear corporate authoritarianism, Rocky Mountain Collegian 02/04/2010

For the past year now, the conservative right has been screaming of a socialist takeover lead by President Barack Obama and his administration.
They said it would be the end of the American lifestyle, as we know it. He was going to take liberties and our guns.
But Obama has accomplished nothing socialist. Indeed, the only thing socialist about Obama has been his rhetoric. And maybe that is why our nation continues to face crisis after crisis.
Socialism has a negative connotation among most Americans who have the perception that socialism and democracy are incompatible. For many Americans, socialism sounds too much like communism, too much like Nazism and Maoism. But that’s an incorrect conclusion. The U.S. has initiated socialist programs while maintaining democracy.
I’d remind you that all taxpayers contribute to the common good through taxes, which in return are used to build and maintain roads and highways, dams and irrigation systems, elementary and high schools, unemployment benefits and food stamps. Do I have to go on? Competitive “free market” economics could not operate without many perks provided by our government. The same capitalist economy conservatives often hail could not succeed without these socialist programs.
The problem is, I have not seen much as far as progress goes, especially toward the direction of socialism. Maybe my skepticism is premature; many of my friends have reminded me change takes time.
However, my understanding of socialism is that it provides a social safety net enjoyed by all. Obama’s administration certainly did create a safety net, but one that has failed to rescue the average working American. Instead, it doled out $700 billion to rescue Wall Street, despite its terrible business practices.
The idea must have been the old saying that “a rising tide raises all boats.” Wealth at the top of the social pyramid trickles down to those at the bottom. Unfortunately, that trickle of wealth dried up before it had reached the bottom.
The flow of wealth is dammed in the reservoir of corporate greed. Unemployment is in the double digits and pension plans have disappeared, and yet CEOs are making breathtaking bonuses.
The only initiative Obama’s administration has attempted that resembles socialism is the health care reform plan. Needless to say, it has been an utter failure so far.
Even if it had succeeded in pushing health care reform, creating a system that protected Americans from financially crippling health care bills, we would only be joining the rest of the industrialized world in universal health care. And who considers England to be a socialist nation? Instead, the powerful insurance industry influence won out. And why not when they can outspend any competing interest, deploying an army of lobbyists?
Despite everything, many Americans still squirm with the thought of socialism. Well, no fear because unemployment continues to rise, roads and bridges continue to deteriorate, dams and irrigation ditches are dangerously in need of repair and schools continue to lose funding.
Instead, we have created a corporate safety net –– a corporate socialism, if you will. Large corporations continue to make their bottom line, no matter how many jobs are lost or how many bookkeeping numbers are smudged.
We have taken a step closer to corporate authoritarianism. We have created a political atmosphere where business and government are nearly one and the same. We have created a governing body where corporations win citizens’ tax dollars, influence congressional elections, cripple executive will and apparently guide the Supreme Court.
Large corporations have a hand in nearly every aspect of American politics. It seems we Americans would allow corporate authoritarianism that serves the few rather than demand a social safety net that serves the commons.
_
Wade McManus is a senior political science major. His column appears Thursdays in the Collegian. Letters and feedback can be sent to letters@collegian.com. _

IMF Imperialism in Haiti, Rocky Mountain Collegian 03/10/2010

The international lending institution, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), is at work again with its one trick pony show. This Western imperialist machine’s gears continue to manufacture “rapidly developing” economies.
Many of the globe’s poorest nations have accused the IMF of spreading a new form of colonialism, one not necessarily controlled by military force, but like a puppet connected to strings. To gain power and influence the IMF offers extremely impoverished and disaster stricken nations loans they can’t afford to refuse.
To save their nation from immediate hardships of malnutrition, widespread disease and the like, countries almost invariably accept loans.
The problem is the IMF doesn’t offer these loans with sheer generosity and humanitarianism, but with the aims of opening up their economy to the free global market. Their loan is completely conditional to radical changes in their economy.
Haiti is undoubtedly impoverished, beginning with their independence from the French. But conditions worsened and they became the poorest nation in the western hemisphere. Even before the earthquake that has recently left their country in ruin, the IMF had intervened in Haiti.
During the 1990s, Haiti was given a loan in the hundreds of millions of dollars. In return, Haiti had to perform the classical change dictated by the IMF, the removal of barriers for international trade.
In this case Haiti was forced to remove tariffs, or fees on international producers, on rice. Historically Haiti was a leading producer in rice, making enough to feed themselves, and to sell the excess.
But this all changed quickly.
Suddenly the price of Haitian rice plummeted, heavily decreasing production. Meanwhile, the United States began to heavily subsidize rice production in the U.S., artificially reducing the price of production.
The price was so deflated that the U.S. overproduced rice and dumped it on Haiti, only further driving down the value of Haiti’s own rice. This trend virtually halted production of rice in Haiti, forcing them to buy form the U.S. and others. This lead to the crash of Haiti’s primary economic sector and food shortages, eventually ending in food riots.
Now after the earthquake, the IMF is again on the prowl, further straddling Haiti with new loans and new strings attached.
Initially it seemed the IMF was doing this in good faith, announcing that all debt would be forgiven. The global community applauded them for their generosity.
But now, only shortly after, the IMF has begun to back peddle. Instead of forgiving the debt, Haiti would not have to pay on it for five years, which again changed to three years. But inevitably Haiti will be responsible to their lenders.
You may be asking yourself, “So, why is this important now?”
Well it turns out Haiti is sitting on black gold, a massive oil reserve that rivals Venezuela’s. This presents the opportunity for the IMF to turn their second favorite trick — the liquidation of natural resources.
As a condition to receive a loan, the IMF often requires countries to sell their natural resources for dirt-cheap. Private corporations can bid for access to theses resources at a much lower price than their true value. The idea is immediate payment towards the loans.
But it isn’t a stretch to believe that Haiti, a country greatly in need of wealth, will be forced to practically give away its most valuable resources.
If Haiti were in condition to tap into the oil reserves on their own they could afford reconstruction overtime. But bound by these loans, the great puppet masters are sure to manipulate Haiti into giving up their untapped treasure.
A humanitarian obligation and a heavy heart is hardly the reason for the IMF to get involved in Haiti. Rather it is to spread what some activists have called “disaster-capitalism.”
The western imperialist machine is using the tragedy that has rocked the very foundation of Haiti to cheaply gain access to valuable resources for the western superpowers.
_Wade McManus is a senior political science major. His column appears Thursdays in the Collegian. Letters and feedback can be sent to letters@collegian.com. _

Excessive consumption has poisoned our oceans, Rocky Mountain Collegian 02/24/2010

Our society has fallen into to a pattern of excessive-consumption, largely since the mid-20th century.
We developed a national economy that operates off production and consumption. Its ultimate result: billions of pounds of waste. The consequences of our over consumption is not in clear sight, often hidden by proximity or neglectful reporting.
Well, the problem growing in the Pacific Ocean has reached such a magnitude that it should no longer be ignored.
In the circular currents of the Pacific Ocean, billions of pounds plastic have formed a massive patch that has been dubbed the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” Actually, there are two patches –– an eastern and western patch off each side of Hawaii.
Estimated sizes of the patch vary from two times the size of Texas to two times the size of the continental United States. But even the smaller of the two is a tragedy. The effects are widespread, potentially affecting the entire globe.
Greenpeace estimates there are 267 species affected, including seabirds, turtles and other marine life. The U.N. Environmental Program estimates more than a million animals die annually due to mistakenly eating plastic.
Even worse for us, traces of the plastic gathering in the Pacific has been found in fish and other animals. In return, traces of that same plastic has been found in people after ingestion.
Who would have thought? You could now be consuming remnants of a plastic Twinkie wrapper your grandma gave to your mom for desert 50 years ago.
It may seem the problem has an easy solution — just clean it up. But the California Coastal Commission in San Francisco says that feat is impossible.
Problems include the massive price tag and the lack of international, collective responsibility and that an attempt to clean the mess would be devastating to marine ecosystems, potentially spanning much of the world. A clean-up operation to this magnitude would interrupt crucial natural balances and processes.
What can we do then?
Well, nothing. It’s hopeless. We are stuck in our consuming habits, and it’s futile to think any differently. But a naïve optimists like myself would still like to give it a try.
Undoubtedly the way we dispose of waste has played a significant role in the growth of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. One way or another, our plastic waste finds itself in rivers and streams, and ultimately into our oceans.
It’s estimated that 80 percent of the trash in the garbage patch originated from land-based disposal and has meandered to beaches and oceans around the world. The other 20 percent is from private and commercial ships throwing trash overboard.
Clearly, there is a flaw in how we dispose of our trash in America and around the globe.
Recycling and better disposal practices alone will not decontaminate our oceans. Ultimately, we have to heavily reduce our consumption.
The problem is already there and it’s not going to disappear. But we can choose to limit the growth of the garbage patch, along with its potential consequences.
This, however, would require a paradigm shift at all levels of society — from the individual up. This logic applies to more than just plastics floating in our oceans.
And, of course, we cannot continue on while eliminating our consumption habits completely.
New ideas and new technology may prove to go a long way. Biodegradable products and alternative energies can compliment conscientious consuming habits to work against the poisoning of our planet.
There are pressing environmental issues that we now face. Many of us may never experience the consequences of these, but don’t be so quick to dismiss them for that reason.
Make a personal effort to curb your consumption habits, to whatever extent you can afford.
Wade McManus is a senior political science major. His column appears Thursdays in the Collegian. Letters and feedback can be sent to letters@collegian.com.

The final rant of a naïve political science major, Rocky Mountain Collegian 05/05/2010

Throughout the semester, my column has repeatedly exposed the abusive power of large business and corrupt corporations. In my final column, I conclude by discussing the largest problem that faces America. This is not just a problem facing America but a problem facing our generation and the entire world.
American politics no longer reflects a democratic society or even a communist dictatorship. American politics can now be defined as corporate socialism, or more accurately, corporatism. Multinational corporations have intruded into every aspect of our lives.
They have entered and directed our thoughts through corporate media, deciding what we should know, what we should not know and how we should think about an issue. There is no such thing as objectivity in mainstream American media, but only ideological propaganda meant to mold the public view to fit polarized extremes.
Corporations have bought our votes and undermined the voting power of those who dissent. Most of the political advertisements that barrage us during election season don’t come from the campaigns themselves, but from interested industries and corporations. They advocate for pro-business politicians who will cater to their interests and disregard public opinion and the interest of the masses.
Once elected, the business interests buy our politicians. To ensure compliance, and to secure a favor or two, private corporations donate absurd amounts of funds. They send a clear message that a victory relies on their support, and noncompliance will result in their loss next election.
Our politicians represent the interest of those cutting checks, and not their constituents. The voice of public opinion has been reduced to a whisper, drowned out by the loudspeaker of corporate interests.
Earlier this semester, the Supreme Court implicitly endorsed this line of buy-and-sell politics. In the interest of big businesses and economic elites they removed campaign donation limits.
This was supposedly done as a protection of the freedom of speech. But what this will do is increase the influence of big business on our elections, and to silence the voice of individuals.
When crucial legislation is introduced in the halls of Congress, big business and corporations unleash an army of lobbyists. During the health care reform debate there were more lobbyists trolling the halls than there were legislators.
They ensure that any legislation passed would include benefits and handouts for big business. This was seen during the financial reform, and when President Barack Obama raised the issue of nationalized health care, the people still walked away as the losers.
The new health care bill didn’t pass in the interest of the American people, but in the interest of the insurance companies. Public option clauses were omitted while we guaranteed a market to the insurance industry. We assured that our money would flow to the insurance companies.
One of the most perverse outcomes of corporatism is the revolving door from the CEO boardrooms to regulatory agencies. Ex-bankers are regulating their old business friends and the financial industry. Oil gurus create environmental standards as directors of the Environmental Protection Agency. There is a clear conflict of interest here.
The greedy mishandling of politics is not isolated to America. Multinationals have become the global governing system. They manipulate governments and undermine sovereignty with the unchecked ability to mobilize capital and operations.
In some cases, exemplified by Chiquita Fruit Company’s alleged funding of a left-wing guerilla group, FARC, in Columbia and its involvement in overthrowing Guatemala’s democratically elected government in 1954, they have funded the illegal removal of legitimate governments. Governments bent on nationalism and isolationism have been violently displaced and replaced by pro-business dictatorships.
With the help of neoliberal institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, they have dismantled public services and installed for-profit businesses. In many places, water systems and hospitals are no longer owned by the people, nor operate in the interest of the masses. They are operated to maximize profit of shareholders half a world away.
The biggest threat our generation faces is corporate fascism. We are entering a world were big business and corrupt corporations have the final say while our own interest are silenced. We face a world run by corporate elite.
Wade McManus is a political science major. Letters and feedback can be sent to letters@collegian.com.