President Bush came to Minnesota earlier this month to promote one of his initiatives. The problem is that although they have catchy titles, they are often doomed from the start because of their myopic view of things in general.
Take for instance ‘No child left behind,’ or ‘Tax cuts’ (for the rich), or the new Medicare drug policy, or ‘Clear Skies,’ or the Iraq war for that matter. All are solutions based on two myths: Either the myth that bold action benefiting mostly the privileged at the top of the heap in society results in a benefit to all, or the myth that change happens through manipulation, with tough threats or tax incentives.
Tough talk is reserved for those the Bush administration disagrees with or finds disagreeable, and incentives for those they believe are motivated by greed. Both are based on a low opinion of the species unlike an appeal to our higher angelic natures. This is the lesson the market place teaches: Get people to do what you want by appealing to their baser emotions, like fear and greed. The reptile-like part of the brain that governs those urges and responses doesn’t question the need or the repercussions. It is much more challenging to appeal to reason because you have to convince others of your point of view.
A basic principle applied in the Republican garden is what’s good for the tree is good for the forest, which might not be so bad if the treatment were applied to all trees. The Bush administration tends to have its favorite trees. Oil companies, Haliburton, pharmaceutical companies, health insurance companies, credit card companies and the wealthy in general. They are given great encouragement to increase their wealth, while protections and opportunities for everyone else are eroded or eliminated.
The President came to Minnesota to tell us that the problem with America’s competitiveness in the world economy is that we are not teaching enough math and science. He claims he’ll correct this by spending “$380 million to hire 70,000 more teachers,” as reported in the StarTribune, “to teach advanced math and science courses, and another 30,000 private industry professionals to help out in those classes.” It’s also claimed that this will be aimed at poor students and calls “for improving math instruction at the elementary and middle school levels and raising student achievement in those subjects through testing.”
Yet why does the President assume that the money spent on testing – instead of on direct instruction – is actually having a positive influence? From what I see, the proliferation of tests often weakens and limits teaching rather than enhancing it. Not that testing as a tool for informing instruction isn’t helpful, but the way it’s used can harm instruction by narrowing the focus and distracting the process.
We are now beginning to hear of plans to reform health care in a similar way by insisting on provider report cards, which have little hope of improving care – only distracting care givers from doing their job.
The problems in education and healthcare, and for that matter the economy as well, are not that we don’t try hard enough. It’s that too much money is spent in the wrong ways, instead of those ways where it could do the most good.
– We don’t give adequate money to schools, and then we spend lots of money to check up on our under-funded schools.
– Most of the increased costs in health care go to the administration of healthcare, not to the care itself.
– The problem in the economy is not that we don’t have enough engineers or mathematicians or scientists; it’s that we don’t have enough jobs for them because we outsource too many jobs, and then leave American companies chasing the lowest wage earner.
According to columnist Paul Craig Roberts, “Job growth over the last five years is the weakest on record.” He goes on to say:
Over the past five years the US economy experienced a net job loss in goods producing activities. The entire job growth was in service-providing activities–primarily credit intermediation, health care and social assistance, waiters, waitresses and bartenders, and state and local government.
US manufacturing lost 2.9 million jobs, almost 17% of the manufacturing work force. The wipeout is across the board. Not a single manufacturing payroll classification created a single new job.
The declines in some manufacturing sectors have more in common with a country undergoing saturation bombing during war than with a super-economy that is “the envy of the world.” Communications equipment lost 43% of its workforce. Semiconductors and electronic components lost 37% of its workforce. The workforce in computers and electronic products declined 30%. Electrical equipment and appliances lost 25% of its employees. The workforce in motor vehicles and parts declined 12%. Furniture and related products lost 17% of its jobs. Apparel manufacturers lost almost half of the work force. Employment in textile mills declined 43%. Paper and paper products lost one-fifth of its jobs. The work force in plastics and rubber products declined by 15%. Even manufacturers of beverages and tobacco products experienced a 7% shrinkage in jobs.
Republicans say, “trust the marketplace”; then they do what ever they can to give aid and comfort to the comfortable, and turn around and claim everyone else is too lazy, not working hard enough, not challenged enough, not tested enough to make it in the market place.
In Healthcare, the problem is making sure everyone is covered, not shifting the burden on to the employee. We need to seriously look at a universal single-payer system. Not socialized medicine where doctors and hospitals are state employed and owned, but a system where we are all covered by an efficient state-run system like Medicare.
Look at the difference in Agriculture, where all the incentives are given to the big producers, and little help is given to small farmers. Things will likely get worse, with ethanol initiatives most likely to go to big grain production and not small farm food production, which is where the real impact on rural economies is generated, because the small farmer buys locally.
This was one of the ideas I came away from the Monday night Northfield Arts Guild/League of Women Voters forum on “What is the Future for Family Farms?” organized by Stephanie Henrickson. The forum was part of the Farm Art show at the Guild that Stephanie also organized. Stephanie has been working tirelessly on family farm issues for decades, inspired by her love of the land and the family farm way of life.
Panel members were Dave and Flo Minar, Cedar Summit Farm of New Prague; Paul Liebenstein, Wolf Creek Dairy of rural Dundas; John Zimmerman, turkey grower in rural Northfield; Thom Petersen, Government Relations Director for Minnesota Farmers Union ; Susan Stokes, Executive Director of Farmers Legal Action Group; and Duane Alberts of Minnesota Farm Bureau Board of Directors.
Though the questions were set out ahead of time, some of the most important issues affecting family farms were NOT addressed, so here are some things to think about:
l) Unlike other livestock, dairy is still subject to a five-shareholder limit in the Corporate Farm Law. Should we keep it that way or open it up to unlimited shareholders?
2) Poultry was removed from the protections of the Minnesota Corporate Law in l978. They are now grown on contract, and how has this changed poultry farming?
3) Minnesota, unlike Iowa, allows local zoning in regard to farm operations, including feedlots. Which system do you prefer?
4) Some farmers are choosing to go organic in their crop or livestock operations. Proposed USDA Organic Standards have drawn much protest. Why?
5) Is there anything in law now to cap taxes on agricultural land that abuts urban areas or housing developments? If not, should there be?â€
Later in the month I also attended a great discussion hosted by the Land Stewardship Project Just Foods: Voices of Women in Agriculture. We watched a video about several women practicing sustainable agriculture. Two of the women live in our area and were at the presentation to answer questions about sustainable agriculture and opportunities for women in farming. It was inspiring to see these women dedicated to clean organic practices and connected to the local economy. Who knows maybe we witnessed the future of agriculture.