CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 6

THE LEGACY OF THE 'RIGHT' -- AND HOPE FROM THE 'LEFT'

WHERE THE CONSERVATIVES HAVE TAKEN THIS NATION

Since the Industrial Revolution, big business has dictated both domestic and foreign policies. By exporting capitalism throughout the world, multi-national corporations have exploited cheap labor in order to fatten their bank accounts. Their primary objective is to grow cash crops rather than subsistent crops which would directly benefit the indigenous peoples.

With the advent of the Cold War in 1945, the United States government began pouring in billions of dollars into the Defense Department and aerospace industry. Even the conservative Eisenhower warned of the dangers of the military-industrial complex in his farewell address. Nevertheless, between the 1960s and 1990s, the defense budget continued to skyrocket. While one-third of the national budget was awarded to the Pentagon, billions of these dollars were funneled into the coffers of corporations. For example, during the Vietnam, the top ten American corporations netted $11.6 trillion.

The Reagan and Bush administrations initiated the largest peace-time military build-up in the nation's history. Reagan's $2 trillion spending spree included new types of ICBM missiles, conventional weapons, star wars, the space shuttle, the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, and a 600 ship navy. For example, the $40 billion star wars program was a boondoggle, according to 80 percent of knowledgeable scientists. The $2 billion B-2 stealth bomber was proved to be "unstealthy," since it could be detected on radar scopes. The space shuttle was not designed to carry out scientific missions but in most cases has been utilized in top secret military assignments. Additionally, it has caused severe environmental problems. Each launching results in the emission of 187 tons of ozone-eating molecules into the atmosphere, and eight million tons of ozone -- 0.25 percent of all ozone -- are destroyed.

The Eastern European revolutions led to the demise of the Soviet Union. In 1991, the final nails were hammered into the coffin when the Soviet Union finally crumbled. The Cold War was over. With the elimination of the Soviets as a power broker in global affairs, the United States was left alone to roam. Nevertheless, billions of dollars is still allocated for the Pentagon. The aerospace industry continues to be a major beneficiary of the defense budget.

Even though it is assumed that conservatives favor lower government spending, in reality they frequently support increased expenditures. In 1981, the national debt was nearly $1 trillion. By the time Reagan left office eight years later, it had climbed to over $2.7 trillion. Yet, when Reagan campaigned in 1980, he promised a balanced budget within three years. Not only was Reagan the biggest spender, but his successor, George Bush, followed in his footsteps. The Reagan-Bush era brought about the tripling of the national debt to nearly $4 trillion, a deficit spending spree which was not even closely matched in the entire 190 years of American history.

Conservatives claim that recessions occur because corporations do not have the revenue to spend or to invest. Furthermore they affirm that unemployment is a result of lazy people who are unwilling to work and prefer welfare. They frequently point to the justification for American imperialism as a means to stop communism, even though in almost every case the United States has invaded non-communist but left-leaning democracies. On the other hand, the government wants to trade and lend money to communist countries.

Conservatives perceive themselves as the true patriots: the proponents of the family unit, the defenders of free enterprise, and the supporters of democracy which has been infiltrated by socialists, communists, and anarchists. Liberals and socialists are lumped together as un-American and the cause of the nation's political, economic, and social problems. The high rate of crime, the increasing number of welfare recipients, soaring inflation rates, higher unemployment, failing education, and the decline in the nation's morals are all the result of the liberal agenda.

Conservatives> believe that reforms must be resisted. They recognize that there are some inequities in society, but they believe the inequities will either take care of themselves or that we will have to live with some of them such as poverty and exploitation. They are for either a strong or a weak government, depending on how their interests are best served. They oppose government when it meddles in economic affairs. Yet they favor government which restricts individual liberties or when it regulates our lives and morals. Also they favor government which meddles militarily in other areas of the world.

THE LEFT: IN PURSUIT OF A MORALISTIC AND HUMANISTIC POLICY

"A community is like a ship; everyone out to be prepared to

take the helm."

- Henrik Ibsen, 1882

Today, the United States is not a nation which liberals such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would have envisioned. For America to be free, it must break the conservative shackles between government and business interests. Only then can the nation work toward the interests of its people rather than that of corporations.

"One great difference which has characterized this division has

been that the liberal party -- no matter what its particular name

was at the time -- believed in the efficacy of the will of the great

majority of the people, as distinguished from the judgment of a

small minority.

"The other great difference between the two parties has been this:

the liberal party is a party which believes that, as new conditions

and problems arise beyond the power of men and women to meet

as individuals, it becomes the duty of the government itself to find

remedies with which to meet them.

"The liberal party insists that the government has the definite duty

to use all its power and resources to meet new social problems with

new social controls -- to insure to the average person the right to his

(and her) own economic and political life, liberty, and the pursuit of

happiness."

- Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1941

In the eighteenth century, liberals and libertarians were similar to one another. Both favored free markets, individual liberties, and a reduction in the role that the government played in society. Thus, one definition is that liberals oppose political absolutism. However, there are many opinions on how a decentralized society should be operated. Liberals believe in a large private sector which is defended and promoted by the public sector. There must be a balance between individual and group behavior.

Liberals believe that group survival is more efficient than individual survival. This requires a social contract, a group agreement on cooperation and coordination. The rights of each community’s member needs to be written out. This comes as a result of a contract or constitution which is agreed upon by the voters. The rights of the people need to be defended by the mechanisms authorized by the contract: police, military, legislatures, and courts. Without such enforcement, the agreements themselves would be jeopardized, and nothing could stop a violator from usurping one’s liberties or taking one’s property. Even though Thomas Jefferson what that we have natural "inalienable rights," they may still be broken.

 

Liberals believe that the Constitution as well as laws are meant to protect individual rights, establish personal responsibilities, and describe the operations of government. The Constitution describes the general principles of how our society is to be run, and the law fills in the details. But liberals maintain that the Constitution originally served the interests of rich white male landholders. Blacks were forbidden to vote until 1870; women until 1920; tax debtors until 1964; and young people until 1971. Similarly, much of the Bill of Rights was not defended or enforced until recently. Liberals support mandatory voting, state initiatives, and expanded voter registration. Some even advocate direct democracy whereby the electorate, not their representatives, vote directly on laws.

 

On the other hand, conservatives call themselves "constitutionalists" because they perceive that strong property rights in the Constitution are the best way to protect their wealth and property from the greedy voting majority. They support anti-tax and pro-property legislation which favor the special interests of those who already own the most wealth: rich white male business owners.

 

SOCIALISM VERSUS LIBERALISM. There are important and fundamental differences between socialism and liberalism. When critics attempt to slander liberals by calling them "socialists," liberals should immediately respond and define the difference between liberalism and socialism. Socialism means that workers, not private owners, would own and control the means of production: factories, farmland, machinery, and so on. In democratic elections, workers would vote for (1) their supervisors, (2) their representatives to a local and national council of their industry or service, and (3) their representatives to a central congress representing all the industries and services. Socialism has been proposed in many forms, ranging from republics to direct democracies, from centralized state bureaucracies to free market anarchy. Political scientists do not view the "socialism" nominally practiced by the Soviet Union as true socialism. The USSR was essentially a dictatorship over workers by a ruling elite.

 

By comparison, liberals believe that private owners should own and control the means of production, formulate company policy, and have the right to select their own management team. Liberals would prevent them from abusing their powers through checks and balances like strong labor unions and democratic government.

 

Liberals want to cut back on excessive military expenditures instead of fueling the military-industrial complex. They support popular nationalistic revolutionary movements in foreign countries which seek democracy and liberty for all people. Liberals advocate the protection of individual rights against government suppression and surveillance. They oppose censorship and the government dictating their morals and values.

 

"Capital, created by the labour of the worker, oppresses the worker

undermining the small proprietor and creating an army of the

unemployed. People always have been and they will always be

stupid victims of deceit and self-deception in politics, until they learn

behind every kind of moral, religious, political, social phrase,

declaration and promise to seek out the interests of this or that class

or classes.

 

"Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of

capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible, first in a few

or even one single capitalist country taken separately."

- Nikolai Lenin, 1913

Socialists want to make more adjustments within the capitalist system. They want to replace the system with varying degrees of public and communal ownership. In France former Socialist President Francois Mitterand only wanted to nationalize the country's utilities, banks, and transportation systems, while keeping the remainder of the economy in the private sector. In the United States many socialists view capitalism as: striking hardest at those who are unable to protect themselves; giving America 27 depressions in 122 years; leaving millions in inadequate housing; leaving millions hungry and malnourished; surrendering the power to the elite; and organizing the land, labor, resources, and technology of society around the single goal of increasing one's wealth. Under socialism people are guaranteed employment, shelter, food, health care, and education. They have subsidized transportation systems and utilities.

THE CONFLICT SURROUNDING ECONOMICS. Liberals favor a free market system and believe that the role of the government is to defend and promote the free market. For example, President Eisenhower’s Federal Highway Act of 1956 created 40,000 miles of interstate highways. The roads were instrumental in bolstering American economy. Other government projects -- railroads, canals, satellite communications, and the Internet -- also helped improve the economic status of the middle class. Therefore, liberals advocated a greater degree of government support for the free market.

 

Liberals also believe that social problems such as assistance to the needy should be resolved by the redirection of government spending as well as by regulatory policies. They support government intervention in the economy in hopes of eliminating its worse abuses. They believe that people should be taxed according to their ability to pay. Liberals see the graduated tax structure as an actual regressive tax, since wealthy individuals and corporations easily reduce their gross incomes to much lower taxable incomes as a result of numerous loopholes. In regard to the free market, liberals believe that individuals should be free to do anything legal on the market. Laws may prohibit various companies crimes -- such as fraud, copyright infringement, insider trading, breach of contract, and price gouging. Without these laws, the market would not function properly.

 

Liberals also seek to bring a halt to the ecological decline of the United States, which requires challenging the interests of big business, and to make environmental concerns another priority.

 

GROWING DISPARITY BETWEEN THE RICH AND POOR. Inequality in the distribution of income and wealth has continued to increase in the United States. In 1977, the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans captured 16.8 percent of the nation's entire income. By 1989, that same 5 percent was capturing 18.9 percent. During Clinton’s first term, the wealthiest 5 percent increased their take of the total to over 21 percent.

Inequality in the distribution of wealth in the United States is even greater than the inequality in income. In the 1980s, the income of the top 1 percent increased by 50 percent from $280,00 to $500,000. Yet taxes on these families dropped an average of $40,000. The income of the top 5 percent increased by 46.1 percent and taxes dropped by 10 percent. The income of the top 20 percent increased by 31.7 percent and taxes dropped 5.5 percent. The income of the middle 60 percent declined by 80 percent and taxes jumped an average of $400 per family. The income of the bottom 20 percent increased by 3.2 percent. Four million of the 60 million hourly employees earn the minimum wage. This amounts to making an annual income which falls into the poverty level.

 

In 1983, the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans owned 56 percent of all the wealth in the country. By 1989, the same 5 percent had increased their share to 62 percent. As the gap between rich and poor continues to widen, the health of the nation deteriorates, the social fabric unravels, and the cost of maintaining community goes up. And these trends continue to accelerate.

Wealth and income in the United States have been increasingly distributed upward in the last 20 years. Workers are working longer, harder, and more productively than ever before. However, the income of the nation’s richest individuals has continued to mushroom. According to economist Paul Krugman, about 70 percent of all income gains made in the 1980s went to the richest 1 percent. Between 1973 and 1995, average hourly wages fell from $8.55 to $7.40, after adjusting for inflation. However, between 1975 and 1995, CEO compensation among the Fortune 500 soared from 41 to 197 times what the average worker earned.

Economists measure income inequality by the Gini index. On this scale, a score of 0.0 represents a perfectly equal society; 1.0 means that one person earns all the income. In 1947 the United States Gini index stood at .374. By 1968, after two decades of highly taxing the rich, this fell to an all-time low of 0.348. However, since then it has been climbing, rising to 0.426 in 1994, the highest level of inequality since the 1920s.

As the number of poor has increased, America's affluent elite rose most noticeably in the Reagan-Bush era. In the Reagan years the maximum tax bracket was reduced from 70 to 28 percent with a tax bubble, affecting only the middle class, jumping to 33 percent.

 

Meanwhile, the quality of welfare programs has diminished. The targeting of welfare dates to the Republican Party of the 1960s when the movement was headed by Barry Goldwater and was identified with the John Birch Society. Since that time, far right ideologues developed the policies which culminated in the 1990s. In 1997, the Republican-controlled Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 -- the "welfare reform" bill. This not only ended welfare to legal immigrants but it also terminated Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) which had been in effect since the 1930s.

The AFDC or "welfare" program, which provided minimal cash assistance for poor children and primarily their mothers, was enacted in 1935 as part of the Social Security Act. Initially, it served primarily white widows and orphans seen as the "deserving" poor for whom even some conservatives believed that society had a responsibility.

 

Prior to the 1960s, a number of states found methods to exclude large numbers of minorities from the AFDC program. Conservatives associated the War on Poverty with communism, particularly focusing on the AFDC program as a case study of how "liberalism" destroyed society. At the same time, the New Right used racism to promote its message that the civil rights movement was resulting in the breakdown of law and order. By combining these two messages, it became possible to single out welfare recipients -- that is, minorities -- as scapegoats to perpetuate a laissez faire philosophy.

In the 1970s, the conservative right shifted the focus from anti-communism and racism to social issues. This opened new possibilities in the attack on welfare. It allowed the New Right to develop the stereotype of the "welfare queen" which was used to full political advantage by President Reagan. This resulted in an exagerrated image of the welfare recipient as a minority woman who was perhaps an unwed parent, a non-wage worker, a drug user, or a long-term recipient.

In 1994, 37.4 percent of AFDC families were non-Anglo white, 19.9 percent Latino, and 36.4 percent were black. The average AFDC recipient had 1.8 children, slightly less than the number which the general population had. In 1994, 72.6 percent of all AFDC families had two children or less; the average AFDC family size had dropped 30 percent since 1969. The poverty rate in nonmetropolitan areas was 16 percent, while the poverty rate in metropolitan areas was 14.2 percent, including 20.9 percent in the central cities only. Depending on the method of calculation, 29 percent to 56 percent of all AFDC recipients left the rolls within one year; 48 percent to 70 percent left within two years; and only 7 percent to 15 percent stayed on for eight consecutive years. These percentages did not reflect an increasing "dependency" on AFDC. A 1952 nationwide study of AFDC found that 20 percent of families received AFDC for less than one year; only 11 percent received benefits for seven years; and only 3 percent received benefits for more than eleven years. Sixty-four percent of young women who grew up in families that received welfare during their adolescence received no welfare during young adulthood.

 

Only 6.3 percent of AFDC families were headed by teens. Of these, most were 18 or 19 years old. Only 1.2 percent of all AFDC mothers were less than 18 years of age. Teen birth rates in fact are significantly lower than they were in the 1950s. In 1955, the adolescent birth rate (ages 15-19) was 90.3 per 1,000 females. It reached an all-time low of 50.2 in 1986, rose to 62.1 in 1991, and dropped to 59.6 by 1993. Between 1970 and 1993, the total number of births to teenagers dropped from 656,000 to 501,000, with the birth rate per thousand women 15-19 years old dropping from 68.3 to 59.6.

The increase in childbearing by unmarried women cuts across class, education attainment, and age lines. Most of this increase is in births to adult unmarried women, not adolescents. Two-thirds of all women who give birth outside marriage are not living below the poverty level during the year prior to their pregnancy. Most of them- teen and adult- are white. Finally, teen mothers do not inevitably end up as long-term welfare recipients.

 

Over a three year period, 30.3 percent of the population lived below the poverty line for at least two months, while 5.3 percent stayed poor for at least two full years. In 1994, an average 15.4 percent of Americans lived in poverty each month, and about 22 percent or 55 million Americans were poor for at least two months. These poverty-ridden Americans are those whose income is under $13,650 for a family of three and below $16,450 for a family of four. The median income of black families was 58 percent of that of whites, almost exactly what it was in 1967. By contrast, Latinos earned nearly 71 percent of the income earned by white families. In the last ten years, the number of Latinos who live in poverty has risen from 29 percent to 50 percent.

Almost 44 percent of all black children lived below the poverty level line, compared to 36 percent Latinos and 24 percent Asians. A survey showed that three-quarters of blacks believe that they miss out on jobs or promotions because of racial or religious discrimination. 72 percent of Latinos and 60 percent of Asians, who were surveyed, also agreed.

The economic explosion of the 1990s further broadened the gulf which separated the haves from the have-nots. In the 1990s, economic inequality in the United States widened sharply. Four of every five households now takes home a smaller percentage of the national wealth than 20 years ago. The income disparity between the richest and poorest fifths of the world's population was 30 to 1 in 1960; in 1999 it was 75 to 1. In 1900, the United States' per-capita income was nine times larger than that of Chad and Ethiopia. In 1999, it was 45 times larger.

 

SUPPORTING AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES. United States foreign policy has always been one to export capitalism rather than to improve the living standards of the people particularly in Third World countries where labor is cheap and where the military poses no threat. By propping up the right wing oligarchies, American multinational corporations have been able to increase their profits by exploiting this part of the world. When free elections have ushered in democratic governments with an emphasis on humanitarian socio-economic reforms, American response has been quick to overthrow them in order to reestablish dictatorships sympathetic to the interests of American corporations.

The United States should address the origin of Third World problems, particularly poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, and malnutrition. The majority of the population, primarily comprised of peasants, should be encouraged to grow subsistence crops rather than to cash crops which only add to the profits of American corporations.

 

In addition, American foreign policy should be based on supporting true democratically elected governments. A country's economic preference should not be a criterion for the type of foreign relations which the United States establishes with that nation. The United States should center its policies around moral principles. Consequently, this would mean terminating the existing policy of "what's good for business is good for America." Instead it should be a policy of "what's good for people is good for America."

 

As the wealthiest nation on this planet, the United States should embrace a policy of helping -- not exploiting -- the Third World. Each day in undeveloped countries 40,000 children die of starvation and malnutrition. In addition, health care and education are minimal if nonexistent. As these nations continue to suffer, American multi-national corporations are reaping the benefits of cheap labor to produce food and other products primarily for export. The disparity between the haves and the have-nots have been increasing.

 

The billions of dollars funneled into the military-industrial complex can be diverted into programs to help the American people as well as other peoples throughout the world. Most social programs were slashed by the Reagan administration. This resulted in a rise in the number of homeless and poor, and a decline in health programs and the quality of education.

 

"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a

mind is being very wasteful. How true that is."

- Former Vice President Dan Quayle at a fund-raising event for the United Negro College Fund. He was attempting to quote the line" "A mind is a terrible thing to waste."

 

EDUCATION. America's education system has gradually been deteriorating. One in six adults has no higher than a fifth grade reading ability. Among the top six world nations, the United States ranks fifth in science and mathematics, fourth in foreign language, and dead last in a country's own language. The former Soviet Union surpassed the United States in all these areas. Since the 1980s class sizes have increased appreciably, while the government funding of education has diminished.

 

The number of blacks in college rose 35 percent from 1970 to 1989. However, blacks earned 5.7 percent of all bachelor's degrees awarded in 1989, down 6.4 percent from 1976. During the same period, the percentage of bachelor's degrees earned by Latinos and Asians rose nearly 1 percent and 2.6 percent respectively.

 

THE CORRELATION BETWEEN RACE AND HEALTH. Two studies were conducted at Harvard University and the University of California in the 1990s, and each confirmed the premise that there is a relationship between income inequality and health, using data from all 50 states. According to the April 1998 British Medical Journal, two studies concluded that income inequality is directly related to various rates of disease and other social problems. Both the studies -- one from Harvard and one from University of California at Berkeley -- concluded that the greater the gap between rich and poor, the greater the chances that people will be sick and die young. It is not the absolute level of wealth in a society that determines health. Rather, it is the size of the gap between rich and poor.

George Kaplan’s study at Berkeley measured inequality in the 50 states as the percentage of total household income received by the less well off 50 percent of households. It ranged from about 17 percent in Louisiana and Mississippi to about 23 percent in Utah and New Hampshire. In other words, by this measure, Utah and New Hampshire have the most equal distribution of income, while Louisiana and Mississippi have the most unequal distribution of income.

This measure of income inequality was then compared to the age-adjusted death rate for all causes of death, and a pattern emerged. The more unequal the distribution of income, the greater the death rate. For example in Louisiana and Mississippi the age-adjusted death rate is about 960 per 100,000 people, while in New Hampshire it is about 780 per 100,000 and in Utah it is about 710 per 100,000 people. Adjusting these results for average income in each state did not change the picture. Therefore, it is the gap between rich and poor, and not the average income in each state, that best predicts the death rate in each state.

This measure of income inequality was also tested against other social conditions besides health. States with greater inequality in the distribution of income also had higher rates of unemployment, higher rates of incarceration, a higher percentage of people receiving income assistance and food stamps, and a greater percentage of people without medical insurance. Once again, the gap between rich and poor was the best predictor -- not the average income in the state.

States with greater inequality of income distribution also spent less per person on education, had fewer books per person in the schools, and had poorer educational performance, including worse reading skills, worse math skills, and lower rates of completion of high school. States with greater inequality of income also had a greater proportion of babies born with low birth weight; higher rates of homicide; higher rates of violent crime; a greater proportion of the population unable to work because of disabilities; a higher proportion of the population using tobacco; and a higher proportion of the population being sedentary. Finally, the studies showed that the states with greater inequality of income had higher costs per-person for medical care, and higher costs per person for police protection.

 

A study at Harvard University used the Robin Hood index. The higher the Robin Hood index, the greater the inequality in the distribution of income. The researchers calculated the Robin Hood index for all 50 states and then examined its relationship to various measures of health and well being. They found that the Robin Hood index correlated with the overall age-adjusted death rate. Each percentage point increase in the Robin Hood index was associated with an increase in total mortality of 21.7 deaths per 100,000 population. The Robin Hood index was also strongly associated with the infant mortality rate; with deaths from heart disease; with deaths from cancer; and with deaths by homicide among both blacks and whites.

The Harvard team concluded that reducing inequality would bring important health benefits. For example, if the Robin Hood index were reduced from 30 percent to 25 percent, deaths from coronary heart disease would be reduced by 25 percent.

 

HEALTH CARE. The number of uninsured Americans has increased each year since 1987, and it now exceeds 41 million, roughly one-sixth of the population. Moreover, this steady rise has occurred despite a remarkable economic boom. The nation has created more than 14 million jobs since 1993, but most of these have been in small businesses which are far less likely to provide health insurance than are large companies. Each year the number of uninsured Americans rises by approximately one million people.

 

Congress enacted two significant health care laws since the collapse of the Clinton plan. It created a new program to finance health care for low-income children in 1997. In 1996, it passed the Kassebaum-Kennedy law, making insurance more readily available to millions of people who change their jobs or lose them. The Kassebaum-Kennedy law guarantees that people losing group health insurance will have access to coverage in the individual insurance market regardless of pre-existing medical problems. However, it does not limit how much they may be charged. The law generally guarantees that people moving from one job to another will be promptly eligible for coverage if the new employer provides health benefits.

 

Without programs such as Kassebaum-Kennedy, the number of uninsured would have been much higher. Yet corporations still can circumvent these laws and are thus able to deny health benefits to many people. First, insurance companies have found ways to skirt the Kassebaum-Kennedy law by shunning people with medical problems or by charging them very high premiums. The law does not limit what insurers can charge.

 

Second, the 1996 welfare law inadvertently increased the number of uninsured children, offsetting some of the expected gains in coverage from the new Children's Health Insurance Program. This provides almost $24 billion over five years to finance coverage for some of the nation's 10 million uninsured children.

 

Third, it was assumed that states would quickly adopt the standards established by the Kassebaum-Kennedy law, but that has not happened in California and four other states. In such states, the federal government is supposed to enforce the law directly, but the Clinton administration acknowledged it was unprepared for this immense new responsibility.

 

Fourth, the Medicaid eligibility rules are complex, differing from state to state since family income limits vary with a child's age. For example a healthy 4-year-old boy may be protected by Medicaid, while his eight year old sister, though severely ill, is ineligible for coverage because the income limit for her age group is lower. In addition, children are often still eligible for Medicaid after they lose cash assistance, but their Medicaid coverage may be interrupted or lost. Many parents do not know that their children still qualify for Medicaid, and state officials do not always check such families to assess their eligibility.

 

Health care also becomes an immense problem to those employed by small businesses. Throughout the United States, approximately half of all uninsured workers are either self-employed or working in businesses that have fewer than 25 employees. When coverage is available in such companies, the employees are often required to pay a large share of the cost. The owners of small businesses claim that premiums are too high and that their profits are too uncertain for them to make a commitment to providing health insurance.

"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air water that are doing it."

- Vice President Dan Quayle

 

"A tree's a tree. How many do you need to look at."

- Ronald Reagan, March 12, 1966

 

"I don't believe a tree is a tree and if you've seen one,

you've seen them all."

- Ronald Reagan, September 14, 1966

 

ENVIRONMENTALISM. The planet is self-destructing as a result of little concern of the government. Important issues include the greenhouse effect, acid rain, the rain forests and deforestation, the wetlands, nuclear energy, and the ozone layer. Industrial America is polluting the land, lakes, rivers, and skies.

Since the Industrial Revolution, the world's temperature has risen one per cent. The Panel on Climate Change estimates that the average temperature will rise 5.4 degrees by the end of the next century. Also oceans could rise three feet within a century. This would displace tens of thousands of people, flood productive land, and contaminate fresh water supplies. In 1980 the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 339 parts per million, 25 percent higher than the pre-Industrial Revolution era. In 1990 it was 353 parts per million, and by the year 2000 it is estimated to be 370 parts per million.

 

The nation's second most polluted city, Los Angeles, has increased layers of smog. Pollution has destroyed countless water wells and rendered underground basins of porous rock useless for storing water in rainy seasons. American coastlines are becoming more and more polluted. Love Canal in New York became a virtual ghost town after chemical companies indiscriminately poured waste materials into the river. In the 1980s, one billion gallons per day of 500 different chemicals was being poured into Lake Superior. Each year Americans throw away 160 million tons of garbage. This amounts to 3.5 pounds per person each day. Large cities are running out of spaces in which to dump garbage, much of which is toxic.

 

Greenhouse emissions are continuing to increase as fossil fuels -- especially from vehicles and utility generators. United States greenhouse emissions jumped 8 percent from 1990 to 1997, and they are expected to increase at a much higher rate in the coming decades. The European Community has pushed for a binding commitment to reduce emissions by 15 percent by 2010, and many scientists insist that there should be a 40 percent reduction. The United States has refused to embrace either of these plans.

 

The greenhouse effect has been responsible for a substantial rate of global warming in the past century. From the industrial revolution to 1911 -- a span of 60 years -- the earth's mean temperature rose 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit to 56.5, and atmospheric carbon dioxide increased 20 parts per million (ppm). By 1937, temperatures measured 57 degrees, 0.5 hotter than in 1911, and carbon dioxide jumped another 15 ppm. In 1968, the planet's temperature increased to 57.2 degrees, 0.2 higher than 21 years before, and carbon dioxide was measured at 15 ppm higher. By 1979, the mean temperature tacked on another 0.2 degrees, rising to an average of 57.4, while another 15 ppm of carbon dioxide was measured. In 1989 there was another 0.2 degree increase in the earth's temperature (to 57.6), and another 15 ppm of carbon dioxide. Just seven years later, in 1996, the temperature increased another 0.2 degrees to 57.9. Atmospheric carbon dioxide now reads 360 ppm, 30 percent higher than during the industrial revolution.

 

Most scientists believe that the earth's mean temperature will jump 2 to 6 degrees in the twenty-first century. Scientists also predict that the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide can easily double in the next 50 years. In November 1997, a group of Canadian and American scientists, including a team from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, concluded that greenhouse gas emissions are likely to increase over the next 12 years at a rate nearly 25 percent greater than previous estimates.

 

Michael MacCracken, director of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, said: "Global average temperatures have risen about .5 degrees Celsius (about 1 degree Fahrenheit) during the past 140 years." He said that the first part of the twenty-first century will, the 6 billion tons of carbon humans pump into the lower atmosphere every year will double the level of carbon dioxide in the air from its pre-industrial levels. MacCracken predicted that the global average temperature will rise between 1.5 and 4.5 Centigrade by the year 2100, with 2.5 degrees pegged as the best estimate in a 1995 report of Global Warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international group of 2,500 scientists. If correct, 2.5 degrees would be 6 times the rate of warming over the twentieth century.

 

Since the Industrial Revolution, the Antarctic ice cap has shrunk, raising the level of the planet's oceans by as much as six inches. Scientists predict that the earth's oceans will rise between one and three feet in the next century. Antarctica is swelled by 7.7 million square miles of seasonal sea ice, twice the size of the United States. This may have a tremendous impact on the Earth's weather.

 

The EPA has reported that pollutants cause 15,000 deaths annually, as well as thousands of cases of asthma. Since the Clean Air Act of 1970 was implemented, industry has had a horrific record of overstating expected compliance costs and undercounting benefits. In 1978, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposed to limit cotton dust which is responsible for brown lung disease among textile workers. Industry immediately chimed in and said that it would cost $2 billion to be in compliance. The actual cost was much less -- $245 million. In 1974, OSHA issued a regulation which drastically reduced permissible worker exposure in the area of vinyl chloride which is used in the production of plastics. Chemical plants barked back and said that this would put their companies out of business. However, they eventually complied to OSHA's regulation at only seven percent of the estimated costs.

 

Each year, 600,000 acres of the nation's forest lands are being logged. 329,000 acres are totally stripped of every living tree. Since 1980, 400,000 acres of tropical forest have been leveled. This amounts to one-tenth of all the tropical forest on the planet. Globally, 28 million acres of timberlands are being cleared. Trees are being cut down at a rate 30 times higher than they are being replaced. Reforestation would help to cleanse the atmosphere of carbon dioxide.

 

Tropical forests cover seven per cent of the earth's surface. It is estimated that by the year 2032 almost every tropical forest will be gone. Every hour 10,000 acres are being destroyed to make room for cocoa fields, smelting factories, cattle grazing lands, and for the purpose of adding to the corporate profits of the timber industry.

 

Since 1980, between 3,000 and 30,000 different types of species have been eliminated. The total number on the planet is between three and ten million. The rate of extinction is expected to go up by a factor of roughly ten by the year 2000. a National Marines Fisheries Service survey in 1991 indicated that 10 percent of Japan's drift net fleet killed 1,758 whales and dolphins, 253,288 tuna, 81,956 sharks, and 30,464 sea birds.

 

In the 1990s, the GOP used to devices to block environmental legislation in Congress. First, Republicans piggybacked anti-environmental provisions on bills which would definitely pass. For example, anti-environmental issues were tacked on to highway and budget bills. Republican Senator Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho added a provision to a bill which created a new Air Force bombing range in his state's Owyhee Canyonlands. Republican Congressman Don Young of Alaska added a rider which waived environment laws and allowed a road to be built through a widelife refuge in southwest Alaska. Republican Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia tacked on an amendment which froze fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. Republican Congressman Joe Knollenberg of Michigan added a provision which banned all federal efforts to cut global warming pollution until the Kyoto environmental summit was over.

 

Second, the GOP used the budget cut as an excuse to reduce or eliminate funding and thereby cripple federal agencies which enforce environmental laws. The 1998 GOP budget trimmed $5 billion from environmental programs and targeted the Superfund program.

 

According to Dan Fagin and Marianne Lavelle's Toxic Deception: How the Chemical Industry Manipulates Science, Bends the Law and Endangers Your Health, the World Health Organization estimated in 1989 that pesticides worldwide cause one million poisonings a year and 20,000 deaths. As it turned out, pesticide problem grew much worse. According to one 1992 study, pesticides like Monsanto's Ortho Weed-B-Gon, which contains 2, 4-D, are used at least once a year by 98 percent of all families in the United States. In 1995 the largest 100 American-based chemical companies sold over $234 billion worth of chemical products. This represented a 17 percent growth over the previous year's sales and a tidy profit of $35 billion.

 

Three hundred synthetic chemicals have been identified as cancer-causing agents in chemical tests. Nevertheless, 80 percent of chemicals currently on the market have never been tested. The chemical corporations have continued to maintain that their products are harmless, but they know more about the dangers of their products than they would admit. In 1991 and 1992, the EPA offered chemical companies amnesty from prosecution if they turned over their health studies to the agency. Soon thereafter, these corporations handed the EPA over 10,000 documents.

 

Fagin and Lavelle claimed, "At least 20 peer-reviewed studies have linked various pesticides to cancer in children. A recent study of 474 Denver children, for example, found that they were more than twice as likely to get leukemia if pest strips had been used in their homes and also were significantly more likely to get brain tumors or lymphomas if their homes had been treated by exterminators."

 

The United States must work to resolve the nation's socio-economic problems. Emphasis must be placed on humanizing -- not militarizing -- the country. To prevent the further demise of the United States, as well as that of the entire planet, the government will have to take on the special interest groups of corporations. Only then can the nation work toward improving the status of its people rather than increasing the profits of the corporations.