Democracy on Your Dinner Plate

Stopping government largesse. Strengthening the economy. Making healthcare affordable. Stopping special interest groups from infiltrating the government. Restoring respectability to American foreign policy. All of these important issues have been regular themes in the 2008 Presidential campaign. So why hasn't a national food policy been discussed?

Food inflation is at its worse in decades and global food crises could turn into global food catastrophes at the drop of a hat. But with the US election pushing starvation out of front pages, less than 10% of money pledged by donor countries has been delivered. One candidate could have caught the other camp off guard with the mention of a new comprehensive agricultural policy, but the issue, not surprisingly, was entirely ignored.

With more sexy issues, such as the war in Iraq, high energy prices and financial collapse crowding agricultural policy out of voters' minds, one could forgive the average American for not demanding more of the Presidential candidates. But ignoring high global food prices, and their remediable causes, only serves to hurt the United States in the long run.

A sound food policy is a cornerstone for good foreign policy. Americans vote with their wallets, whereas many around the world cannot afford such a luxury: they vote with their stomachs, which are growling.

A BBC World Service global study on the issue has found that the percentage of those dissatisfied by their leaders is in the mid to upper eighties in Egypt, the Philippines and Lebanon; countries not famous for their political stability. The same study found that rising food and energy prices have had a “great effect” on 60% of people across 26 countries. American politicians might find that staying the course with food policy could mean losing scarce legitimacy as a self-proclaimed “force of good” in global politics.

Two weeks ago, former President Bill Clinton addressed the issue. He was frank when speaking at a UN Meeting last Thursday. “We all blew it, including me,”he said. Clinton then blasted the agricultural policies of Western governments, for treating crops “like color TVs.”

No one was spared as Clinton railed against the US government, the World Bank and the IMF. Congress was chastised for spurning the idea (shockingly supported by President Bush, who got it right for once) of giving some food aid in the form of cash, instead of dumping American agricultural surpluses on fragile developing markets. The World Bank and the IMF were criticized for requiring African countries, at the behest of the US, to drop subsidies on fertilizer and other forms of financial support for farmers in return for World Bank/IMF aid.

Such policies only served to increase poor countries' dependence on the West and reduced their domestic food supply, thus leaving many people around the world where they are today: reeling from hunger. If we continue these policies, we only serve to alienate countries around the world that rightly view our intentions suspiciously. Our image cannot afford anymore of a beating, thus we must glean agribusiness' interests out of foreign policy decision making. We must therefore stop subsidizing exports and most non-cash food aid to poorer countries.

But it isn't just for reasons of foreign policy alone that our attitudes towards food must be reformed. Our economy, federal budget and health care systems could all use a boost; something that a national food policy could help accomplish.

Rising food costs are not only eating into household budgets, but they are squeezing businesses as well. Small businesses, such as restaurants and bakeries, are being hit hard. Who are benefitting from high food costs? The usual suspects: large multinationals with “upstream” market power. Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland and Monsanto all saw their profit nearly double. Wal-Mart claims that food sales are the driving force behind rising profits.

Subsidizing agriculture, though controversial, can be used to alleviate pressure on prices, though you wouldn't know it by living in the United States. Instead of paying farmers to not grow crops, thereby increasing food prices, the federal government should take a different approach. Guaranteeing farmers a minimum price for their crops is a better method. Farmers will then sell “downstream” at much lower prices, as they know the government will make up the difference, thus benefiting consumers.

Subsidizing farms, to some, is unnecessary: a way of distorting the market. To others, however, it is democracy on your dinner plate. Farm subsidies could, for example, be used to ensure that healthy, ethically grown food is sold at low-cost in the United States. Not only would this create jobs in the United States, but it would also reduce our dependence on oil (without subsidizing corn for ethanol development). As an increased supply (and decreased price) for domestically grown food, would decrease demand for imported food.

The need to fix our farm subsidy system also implies that agribusiness special interests must be locked out of formulating legislation. When two-thirds of total subsidy spending goes to the richest 10% of farmers, one cannot deny big business is calling the shots in a defunct agricultural program.

"Distorting the market" through subsidization can also help ensure that healthier food is cheaper. This would relieve pressure on the American health care system, assuming consumers were responsive to cheaper, healthier food. The result could potentially save Americans countless dollars, as problems such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease and a whole other host of health problems went into remission.

For two major candidates who claim to be intent on changing the American political landscape for years to come, Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain have incredulously barely even mentioned a new agricultural policy, at their own peril. Let us hope that whoever is elected president November 4th, will formulate a national food policy; one that could give the United States momentum needed for wholesale positive change for decades to come.

Change is needed and hopefully the calls for it are genuine. As George Orwell once wrote: “We may find in the long run that tinned food is a deadlier weapon than the machine gun.” Who would have thought our own government would have us looking down the barrel?

One Person....Seventy Votes?

A troublesome trend in recent American history is the absence of new ideas. Why have we been so weary of change? The Constitution is treated like the word of God, even though its authors intended for it to be regularly amendable. Labor Unions' greed, complacency and criminal activity after earning key concessions from big business in the 20^th century has hurt workers and continues to do so today. Reagan's “Revolution”, could not have been further from one; it was merely a throwback to the late nineteenth/early twentieth century ideas of classical liberalism, which were discredited by the Great Depression, a period of history that many fear could be repeating itself today given recent economic worries. What is it about America that is so inherently conservative? Without war, are we slated for stagnation?

A simple change to the legislative branch of the government could help remedy this lack of innovation in government. As far as I'm concerned, the sooner this antiquated part of the state is shut down, the better. I'm talking about the United States Senate, of course.

The reason that the Senate should be scrapped has to do with the way it mocks a fundamental principle of democracy. Consider the following:

California, Texas and New York are the three largest states in the Union, with a combined population of about 80 million people (about the size of Germany). Wyoming, Vermont and North Dakota are the three smallest states with a combined population of about 2 million people (about the size of Latvia). Both groups of states, large and small, each have 6 senators.

If you're still confused as to why the Senate should be banished, let us further analyze the existential consequences of the United States Senate. Assume that each Senator carefully considers the opinion of his/her constituents when voting, by holding a referendum that will determine how the Senator votes. Using a Senator's vote as metric of political power, a Californian's vote is equivalent to 1/36,000,000 of a unit of political power, whereas a citizen of Wyoming's vote is equivalent to 1/523,000 of a unit of political power. Thanks to the Senate, a voter in Wyoming has roughly seventy times the influence as a voter in California.

This problem must be remedied. This injustice is illustrated by data from 2005, which shows the return to the average taxpayer from each dollar spent on federal taxes. Of the states in the top 10 per capita returns to tax dollars spent (the whole table can be seen here), only three of them have populations that rank in the top 25 (Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi). This is not an argument against income transfers, but a point about fixing something thats broken. Why don't working class Californians, Texans and New Yorkers see a higher return to their tax dollars?

In addition to furthering the cause of justice, more proportional representation would also help eliminate the problem of reckless federal spending. What we have now is Senators trying to maximize their own state's return to federal tax money, thus increasing their chances of reelection, which does nothing to cure a public debt that has burgeoned to a staggering 40% of GDP.

Furthermore, eliminating the Senate could also do away with counterproductive Culture Wars between Red State and Blue State inhabitants by giving Blue State inhabitants (including Republicans who aren't socially conservative) their fair say in government. By some accounts, Blue State citizens outnumber their Red State counterparts by some 40 million. Yet the Senate's balance currently lies with the Democrats by a mere two votes, and only because the two independents in the Senate offer their support to them.

Not only are Armageddon-loving, freedom hating, science loathing fundamentalists generally detestable, but they are also over represented in Washington. They are free to peacefully be as willfully ignorant as they wish, but they should not unjustly force their beliefs on others, as per the current situation. This iniquity, and others, can practically be corrected by abolishing the Senate, thus making the United States Legislature a unicameral system.

How Far Will I Go to Defend Canada? Just watch me...

The entire world is holding its breath in anticipation of the American Presidential Election on November 4^th. But for those who see America's democracy as a model suitable for government world wide, take note. North of the 49^th parallel, America's supposedly humdrum neighbor, Canada, held an election today. And whatever the result will be (we will know in hours), the Canadian model should be considered more suitable and appropriate for the needs of 21^st century democracies, who should always respect majority rule and minority rights simultaneously.

On February 10, 2007, Senator Barack Obama announced he would be running for President of the United States. Three months shy of two years later, we will know the result of his historic campaign. But should his, or any Presidential campaign really last almost two years? What kind of constraints does this put on our government's ability to function? How effective can our legislators be if some of our more prominent ones are running around the country for two out of every four years?

Another consideration to make is the cost required to sustain such a marathon campaign. What kind of message do we send to our own citizens, and the entire world, when we deem access to an excessive amount of money to be a prerequisite for being the voice of the American people? What if someone has the right ideas but doesn't have the cash? In 2004, John Kerry and George W. Bush spent a combined 700 million dollars. How many schools could this money have built?

In Canada, The Elections Act of 2000 imposes tighter spending regulations on federal political than equivalent American federal regulations do. The result is that Federal Parliamentary elections, since 2000, have not gone over the lawful minimum required time needed to pass between the dissolution of parliament, and the next election: 36 days.

This shortens the election so that candidates don't have to raise hundreds of millions of dollars just to have a realistic shot at sustaining a winning campaign. The result, which might shock all the right-wing nuts who equate spending money to free speech, is the power held by parties outside the mainstream Liberals (center-left) and Conservatives (center-right). The New Democratic Party (left of center) might win enough seats to form a coalition with the Liberals. The Bloc Quebecois (Quebec sovereigntists) might lose the balance of power they held in the last government, supporting the Conservative minority. The Green Party (environmentalist) might win enough seats so that it is considered a major party in the next federal election ( it does not currently have any MPs, though was polled as winning 9% of the popular vote).

Even if a party's support plateaus and has no realistic shot at becoming the governing party, it might still have enough power to decide who governs and who doesn't (such as the Bloc Quebecois). Under a parliamentary system, Al Gore could have formed a coalition with Ralph Nader, and we never would've had to endure the cringe worthy presidency of George W. Bush. Thus minor parties are empowered.

One might think that a system that elects a head of government based on who controls the parliament to be a system that lacks safeguards on power. They would be mistaken. First of all, the Prime Minister is held directly accountable by Parliament. And unlike in the United States, where impeachment is considered a lesser form of regicide, Prime Ministers in Canada routinely face votes of no confidence in parliament. If the government fails to win a vote of confidence, the dissolution of parliament and an election (at least 36 days later) is the result.

Votes of no confidence also force Prime Ministers to be held accountable particularly in one aspect of government that is commonly overlooked here in the US: the financing of government. Regarding bills that deal with issues concerning the government's budget, should the government fail to pass any such bill, an election would be triggered as per the constitution. If a Prime Minister presents an unreasonable budget, he could reasonably find himself arguing before not Parliament, but the public as to why his budget should be accepted by taxpayers.

With regards to checks on federal power, when a Prime Minister enjoys a majority government, then it is true that they will have a relatively easy time passing laws. “Where are the checks and balances,” you bleat? Well consider the following: whats wrong with a government that has the power to pass laws and change a country? If a parliament's lower house reflects the will of the people, and the people hand a majority to a certain party, who is to say that this party shouldn't change the country?

Canada's Parliamentary system isn't perfect, but there is something to be said for it, especially when compared to America's circus democracy. Perhaps had we followed a political model similar to Canada's, the change that we as a country so desperately seek now would have occurred long before an impending financial collapse deemed it necessary.

Any Banks Death Diminishes Me...Does It?

All eyes have moved from Wall Street to Capitol Hill this week as America's legislative branch attempts to clean up the mess made by America's financial elites. But the recent crisis is only the sole fault of big financial institutions to the extent that their babysitter, lets call her Ms. Government, gave them bowl after bowl of chocolate ice cream and let them watch TV all night while she was outside chain smoking, drinking your fancy vodka and calling her boyfriend long distance on your phone right up to the moment you got home. And you're hiring her again this Friday?

The bailout plan is only the latest farce in the never ending tragicomedy that is America. We may have avoided this crisis if we reined in the low interest rates of decades past that helped manifest the “buy today, screw tomorrow” attitude of the private and public sectors. We certainly didn't help ourselves by rewarding every politician in the land who promised to cut taxes as much as possible (especially rich people's taxes). And, for the majority of the country, relatively low wages only seemed to guarantee that when the downturn finally came, it would be scary. Instead of offering Wall Street banks a lifeline, the government should help the helpless and punish the greedy, but it probably wont. Unless I'm mistaken, the government plans on buying up or refinancing subprime mortgages, and other risky investments, on a case by case basis, which basically means that the government is helping financial institutions clean house while the taxpayers are stuck with all the junk. This is pandering to special interests in the worst possibly way.

Why should the state get them off hook? Sure, they might create an oversight organization, in the same vein that regulatory organizations oversaw more recent mishaps and did nothing. But the government should take more of a hardline towards Wall Street aristocrats: if the taxpayers are going to bail you out, they're going to take you over. It should be either nationalization of failed firms or nothing, and the big banks shouldn't have any complaints. The public deserves no less.

Big banks weren't fans of the welfare state during better times, so it beggars belief that they think we're now just going to acquiesce to financing corporate welfare to those who do not need it, nor do they deserve it. Particularly when it is at odds the myopic so-called “laissez-faire” ideology that once made them winners (though on closer scrutiny, they have enjoyed state subsidies for years).

This is not to say that the government should do nothing about the current crisis. It is all well and good to snicker at how the mighty have fallen, but undeserving people will suffer as a direct result of others getting their comeuppance. Such is the fallacy of individualism. As John Donne once said, “no man is an island”. Despite the best efforts of the likes of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, we in the West still live in societies and innocent people will suffer due to the financial carelessness of others.

First of all, if George W. Bush wanted to restore confidence and a sense of calm to financial markets, he should have declared a week-long bank holiday, just as FDR did when he took office. The idea being to stop people from making rash decisions.

Secondly, a better form of intervention would be to create a new public bank with recently acquired assets, and use this via the Treasury and the Federal Reserve to refinance mortgages. This would help manage the housing bubble, and allow homeowners to keep their homes. Though it should be noted, only those who have borrowed responsibly and are victims of circumstances should benefit. The public should have no time (or money) for those who avariciously borrowed money they could not afford to pay back, just as it should not be asked to bail out greedy banks who lent carelessly in a predatory fashion.

A new public bank could provide low cost credit to those who need it, and the economy as a whole could flourish. Imagine the revitalization possibilities if Americans had access to microloans and other instruments of credit that weren't given with profit motives being the sole incentive for lending institutions. Small businesses and America's urban centers would be the beneficiaries.

If politicians are still keen on the idea that hard work can pay off, responsible market intervention seems, ironically, like the best policy. It is up to Americans to demand this from their leaders, instead of allowing gifts to corporations with no strings attached, leaving taxpayers to carry the weight of market failure. The long term sustainability of our well-being depends on it.