Why we celebrate the United States of America

From time to time, I find myself having discussions with professionals in Europe.  “Why do Americans insist they’re No. 1?” one asked me.  “Why is that so important?”  Apparently, all Americans are ugly Americans and I am their spokesman. 

We do have a tendency to trumpet our successes and rationalize our failures, particularly when talking with someone from another country.  Our celebrations – such as the upcoming 4^th of July – tend to be loud, boisterous and overwrought…   just like ugly Americans!

Unlike most European cultures, we don’t have centuries of tradition.  My neighbor, here in Fairport, NY, traces his lineage in England back 1000 years.  Despite his preference for an American way of life, he is steeped in British culture and values.  My correspondents in Europe – both Dutchman, one living in Norway and the other in Italy – grew up in a monarchy that has persisted since the 16^th Century.

America hasn’t been around that long and the waves of immigrants that have come here are not steeped in American culture.  Indeed, my family came here less than 100 years ago.  We loudly proclaim our virtues to counterbalance the absence of generations of tradition. Our holidays, our school teachings and our political LEADERS serve to reinforce our cultural values – free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to private property – in a way that not only reminds but educates a diverse populace. 

One of my Dutch friends asked me if I thought that Americans “cling to their Constitution”.  I suggested that most Americans don’t understand our Constitution, which outlines how our government works.  However, Americans do “cling” to our Bill of Rights.  The right to free speech, freedom of religion, protections against unreasonable search and seizure and the right to privacy and private property are all delineated in the first ten amendments to the Constitution and explained in the Federalist Papers, created to gain the buy-in of a diverse group of 13 independent states.

Our Supreme Court was created to continually interpret our rights in order that we might make laws consistent with the founders’ view of a free society.  Notably, 66% of this year’sSupreme Court decisions were unanimous in that interpretation.

Perhaps more than the Constitution, Americans can recite from the opening of the Declaration of Independence.  The US was founded on the belief that all men and women were created equal and that certain inalienable rights are granted to individuals (not Kings) by God.

History teaches us that we have violated our own beliefs from time to time – from the internment of Japanese Americans during WW II to the denial of voting rights and equal opportunity to African Americans.  But, a society whose cultural values are defined by human rights seeks justice in all matters.  In the end, justice prevails.

History also teaches us that the founders’ didn’t have all the answers nor did they presume to.  For example, the right to privacy is generally regarded as Constitutionally granted in the US.  However, the word “privacy” doesn’t appear anywhere in the document.  The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Ninth Amendment to protect privacy as it specifically states that the “enumeration of certain rights…  shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people”.   

Much of our economic success has been the result of our rights to private property, again not specifically laid out in the Constitution. Chief Justice John Jay, the first to hold that title, interpreted the Fifth Amendment to afford those protections.

Much of this may be lost on those who are ignorant of our history.  However, the waves of immigrants who have come here over the last two Centuries to make a better life for their children – from the Irish who settled in New England in the 1840’s and 50’ to the Cubans who settled in Miami in the 1960’s and 70’s – have demonstrated the validity of a model of governance that has been emulated around the world.

Many, including me, disparage a federal government that seems to thrive on dysfunction.  But, America thrives on a core belief that we have the freedom to be who we want, say what we want and go where we want to go. 

And that, my friends, deserves a great celebration.  Happy 4^th!

WHO WILL LEAD?

We might have a green energy future if...

Beijing smog in January 2013

A couple of weeks ago, the New York Times published an article about the successful roll back of green energy mandates in Ohio.  The writer made it sound as though the evil fossil fuel lobby convinced gullible legislators to “freeze the phase-in that utilities must buy from renewable energy sources”.

What disturbed me about the article is that it made no mention of the economic considerations.  If the original plan, passed in 2008, was allowed to go forward, what would happen to the cost of energy in a state that has seen its manufacturing jobs heading for other places for many years?

As a society, we prefer a clean environment.  No one wants his or her kids to breath dirty air or drink polluted water.  We have all seen pictures of the smog in Beijing.  And, Ohioans over the age of 50 can remember the sight of the Cleveland's Cuyahoga River on fire in 1969. 

But, can we have our cake and eat it too?  Can we eliminate fossil fuel energy without causing economic calamity?

That question will be subject to the usual partisan politics that have affected all of the important issues of our time.  And, once the new EPA mandates are made effective next year, there are bound to be battles fought in court.

But, if we can get past all that, is it feasible?

The new mandates require each state to reduce its output of carbon by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030.  Ten states have already met that requirement.  Four of them (New York, New Hampshire, Maryland and Massachusetts) – members of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative – have reduced carbon by nearly 40%.

Cuyahoga River on fire in 1969

So, how will we get there?

Everyone has a theory, it seems.  Many are intriguing.  Fresh Energy CEO Michael Noble posits that an ultra low carbon system can be set up through a hybrid of nuclear and renewables.  The idea of nuclear energy sets off alarm bells in the minds of many Americans.  However, it has been used safely to provide 75% of the power in France for over 30 years.  And, new technologies, such as the use of thorium rather than more volatile light-water reactors, make nuclear safer than it has been in the past.

A Stanford University research team led by civil engineer Mark Jacobson has developed a roadmap for each of the 50 states to reach 100% sustainable energy by 2050 using existing technologies.  Stanford’s roadmap suggests we replace fossil fuel plants as they age out so as not to drive up costs.

Whatever roadmap we, as a nation or state-by-state, decide to pursue, there will be bumps along the way.  Projects will stall.  There will be cost overruns.  The promised benefits will be under delivered.  And, whenever that happens, opponents on the political right will say, “I told you so”.

From the left, we hear that the green lobby has criticized the new EPA mandates as not being aggressive enough.  Any suggestions of energy sources that will provide a “bridge” to a sustainable future are unacceptable to them.  However, economic feasibility is an important criterion in order to maintain the support of the consuming and voting public.  In the near term, converting power plants from coal to natural gas will reduce both cost and greenhouse gas emissions.

New methods of extracting natural gas (hydraulic fracturing or fracking) have made this alternative to coal inexpensive and available.  The conversion from coal to natural gas can be done so quickly and cost-effectively that 15% of US power plants will have converted by the time the new government mandates kick in at the end of next year. 

The abundance of natural gas within our borders promises to reduce oil imports and provide cheaper electricity while the alternatives are being developed and scaled.  Bans on fracking and pipeline construction that will deliver natural gas safely and cheaply are counterproductive.

Further, fears about the dangers of fracking are unfounded.  According to Scientific American the question isn’t whether it can be done safely.  It’s “will it be done safely?”

What are essential are careful planning, flexible regulations and the support of a well-educated public.  If we can get past the usual tug-of-war between the extreme left and right, we can achieve a sustainable energy future without damaging our economy.

The only question…

WHO WILL LEAD?

Obama, SNAP and conservative Americans

Every time someone tells me the stock market is about to take a tumble, I think I should take some money off the table.  I reallocate my portfolio from time to time. But, I worry that the bubble may burst at any moment (especially since we have seen it happen twice since the turn of the Century).

I have the luxury of such worries.  Since 2009, the major stock market indices have more than doubled.  Life is good. 

What else has experienced as nearly a dramatic increase?  Food stamps!  The government’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has expanded from $33.5 Billion in fiscal year 2009 to$47.6 Billion in 2013 – an increase of nearly 60%.

Meanwhile the poor have become a main topic of our national political debate.

The President has framed this year’s Congressional campaign by expressing two clear ideas.  One is correct; the other is not.

First, the proposed 40% increase to the minimum wage will not lift anyone out of poverty.  Many of the poor are permanently unemployed and earn nothing.  And, many minimum wage workers are second income earners in two income households.  In other words, they’re not poor.  Even for a 40-hour per week minimum wage worker, an increase from $7.25 to $10.10 would raise an annual salary from about $15K to $21K – a big increase, to be sure, but hardly enough to lift one out of poverty. 

Speaking of his political opponents, the President has also said, “Their philosophy is simple: You’re on your own… [I]f you’re out of work, can’t find a job. Tough luck, you’re on your own. You don’t have health care: That’s your problem. You’re on your own. If you’re born into poverty, lift yourself up with your own bootstraps, even if you don’t have boots. You’re on your own.”

And, on this score, he is correct.

Where is the conservative solution?  If you are a Christian (as many conservatives are), you “must be open-handed to your brothers”.  Is that ethic reflected in the political rhetoric we hear from conservatives in Washington?

It’s easy for conservatives to point to the flaws in the current system of entitlements for the poor.  It needs to be overhauled.

If your household income is $15K today, you are eligible to receive federal assistance with a value of about $25K through a combination of housing, Medicaid, SNAP and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).

If you increase your income, you get less help from the government.  Is it any wonder that conservatives believe that liberal programs have created a “culture of dependency”?

Yet, I believe there is a conservative constituency that will support effective programs to help the poor.   That constituency will respond to solutions that appeal to their charitable instinct and are both community-based and fiscally sound.

Churchgoing Christians have demonstrated a consistent track record of charitable giving.  On average, they give more than 4 times as much to charity as non-denominational citizens. 

Here in Rochester, NY, charities that support the poor are abundant:  Catholic Charities, Foodlink and the University of Rochester Medical Center provide moral, material and medical support to the community.   Rochester Cares matches volunteers with opportunities to help.  Local churches and organizations like Voices Against Poverty live up to Christian ideals providing spiritual and financial support. 

Education reform is the focus of non-profits like e3 Rochester, the Coalition for Common Sense in Education and the Rochester Education Foundation.

But, it’s important to understand that voluntary charitable contributions will not be sufficient to provide what’s needed to support the poor.  Americans give approximately $40 Billion to charities each year.  If you spread that across the 48 Million SNAP recipients, it amounts to about $800 perperson.  Governments – local, state and federal – must participate to support any transformational effort.

It’s also important to understand that the federal government alone cannot do it.  That is not because of a lack of funds.  It is because central planning doesn’t work as has been demonstrated by the last 50 years of Great Society programs.

Helping the poor doesn’t require increasing already massive government programs. It requires thinking carefully about who is in need and how their need can best be met. In some cases, the right solution will involve the government. In others—such as a failing family culture, children caught in ineffective schools, or people permanently dependent on government —the right answer is for the government to get out of the way.

The only question is…

WHO WILL LEAD?