Champagne on the bow

So here it is, the first post.  Rather than spend a bunch of time explaining the format of the site, or how it came to be, I'm just going to dive right in.

Last week's 60 Minutes had a lead story that really stuck with me.  The focus was the impact the recession has had on children and families.  The poverty rate (those families living with less than 22k a year) will soon reach 25%.  Think about that.  A family of four, living on less than 22k per year.  School buses that used to pick up kids at their homes are now making regular stops at cheap hotels, where families are waiting it out, until things improve.  It was a pretty grim reminder that while the recession has ended, the effects have not.  I encourage you to watch/read it for yourself, its powerful stuff.

There are two things that are especially troubling to me about the recession as a whole.  First is the fact that no one has been appropriately punished for creating this mess.  While there is enough blame to go around, from irresponsible people applying for loans to the irresponsible banks approving them, to me, the bulk of the blame lies on the banks, and the regulators charged with overseeing them.  Banks and lenders acted irresponsibly, after years of successfully lobbying for less government oversight and regulation, and lead the US economy to the brink of collapse.  Our own failings with regard to our feelings about regulation are as much to blame as the banks who tried to use the system to their gain.  After all, the name of the game is revenue.  The argument could be made that we should have let them fail, to show them the consequences of their actions.  The problem there is that the consequences fall not on the banks, but the average american, who can't afford to lost their house, their retirement, or their savings.  Too big to fail means too big to exist in any responsible economic system.

This brings me to my second point.  The Tea Party (and to be fair, a good portion of the Republican Party) has manipulated a large group of angry Americans masterfully.  They have convinced them, mostly by appealing to their anger, that their interests are the same interests of the richest 1%.  They have convinced regular people that taxes and regulation are the root of the problem, when the facts couldn't be clearer to the contrary.  When they rail against tax hikes, they're arguing on behalf of people who make over 1 million a year.  When they protest against the health care bill, they are defending the right of insurance companies to make huge profits, and gouge the average person.  How did this happen?  This reminds me of the Gay Marriage debate here in CA, in that people were actively lobbying for a law that would have absolutely no impact on their lives, and would simply restrict the rights of others, but that's another topic for another day...  Here's a video from last Halloween from Real Time with Bill Maher that summarizes it well. 

It's easy to point the finger at Wall Street or the media, for not reporting these issues fairly or accurately.  In my opinion, a real underlying issue here is education, and our feelings as a country toward it.  While I am disappointed with Obama in some ways (mostly around his propensity to concede too much in negotiations), one thing I have to give him credit for is his efforts to make education "cool again".  Throughout the Bush era, being an ignoramus was almost celebrated.  Bush famously didn't read the paper, misused words regularly, and was celebrated for it, as though he was "one of us".  Candidate Obama, by contrast, was criticized for being one of the "liberal elite", and someone who "likes arugula", all ways of saying what bullies used to say in school:  "NERD!"  This is a huge problem.  Being a moron is not something to be celebrated by citizens of a first world nation.  We should be electing people who are smarter than us to lead us, not people who seem fun to have a beer with.  Obama, the President, by contrast, has appeared on Mythbusters to motivate kids to get more involved in Science, and famously said in the last State of the Union that we should celebrate the winners of the science fair as much as we do the winner of the Super Bowl.  Here here!  

This brings me back to the story I opened with.  Several of the kids in the 60 minutes piece were occasionally completing their homework assignments by candlelight, or in a car because their parents elected to buy food instead of paying the electric bill.  Many of them were getting their only daily meals from school lunch programs, as parents struggled to make ends meet.  I have to wonder if their parents are the same Fox News viewers railing against tax cuts for the wealthy while their elected officials are cutting programs that are keeping their children fed, and in school.  In any case, it's time for us to put our foot down, as a country, and really think about where we spend our money.  It's also time to demand some accountability from the people who handle our money.  "No tax hikes" might be a good slogan for a sign, but like most things, the meat of the debate can not be boiled down to a simple slogan, or a memorable talking point.  Shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher standard?  What are your thoughts?

I promise my next post wont be such a downer...  :)

Recommended:  The Big Short, Michael Lewis

Homeless children: The Hard Times Generation - the segment is linked from this page.