Which is why in my heart I still identify with old fashioned Rich Guy Republican politics and I became a RINO in 1992 and left the GOP in 1998 to become a Democratic leaning independent. Of course, now the GOP has so alienated me that I am a mainstream Democrat.
Why has this happened and how does it pose a threat to National Defense?
A column in the NY Times today showed how immigrant citizens are very successful economically in Red States vs native born. "In the poorest states, foreign-borns are 24% less likely than native-borns to report themselves as divorced or separated. In the poorest states, foreign-born are 36% less likely than native borns to live in poverty.".....poor state native borns are "a battered working class suffering from a dearth of work, community and hope, with many people failing to form strong bonds and filling the void with escapist chemicals."
While such generalities are never true for all, they do represent what may well be the source of the anger that feeds the Tea Party, a predominantly lower income white citizen organization. If I lived in my hometown and was trapped in a house I could not sell without sufficient income for much beyond surviving, I would be angry too. Where is my American dream?
Link to Advantage Immigrant
Of course, decisions made by every individual during their lives, has an impact on their standing and happiness today and eventually we all run out of time to improve that standing. So that leads to angry older voters.
But what does this have to do with national defense. The only economic reason to not have a carbon tax (and/or cap & trade) is that it will unfairly place an economic burden on rural citizens who drive a lot. These are people who are already angry and don't have a lot of spare cash.
But meanwhile, our addiction to oil keeps the barrel price of oil high and feeds money to support Islamic fundamentalism, Iranian fanaticism and Putinism. These are the U.S.'s greatest national security issues.
A carbon tax and cap & trade, accompanied by tax code revisions to equate US corporate taxes with the rest of the world and reduce individual tax rates, so the overall effect is revenue neutral; would bring down the price of energy as consumption changes and improves our national security by reducing revenue to bad regimes.
It would also contribute to less than trend global warming, but that would be a side benefit, not the primary goal which is create market incentives to foster alternative energy consumption patterns and reduce the flow of funds to our enemies.
This is where those angry white men come in. They don't believe in global warming and they sure as hell don't want a higher gas tax even if it is needed to fix roads and bridges. They want to keep those marginal funds in their wallet. (follow the $ as always)
Democratic candidates need to challenge these voters. Would they rather send their children and grandchildren off to war or pay higher gas taxes? Climate change, whether or not man causes it, will generate threats to national security and the military will have stuff to do. That is why the Defense Department considers climate change to be a national security issue. Most climate change antagonists are only denying that humans are causing it, not that it is happening.
So as Thomas Friedman writes this morning, we can either get going on trying to do something positive or we can continue down this same path that poses risks to our national security. And it is the angry white men Tea Party that is preventing Rich Guy Businessmen GOP from supporting reasonable actions to improve the U.S. carbon foot print.
Link to Friedman column
Finally, I read Michael Lewis's review of Timothy Geithner's book. I agree with his lack of anger toward Geitner's (Obama's) policies towards the banks and appreciate his view that Geithner had little choice in his actions. I also agree that the one trait Geithner exhibits is honest analysis, which is so rare in political D.C.
Link to Book Review
My one personal encounter with Geithner was in 2000 when the Emerging Market's Creditor's Association had a meeting with him seeking his support for our view that Creditors have rights. He listened politely and then told us exactly why the U.S. government would not support our view. He didn't try to appease us or convince us that his view was correct, he simply told us the truth which was the U.S. government could not take a position contrary to what was best for the U.S. government. And we were then ushered out of his office and back onto Amtrak for our return trip to NYC with no false illusions about his position.
No comments:
Post a Comment