- Make the right to vote an affirmative federal right of citizenship and not a state-administered privilege.
- Make automatic voter registration a duty of the federal government, direct the creation of standards for ease of voting, and clarify prohibited activities including the most common disenfranchisement tactics.
- Establish statehood for the District of Columbia.
- Establish full voting rights and representation in Congress for the people of Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories.
- Enable Congress to pass laws protecting voters from having their elections dominated by moneyed interests (overruling Buckley v Valeo and successive cases based on it).
Don’t Blame Wal-Mart
By Robert Reich
Published by the New York Times, February 28, 2005
Bowing to intense pressure from neighborhood and labor groups, a real estate developer has just given up plans to include a Wal-Mart store in a mall in Queens, thereby blocking Wal-Mart’s plan to open its first store in New York City. In the eyes of Wal-Mart’s detractors, the Arkansas-based chain embodies the worst kind of economic exploitation: it pays its 1.2 million American workers an average of only $9.68 an hour, doesn’t provide most of them with health insurance, keeps out unions, has a checkered history on labor law and turns main streets into ghost towns by sucking business away from small retailers.
But isn’t Wal-Mart really being punished for our sins? After all, it’s not as if Wal-Mart’s founder, Sam Walton, and his successors created the world’s largest retailer by putting a gun to our heads and forcing us to shop there.
Instead, Wal-Mart has lured customers with low prices. “We expect our suppliers to drive the costs out of the supply chain,” a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart said. “It’s good for us and good for them.”
Wal-Mart may have perfected this technique, but you can find it almost everywhere these days. Corporations are in fierce competition to get and keep customers, so they pass the bulk of their cost cuts through to consumers as lower prices. Products are manufactured in China at a fraction of the cost of making them here, and American consumers get great deals. Back-office work, along with computer programming and data crunching, is “offshored” to India, so our dollars go even further.
Meanwhile, many of us pressure companies to give us even better bargains. I look on the Internet to find the lowest price I can and buy airline tickets, books, merchandise from just about anywhere with a click of a mouse. Don’t you?
The fact is, today’s economy offers us a Faustian bargain: it can give consumers deals largely because it hammers workers and communities.
We can blame big corporations, but we’re mostly making this bargain with ourselves. The easier it is for us to get great deals, the stronger the downward pressure on wages and benefits. Last year, the real wages of hourly workers, who make up about 80 percent of the work force, actually dropped for the first time in more than a decade; hourly workers’ health and pension benefits are in free fall. The easier it is for us to find better professional services, the harder professionals have to hustle to attract and keep clients. The more efficiently we can summon products from anywhere on the globe, the more stress we put on our own communities.
But you and I aren’t just consumers. We’re also workers and citizens. How do we strike the right balance? To claim that people shouldn’t have access to Wal-Mart or to cut-rate airfares or services from India or to Internet shopping, because these somehow reduce their quality of life, is paternalistic tripe. No one is a better judge of what people want than they themselves.
The problem is, the choices we make in the market don’t fully reflect our values as workers or as citizens. I didn’t want our community bookstore in Cambridge, Mass., to close (as it did last fall) yet I still bought lots of books from Amazon.com. In addition, we may not see the larger bargain when our own job or community isn’t directly at stake. I don’t like what’s happening to airline workers, but I still try for the cheapest fare I can get.
The only way for the workers or citizens in us to trump the consumers in us is through laws and regulations that make our purchases a social choice as well as a personal one. A requirement that companies with more than 50 employees offer their workers affordable health insurance, for example, might increase slightly the price of their goods and services. My inner consumer won’t like that very much, but the worker in me thinks it a fair price to pay. Same with an increase in the minimum wage or a change in labor laws making it easier for employees to organize and negotiate better terms.
I wouldn’t go so far as to re-regulate the airline industry or hobble free trade with China and India – that would cost me as a consumer far too much – but I’d like the government to offer wage insurance to ease the pain of sudden losses of pay. And I’d support labor standards that make trade agreements a bit more fair.
These provisions might end up costing me some money, but the citizen in me thinks they are worth the price. You might think differently, but as a nation we aren’t even having this sort of discussion. Instead, our debates about economic change take place between two warring camps: those who want the best consumer deals, and those who want to preserve jobs and communities much as they are. Instead of finding ways to soften the blows, compensate the losers or slow the pace of change – so the consumers in us can enjoy lower prices and better products without wreaking too much damage on us in our role as workers and citizens – we go to battle.
I don’t know if Wal-Mart will ever make it into New York City. I do know that New Yorkers, like most other Americans, want the great deals that can be had in a rapidly globalizing high-tech economy. Yet the prices on sales tags don’t reflect the full prices we have to pay as workers and citizens. A sensible public debate would focus on how to make that total price as low as possible.
Robert B. Reich was the U.S. secretary of labor from 1993 to 1997.
© 2005 New York Times
- See our huge collection of articles, studies, internal documents and more on Wal-Mart and big box stores.
- Visit our Merchandise Page to see anti-Walmart stickers, buttons, and more.
- Please help support this work – make a tax-deductible donation to ReclaimDemocracy.org today!
Ballot Initiatives Hijacked by Corporations
By Jeffrey Kaplan and Jeff Milchen
March 7, 2004
Think of corporate influence peddlers and you might envision distant figures working the halls of Congress and state capitols. But more and more, they roam city halls, municipal offices and even local shopping malls attempting to snuff the growing trend of communities setting limits on corporate activities. Regardless of location, the goal of the corporate lawyers and lobbyists remains the same: to use the enormous wealth of their employers to get what they want. And they’re willing to seize the initiative — the ballot initiative, theoretically the purest form of democracy — to accomplish their goals.
California evidenced this trend on March 2 elections, when several communities faced corporate attempts to spend their way to victory on ballot initiatives.
Wal-Mart — the world’s largest corporation and soon to become the nation’s largest corporate investor in political candidates for federal offices — wasn’t pleased with a decision last year by officials in Contra Costa County (east of San Francisco Bay). The County recently joined a growing number of communities nationwide to pass laws limiting the size of enormous new “supercenters” that sell groceries as well as general merchandise. Wal-Mart used company funds to hire a corps of signature gatherers and placed an initiative on the ballot to rescind the law. In a slap in the face to its workers, Wal-Mart paid these political operatives $10 per hour — $2 more than its typical store employees. Wal-Mart’s million-dollar public relations campaign tripled spending by opponents and persuaded voters to overturn the ordinance (the company was aided by the poor construction of the law).
But big money doesn’t win every time. On the same day, voters rejected attempts by CropLife America and Pacific Lumber to translate their economic power into political victories.
CropLife, a political creation of corporations such as Monsanto, Dow and DuPont, funded a failed campaign to defeat a Mendocino County citizen initiative that would ban growing genetically manipulated crops or animals within the county. Winning 57% of votes cast, Measure H made Mendocino the first county in the nation to pass such a ban despite the industry opponents spending more than $600,000 – a county record that exceeded $54 in expenditure for each “no” vote.
Meanwhile, just north of Mendocino, executives at Pacific Lumber Company (a division of giant Maxxam Inc.) were upset with Humboldt County district attorney Paul Gallegos, who sued Pacific last year for allegedly lying about plans to log giant redwoods trees on steep slopes. Gallegos filed the suit after the logging caused extensive flooding and damage to local farmland. Pacific spent about $250,000 to run a ballot initiative to oust Gallegos from his job, but failed decisively. Even political opponents of the district attorney balked at allowing a transnational corporation to terminate a fraud case by eliminating its accuser.
But Pacific isn’t done yet — it’s emulating Nike’s failed 2003 attempt to claim a constitutional right to lie. The company has filed a countersuit claiming an obscure anti-trust provision – the “Noerr-Penington Doctrine” — effectively gives corporations the legal right to lie to government officials.
Though money doesn’t necessarily buy a win, we should question why corporations are permitted to use corporate funds to influence any democratic processes in the first place. Despite occasional setbacks, corporations have steadily seized more power over our laws and public institutions, thanks to decades of systematic efforts that have reshaped the law to fit corporate agendas rather than citizens’ interests.
Back in 1971, a corporate lawyer named Lewis Powell wrote a telling memo to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He asserted that big business should seek power through “careful long-range planning and implementation” and that power “must be used aggressively and with determination, without embarrassment.” Powell specified that “The judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change.”
A month later Richard Nixon appointed Powell to the United States Supreme Court. Powell went on to write the opinion in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, a 1978 decision that created a First Amendment “right” for corporations to influence ballot initiatives and other political campaigns. As one writer commented at the time in the American Bar Association Journal, the Court had constructed a “monster, like Dr. Frankenstein’s creation” that was likely to trample over democracy. The Bellottidecision is one major reason why corporations now dominate national politics and why companies like Wal-Mart can impose the will of corporate executives on communities around the country.
Undermining democracy can be lucrative for corporations but costly for the rest of us. In the case of Wal-Mart, its legendary low wages don’t impact only workers — many employees end up requiring public assistance despite having jobs, while better-paying competitors are driven out of business. According to a recent University of Southern California study, the spread of Wal-Mart supercenters in southern California could result in $1.4 billion in wage and benefit losses annually.
Citizens still win a few battles against corporate interests. But winning the larger struggle — one to determine whether it’s citizens or corporations that will control the future of our communities and country — will depend on changing the rules of engagement.
As Contra Costa county Supervisor Jon Gioia stated, it’s about local citizens having the right to make the laws in their own communities, “not Wal-Mart executives in Bentonville, Arkansas .”
Milchen directs ReclaimDemocracy.org. Kaplan is an organizer of the group’s San Francisco bay area chapter (email: JLKaplan”@”concentric.net to learn more) We soon will begin gathering support for a constitutional amendment to revoke corporate claims to Bill of Rights protections.
Editor’s note: Unknown to us at the time of publication, another California community, San Marcos (near San Diego) overturned a city council decision via referendum, negating the approval of second a Wal-Mart in the city.
Wal-Mart Negotiates Its Own Fine for Alleged Child Labor Law Violations
Company admits no guilt as part of deal
By Donald Mckenzie
Published by The New York Times, February 12, 2005
Editor’s note: Imagine if street criminals received two weeks notice before police began investigating a crime in which they were the primary suspect. And imagine the suspect could plea-bargain away 24 charges against them by paying a fine equal to the amount of money they make in less than 18 seconds — and it was tax-deductible.
That’s the impact of the fine described in this article on Wal-Mart, based on their 2004 annual report which declared $256 billion in revenue last year. The violations in question here are quite minor — especially in comparison to many other offenses by Wal-Mart stores — but if the Bush Department of Labor is seeking to encourage law-breaking , it’s sending the right signal.
Among the bizarre pieces of this story is the Department of Labor recalling a press release in which it referenced one specific harm from the violations — a teenager injured by using a chainsaw — and reissuing a release cleansed of the incident. Why? Wal-Mart was given the right to approve all official public statements on the case!
Update 1: On Feb. 18, 2005, the Labor Department announced it would investigate the propriety of this deal after U.S. Rep. George Miller made the complaints.
Update 2: On Jan. 18, 2006, Rep. George Miller informed us, “I am happy to report that, after much public scrutiny and controversy, DOL notified me today that it has allowed the agreement to expire. Hopefully this shameful episode will stop the Department from making other sweetheart deals in the future.”
Wal-Mart Stores, the nation’s largest retailer, has agreed to pay $135,540 to settle federal charges that it violated child labor laws in Connecticut, Arkansas and New Hampshire.
Labor Department officials said most of the 24 violations covered by the settlement involved workers under age 18 operating dangerous machinery, including cardboard balers and chain saws. In the agreement, Wal-Mart denied any wrongdoing.
Department officials said that one of the violations was in New Hampshire, three were in Arkansas and 20 were in Connecticut, where the investigation began in 2001. One violation involved a youth who injured his thumb while using a chain saw to cut Christmas trees.
The Labor Department and Wal-Mart signed the agreement on Jan. 6, but made no public announcement. The department disclosed the settlement yesterday after a reporter questioned officials about concerns raised by several department employees that the agreement gave Wal-Mart special favors.
The agreement states, “Compliance with the child labor laws and regulations will be an important factor in evaluating the performance of managers.”
A provision also promises to give Wal-Mart 15 days’ notice before the Labor Department investigates any other “wage and hour” accusations, like failure to pay minimum wage or overtime.
That provision drew criticism yesterday from Representative George Miller of California, the senior Democrat on the House Education and Workforce Committee. (Editor’s note: His office subsequently analyzed the agreement and issued this report detailing its irregular nature). It also prompted complaints from some Labor Department investigators who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.
“With child labor cases involving the use of hazardous machinery, why give 15 days’ notice before we can do an investigation?” asked a district office supervisor who has worked in the wage and hour division for nearly 20 years. “What’s the rationale?”
Victoria Lipnic, assistant labor secretary for employment standards, called the settlement typical, saying that giving Wal-Mart notice before conducting investigations would encourage the company to correct the problems sooner.
The department employees also said the agreement was unusual because the department had never announced it.
Department officials said they were preparing a news release and were waiting for Wal-Mart to pay the $135,540 before making the settlement public.
In the settlement, Wal-Mart agreed not to employ any worker under age 14 and agreed to prohibit any employee under 18 from operating cardboard balers. It also agreed to post a notice on each cardboard baler saying that minors may not use or touch the balers. Wal-Mart also agreed to train new store managers about compliance with child labor laws and to provide more training to current managers on the subject.
“We worked with the Department of Labor to strengthen our training and compliance programs,” said Gus Whitcomb, a spokesman for Wal-Mart, which is based in Bentonville, Ark. “Again, our focus is to be 100 percent compliant with all applicable laws.”
Wal-Mart has faced previous child labor charges. In March 2000, Maine fined the company $205,650 for violations of child labor laws in every one of the 20 stores in the state. In January 2004, a weeklong internal audit of 128 stores found 1,371 instances in which minors apparently worked too late at night, worked during school hours or worked too many hours in a day. Company officials said the audit was faulty and had incorrectly found that some youths had worked on school days when, in fact, those days were holidays.
Under the new agreement, the Labor Department did not waive its right to conduct future investigations. Still, several department officials suggested that the provision for 15 days’ notice might give Wal-Mart an opportunity to hide violations.
John R. Fraser, the government’s top wage official under the first President Bush and President Bill Clinton, said the advance-notice provision was unusually expansive.
“Giving the company 15 days’ notice of any investigation is very unusual,” Mr. Fraser said. “The language appears to go beyond child labor allegations and cover all wage and hour allegations. It appears to put Wal-Mart in a privileged position that to my knowledge no other employer has.”
Ms. Lipnic countered, “We usually call employers before we go to investigate,” and said there was “nothing uncommon or unprecedented about that.”
Several federal employees voiced concern about a Jan. 10 e-mail message sent by the director of the Little Rock, Ark., office for the Labor Department’s wage and hour division after the settlement was reached, that said, “Wage & Hour will not open an investigation of Wal-Mart without first notifying Wal-Mart’s main office and allowing them an opportunity to look at the alleged violations and, if valid, correct the problem.”
But Cynthia Watson, the division’s Southwest regional director, said advance notice would speed compliance. “We are seeking to centralize the points of contact in order to get the people involved to resolve the issue,” Ms. Watson said.
Addendum: Tuesday, Feb. 15, 2005. Victoria Lipnic, assistant labor secretary for employment standards, claims the advance notice applied only to complaints alleging child labor violations and not all wage/time violations.
© 2005 The New York Times
- See our huge collection of articles, studies, internal documents and more on Wal-Mart and big box stores.
- Visit our Merchandise Page to see anti-Walmart stickers, buttons, and more.
- Please help support this work – make a tax-deductible donation to ReclaimDemocracy.org today!
Wal-Mart Moves Into Banking and Financial Services
By Wendy Zellner
Published by Business Week Jan 27, 2005
Editor’s note: We have nothing to do with Wal-Mart financial services. Please do not contact us with questions for Wal-Mart!
Wal-Mart Stores didn’t get to be the world’s biggest retailer by giving up easily. So despite being twice thwarted by lawmakers in its efforts to buy a bank, it has quietly but tenaciously expanded its foothold in financial services.
In its latest move, announced on Jan. 21, the retailing giant is introducing a no-fee Wal-Mart Discover credit card that offers 1% cash back, which it will launch with GE Consumer Finance in March.
This relentless push into financial services is starting to send shivers through the banking industry. Few believe Wal-Mart will stop with basic services as it applies its low-price, high-volume formula to yet another business category. And while other companies, from Nordstrom to General Motors, have bank and thrift charters or hybrid Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.-insured industrial loan companies (ILCs) in tow, no one trips alarms like Wal-Mart.
ON THE MOVE
Many community bankers are convinced the behemoth won’t rest until it has obtained full banking powers. “It’s not a question of if Wal-Mart is going to be a bank, it’s a question of when,” says D. Anthony Plath, a finance professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte who occasionally enjoys play games that pay real money.
Clearly, Wal-Mart is on the move. Over the past three years, the giant has steadily built alliances with financial-service providers, such as MoneyGram International and SunTrust Banks, enabling it to offer services such as bargain-price money orders and wire transfers. It has bank branches operated by partners in nearly 1,000 of its massive supercenters.
And it has stepped up the pace. SunTrust is experimenting with nearly 45 in-store bank branches co-branded as “Wal-Mart Money Center by SunTrust,” with plans to expand to about 100 of them by early 2006.
UNDERSERVED CLIENTELE
Already, Wal-Mart customers are reaping the benefit. They can cash payroll checks for just $3, transfer money to Mexico for $9.46, and buy a money order for 46¢. Some competitors charge twice as much. Many are mostly high-margin, highly fragmented businesses in which the poor and immigrants are sometimes at the mercy of unscrupulous operators.
“Traditionally, nonbank vendors of financial services have charged an arm and a leg,” says David Robertson, publisher of The Nilson Report , a newsletter about credit and debit cards. Adds Gary Stibel of New England Consulting Group in Westport, Conn.: “Wal-Mart is giving people in lower-income brackets opportunities in financial services they never had before.”
Financial services could open a rich new vein of profits for Wal-Mart as it seeks to remain a growth company. By one rival’s estimate, the market for services that Wal-Mart already offers is worth about $5 billion a year in fees, leaving plenty of room for it to slash prices while making a profit. As it has with other goods, Wal-Mart will slowly “collapse the price umbrella,” squeezing check cashers and wire-transfer leader Western Union Financial Services, predicts Robert Markey Jr., consultant Bain & Co.’s director for financial services.
SOME CLOSED DOORS
For the time being, though, the basic services it offers represent little more than a rounding error for the $287 billion goliath. Wal-Mart doesn’t break out results for the unit, lumping them into the company’s “other income,” which totaled $2.1 billion in the first three quarters of the last fiscal year. That was up 31% but amounted to just 1% of total revenues.
Still, there’s huge growth potential. Says banking consultant Bert Ely of Ely & Co. in Alexandria, Va.: “They’re developing, in customers’ minds, a link between Wal-Mart and going to the bank. That has powerful long-term implications.”
Not all financial-service suppliers are willing to ride this tiger. Jane Thompson, president of Wal-Mart Financial Services, concedes that “some of the leaders in the industry don’t want to hurt their margins and don’t want to work with us.”
But MoneyGram, with a market share of around 1% in global money transfers, is a distant No. 2 to Western Union, which has 12%. For such players, Wal-Mart promises huge volumes of business through its 3,100 U.S. stores and more than 100 million customer visits a week. As the underdog, MoneyGram was already cost-conscious and focused on growth, not on protecting margins — a perfect partner for Wal-Mart, says MoneyGram Vice-President Daniel O’Malley. And it can’t hurt to learn how Wal-Mart does business, notes SunTrust Executive Vice-President Christopher Holmes, especially if Wal-Mart achieves full-fledged banking status.
END-AROUND?
Could Wal-Mart really become a bank? First, it would have to take on current prohibitions on combining banking and commerce. The laws were designed to prevent a big player such as Wal-Mart from denying credit to competitors or shifting losses from its retail business to an insured bank.
But many expect Wal-Mart to overcome those rules. Ronald Ence, vice-president of Independent Community Bankers of America, says Wal-Mart lobbied last year to expand the banklike powers of the ILCs. A bill that passed the House, but not the Senate, in 2004 would have allowed unlimited interstate banking, but only for those with at least 85% of their business in financial services.
Wal-Mart denies any such lobbying. It tried to buy a savings bank in Oklahoma in 1999, only to be blocked by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which overhauled federal banking law. And the California legislature halted Wal-Mart’s plan in 2002 to buy a small ILC.
THE SEARS EXPERIENCE
Yet if Wal-Mart were to gain full banking status, it would be able to offer everything from checking and savings accounts to mortgages, car loans, and even small-business loans at prices that rivals could be hard put to match, let alone beat. “There’s no question, they want to have a nationwide financial-services network. If they do, there’s no doubt in my mind they’ll be able to do to community banks the same thing they’ve done to the local grocery store and the local hardware store and the local clothing store,” says the community banker group’s Ence.
Wal-Mart insists its financial plans don’t depend on owning a bank or a thrift. “Our strategy is what you see,” says Wal-Mart’s Thompson, who was once executive vice-president of Sears Roebuck’s credit business. The services Wal-Mart offers are aimed squarely at its core, lower-income customers and employees. Many are among the estimated 56 million American adults don’t have a bank account. “Helping the underserved customer gets right at what we like to be known for,” says Thompson, who joined Wal-Mart in May, 2002.
More important than the unit’s profits, she says, is that these services bring customers into stores more often. She seems to have learned from Sears’ ill-fated 1980s effort to create a financial supermarket with its Allstate insurance, Dean Witter brokerage, and Coldwell Banker Real Estate units. Sears lost focus on its core business and found that many customers didn’t want to buy mutual funds or insurance from the same place that sold them appliances. “My whole thing is about starting with the customer,” says Thompson, who joined Sears in 1988 and took over its credit operation in 1993.
NO DAMAGE YET.
Even though Wal-Mart may be following a gradual approach to avoid Sears’ mistakes, it occasionally hints at bigger ambitions. On its Web site, Wal-Mart describes itself as “a trusted name in financial services.” In stores, it’s slapping its powerful brand on the money centers operating there.
So far, big rivals say Wal-Mart isn’t hurting them. 7-Eleven, which offers check-cashing, money orders, and the like through 1,000 electronic store kiosks, says it’s focused on convenience, not offering the lowest price. Likewise, Eric Norrington, a spokesman for Ace Cash Express, the nation’s biggest check-cashing chain, says Wal-Mart hasn’t affected his company’s pricing or growth. “Wal-Mart has validated the importance of this market segment. That’s attention we welcome,” he says.
But as toy retailers, grocers, and even jewelers have painfully discovered, complacency in the face of Wal-Mart can be suicidal. Given the behemoth’s long interest in the financial arena, technological savvy, cheap capital, and instant national reach, small and midsize banks, in particular, are right to be paranoid. Even big ones should be wary. “The mistake would be to stick your head in the sand and try to convince yourself that Wal-Mart is not a factor,” says Bain’s Markey.
For no matter what the obstacles, Wal-Mart seems determined to be a force in finance.
© 2005 Business Week
- See our huge collection of articles, studies, internal documents and more on Wal-Mart and big box stores.
- Visit our Merchandise Page to see anti-Walmart stickers, buttons, and more.
- Please help support this work – make a tax-deductible donation to ReclaimDemocracy.org today!
Why Privatizing Social Security Would Weaken Our Republic
By Benjamin Barber
First published by the LA Times, January 27, 2005
Social Security privatization has been vigorously challenged on both economic and technical grounds. It has been said again and again that privatization increases risk for prospective retirees without solving the long-term Social Security financing shortfall (if there actually is one). It has been argued that privatization is merely a scheme to divert money from the Social Security trust fund for speculative stock market investments. And it has been noted that it creates new costs (portfolio management, government oversight) without being able to guarantee workers future retirement benefits.
Yet the most profound cost of privatization has been wholly ignored: the systemic cost to our public way of life. By turning a public social insurance and pension policy into a private bet in which personal and private decisions determine who does well and who does badly, we do irreparable harm to our democratic “common ground.” After all, one of this nation’s greatest public goods has been its promise to give every working family a guarantee of support at retirement, or in case of disability or death. This promise, offered to all citizens, wipes away all the distorting traces of class, race and gender that often play out so dismayingly in the private realm. You cannot simply take justice out of the public realm and put it into the private realm without fundamentally weakening the democracy on which the very possibility of justice depends.
Conservatives ought to recognize even more quickly than liberals that privatization – whether of education, housing or Social Security – makes us less of a public. It diminishes the republic – the res publica, or public things that define our commonweal. It turns the common “we” into a collection of private “me’s.” It opts for market Darwinism, in which smart investors prosper but others lose, rather than social justice as its organizing principle. It demeans the “us” by turning “us” into “it” – the big, bad, faceless government bureaucracy. And it privileges the private and individual by appealing to market liberty, as if people could really be free one by one or as consumers alone.
Private market liberty is not political liberty; it is only personal choice. It may generate private benefits (“I want an SUV!” or “Give me 100 shares of EBay!”) but offers nothing for the common good (a fuel conservation policy, for instance). It is as citizens that we pay our Social Security taxes, and it should be as citizens that we enjoy the fruits of our labor.
Yet privatization tries to convince us that the consumer is simply another, more efficient, form of the citizen. The citizen who votes with her dollars rather than her ballots. But dollars don’t deliberate. They don’t seek common ground. They are not bearers of empathy and imagination. As education consumers in Chicago or Washington, we can select the “best schools” for our children, but as citizens we need public schools that help make us all public citizens. As consumers in Los Angeles, we can choose among hundreds of automobile models, but only as citizens can we make the choices that create a public transportation system serving all.
Privatization is a kind of reverse social contract: It dissolves the bonds that tie us together. The social contract takes us out of the state of nature; it asks us to give up a part of our private liberty to do whatever we want in order to secure common liberty for all. Privatization puts us back in the state of nature where we possess the natural power to get whatever we can but lose the common power to secure everything to which we have a natural right.
Private choices rest on individual power and skills and on personal luck. Public choices rest on civic rights and common responsibilities. With privatization, this administration is trying to seduce us back into the state of nature, where the strong dominate the weak and anarchy ultimately dominates the strong and the weak, undermining security for both. Under these conditions, Thomas Hobbes reminds us, we are perfectly free to do as we choose, but as a consequence we live lives that are “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Not an ideal recipe for social security.
The Social Security entitlement should not be toyed with and altered in accord with today’s economic fashions. It is an emblem of civic membership and a reflection of the benefits that come with the responsibilities of citizenship.
For us as individuals, privatizing Social Security is probably a bad bet on technical grounds. But for us as citizens, it is a certain disaster. As prospective retirees and private consumers we may want to argue about it, but as citizens, if we care about our democratic republic, we are bound to condemn it.
Benjamin R. Barber, a professor of political science at the University of Maryland, is the author of “Jihad vs. McWorld” (Ballantine, 1996) and other books.
© 2005 Los Angeles Times
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- …
- 42
- Next Page »