Printed Guns: A Barometer for the NRA

liberatorforbes1

© Josh Sager – May 2013

 

In the mid-20th Century, science fiction writers imagined a 21st Century where consumer goods and food could simply be printed in a machine quickly and at very low costs to the consumer. While this world has yet to truly materialize, we are rapidly seeing the beginnings of such a world emerge with the developments of 3D-Printing technology.

3D-printers use computer assisted design (CAD) blueprints—downloadable over the internet—as a template to print solid objects out of raw plastic polymers. This technology allows for the creation of a huge variety of good, ranging from lawn ornaments and tools, to, as of May 2013, fully working firearms.

 liberatorforbes1

The first functional 3D-printed firearm, called “The Liberator” (see above picture), was designed by Defense Distributed and first fired on May 1, 2013. After its successful test fire, Defense Distributed released the CAD blueprints of the gun onto the internet, turning the firearm into the first open-source weapon.

The Liberator is almost entirely plastic, only requiring a metal firing pin, and is completely invisible to metal detectors (the design has a non-vital metal piece to make it legal, but this piece can easily be taken out). It fires .308 rounds and is capable of firing multiple rounds without breaking.

Printed guns are a new frontier, as they allow individuals to make their own weapons without any reporting/regulation and to circumvent all conventional police methods to trace guns. In this new frontier of guns, a criminal can simply print off a metal-detector invisible gun for as little as $25, use it in a crime, and destroy it, only to make another one. There are no background checks to avoid, no worries about handling a “hot” gun, and no need to risk being caught buying an illegal weapon—they simply need a 3D-printer and an internet connection to obtain an untraceable weapon, or even to start their own arms factory. In addition to being untraceable, printed guns are made to be identical and there are no distinguishing marks to prove that a bullet came out of a specific gun (ex. All Liberators are exactly the same and there is no way to link a bullet used in a murder to a specific Liberator pistol).

Ultimately, The Liberator is far less lethal than a conventional firearm, but it is simply the proof of concept for a very dangerous new gun market; after the first designs for 3D-printed guns are successful, the development curve will dramatically expand and the new guns will be much more lethal.

To put the potential for this situation to spiral out of control into perspective: Less than two weeks after the release of The Liberator, a new design, called the “Lulz Liberator,” was released onto the internet. This design can hold 9 bullets instead of The Liberator’s 1, is cheaper (costing only $25), and is more resilient and less likely to misfire. If such improvements can be made in less than 2 weeks, imagine what could be developed by the end of the year, or in five years.

 

The NRA and Printed Guns

The NRA presents itself as a sportsman’s organization (or sometimes a “civil rights group,” but that is too absurd to dignify with a detailed response), and one would think that they would love the invention of printed guns. After all, when guns are printable, everybody can have one, the government will have a very hard time stopping new printed weapons from being manufactured, and the ideal, gun-flooded world of the NRA will be realized.

If we are to believe the gun-anarchy rhetoric of the NRA, the more guns that we have, the safer we will be and the development of printed guns is a great achievement. No longer will people have to buy their guns from regulated suppliers, as they can meet all of their hunting and self-defense needs with guns fabricated in their own garages.

In reality however, the NRA hasn’t been a sportsman’s organization since the gun manufacturers took it over in 1977 and transformed it from a group that supported responsible gun ownership and regulation into one that only cares for the interests of corporate donors. Rather than following the wishes of its members, the NRA now follows the wishes of its donors

As the donors to the NRA are primarily gun manufacturers, the NRA unfailingly supports deregulation of guns and more guns in society. More guns being sold equals more money being made by gun manufacturers and more money available to be “donated” to the NRA. Currently, the NRA is simply a combination of the gun lobby and a gun manufacturer’s PR group being shrouded in the remains of a century-old sportsman’s organization.

The development of 3D-printed guns presents a very interesting and complex problem for the NRA, as such a development puts its rhetoric at direct opposition with its goals. In order to attack regulation and promote the sale of guns, the NRA claims that more guns are always better and that regulations on guns are not only pointless, but oppressive. This rhetoric allows the NRA to increase the profits of their funders, while claiming to be defenders of freedom and safety. Unfortunately for them, this rhetoric is only useful in promoting gun sales for as long as guns are exclusively manufactured by corporations.

With the invention of printed guns, guns are much more available, but the gun manufacturers face a dramatic problem with their business model—if guns are printable by individual citizens at very low costs, they can no longer sell as many guns and their profits are directly threatened.

If the very same paranoid individuals who are stockpiling guns due to the rhetoric of the NRA realize that they could simply buy a 3D-printer and start their own arms factory (producing huge numbers of untraceable weapons to stave off “government tyranny and encroaching Mexican drug gangs”), they will no longer be cash-cows for conventional weapons manufacturers. Sure, assault rifles will likely not be fabricated in 3D-printers for a good time, but the entire handgun market may soon be swamped by the development of a cheap and reliable printed gun.

132nra-949x1024

At the end of the day, the NRA’s response to the printed gun invention will determine the true nature of the NRA—will they stick to their talking points and endanger the business of their funders or will they betray their rhetoric in order to preserve the gun manufacture industry?

On one hand, if the NRA supports the gun-anarchy of printed weapons—untraceable and available to all—and gets behind protecting the right of everybody to become a gun manufacturer, they are truly as insane as their rhetoric has made them sound.

On the other hand, if the NRA supports stronger regulations on printed guns, they are exposing themselves to be nothing more than unprincipled tools of gun manufacturers—willing to promote gun anarchy and risk the murder of children if it protects the bottom line of their corporate sponsors.

Honestly, I am uncertain which is worse—being hopelessly corrupt or hopelessly insane—but neither option is particularly comforting when one considers the power of the NRA in Washington politics.

 

Beware an NRA “Concession” on Printed Guns

If I were a director at the NRA, I would utilize the outrage over the lack of gun control in order to facilitate the destruction of my funding corporation’s largest market competition. The public wants increased gun control and the NRA could direct its political allies to give them just that—but only affecting the emerging market of printed guns.

It would be extremely easy for lawmakers to make arguments against printed gun ownership, as the entire concept is a public safety nightmare. Currently, public opinion is eviscerating the NRA’s political allies (ex. a 15-point drop in approval for Kelly Ayotte after she voted against background checks) and a strong anti-printed gun law could be just the fig leaf that they need in order to stave off criticism.

If NRA-allied politicians were to “break” with the NRA line and draft strong legislation attacking printed guns, the NRA need only not score or attack them for their actions. The NRA could simply say that it will not oppose restrictions on gun printing, as it is a very new industry that is too new to speculate upon, or that printed guns are so unreliable at this point in time that they pose a safety risk to the user.

By calling a bill severely restricting gun printing or ownership of printed weapons a concession, the NRA could simultaneously serve the interests of their corporate funders and give themselves a veneer of credibility—by appearing reluctant to support such legislation, but eventually going along with it, they could paint themselves as more reasonable then they actually are and deflect future demands to increase gun restrictions by saying that they already met the gun control advocates part of the way.

In looking at legislation aimed at restricting gun printing, we must not only set the bar high, but we must also not allow gun manufacturers to use us to destroy their competition and then call it a concession. Any new restrictions on printed guns must not be considered progress in the debate over gun control in the USA.

Millay vs. Manning: Traitor vs. Patriotic Whistleblower

Save-Bradley-Manning

© Josh Sager – May 2013

Save-Bradley-Manning

Since the arrest of Bradley Manning for his release of classified military cables and files, there has been a great deal of discussion over whether Manning is a traitor or a whistleblower. Many in the government and media would label Bradley Manning a traitor, simply due to the fact that he released documents that the military had labeled classified. On the other hand, numerous reporters and activists have staked the position that Manning is anything from a patriotic whistleblower to a national hero and candidate for the Nobel peace prize.

Personally, I find myself firmly on the side of Manning and those who believe that the release of the videos and cables to the press served a greater purpose. If we simply let our government label all of its crimes as “state secrets” and brush them under the rug, there is no real possibility for accountability—the public will never be told about the crimes perpetrated in their names.

In my mind, Manning is a whistleblower who, while he does deserve a discharge from the military for his actions, does not deserve to be criminally charged. His actions broke the military’s rules, but they improved the public’s knowledge of things that had been hidden to avoid embarrassing the powerful and have exposed war-crimes.

To illustrate just what separates Manning from an actual traitor, I will use the example of William Colton Millay, a US army MP who attempted to sell secrets to the Russians in 2011. Through comparing and contrasting the cases of Manning and Millay, I hope that I can make clear to those who would condemn Manning just why they are wrong in calling Manning a traitor to the United States.

 

The Traitor: William Colton Millay

Millay

Labeling somebody a traitor is a loaded term but, in this case, it is one that is both entirely factual and entirely fair. William Colton was caught attempting to sell military secrets, confessed to his crimes, and has been sentenced to 16 years in jail—given this, there is no doubt that he is, in fact, a traitor to the USA.

William Colton Millay, 24, was stationed in Alaska as a military police officer (MP) with the 164th Military Police Company when he attempted to contact Russian officials with an offer to spy on the United States.

Millay is a white-supremacist, as proven by literature recovered from his possessions and the fact that he had several tattoos associated with neo-Nazis. While we don’t know many specifics of his personal grievance with the USA, he openly displayed disgust with the US government during his meetings with the FBI and stated that he had no problem causing the deaths of American soldiers, just as long as he receives money.

During the summer months of 2011, Millay made several attempts to contact Russian officials, at least one of which was noticed by the FBI and acted on with a sting operation. In September of 2011, FBI agents impersonating Russian intelligence agents set up a meeting with Millay, during which they recorded his discussing terms to sell US military secrets to the Russians.

In exchange for monetary compensation, Millay offered to sell technical secrets of the Warlock Duke anti-IED system for military vehicles and the F-22 Fighter Jet, as well as confidential information about base personnel (easily accessible for him due to his MP position). While Millay openly displayed his dislike of the US government, he even offered to re-enlist for five more years if the Russians agreed to pay him a significant sum.

After this meeting, the FBI set up a drop point for money and information. Still unaware that he was part of a sting, Millay dropped classified technical information about the Warlock Duke system and picked up $3,000 in cash and a disposable cell phone.

The FBI arrested Millay in October and held him for 10 days before formally charging him with a variety of crimes, including: attempted espionage, soliciting another to commit espionage and communicating national defense information. Just these crimes—disregarding the other lesser charges Millay was facing—could carry a sentence of life in prison.

In April 2013, Millay was sentenced to 16 years in a military prison, stripped of his rank, and forfeited all monetary compensation for his military service.

 

The Patriotic Whistleblower: Bradley Manning

210px-Bradley_Manning_US_Army

Bradley Manning is a US Army Private who released a tremendous number of classified documents to the press and to the site Wikileaks in 2010. Manning’s document release led to his arrest and detainment by the US military, under a variety of charges.

As an intelligence analyst with access to massive quantities of confidential information, Manning had easy access to the information that he would later leak to the press; he simply loaded the cables onto a removable SD card for his personal camera and walked off of the base with the information.

After leaving the base with the information, Manning attempted to contact numerous print publications, including the New York Times and the Washington Post. For unknown reasons, both of these publications declined to accept the information and Wikileaks was the only one to take an interest in Manning’s documents. We simply don’t know what the exchanges between Manning and Wikileaks consisted of (or even if he talked to Assange), but the result of these discussions was Wikileaks’ posting of the information on their site.

While many of the documents released by Manning were benign, some exposed extremely embarrassing exchanges between world governments and a few included evidence of terrible misconduct by the United States government.

Of the more egregious things exposed by these leaked documents, videos of American attack choppers killing unarmed civilians in Iraq (the “collateral murder” videos”) and communications discussing the torture program of detainees were probably the most embarrassing to the US government. These files had been covered up by the government because of their damaging nature and nobody knew about the true extent of this misconduct.

Manning’s access to confidential information led him to be exposed to facts that made him extremely disenchanted with the Iraq War. He believed that the revelation of crimes that were hidden from the public—like the American Air Force’s killing of civilian reporters or the Iraqi president’s use of American military power to suppress his political opposition as terrorists–would better allow Americans to assess the war in general.

In his online discussions with his friend Adrian Lamo (a hacker who would later turn him in), Manning discussed his reasoning for leaking the information to the press. Manning was directly asked by Lamo why he wasn’t selling this tremendously valuable information and was simply offering it to the media. In response, Manning stated that selling the information would make him a “slimy intel collector” and that “if its out in the open… it should be a public good.”

Rather than selling this extremely damaging information to interested groups to make huge amounts of money, Manning gave the information away because he believed that it would be a social good; people would be able to see the true actions of their government and would be better able to make choices in public policy.

At the time of his arrest in 2010, Private Manning was detained in the brig at Quantico. For 11 months after his arrest, Manning was held in solitary confinement under “suicide watch,” despite the fact that nobody thought that he was suicidal. Manning spent these 11 months in a 6×12 windowless cell, barred from exercising, stripped of his clothing, and denied any contact with the outside world.

The conditions endured by Manning are classified by our government, as well as civil rights groups, to be forms of “non-touch torture” that are banned by international agreements. In March 2012, the UN confirmed that their investigation indicated that Manning was suffering from “cruel and inhumane treatment” at the hands of the US military.

After months of being held, Manning was arraigned in a military court on 22 different charges in February 2012. Of these charges, the most serious is that of “Aiding the Enemy,” which carries a potential death sentence.

In February 2013, Bradley Manning entered a naked plea (a plea without a sentencing deal), confessing to 10 of the 22 charges alleged against him. Despite this plea, the military is going along with the trial and is attempting to convict him under the Espionage Act and of Aiding the Enemy. At this point, it appears that Manning will not be given the opportunity to plead out and will be facing either life in prison or the death penalty.

 

What Separates the Two?

Now that we have gone over the basic facts of both the Bradley Manning and William Colton Millay, we can start comparing and contrasting the two. I don’t think that anybody argues that Millay isn’t a traitor, and I seek to use this agreement to illustrate the case as to why Manning is nothing like a common traitor—he is, in fact, a patriotic whistleblower.

The differences between the Manning and Millay cases are extraordinary, not just in what the individuals did, but also in the government’s response to the two leakers.

 

The Offenses

A superficial view of the cases of Manning and Millay might lead some to conclude that they committed similar crimes—they both distributed classified material to foreign nationals, in violation of secrecy laws and their orders from superior officers—but, in reality, the cases are actually very different.

First of all, the material released was dramatically different in both cases. Manning released diplomatic communications and videos of American soldiers killing civilians, while Millay conspired to release technical documents for the US Army’s anti-IED measures. Revealing evidence of war crimes serves a vital societal interest (ensuring that the government isn’t covering up violations of the laws of war), while selling one government’s weapon specs to another is simply espionage.

The information released by Manning may be embarrassing and a threat to those in command of the soldiers who killed civilians, but it is not a danger to the troops on the ground; in fact, this information had no legitimate reason to be classified and is simply a case of the military covering up war crimes (killing civilians). To this day, not even those trying Manning in court are able to point to a single death caused by his actions.

In contrast with the information that Manning released, Millay was intending to expose to foreign powers the technical specifications of life-saving military technology. If information about the Warlock Duke anti-IED system were leaked, it would be much more likely that terrorists and foreign powers would be able to counteract the system and deliver IEDs successfully onto our vehicles. Such a leak puts the lives of innumerable soldiers in danger and has no purpose beyond enriching the leaking party.

Second, the motives of Manning and Millay couldn’t possibly be more different: Manning leaked his information in an attempt to improve government accountability, while Millay attempted to leak his information to get rich quick.

A person who sells secrets for a profit is a spy, while a person who gives secrets away in furtherance of exposing a crime is a whistleblower.

Manning put himself at dire risk, with no hope of a personal gain, just to expose the terrible things happening in Iraq and he is a textbook example of a whistleblower—in any fair system, he would be shielded from criminal consequences (but not discharge from the military) by the Whistleblower Protection Act. Just as Daniel Ellsberg exposed war crimes during the Vietnam War with his release of the Pentagon Papers, Bradley Manning exposed war crimes during the Iraq War.

 Ellsberg

In fact, Daniel Ellsberg himself is a supporter of Bradley Manning and an advocate for his classification as a whistleblower.

William Colton Millay attempted to sell secrets for cash—there is little to say to this other than it is both illegal and a violation of his oaths to our military. In exchange for a payday, Millay was willing to put his fellow soldiers in danger by leaking information that could be used to harm them. Unlike Manning, Millay is the textbook example of a traitor.

 

Third, the recipient of the leaked information was different: Bradley Manning attempted to leak his information to numerous news sources, while Millay attempted to leak his information to a foreign power.

Providing evidence of military crimes to press organizations, whether the organization is the New York Times or Wikileaks, is the exact opposite of leaking secrets to another country’s military.

Giving the US military’s technological secrets to a foreign power gives a strategic advantage to the foreign military and risks leaks to non-governmental enemies. Such leaks don’t serve to improve accountability and serve no societal good that makes them protected under the law.

On the other hand, whistleblowers who leak evidence of the government’s wrongdoing to the press are providing a societal good and are protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act. The press exists to increase accountability to the government and a free press depends upon sources like Manning in order to report on the true actions of those in power.

Actually, the most amazing thing about this situation is not that Wikileaks published Manning’s leaked documents, but that the New York Times and Washington Post refused to. These leaks were incendiary, but they were also highly reputable in their provenance (there is no doubt as to the legitimacy of the information) and they represented a very large news story. The refusal of these “reputable” news sources to report on the crimes revealed in Manning’s leaks speaks volumes about how far the media has fallen from its station as the thing that keeps government honest.

 

Pre-trial Detainment

After being caught disseminating classified information and being accused to traitorous activity, both Manning and Millay were held in the custody of the United States Armed Services on military bases. Given the similarities in their supposed crimes and the fact that they were being accused by the same administration, one would assume that they would have been held in similar conditions and for similar amounts of time—this assumption would be wrong.

William Colton Millay was taken into custody in late October 2011 and was charged after ten days of uncharged detainment. He was afforded every right of an American service member accused of a crime and was held in the brig at Joint Base-Lewis McChord in Washington State.

As previously mentioned, Bradley Manning was arrested in 2010 and had his rights severely violated by the US military. Originally held at the military base in Kuwait, Manning was transferred back to the USA in July 2010 to await trial. While at Quantico, Manning was held in solitary confinement for 10 months and was subjected to inhumane treatment (nudity, isolation, constant light, etc.).

In addition to being subjected to inhumane treatment, Manning was detained before being charged for over 400 days—the military’s own regulations mandate that all accused soldiers must be charged in fewer than 120 days, as they have the right to a “speedy trial.” When the Manning legal team attempted to have the charges dismissed based upon this violation of Manning’s rights, a military judge rejected the argument and offered a sealed judgment (a legally binding ruling by a judge, where the public has access to the ruling but not the reasoning behind the ruling) that allowed the charges to be sustained.

Disregarding the argument that Manning is a whistleblower rather than a traitor, the military clearly treated him in a manner that is unusually harsh even for those accused of treason. After all, Millay was accused of treason by the very same military that was persecuting Manning, yet Millay never suffered in solitary or got stripped down every night.

Manning was treated far worse than others accused of similar crimes and it is important that we question just why this happened.

In my opinion, Manning was treated so badly by the military for the simple reason that he exposed their crimes to the world and embarrassed the powerful. Millay may have tried to sell secrets that could kill soldiers on the ground, but his leaks did nothing to threaten or embarrass those giving the orders—it is this key distinction that led those in power to throw the book at Manning, while they simply treated Millay as a simple criminal.

 

The Trials

The Bradley Manning trial has been an exercise in government secrecy and abusive over-sentencing by prosecutors.

Bradley Manning is facing numerous charges, the most severe being an “Aiding the Enemy” charge that could carry a death sentence. The use of this charge is the very definition of prosecutorial overreach, as there is no way to argue that leaking information to the media can be considered leaking it to an enemy force. The media is an instrument of accountability, not an enemy entity, and the simple fact that they may report on leaked information of crimes—thus informing everybody, including enemies of the USA—does not allow the military to charge leakers with this capital offense.

In support of this charge, the military is seeking to introduce evidence from the Bin Laden compound that Bin Laden read press reports from our media about the Wikileaks. In introducing this evidence, the military is trying to say that the fact that an enemy of the USA was able to read about the leaked information in our press is equivalent to Manning giving the information directly to Bin Laden. This argument is patently absurd and has huge accountability ramifications.

Charging Manning with aiding the enemy under this justification is the exact equivalent to charging Daniel Ellsberg with the offense, simple because the Viet Cong may have had access to a copy of the New York Times. Unfortunately, the country’s security apparatus is far larger and more powerful now than it was then, and leakers have begun to face charges that would have been inconceivable in previous generations.

If an investigator or leaker can be charged with a capital crime for providing information to the press about war crimes that have been covered up by being labeled classified, then the military can simply annihilate accountability. They simply need to classify all of their crimes, and charge anybody who dares report them with a crime that can send them to the death chamber.

Like Manning, Millay faced numerous charges, but nobody ever considered charging him with an “Aiding the Enemy” offense. This disparity is particularly telling because Millay fits the offense of aiding the enemy far closer than Manning ever did—he leaked documents that compromise vital technology to a foreign power, while Manning released evidence of crimes to the mass media.

If you are willing to charge somebody who leaked evidence of war crimes to the media with aiding the enemy, what possible justification is there for not charging a man who leaked technical information to a foreign power? Put plainly, Manning released things that embarrassed the government and they want to punish him in order to set an example for future leakers.

This is supported by the fact that, after several months of trial, Millay was allowed to plead out on lesser offenses while Manning attempted to do the same and was blocked. Manning has actually admitted to his “crimes” and has entered a naked plea (an admission without a sentencing deal) that could result in his imprisonment for decades, yet the government is still pursuing the top charges. The fact that they won’t let him plead to lesser offenses and go to sentencing indicates that the military wants to make an example of Manning and send him to jail for life or to kill him.

If Millay, who sold out his country for money, can plead down to 16 years for his offense, what justification is there for pursuing life without parole of death for Manning? The military’s prosecution of Manning is not only wrongheaded, but it is unusually harsh even if one considers Manning a traitor—as demonstrated by the disparities between the treatment of Manning and an actual traitor.

 

Conclusion

If there were any justice, Manning would receive a full pardon from the government and be let free today. Unlike the traitorous William Colton Millay, Manning risked everything to become a whistleblower in an attempt to better inform all of us as to the conduct of our government. He may not be able to stay in the military after his leaking of classified information, but he does not deserve to rot in jail simply for exposing the inconvenient truth that our government committed war crimes.

Ironically, while Manning is on trial for his leaking of evidence of war crimes, none of the people who committed those crimes, tortured detainees, or lied us into war have ever seen the inside of a jail cell. Apparently, we can “look forward, not backward” for all crimes, but the terrible and capital crimes of embarrassing the powerful and exposing government misconduct.

FREE BRADLEY MANNING!

Why the GOP’s Focus on the Benghazi “Scandal” is Absurd

____whats neocon for hypocrit

© Josh Sager – May 2013

____whats neocon for hypocrit

For months, the Republicans have attempted to stir the 9/11/12 attack on the Benghazi Consulate into a massive international security scandal. These attempts are motivated purely by politics and the desire to paint President Obama as “weak of terror,” as many of the very same politicians who are championing this scandal simply ignored 13 such incidents during the Bush years.

What makes the focus on the Benghazi “scandal” by opponents of Obama truly absurd is not the hypocrisy of those pushing the issue, but the simple fact that the Obama administration has made truly scandalous decisions over the past few years, and the right wing chooses to focus on a fake scandal. For example, here are a few scandals that the GOP could rightly attack Obama on:

 

  1. Extralegal assassinations of Americans: Not only has the Obama administration massively expanded the Bush-era drone program, but it has actually used this program to target Americans (one of whom was a minor) abroad for summery execution by drone strike. In justifying this, Eric Holder used the truly terrifying argument that “Due process isn’t necessarily judicial process”—an argument that boils down to the idea that unelected CIA officials have the legal right to kill Americans based upon suspicions without ever presenting the case in court or to a judge.
  2. Double Tap Drone Strikes: In many of the places where the US military/intelligence drones operate (primarily Yemen and Pakistan), our country has engaged in “double tapping” civilian populations with drone strikes. This is a tactic pioneered by the IRA and Palestinian extremists that involves bombing first-responders and those who try to help people wounded in a primary strike. This tactic is illegal and is nothing more than the intentional targeting of civilian medical personnel.
  3. Ignoring the Crimes of the Banks after being Elected with their Money: During his 2008 election campaign, Obama took huge quantities of money from bankers in support of his election. Once elected, Obama’s DOJ refused to prosecute even a single banker for the absolute devastation that they wrought on our economy; it isn’t that there wasn’t enough evidence of these crimes or that some ambiguity in the law prevented such prosecutions, but rather that the Obama administration simply decided not to pursue any criminal consequences for those responsible.

While the Benghazi attack was terrible, it wasn’t a scandal—particularly when it is put up against the other potentially scandalous actions by the Obama administration. Fake scandals, like the Benghazi attack, Fast and Furious, or the supposed infiltration of the government by the Muslim Brotherhood, are purely political theater and have no real substance. They exist simply to give one side of the political spectrum an albatross to hand around the neck of the other and to give cover to the scandalous actions that both parties truly support.

The GOP’s laser focus on Benghazi is completely ridiculous from a factual standpoint, but it is entirely understandable from a political one. The truly scandalous actions of the Obama administration are actions that the GOP actually supports and would rather not draw negative attention to; they love being able to fund their campaigns with bank money, having the ability to circumvent the courts in order to kill suspected terrorists, and have no problem with dropping bombs on civilians in countries that many Americans can’t point out on a map. As such, the GOP has no desire to attack the truly scandalous actions of the Obama administration and would much rather attack their opposition by stirring up a fake scandal.

Unfortunately, the GOP’s focus on fake scandals not only stirs of controversy where there is none, but it also causes the fake scandals to cover up the real ones. All of the pointless grandstanding over Benghazi covers up the real scandals that continue to be perpetrated by our executive branch. Eventually, the Benghazi mess will subside—likely to be almost immediately replaced by another scandal—but the real problems will continue unaddressed.

If the Benghazi furor teaches us one thing, it is that the shiny lure of a partisan scandal can distract the public from very real policy scandals and is a threat to accountability. If they were truly looking out for the American people, the GOP would get off of the fake scandals and start to focus upon the real scandals that have actual policy ramifications.

In short: If you want to attack the Obama Administrations’ faults, it isn’t as though they are perfect and you have no material. They have done some truly heinous things and you are actually helping them cover their misdeeds up by distracting the American public with non-factual, manufactured outrage over unfortunate events.

The Differing Definitions of Liberty

stock-photo-dictionary-definition-of-the-word-liberty-16271782

By Josh Sager

 stock-photo-dictionary-definition-of-the-word-liberty-16271782

In politics and in debates over social issues, we often encounter the word “liberty”, or “individual rights” in reference to arguments over what society should regulate and what it has no right to decide on. With such a commonly used argument, one would think that there would be a reasonably high level of consistency in the definitions of the concepts used in the arguments. Unfortunately, there are two fundamental flaws to the invocation of “liberty” in an argument that often cause different points of view to be difficult to reconcile. “Liberty” often has a different definition based upon the political system or even personal political party affiliation within a single political system.

What is “Liberty”?

The first flaw in invoking liberty in an argument is that there is no set definition as to what liberty actually consists of when put into practice. Some people believe that liberty is the ability to have absolute control over your own actions, as well as their corresponding consequences, and no responsibility for the actions of others. Other people hold that liberty is the freedom to live in a society with the guarantee of vital services and rights. In addition to these two definitions of “liberty” we encounter dozens of different definitional permutations that people of various viewpoints hold to be true; as nobody can accurately quantify the meaning of the term “liberty” many arguments that are based upon personal liberties are not easy to reconcile when they are made from different viewpoints

“We all declare for liberty, but in using the same word, we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty means for each man to do as he pleases with himself and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the products of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things called by the same name liberty.”

–Ron Paul–

Examples of where the different definitions of liberty can create difficult situation are common in our society; one example of different definition of liberty clashing is the debate over “home-schooling” or “un-schooling”. Parent who do not wish to enroll their children in public or private schools demand the “liberty” to make choices for their children and their family. Those who are against non-traditional education seek to “liberate” children from the untenable situation where they are not receiving a proper education, often with severe future consequences. One side defines liberty as the ability to control one’s own actions regardless of others in society’s views while the other side defines liberty as the ability of children to receive a good education regardless of their family background; either position is arguable under the definition of “liberty” that is presented to the other, but at the same time, the concept of “liberty” means two completely different things.

The second, and most significant, flaw inherent to invoking liberty in an argument is that people of differing opinions often disagree upon where one person’s personal liberty ends and the rights of others begin.  Giving a type of liberty to one party has been shown to, at times, infringe upon the “liberties” of other parties. Due to the tradeoff inherent in granting liberty to one side, society must decide which group’s liberty should be protected at the expense of the other.

“The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty. Plainly, the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of liberty.”

–Abraham Lincoln—

Virtually every argument that invokes “liberty” has some degree of exchange involved in it. The classic example of a societal choice in America that restricts “liberty” to some but give it to others is segregation. In the segregation fight, the federal government interceded on the behalf of African Americans in order to remove not only state sponsored segregation but also private segregation practices (lunch counters, busses, etc.). While only a small, bigoted, fringe of the population would disagree with the removal of the Jim Crow laws, there are those who argue that businesses should have remained free to segregate. Those who hold this view believe that in order to increase liberty for African Americans, the federal government infringed upon the “liberty” of the individual to control their own property. While I, like a majority of Americans, disagrees with this argument, it is still a valid argument because technically the business owners were restricted from controlling their own operations.

In the divide demonstrated by the segregation example, we see the fundamental questions that are involved in the concept of “Liberty”. If liberty has no one meaning, then how can it be used to justify a position during an argument? If either action or inaction can change the balance of “liberty” between two parties, then what is the proper action for society/government? Does the government step in to redress imbalances and if it does, which version of “liberty” is the government to protect? The different answers of these questions are part of the fundamental differences between the various political ideologies.

 

Political Ideology and “Liberty”

At the core of each dominant political ideology is a different version of the concept of “liberty” that leads to wildly different results when it comes to governing. In the following section, I describe the views definitions of “liberty” as well as the policy outcomes caused by this definition inherent to each of many purist political ideologies. The purist views are not universally held by member of each ideology, as many citizens are moderate or conflicted in their views, but they act as a generalized picture of what the party as a whole believes.

 

Left Wing: Progressive (“Liberal”) Ideology

The progressive economic ideology is characterized by a strong social contract that allows for high levels of equality of opportunity and a strong social safety net. The promotion of equality and high levels of public services are performed by a large federal government and funded through high levels of taxation. Countries with strong progressive movements, the best examples of which are the Scandinavian countries, often have nationalized health care, a high quality of public education, and higher levels of social spending than other countries of similar demographics and GDP. Progressivism may sometimes be denigrated as “tax and spend” by its detractors (and this characterization is somewhat true) but in many cases, the government produces results more efficiently and less expensively than decentralized private providers.

Progressive societies focus upon the advancement of the lower tiers of society, paid for primarily by those who can afford to pay a little more. In a progressive society, tax codes tax the rich at a higher percentage than the poor under the belief that they can afford to give back to society more.

“Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.”

–Franklin D. Roosevelt–

The progressive social ideology is one where individual social rights are respected but there is a great focus upon the social good. Progressives are likely to support individual freedoms that do not have negative social externalities (such as abortion, gay marriage, the right to free speech, etc.) but often support restrictions on actions that do have negative externalities (gun ownership, pollution, abuses of workers, etc.). Progressive ideals are intended to maximize the social good, while paying less attention to the individual good, thus any action that produces negative social outcomes is more likely to be regulated or prohibited than in other ideologies.

“In our personal ambitions we are individualists. But in our seeking for economic and political progress as a nation, we all go up or else all go down as one people.”

–Franklin D. Roosevelt–

As conceptualized by F.D.R. in the above quote, progressive ideals are based around the concept that everybody has the right to control their private lives but any action that affects society as a whole is the business of society. Personal “liberty” in progressivism is the ability to live in society with some degree of certainty as to the provision of basic service (food, housing, work, education) at the expense of paying into the system if you succeed; personal rights are protected for the individual, but any action that affects society is potentially regulated by society. Liberty to a progressive is not a disconnection from social obligations and taxes but rather an ideal that lives in-between the balance of personal rights and social responsibilities. Taxes are higher in progressive countries because the government does more to benefit the population in terms of services it provides. As certain services are guaranteed to everybody and certain taxes are expected of everybody, there is no opt out for goods and services in a progressive society; essentially, if you don’t wish to use the public education system or government-run health care option, you are free to purchase a private good, but you will still pay into the system as though you were benefitting from the public services.

At its extreme, the left wing progressive ideology becomes one of several varieties of socialism or communism. In an ideal socialist system, society takes precedent over the individual but everybody is considered to be equal in society and entitled to a certain set of goods as a member of society; all private property is considered public, and people are expected to work together to achieve the maximum social good. The “elites” in society (capitalists, investors, executives, landlords, etc.) are seen as the oppressive influence that keeps control over the working class through money. By removing all private goods, the socialist attempts to remove the control of the rich over the worker and thus increase the freedom of the individual. As there is no private property in a socialist system, there is no corresponding “liberty” defined in relation to economic choices.

“The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.”

–Karl Marx–

As a far more extreme version of progressivism, individual rights are heavily constrained if they act in detriment to the general social welfare. Individual “liberty” is seen as the right to live and work in equality with all others in society, without the oppressive influence of the elite. All in society have the same rights and responsibilities, thus the socialist sees society as “liberated” from the socioeconomic stratification and the imbalances of power inherent to other political systems.

 

Right Wing: Regressive (”Conservative”) Ideology

The regressive economic ideology is characterized by a weak social contract and a high level of individual rights with a correspondingly low level of social rights. The guiding principle of the regressive ideology is that in the absence of government, worthy individuals prosper and can buy the goods that they need without having to pick up after the free riders. Many right wing regressives refer to their ideology as “ruggedly individualistic” in that the individual is not seen as an extension of society; everybody is an individual and has very little support from society while on the other hand has few social responsibilities. Regressive economic policies focus upon deregulating markets and allowing the free market to rule the economic landscape. Virtually every social service and public good is privatized under the ideal that private citizens can purchase the goods that they choose to and not those that they feel that they don’t need; those who fail to purchase a necessary good (Food, shelter, medical care, etc.) from a private source have little to no recourse if they need a good and cannot afford it. The only public services that the regressive government provides to the population are national defense and law enforcement, as those are the only ones that they believe

“Government “help” to business is just as disastrous as government persecution… the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off.”

–Ayn Rand–

Regressive social policy is as individualistic as it economic ideology in theory, but in practice, religion and social prejudice often overshadows the concepts of individual freedom. An issue such as gun control illustrates the regressive right wing ideology on social issues in its purest form: The individual right to bear arms reigns supreme and society has no right to regulate what individuals purchase with their own resources. Each person is an individual and thus, while they are not prohibited from owning a gun, they are responsible for their actions with said gun if they use it to infringe upon another’ personal rights. While the gun control example gives the regressive ideal for social issues, some specific issues such as gay marriage, abortion and racial/gender equality have caused the American right wing to sway significantly from the purist view of individual rights.

“Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.”

–Ayn Rand–

As articulated by Ayn Rand, a right wing regressive thinker, the regressive ideals of “liberty” are based almost entirely around personal rights and responsibilities, disconnected from social responsibility and support. “Liberty” to a regressive is to have virtually no tax burden or regulation by a government authority either in social or economic arenas, while at the same time having little to no support from society in return. To a right wing regressive, a liberated society is one where individuals operate without outside intervention by the government and are not held responsible for the actions and safety of others in society.

At its most extreme, the regressive right wing becomes classified as Anarcho-libertarianism or Anarcho-capitalism. For Anarcho-libertarians, the state is seen as universally oppressive and is shrunk to the point of non-existence. “Liberty” is seen as the freedom from all external interference from aggregations of power and the promotion of absolute personal control over one’s life; taxes are seen as theft to a believer of this ideology. Anarcho-libertarians believe that individual interactions are able to sustain society and that centralized control is unnecessary, thus they consider all taxes, regulations and laws to by tyrannical. While there has yet to be a modern country that has functioned under an Anarcho-libertarian ideology, the end results of Anarcho-libertarianism can be seen in countries without law or government, such as Somalia. While Somalia was rendered lawless through war and a social collapse rather than a concerted ideology, it illustrates a society that exists as an Anarcho-libertarian model; there are no social programs or services other than community organizations and volunteer charities while at the same time there are no taxes levied onto the population.

“It is curious that people tend to regard government as a quasi-divine, selfless, Santa Claus organization. Government was constructed neither for ability nor for the exercise of loving care; government was built for the use of force and for necessarily demagogic appeals for votes. If individuals do not know their own interests in many cases, they are free to turn to private experts for guidance. It is absurd to say that they will be served better by a coercive, demagogic apparatus.”

–Murray N. Rothbard–

As individual rights are seen as absolute in an Anarcho-libertarian system, believers in this ideology define “liberty” entirely under its negative definition. Negative liberty is the freedom from restriction by the state (as opposed to positive liberty, which is freedom relating to having access to certain resources), thus the Anarcho-libertarian “state” does little to redress inequality in its population. The protections of personal liberty between individuals are left entirely up to the market and voluntary relationships formed between individuals; for example, if a business wants to segregate its customers by race or gender, they have that rights and the customers have the right not to attend that particular business.

 

Authoritarianism: Theocratic, Corporatist and Fascist Ideology

“Liberty” in an authoritarian system of government, whether it is fascist, corporatist or theocratic in its centralized power structure, is entirely defined by the faction in power. In an autocracy, those in power define word so as to control the population. The most famous example of the use of language to limit a population is that of the George Orwell book “1984”, where an autocracy uses “doublespeak” and redefinition of words to control the population (This book is the genesis of terms such as “doublespeak” and “Big Brother”). If the autocracy defines “liberty” as doing everything that the leaders dictate, then that is the party ideology; in this, “liberty” is both more defined than in other political models, as it has a defined meaning, yet meaningless because it’s definition is not natural, rather dictated by edict.

If those in charge of our society – politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television – can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves.

–Howard Zinn–

The method of defining the term “liberty” in an autocracy is dependent upon the type of autocracy that is defining the term. In fascism or corporatism, the autocratic leadership determines the party line on what “liberty” is defined as and hands down this definition to the people. Often, “liberty” is defined in a way that supports the dominant power structure and thus precludes any rebellion on the part of the people in order to obtain true “liberty” (whatever that actually is). In a theocracy, rather than the ruling party, the religious texts, dogma, or leaders determine the meaning of “liberty”. “Liberty” is defined within the laws of the religion rather than any secular authority. There are numerous examples of how religion attempts to define “liberty” in society but the two best modern examples are Islamic Sharia law and Christian religious fundamentalism. In Islamic Sharia, “liberty” is defined under interpretation of the Koran, and used to justify the restriction of women and homosexuals; “liberty” is not considered universal but rather dependent upon the characteristics of the individual. Regardless of the religion that is dominant in the theocracy, the pattern remains that “liberty” is defined in-between the constraints of the religious edicts present in the religion.

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”

–Thomas Jefferson–

Jefferson’s quote directly addresses the threat to “liberty” (or his definition thereof) that religion poses. According to him, religion infiltrates government and then restricts the liberties of the non-believers to conform to the ideals of the believers; it is this phenomenon that has been seen in all current religious law based societies as well as some secular societies. In the USA, homosexuals wish for the “liberty” to marry as heterosexuals do, but religious Christians seek to restrict the “liberty” of the homosexuals because they define liberty within the conformity of their religious beliefs.

Conclusion

Due to the inability of people to agree upon the fundamental definition of the concept of “liberty” many political arguments are born. Different political ideologies see the “liberty” of one side as infringing upon that of another and thus a debate begins over which “liberty” is more vital. The “sheep/wolf” analogy that President Lincoln used in his quote is perfect in the context of this argument in that the “liberties” of each side are dependent upon the lack of “liberties” of the other side: Does the wolf have the “liberty” to prey on the weaker sheep or the sheep the “liberty” to live unmolested by the wolf? Do corporations have the right to make massive profits while polluting the world or do the citizens of the world have the “liberty” of a clean environment? Do the rich citizens of the USA have the “liberty” to keep all of the money that they earn or do they have the responsibility to give back to society in order to increase the “liberty” and opportunity of the poor? It is these fundamental questions of liberty that define our political parties and drive the political debates of our country.

The Republican Reality Show

91576_600

While the 2012 election is over and this article–originally posted on my previous blog–is less relevant to the times, it is still important to look at the last GOP primary with a critical eye. While Romney was the eventual nominee, many fail to remember that the Republican Party very nearly nominated a lunatic like Bachmann for consideration to the most powerful office in the land. This consideration indicates a deep sickness within the GOP and is something that we cannot ignore, even after the election is over. 

For your consideration and amusement, here is a commentary on the debacle of the 2012 GOP primary, written when it was still going on. This isn’t new news, but I hope that you enjoy it, regardless.

© Josh Sager – 2011

Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann, Romney, Perry, Paul, Cain, and Huntsman stand before the start of the GOP presidential primary debate in Simi Valley

As the 2012 presidential primary deadline comes closer, it is becoming increasingly evident that the Republican primary is not actually a political race—it is actually a brilliantly designed and executed reality show.

Each of the political candidates on the stage represents a different segment of the Republican party and, as with many reality TV shows, the entire purpose of the primary is to “vote them off the island” in order to determine which contestant remains to get the big prize. Ironically, in addition to the reality show format of the 2012 Presidential debates, each of the candidates on the stage represents a standard player archetype from actual reality shows.

When I refer to the Republican primary process as being a game show, I don’t extend this to past election cycles. I have no right to completely deride an entire party’s ideology as, in the USA, everybody is entitled to their opinions. I may not agree with the conservative narrative, but that simply means that I will argue the issues with anybody who holds conservative views.

Unfortunately, the current Republican Party has gone insane and divorced itself not only from the facts, but from all political convention; unlimited money and partisan distillation has allowed a very well-funded core of completely unqualified and extremist candidates to take over the right wing narrative. The Republican Party is no longer a legitimate political party, but a caricature of the extreme right wing brought to life; they are crazy, ill informed, hyper-religious, bigoted, and proud of it.

No outsider can argue with a party that has disregarded all facts, as all members of the party are creating a new narrative that they consider facts. When I see the current Republicans, I am reminded of the scene in “Alice in Wonderland” where Alice meets the Mad Hatter and tries to apply logic to an illogical mind. It is this degradation of the sanity of the party as a whole that has brought about the situation where an entire presidential primary race can be looked at as a reality TV show.

 

The Game (The Primary and the Debates)

The “Republican Primary Show” is a reality game show where numerous conservative politicians get together and attempt to win the grand prize of the party nomination to the office of President; the runner ups receive prizes such as Fox TV shows, book deals, and speaking engagements. This game show is virtually no holds barred and the audience expects blood—they boo gay soldiers while cheering executions, torture, and war.

The game show aspect of the primary plays out during over a dozen televised debates, where contestants compete for the hearts and minds of the audience. Contestants must walk a fine line during the “episodes” so as to simultaneously reject reality enough that they are seen as true conservatives, while not appearing completely insane.

For example: Rejecting evolution, climate change, and Obama’s policies are mandatory, yet claiming that vaccinations cause mental retardation is simply a step too far.

If the candidates are too sane, they have no chance to win the game as the right wing audience will hate them (Huntsman Syndrome), but they must at least appear rational and balance in their rejection of reality so as to avoid being seen as unable to hold the office (Bachmann Syndrome).

 

Meet the Contestants (The Candidates):

Mitt Romney: Representing the plutocratic segment of the Republican Party, Romney is the contestant that everybody knows is the favorite but nobody wants to win. The dislike of Romney goes far beyond the customary rooting against the establishment and into a category where the race has two real candidates; Romney and the “Not-Romney”. In reality show terms: Romney is the skilled and intelligent contestant who everybody on the show wants to take down to make a name for themselves and everybody in the audience wants to see taken down.

Rick Perry: Representing the Deep South ultra-conservative segment of the Republican Party, Perry is the contestant who shows initial promise to take down the favorite but then falls to self-inflicted wounds before he can even face his rival. In reality show terms: Perry is the contestant who comes on strong and appears to dominate the first half of the game, but then stumbles on his own inadequacies in front of the audience, thus killing his momentum before the game even ends.

Michelle Bachmann: Representing the anti-everything, Tea Party segment of the Republican Party, Bachmann is the wild card candidate who comes onto the scene as a whirlwind and leaves just as quickly. In reality show terms: Bachmann is the flash in the pan contestant who everybody knows is insane, but is kept in the game because she is so amusing to watch. Nobody thinks that she is going to win, but other contestants like her because she makes them look balanced and the audience sees her as a constant source of amusement, thus she is allowed to remain on the stage.

Newt Gingrich: Representing the entrenched, 20th century establishment segment of the Republican Party, Gingrich is the undead contestant—he is ugly, mean and smells to high heaven but, every time it looks like he has fallen out of the contest, he pops back up stronger than ever (and slightly more aromatic). In reality show terms: Gingrich is the antagonist who nobody on the stage likes and the audience will only support if he will take down a contestant that they hate even more.

Ron Paul: Representing the Ayn Randian libertarian segment of the Republican Party, Paul is the crazy outsider who looks progressively saner as his competition degrades with time. The current Republican Party has moved so far out to the right (and away from reality) that Ron Paul is one of the more moderate, balanced and consistent candidates. In reality show terms: Paul is the cross season candidate who everybody knows and many like, yet will never win; he just keeps coming back for more every season, while the show degrades around him (Example: Survivor).

Herman Cain: Representing no particular demographic of the Republican Party, Cain is the comic relief candidate who many find amusing until his antics stray into the distasteful and he is shunted off of the stage. Modeling your economic policy off of Sim City and quoting Pokémon music are comic relief but allegations of sexual assault are not, thus Cain the jester becomes simply an embarrassment (A heroic accomplishment considering this field) to be voted out of the competition.

John Huntsman: Representing the sane segment of the Republican Party, Huntsman is the lone voice of sanity in the right wing wilderness. I won’t use reality show memes to describe Huntsman as he actually deserves better; he is an old school Republican who, while very conservative, still lives in reality and subscribes to science. In any other situation, Huntsman should be the frontrunner in the pack of fools, lunatics and flip-floppers that he is sharing the stage with. Unfortunately for Huntsman, being the sole sane person in an asylum filled with the insane is a lonely position and not one that has any chance of growing into a nomination.

91576_600

Where we go from here

I would just like to conclude with two comments: One for Democrats, the other for Republicans.

To Democrats: You must fight back against the insanity of the right wing if you want the USA to resemble anything that has been in the past or is now. If you stop pushing against the right wing agenda and the weakness of your own politicians, we will live in a fascist theocracy within a generation. Money and religion have bought the other side and will use their influence to shape the country if there is no pushback. The 2010 election demonstrated what happens if you don’t go out to vote and remain active in the political process; a bunch of crazy, corrupt lunatics take over the government and bring us to hostage situation after hostage situation in order to get a partisan agenda passed.

To Republicans: Look at what your party has become. Your politicians are neither conservative, nor are they principled in any way. The Republican Party only serves the rich and will bring about the downfall of the USA if allowed to take over. Republican politicians spend huge amounts of money giving tax cuts to the rich (but never to the poor, as demonstrated by the payroll tax fight) and cut safety regulations. If you support the middle class, safe workplaces, public education, a secular society, civil rights or a clean environment you simply should not be a Republican; if you support any of those ideals, either make a new party or push for reform inside of the Republican political establishment quickly.

How Mass Transit Austerity Targets the Poor

news1

By Josh Sager

 MBTA_Green_Line_D

While public mass transit is available to anyone within its operating area, it is disproportionately utilized by working- and middle-class Americans, particularly Americans of color. This disparity in who rides our nation’s buses and subways means that austerity targeted at mass transit systems has an extremely regressive impact on the American population—in short, it affects the poor and vulnerable far more than it does the rich.

According to a study by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), 65.6% of all mass transit riders make less than $50,000 a year while only 9.5% make over $100,000. The study also indicates that most riders are regular riders, who utilize the mass transit system to transport themselves to their place of employment.

Racial minorities utilize mass transit in disproportionately higher percentages then Caucasian Americans. In aggregate, 47.6% of mass transit riders are either African American or Hispanic, while only 40.6% are white. This disparity may not look large, but when one considers that the 2011 census indicates that only 29.8% of the US population is Black or Hispanic (approximately, 90 million people, out of 310 million Americans), we see that this is a significant disparity. It is important to note that the ridership percentages are in aggregate, and that some areas have significantly higher percentages of minority ridership (for example, the Detroit Transit system has a much higher percentage of riders of color than Boston).

Due to financial concerns that arose during the Great Recession, federal and state governments have looked towards cutting as much as they can out of their budgets. Unfortunately, many of these austerity measures have been directed towards the funding that mass transit systems require to remain functional. According to a recent study, approximately 80% of American mass transit systems have had their budgets cut to the point where they needed to alter their operations or rates since the 2008 economic crash.

news1

These cuts manifest themselves in three ways.

Fares Increase. Rather then cut services, some mass transit systems choose to increase fares in order to increase their revenue. These increases allow the transit system to keep running by shifting the burden from state funds onto the riders.

Increasing fares in order to keep the busses and trains running may sometimes be necessary, but the poor and middle-class people who depend upon mass transit are the ones who foot the bill. These are the people who are unable to easily afford an alternative form of transportation and who use public mass transit to get to work. Rich people don’t usually end up paying a significant portion of the fare increases simply because they are a very low proportion of the ridership.

 

In recent years, we have seen numerous cities ask for fare increases in their mass-transit systems—one such example of this increase is Boston’s MBTA system. During 2012, the MBTA increased fares by significant percentages for both bus and subway fares (the increase depends upon the type of fare, and you can go to MBTA.com to see the table announcing the new rates).

 

Services are cut. Reducing coverage to less-profitable transit lines (like cutting service to some areas outside of central hubs) allows transit systems to sustain the core services at a standard price. Cutting services for mass transit lines in order to save money has the potential to be extremely disruptive to people on less populated lines. When relatively few people travel along a transit line, it is sometimes cost-effective to cut services during non-peak hours, or even shut down the line completely.

Unfortunately, this method of cutting costs in transit systems leads to blind spots in communities outside of the transit system’s central hubs. Areas with less economic activity are more likely to be cut, leaving workers in those areas stranded. Once a service line is cut, those living in the affected area will need to find new methods of transportation and there is simply no easy replacement to mass transit—cabs, car services and car rentals are too expensive, while bikes limited to those physically able to use them.

 

Maintenance and upkeep are reduced. Minor problems like broken seats and dirty stations may be simply ignored in favor of keeping the entire system running below cost limits. Some cities simply let non-vital problems in their transit system go unattended. This reduction in maintenance can result in consequences as benign as decreased sitting space, but can also lead to serious delays due to breakdown.

Cutting maintenance isn’t regressive, per se, but it makes it much more unpleasant for all transit riders. When seats are broken, cars are coated in graffiti, and stations are in a state of disrepair, the daily commute for working class riders is simply made needlessly more difficult, uncomfortable and unreliable.

 

The Big Picture. When looking at mass transit austerity, we must not disregard the good of the program while assessing what to cut from it. Millions of Americans rely upon mass transit for their livelihood and any cuts or fare increases to these programs burden these people.

Cuts to mass transit may appear penny wise, but they are truly pound foolish. If you make it difficult or more expensive for workers to travel to their jobs, it is not only unfair, but a burden on the economy. Rather than being able to spend their money taking care of their families, these workers are forced to waste more on transport. Their buying power is decreased and the economy loses important demand for goods.

The budgets of cities and states must be balanced in some way, but there are better ways than cutting vital mass transit. Rather than fixing budgets through shifting the burden onto the poor, we could utilize slight increases on higher income tax brackets in order to add money to state and local general funds, which could make transit cuts unnecessary. This method of balancing the budget would spare the working- and middle-classes cuts and cost increases that they cannot afford by taking a little from those who are now paying record low percentages of their incomes in taxes.

If state and local governments are unable or unwilling to protect their mass transit systems from cuts, then the federal government must step in. By passing a relatively small economic stimulus focusing upon supporting local and state mass transit through the federal government, these vital mass transit programs can be preserved. Some federal legislators have pushed this type of stimulus—Obama even suggested this as part of his American Jobs Act—but such legislation has yet to be successfully passed.

It is entirely possible to balance budgets without cutting mass transit services that are vital to the people who can least afford to pay; we must demand that our politicians not eviscerate our public transit systems.