The United States of
America emerged from The Great Depression and World War II with a
period of some of the fastest and most egalitarian economic growth
the world had ever seen. We were still a long way from being a more
perfect union, with huge sections of population considered second
class citizens, but in terms of the economy, especially when you think about
it in the context of human history, post-war America was a miracle.
That American ideal of home and car ownership was created during this
period, as was the idea that would, in one generation, became an
American assumption; that your children will have more wealth than
you did. How did we go from The Great Depression to the Great
Expansion? It wasn't tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of
markets.
Our path to
prosperity from the Great Depression, isn't really up for debate. It
is historical fact. Federal spending, whether in the form of New Deal
programs or World War II kept society from completely collapsing
while the economy recovered from reckless financial practices and
historic drought. Some of those programs, like those run by the
Public Works Administration, the Rural Electrification
Administration, and the Civilian Conservation Corps, not only put
people to work in the moment of crisis, but also produced
infrastructure vital to our future productivity and leisure. Imagine
how long it would've taken to have a consumer electronics market
without the electrification of rural America. After WWII, three
policies in particular built on the products of New Deal spending,
and established the key resources for the explosion of growth. The
GI Bill did two things, one short term and one long term. In the
short term, it gave all the returning soldiers something to do while
the economy readjusted itself to peace time. Instead of flooding the
market with millions of new workers, returning soldiers went to
college. In the long term, it produced the most highly educated work
force in the world. The Eisenhower highway system, originally
intended to make it easier for American troops to move from place to
place, also allowed for the cheap transportation of goods from place
to place. To put this another way, McDonalds would not be nearly as
successful without this investment in national infrastructure.
Finally, the Marshall Plan ensured there would be other economies for
the United States to trade with. Government spending in Europe
allowed American manufacturing to thrive.
The spending
programs were coupled with regulations of the financial industry,
including banking and the stock market. Regulations like The Banking
Act of 1933, which included the Glass-Steagall Act and FDIC, ensured
there was an inherent level of stability in finance even while the
risks of investment were taken.
The result of these
federal spending programs coupled with prudent regulations: from
1948-1980 we had six recessions and stock market crashes. From
1980-2010, when we began to roll back regulation, lower taxes on the
wealthiest Americans and cut spending on infrastructure, we had 11
recessions and stock market crashes, with 2008 only being the most
recent and most drastic. (That's actually being a little generous,
as I'm not counting the recessions with primarily foreign sources,
like the Asian market crisis.) We now work more hours for less
wealth. American families, with two full-time adult wage earners,
can no longer afford that house and car that was, less than a
generation before, practically a birthright. And the gap between the
rich and everyone else has exploded.
Republicans and
Democrats have been talking about the middle class for months, but
you don't have to do anything more than open a history book to know
which side is correct. Federal investment in infrastructure coupled
with prudent regulation created the American middle class as we know
it. Elizabeth Warren supports policies that worked. It's that
simple. Though the specifics will of course be different, the
strategies of The Great Depression are applicable to The Great
Recession. Elizabeth Warren will work to implement those strategies.
Furthermore, the arc
of American history has always been towards a more inclusive society.
When our Founders put pen to paper, their idea of freedom was
limited to white men who owned property and since then we have been
struggling to extend the benefits of a free society to more and more
members of our community. That struggle for inclusion isn't just
about voting rights, though if it was contemporary Republicans would
still be on the wrong side, but about an economy where all people are
paid the same wages for the same work, where families are able to
plan their interaction with the economy, where workers are valued as
human beings through fair pay, safe working conditions, retirement
security, and leisure time, where immigrants who want to contribute
to our society are given the opportunity to do so, and where domestic
partnerships are not restricted to a certain arrangement of genitals.
Elizabeth Warren's
policies are not just moral, historically proven, and good for the
economy, they are moral, historically proven, and good for American.
Oh, and I'd rather not need a lawyer to understand my credit card
bill, so let's thank Elizabeth Warren for that too.
Scott Brown has done
his best to keep his head down in the two years he has been in office
and it's not hard to see why. He wouldn't stand a chance for
re-election if he adopted the policies that define his party at the
moment. But while he tries to distinguish himself from his own
party, he has to distinguish himself from Elizabeth Warren, and his
major legislative attempt to do so resulted in what I consider the
strongest argument against his abilities as a legislator.
The Blunt Amendment
was offered during the fabricated conflict over contraceptive
coverage, in response to the Obama administration slightly changing existing contraception policy. Scott Brown did not just vote with his party
in favor of the amendment; he co-sponsored it. The problem is,
regardless of how you feel about contraception, the amendment was
poorly planned and poorly thought out. It's goals aside, it was bad
legislation. Essentially, the Blunt Amendment would allow employers
to not contribute to health care policies that include, or health
insurance companies to not cover, "specific items or services...contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer,
or other entity offering the plan.” Scott Brown will tell you his
co-sponsorship of this amendment was about religious freedom, but
even if that were true, it's still bad legislation.
What
if my employer were a Christian Scientist? If so pretty much all
health care would be contrary to its religious beliefs. And who
would get to decide whether an employer/health insurance provider has
an actual “moral conviction” against a specific service or
procedure? What's to stop a health insurance company claiming that
chemotherapy is against their “moral convictions?” Who will
arbitrate between the providers and the provided and between the
employers and the employed? There are three ways to answer this
question; additional federal legislation that specifically outlines
exceptions which means a massive intrusion of the federal government
in the economy; ceding that authority to an existing federal agency
which means a massive intrusion of the federal government in the
economy; let the courts figure it out, which could mean millions of
tax payer dollars spent on litigating particular moral convictions
and particular services or procedures. Rather than rolling back
Federal involvement in religious beliefs, the Blunt Amendment would
have required either massive Federal management efforts or an endless
stream of tax payer funded litigation.
The
Blunt Amendment was a poorly thought out, poorly written piece of
legislation smashed onto a bill about transportation, designed to
fabricate some kind of statement about religious freedom. It would
have been an expensive, legislative disaster if it had been adopted.
And Scott Brown didn't just vote for it, he co-sponsored it. Oh, and
he bought his pick up truck for his daughter's horse trailer. I've
got no problem with that, but don't throw on a Carhartt jacket and
sit in a pickup truck, pretending you're an average American dude,
when you own horses. Run on your policies, not your totally
fabricated, totally disingenuous brand.
In
short, Elizabeth Warren supports policies that solved our nation's
past crises and laid the ground work for a more prosperous society,
while Scott Brown supports the policies that caused the current
crisis and could continue our course towards a divided society. In
some ways, we are lucky in Massachusetts to have an election like
this. This isn't about ideology or politics, this is about history,
and history tells us the right choice is Elizabeth Warren.
No comments:
Post a Comment