Some Questions to Ponder

Some Questions to Ponder:

Clean Water:

I grew up in a suburb of Cleveland, Ohio, not far from the Ohio Canal and the Cuyahoga River.  I would imagine most of my Ohio friends will remember quite clearly how disgusting the canal was.  You had to roll up your windows when you drove alongside it because the stench was unbearable.   There was thick foam that floated on the canal that merged into the Cuyahoga, which then dumped into Lake Erie.   Many industries dumped untreated waste into the canal and into the Cuyahoga, with the wastes including raw petroleum products, raw sewage, and chemicals.   Fish, animals, and plants could not live in the polluted waters and, needless to say, drinking or swimming was out of the question.   In June of 1969 the Cuyahoga River caught fire, damaging a small section of a bridge.  While this was by far not the worst of the thirteen times the Cuyahoga River caught fire, a picture of the burning river made the cover of Time Magazine and created a bit of an uproar.  Cleveland Mayor Carl Stokes became an advocate for pollution control, testifying before congress, and becoming a strident voice whose efforts contributed to the passage of the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972.  After passage of the act companies were forced to stop the dumping of untreated waste.

Questions:  Is the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972 a worthy piece of legislation?  Does the greater good of insuring clean water supersede the rights of Corporations to dispose of their waste in the most cost efficient method available?  Did the passage of this legislation create massive job losses as the added expense of treating waste put corporations out of business?  For those who believe that “The Market” will self-regulate, why did the market not put the offending companies out of business or at least force them to stop polluting the water?  If this law was being proposed today instead of forty years ago, to what length do you believe the corporations would have gone to preserve their right to continue to dump their waste in the most cost efficient method available? In order to address that last question let’s take a look at the tobacco industry.

Tobacco:

Before I begin I would like to refer you to the following source document.  http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf

I will not qualify or cite statements in the following discussion but my arguments will be based on widely published information.

In the 1950’s concurrent research by the US Government and the tobacco industry began to reveal the presence of carcinogens in cigarette smoke and began to link smoking with several types of cancer.  The tobacco industry responded by vastly increasing the number of cigarettes available with filters (Promoting a false sense of security among smokers) and by beginning a public relations campaign promising scientific research into the effects of smoking on health.  At the same time the industry began a program of advertising and public policy statements that cast doubt on the growing evidence of the health risks of smoking.  (Not until 1997 did The Liggett Group issue a statement in response to a lawsuit conceding that cigarettes are addictive, cause lung cancer, and are marketed specifically to minors.  To date they are the ONLY tobacco company to admit to these well known facts, yet still the company denies any wrongdoing.)  In the late 50’s and early 60’s tobacco company scientists approached management with a claim to be able to produce a “safe” cigarette.  These safe cigarettes were never manufactured because the industry lawyers believed that introducing a safe cigarette would be an admission that companies were aware of the fact that their current product was unsafe.  As early as 1950 the FTC was bringing litigation against tobacco companies for false or misleading advertising.  The United States Government and several state governments led the fight against tobacco, encouraging people to quit smoking, or not to start.

Questions:  Did the United States Government or the government of several states have a right to interfere with the advertising and marketing choices of the tobacco industry?  Does the government have a right to be involved in public health issues?  Does the government have a right to require companies to be truthful in their advertising?  For those who believe that “The Market” will self-regulate, why did the market not force the tobacco companies to manufacture their “safe” cigarettes?  Were the government’s efforts to curb cigarette smoking and to inhibit the marketing of cigarettes to minors a good thing or a bad thing?

A closing statement for this section:  While cigarette smoking is on the decline in the US, the tobacco companies are doing fine, thank you. Smoking in developing countries where governments are not taking a stand against the tobacco industry is on the rise, and in many places smoking among children is prevalent.

Clean Air:

When I first moved to New Jersey in 1969 a drive on the northern end of the New Jersey Turnpike was another opportunity for closed window travel.  The many oil refineries in northern New Jersey released tons of untreated waste into the air.  Often the pollution would settle over the area as a dense fog and the stench was unbearable.  Those who flew into Newark Airport, in the heart of the area producing the pollution, helped to give New Jersey the reputation of being the nation’s “armpit”.  While New Jersey government did pass some regulations to attempt to remedy the situation, it was the EPA and the NJEPA, formed in 1970 that began the work of requiring corporations to treat their waste before releasing it.  Pollution levels declined steadily over the next several years and as a New Jerseyan I am proud to say that you can now drive the length of the turnpike without having to roll up your windows.

Questions: Did the EPA have a right to interfere with the right of corporations to dispose of their waste in the most cost effective manner possible?  Did the added expense of treating their waste cause massive job losses due to corporations’ inabilities to sustain this added expense?  Does the need for clean air supersede the need for increased corporate profits?  For those who believe that “The Market” will self-regulate, why were these polluting companies not forced out of business, ESPECIALLY when their corporate logos were emblazoned on the very smokestacks that were spewing toxic waste into the air?  Was improving the quality of the air in New Jersey, along with the associated health benefits from cleaner air a worthwhile government endeavor or an impingement of corporate (Now considered to be personal) freedom?

Safe Cars:

Ford:  In 1971 the Ford Motor Company introduced the Ford Pinto.  The Pinto had a problem with its fuel tank that created a significant risk of explosion or fire if the car was hit from behind.  The problem had a solution but an internal Ford memo revealed the fact that Ford did a cost-benefit analysis and concluded that it was more cost effective to let people die in explosions and fires than it was to fix the problem.

Toyota:  In 2009 a family of four was killed when their Lexus uncontrollably accelerated to 125 miles per hour on a California freeway.  The incident, captured in a frantic 911 call from one of the occupants, highlighted a problem with Toyota vehicles about which Toyota intentionally deceived the public for several years.

Chrysler:  Another automotive problem is being played out today as the Jeep Grand Cherokee is being investigated for having gas tank issues; another vehicle with a greatly increased risk of exploding if hit from behind.  Chrysler is denying all allegations in spite of 44 crashes where fire has caused 55 deaths.

In 1966 the United States Government passed the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act which formed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.  This department investigates possible safety issues and has the power to effect recalls of unsafe vehicles.  The NHTSA has fined Toyota more than $60 million over the sudden acceleration issue and Toyota recently settled a case with the USDOJ agreeing to pay $1.2 billion to settle lawsuits over the issue.

Questions:  Does the United States Government have the right to force automobile manufacturers to correct safety issues with cars sold in the US?  Does the government have a right to prevent car manufacturers from making cars any way they choose, without regard for public safety?  Does the US Government have the right to hold automobile manufacturers responsible for failures to correct unsafe issues or to punish corporations for deceiving the government and the people over potential safety issues in their product?  For those who believe that “The Market” will self-regulate, how is it possible that the Ford Motor Company was able to stay in business after the Pinto memo was released?  Would your opinion with regard to any of these questions be different had a relative of yours been the victim of a product failure that could have been prevented by an automobile manufacturer but was not?

Conclusions:  Corporations are not always good citizens, though they may claim so for public relations reasons.  History is FULL of examples of corporations putting profits before people, sometimes tragically so.  (Google: Bhopal, Wellpoint, Enron, United Fruit in Guatemala, Yaguarete Pora Amazon, Tyco, Rana Plaza, Heck, look up the true story of the Boston Tea Party!).  The question we face is twofold.  One question is does the government’s responsibility to protect the rights of all of its citizens supersede the right of corporations to operate as they please?  The second questions is do corporations have the right to spend as much money as they please to influence the government, and do they retain this right even when they are being deceptive?

From 2003-2010 140 foundations funneled $558 million to nearly 100 organizations that deny climate change.  From 1997-2014 the Koch brothers themselves have spent $67 million on climate denial front groups.  Like the tobacco industry before them, the petro chemical industry is fighting with all of their formidable resources to prevent action on climate change that will adversely impact their profits.  So effective are their efforts that a very large number of American Citizens are willing to ignore the voices of 97% of scientists who say that this is a very real and critically important issue.  Who should we be willing to believe?  The scientists trained and dedicated to studying the empirical facts of the issue, or the corporations who are protecting their profits?

32 of the world’s 33 developed countries offer universal health care, with the United States being the ONLY country not to do so.  The Affordable Care Act was conceived as a way to provide affordable health care to all American Citizens.  In less than 16 months, the insurance companies’ lobbying group America’s Health Insurance Plans spent over $100 million dollars on efforts to prevent the passage of the affordable care act.  As with the tobacco, petrochemical, and automotive industries, truth has not been an important component of this dialogue.  Companies have learned that disinformation and appeals to individual prejudices are a far more effective tool in combating the passage of a law than are debate and honest discourse, especially when surveys have shown that a clear majority of Americans want effective health care reform.  Since six of the 25 highest paid CEO’s in the country last year earn their living in health care it’s clear that a serious amount of money is being made.  Anyone who doubts a profit before people motive in the health care industry need look no further than Wellpoint’s high profile shedding of breast cancer patients or read how a Roche executive explained his company’s mission.  While the health care insurance and pharmaceutical industries continue to rake in profits, people are suffering and dying.

Here is what I believe:

Corporations will not easily give up their hold on that which is profitable.  History has shown time and time again that profits are more important than people and there is nothing in the market that is going to change that.  True, some companies are good corporate citizens, but many are not.  We as Americans elect a government to protect the inalienable rights of its citizens.  I WANT my government to protect me from a company that decides that it is more cost effective to pay $200,000.00 for each wrongful death lawsuit than it is to spend the $11.00 per car that it would cost to make the car safe;  and I WANT a government that will penalize the snot out of that company for lying about the danger.  I WANT a government that will oversee a health care system that pays doctors, nurses, hospitals, and health care workers a decent wage, that makes needed coverage and medication available and affordable to every American Citizen, negotiates fair prices for pharmaceuticals, and puts an end to obscene profits in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.  I WANT a government that will work diligently to protect the environment so my grandchildren and their grandchildren will have clean air, clean water, and a safe and comfortable living environment.  I WANT a government that can’t be bought by the wealthy, a government whose laws are not written by the corporations they purport to regulate.  I WANT a government that doesn’t allow the wealthy to compromise the freedom of the internet for fiscal gain or to pollute the media with lies and deceptions to a political end.

Bigger government you say?  Perhaps so, but it will be a bigger government with a purpose; a purpose to make the lives of everyday Americans a little better and to inhibit the ability of the powerful to mistreat, use, or abuse the powerless.

Finally, if it sounds like I am fanatically against business, nothing could be further from the truth.  I’ve spent my entire adult life working in retail and I deeply appreciate being given the opportunity to support my family working for a number of companies, some big and some small.  As I said before, most companies are good corporate citizens and these companies should be given every possible opportunity to succeed and to thrive with a minimum of government interference.  If, however, a company chooses to place its own profits ahead of the common good, to manipulate the government to its own benefit, to move operations offshore to avoid taxes, or to move jobs offshore to increase profits, then I believe the government has a right, and even a solemn responsibility to force the company to comply with good citizen behavior or to put them out of business.

About the President:  Additionally I’d like to point out the fact that, until the political winds change in this country, there will NEVER be another progressive President of the United States who will not be vilified by the political right.  Truth in the vilification process is inconsequential, it only matters that you cause people to hate the president in order that the next president elected will be a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America.  Has ANYONE asked themselves the question “Who is responsible for the professionally edited video that changed an Obama speech made in Brussels in March 2014 into the “New World Order” video that circulated on Facebook”?  Or how about the not so professionally edited video where he appears to say he was born in Kenya?  There is rarely a day that passes that I do not see at least one post that heaps vitriol on the president.  Whether the claims are true, marginally true, or ridiculous, make no difference.  As long as people are led to hate the president, the result is achieved.  Whatever happened to respect for the office?

If my politically right leaning friends disagree with me, that’s fine.  I’m always glad to discuss, as long as you back up your facts with original source material.  DON’T bring me arguments that have been bought and paid for by corporations trying to influence your vote, especially when the corporate argument is invalid, deceptive, or a bald faced lie.