I received all B’s this semester. WHAT? I will admit that I deserved one of them. However one of them is in my teaching practicum for college social sciences. As part of this class I was the TA for multiple sociology courses at a state university in Colorado. I taught multiple classes and administered many exams throughout the semester. I even volunteered to substitute for other professors and teaching-assistants in my department. Further, I received a research assistantship with the very professor in charge of my teaching practicum. I am very unsure, why, after all of the above mentioned, do I deserve a B? I never received a dime for all my hours of labour. I did receive a plethora of social capital or live lessons learned, however, the B on my transcript will, quite possibly, hinder my social advancement through academia. It may even do so at a greater rate than the positive social capital, in forms of meaning, that I gained through the interaction experiences within the process of getting the grade itself.

Summer is here and I will be starting a research assistantship at UNCo. I will also be taking a couple classes if all goes well and hopefully completing a little reading I have been meaning to get to.

The goal is simple enough; facilitate the creation of a theory of “soldiers heart”. I say facilitate in that the theory will be as experienced by the soldiers. As the sociologist I will only bring my sociological imagination and my disire for a better understanding of the soldier experience. Originaly I had planned to use milblogs alone however in the tradition of qualitative inquiry, I have chosen to incorporate many forms of data. I will not however, stray far if the source of data. This my data should come from soldiers themselves.

I am choosing to use the blog as a research tool at this moment in time. Loggi g allows

I just had to fail a student for submitting a paper that was 40% plagiarized. I checked her original sources and sure enough they were  all but identical with no citations whatsoever. 

Makes me sad when i have to give some one a zero, but not that sad when they are trying to cheat.

I keep wondering why the democratic party preaches disgust towards the “trickle down” approach and yet does the same thing with banks, business (GM), and other economic firms…

Now I am hearing that even though tax payers can get a good deal from the government if they invest in toxic assets, that the banks themselves will be able to be the private investor of their own shitty assets, thus having the tax payers basically write the banking industry a 450+ billion dollar check. OH SCIENCE SAVE US!

HAS THERE EVER BEEN A BETTER TIME TO HOLD A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION!!!!!!??????!!!!?????!!!!??

Anyone know how we can link all socialist/communist blogs, forums, together so that mobilization is easier and more efficient in times that mandate activism? 

Just a thought…

I had an exam question that asked me to create three welfare policy changes/reforms that would improve on the current system by moving closer to the true welfare state envisioned in the NEW DEAL. HERE IS WHAT I CAME UP WITH …what do you think?

-Dustin Gentis-

If welfare is social insurance of any kind, then we as a nation need to actually insure those who may be disadvantaged at one time or another from the known disadvantaging entities. These disadvantaging entities may be natural, as in the case with the internal contraries of capitalism. They may also be unnatural or socially constructed, such as race and gender discrimination. These views are labeled as radical in perspective and essentially see money, dead labor in the form of capital, as the root source of poverty. I personally hold this view, as it will be the foundation of my policy reform proposals. Because conservative and liberal perspectives, through political participation, limit the possibility that any of my ideas will be implemented, I have tried very hard to stay away from actions that deliberately redistribute wealth by taking from a few and giving to many. 

Policy 1: Insure Union Participation Through Social Security Participation.

This policy proposes an addition to social security funds in the form of union dues in return for social security support during times of strike. The U.S. has one of the lowest union participation percentages in all industrialized nations.  In most cases, workers participating in a union make substantially more than those who do not. I propose that the government pass legislation allowing any union in good standing to enter into the social security program. For doing so the union can remove up to 80% of its current union dues. This will promote more participation in unions where workers have come to believe that they will make less because of union dues. The remaining 20% of the original dues will go into the social insurance fund. This will add to the available funds for social security payment.

In return for their entry into the social security program, unions will have access to social security funding during strikes. Fates for the existing stockpile of capital controlled by the unions must be democratically decided. Some may choose to supplement current income for a period of time, the holiday season or double pay for vacation time for example. Other unions may choose cooperative investment. As long as they follow legal and democratic restrictions, the accumulated dues are theirs to use as they see fit.

This addition to the social security system will ultimately provide the increase needed to keep social security a future welfare option for generations to come. The potential increase in union participation would also ultimately increase equality on at least a minor level due to better chances of workers voices being heard and the fact that it would increase average wages. It also reduces the chances that corruption can take place within union management.

A potential downside of this program is that large amounts of social security could be depleted at unrecoverable rates if many unions strike at the same time for long periods. While there is this possibility, it would take massive mobilization on the part of labor unions, which has historically been unobtainable.  I still  argue that even if every union strikes in unison it should decrease the social security fund slower than if all social security had been invested in markets as some privatization plans suggest (ch:10, p. 266), especially given recent market fluctuations. However, it is important to note that my policy could still operate in a privatized system. The 20% of union dues would be given back to the member to invest in their own social security, along with any income she or he already invests in social security rather than entering a national account for all. This would put new members at a disadvantage when strikes occur.

Policy 2: Labor Score Tax System

My second policy is the creation of the Labor Score Tax System.  The Labor Score a business receives is based on many operating factors. This score denotes how much or how little tax is applied to the final cost customers pay. This is a radical change to the current tax codes that states and national government implement in the U.S. As a radical, I see the ongoing dogmatic debate over who should be taxed and at what percent as minor shifts in welfare responsibility. One side blames the victim, and the other seeks to have those with more pay more for the victim’s circumstances (ch:5, p.126). The Labor Score System seeks to tax more heavily those who practice: unethical business practices, price gouging, and extreme exploitation of labor. Since profit always comes at the expense of the worker, then it is important to promote patronage of companies not necessarily with the least profit, but the company who historically demonstrates its support of labor before that of profit.

A companies Labor Score will be determined by a myriad of factors that include: number of layoffs reported the last business quarter, number of full time workers, number or part time workers, wages and wage increases of workers, the increase of laborers, income gaps between the lowest and highest paid laborers, percent of employees participating in union, and most importantly, the labor scores of companies from where business expenses are purchased.

Competition for the best labor scores will promote greater equality though pressures from one business (A) towards its supplier (B) to better it’s labor score as to increase the labor score of business (A). This promotes better treatment of labor practices as well as puts pressure on a company that would normally cut labor in order to increase profit margins. Capital gains taxes would now be based on the same labor score thus, potentially dividing upper class support between exploiters and non-exploiters.  This would be an important improvement in political power distribution, as a more socialist company would have its federal capital gains tax dissolved. On the other hand, a very capitalist company would only have it’s own business practices to blame for its higher tax rate.  

I see this tax reform as an improvement over the current dogmatic arguments between higher and lower tax rates for the current term of government. Tax adjustment in the current system only perpetuate the debate, where reform of this magnitude not only provides a more fair method of taxing entrepreneurs, but also has potential to realign political power away from corporate elites. For example, political power could become fragmented due to new competition dynamics between similar industries scrambling to get better Labor Scores, instead of lobbying together for all around reduced taxes, that have been proven to increase inequality.

A company meeting requirements for the highest Labor Score available, receives a 0% sales tax rate for customers and a 0% capital gains tax. The company gets this benefit as they are, in theory, already doing their part to promote social welfare through socialistic business practice. Thus, patrons and investors should not be penalized. Businesses with better labor scores will attract more customers or be forced to pay higher taxes and chance losses in sales. 

Policy 3: Bailout/Stimulus Reform

Reform of stimulus policy requires attention. Most apparent in recent news are the “bailout” packages for banks, industry, and other economic giants as well as economic stimulus plans packages for taxpayers. Especially noteworthy are the lack of transparency and the upside-down approach to this form of welfare. Throughout the text, it is clear that Reaganomics has destroyed the welfare state in the U.S. The trickle down method does not work in either unregulated or regulated capitalist systems. Yet, even as Democrats take control of our governmental system, they still apply this top-down method with most of their stimulus policy. For example, “bailout” packages have ended up in the hands of CEO’s in the form of bonuses and banks have been found to be treating their high end clients with parties via tax payer dollars.

Most important for my stimulus reform initiative is the bailout example of General Motors. Our government sees saving an industry giant imperative for multiple reasons including saving thousands of jobs for Americans. To correct the projected failure, we inject tens of billions of dollars into the company in order to save its place in the industry. However, because we give this money directly to those in control of the company, little regulation is put on what the money can be used for and because of capitalism’s inherent nature to lengthen the workday and cut labor costs, jobs are still outsourced, cut, or laid off. 

If we, as tax payers, are going to invest in a company to keep it from failing, in order to keep jobs and promote social welfare, then why not purchase it out right and start killing multiple birds with the same stone?  Congress recently took similar action with AIG and now owns 60+ percent of its shares. As soon as “bailout bonuses” were noticed, Congress acted and demanded change, protecting the peoples’ investment. My GM bailout reform will give an example of how my proposed changes in stimulus policy could better stimulate our economic situation by promoting a better return per tax dollar invested. This better return rate per taxpayer dollar includes better employment rates, less layoffs, and essentially a redistribution of wealth without the notorious “Robin Hood” theme associated with welfare. 

I propose the U.S. get rid of the yearly stimulus packages for taxpayers. It is widely known these do little good to stimulate the economy regardless of their use by citizens. In addition, instead of loaning a failing company the money, taxpayers will buy parts or all of a company that seeks federal assistance, files for bankruptcy, or is in the position to be taken over by new management. Congress will decide whether a full or majority “buyout” is appropriate for any given situation. Congress will then mandate appropriate changes in the company’s business structure to give it the best Labor Score possible. When possible, laid off workers will be rehired thus a better investment than giving those laid off workers a small one-time check. This will also stimulate the company’s consumer market to choose the reformed company over competitors.

If a full buyout takes place, Congress will asses the need for the products currently being produced and restructure the business plan according to the market. Where appropriate or possible, Congress will be able to address other national concerns by producing new products and services. I have made a detailed example using General Motors to show how a buyout would give better returns over a bailout, more likely stimulate the economy, and improve overall social welfare in the U.S. compared to current bailout/stimulus packages:

1. The government would now control 100% of GM. Previous stockholders would be reimbursed according to the number of shares held.

1. Workers laid off in the last eight years will be given the opportunity to come back to work if they choose. 
2. All workers will be part of the new GM union and become a poster child for union reform around the country because of their new amazing Labor Score. 
3. Since GM could not create a new business plan the government will do so to combat a growing energy problem. Production of all electric cars will ensue thus, investing in an emerging market as well. Production of new industry standard high-tech batteries (currently made in Japan) will be started on factory properties not needed for car production. Production of gas to electric modifications for old vehicle models will take place at some factory sites allowing people the option to “go green”. Production of battery pack charging kits for current gas vehicles will also be started and installed in some factories. Finally battery-charging stations to be installed in participating gas will be produced in GM factories as well.
4. Dealerships will be given incentives to stay with the GM brand. Including participating in the battery charging/changing station program.

Because capital, in the form of land and machines, has been distributed more evenly, social equality has increased. And it has been redistributed through a mass cooperative enterprise of the people. Also, tens of thousands of jobs have been recovered thus creating more people with income that can be spent on things of their choosing. An emerging industry, high tech car batteries, has been invested in saving thousands of consumer dollars down the road because their battery does not have to travel oversees before reaching the factory floor. This saves thousands of tons of carbon dioxide from being created in transport, not to mention that no further GM gasoline vehicles would be produced, another substantial greenhouse gas reduction. Consumers will buy GM products because they will get the best tax discount, thus, saving them money that can be spent in other places. And because the swappable battery platform offers gas vehicle users to charge battery packs with GM charging systems, they can receive gas price subsidies and possible carbon credits recently implemented by congress.

Potential problems within this welfare reform are the initial purchasing of companies. Technically the way I described the buyout process was overwhelmingly simple and smooth. It would be much more complicated. I am not sure how the government could force buy all shares of a company, but similar practices have been done at the state level with home owners in the flood zones of new reservoirs and paths of highway construction. 

Conclusion

It was my goal to create three hypothetical changes to the current U.S. welfare system that move it back towards the political ideals of the New Deal, thus moving our system back towards a true welfare state. I have taken into account competing political perspectives and tried to implement changes that get beyond old dogmas, decrease inequality without simple tax increases, promoted better labor treatment, decreased consumer costs though stimulated competition between like enterprises, and increased the potential for changes in political power. Other benefits of these policies include: potential for social security stabilization beyond current projections, increased union participation, and greater welfare impact per tax dollar. Implementation of all three could be relatively simple assuming political support, and would quickly start regaining ground lost in the last eight years.

COPYRIGHT 2009 Dustin A. Gentis