This morning I watched the video of the final State Of The Union address, in which early on President Obama made a statement about the difficulties of workers to obtain leverage in the workplace with the potential of companies to house their facilities anywhere in the world. He stated that the amount of wealth generated essentially stayed in the upper strata of the population and correctly stated that this was not unique to the United States.
He is correct in that, it is not unique to the United States. Further analysis concludes that nations that have embraced Capitalism or a form of Capitalist system in time all have this as an evolutionary result. Eventually, under a system of that nature the system allows for the businesses to become parasitic. Gradually exploiting the workers more and more to the point that they live in working poverty. Yes, they have jobs, but falling ill or having vehicle trouble and possibly missing a day or two of work could mean the difference between paying the month’s rent or being homeless.
He stated that the only individuals who had the potential to remain at a job for 20-30 years with decent healthcare benefits plus decent retirement options were in the House of Representatives chamber. This should be cause for concern on several levels. First and foremost, to maintain true Democratic principles term limits should be imposed on anyone serving as members of Congress or Senate, having a certain group of individuals remain in these positions simply allows for accumulation of significant amounts of power which can easily be abused. We have witnessed this in the past year with the indictments of powerful members of government.
Secondly, it serves as a recognition that there is something fundamentally wrong with the system that we currently reside under. Why should only elected members of government be granted the right of having stability and security for the future? In truth, they shouldn’t be the sole recipients, that should be a right for all workers. Why should we have to fear for how we will retire, or how much we’ll have to pay for any doctor’s bills we incur?
There was mention of Social Security, and how it shouldn’t be weakened. This is a truly interesting statement due to the fact that the amount that is added to the Social Security system is directly correlated to the current wage a worker makes. The percentage paid into the system is a set amount (actually increased two years ago if I’m not mistaken), however what has been in flux is the wages paid to workers. It’s simple math, even though the percentage remains the same, if you have a lower amount it’s taken from, then the amount paid into the system decreases.
What many are unaware of is the fact that employment has cycles, or peaks and troughs if you will. These cycles were occurring roughly every ten or so years, however they have started to become more frequent. A startling phenomenon has been occurring for some time now in which employers eliminate jobs during a trough, only to replace these same positions with lesser paying ones when the peak cycle starts anew.
This relates to the issue of Social Security directly as it has a significant impact on the amount of funds that are paid into the system. If you create thousands of jobs during a peak, however those positions pay less than the ones eliminated when the trough started, that equates to less paid into the system. Unless you offset the loss by creating more positions then you initially eliminated, but I doubt that’s the case.
There was also talk of ensuring that the system was not in favor of the wealthiest corporations, sadly this is too little too late. The system has been for quite some time in favor of the wealthiest corporations and organizations. Each and every day hundreds of lobbyists venture to Capitol Hill to state their cases. Now there are some of those who are in no way affiliated with large corporations, however the overwhelming majority of those are from wealthy corporations or organizations. We have seen the results of these efforts time and time again, for example with the development of for profit prisons and various other ventures which are too numerous to mention here.
Also present was the mentioning of climate change, and how numerous nations around the world have acknowledged it as a serious issue. Talk of the expansion of sustainable clean energy was touched upon, and it’s a good start. However, much more needs to be done. It is noteworthy to mention that ultimately the drive for ever increasing profits has by far been the largest facilitator of climate change.
In order to make manufacturing processes more eco-friendly significant changes would need to be performed which would cost significant amounts of capital. This does not just apply to manufacturing processes, for example look how vigorously the oil industry fought against the development of hybrid and electric powered vehicles. They realized that they would lose significant amounts of profit in the long term and gave their best attempt to have this research and development stymied.
This will furthermore emphasize the reduction of influence by the wealthy corporations on the government. To simply state that we have to utilize more clean energy sources is not in any regard enough, in order to implement that to a degree that it will provide any significant impact, we must be ensured that the influence of big business will not have the ability to sway members of government. Sadly, at present, I don’t foresee that occurring.
Then came the mention of the strength of the United States. The following statement I found significantly disturbing, it was acknowledged that the United Sates spends more on the military than the next eight nations combined. I’ve looked into the budget allocations, and more than half of the entire budget of this country is dedicated to military spending. Billions upon billions of dollars will be spent in the 2016 fiscal year for the sustaining and procurement of military personnel and equipment.
At one point Russia was specifically mentioned as pouring resources into Ukraine and Syria to assist in supporting the spheres of influence they possess there, but let’s be honest, do we actually believe that the instability there just happened on it’s own. Anyone who has followed sources of information outside the US knows that there is significant evidence indicating attempts to create more “western friendly” governments there.
Daesh was also mentioned, however there was no mention of the true underlying origin of the organization. That being primarily a failed attempt to turn Iraq into a client state of the United States. Foreign policy decisions, the actions of the members of the military there, and a general ignorance of the animosities present between different groups all facilitated in the creation of this brutal organization.
Actions taken to eliminate Daesh was addressed, and the actual number of airstrikes was presented, however that may be slightly inaccurate, but it was said that these airstrikes have been eliminating their leadership. While this may be true, the underlying reasons for the formation of this organization will simply allow other individuals to fill the roles of the eliminated leadership figures. Such as the case with the infamous “Jihadi John”, the individual responsible for the inhuman and barbaric beheading videos posted online. He was killed in an airstrike, however someone stepped in to take his place. Until the underlying reasons that this organization was created are addressed, organizations such as this will always continue to plague the global citizenry.
The point of the failure to promote “democracy” in Cuba by isolating it from the United States was referred to as was lifting the trade embargo established in 1960. However even if US brands would eventually be more readily available there, the average Cuban citizen would most likely not be able to afford the cost of them. Furthermore, the Cuban people did without any significant amounts of US brands for a considerable amount of time, so it’s rather implausible that there will be a run on any stores if they do happen to become more readily available.
There was, however, a statement made by the President that I highly commend him on. That statement was that any politics that target race or religion must be rejected. Unfortunately, if you analyze the current policies present within the criminal justice system, also the well known bias that minorities face in regard to employment opportunities, education, etcetera, you will quickly realize that this has sadly been evident for decades. There are serious, fundamental issues present that must be rectified if we are to have the same opportunities, regardless of race, creed, or religion.
Another statement of notable mention was that of “If we want a better politics it’s not enough just to change your congressman, or change a senator, or even change your president. We have to change the system to reflect our better selves.” This very principle is what Socialist Action has dedicated itself to achieving, we recognize the deficiencies present in our current political and economic system and desire to reshape it entirely. We believe that the decisions made should not rest with a certain select few, but should in fact be representative of the majority of the people over whom government presides.
Mr. Obama also addressed the concept of redrawing congressional districts to prevent officials from consistently having districts that will continually provide favorable results in elections, along with limiting the amounts of influence that money plays in our politics, however the existing campaign laws regarding contributions have already displayed themselves as inadequate. Hence the existence of the political action committees and super political action committees, their creation was nothing more than a way to sidestep these laws.
Also addressed was the notion of making it easier to vote, but this will in no way significantly effect the level of voter turnout. The principle reason for low voter turnout is primarily due to the apathetic feelings of millions of registered voters and unregistered voters who have witnessed the degeneration of our political system. When the people have little to no confidence that their voice will be heard, that their opinions addressed, they will see participation in the system as futile and therefore opt not to participate.
Logic would then dictate that if the average citizen feels that their voice and opinion will be heard and seriously considered, you would see that reflect in greater voter participation. Unless the people feel that government truly represents them, and accurately and effectively addresses the policies that they deem of importance, then this will not change.
There were many noble ideas stated during the address, but unfortunately these may perhaps stay as just that, ideas. My rationale for this thinking is due to the fact that finance has become so intertwined within the fabric of our political system, there may be no viable way of separating it. The special interests may very well, and I dare say do, hold too much power to be removed. The level of influence is not with a singular official, or small group within government, but almost the entirety of the body politic.
We must then ask ourselves what would be the most feasible option? Do we continue to hope that things will change eventually and keep saying “Maybe one day money won’t control politics”, or do we begin work at changing the system. It would be a monumental and momentous task, but there are those of us who would embrace this wholeheartedly, and have already committed to doing so. Changing the system is no longer a potential option, but has become a necessity to ensure the safety and security of future generations. Failing to do so would allow a continuing downward spiral of deteriorating economic and social conditions for the masses.
No comments:
Post a Comment