Suddenly, everywhere I turn, there's mention of the fiscal cliff. A quick Twitter search yields ominous posts warning us that "elections have consequences" (or is that a threat?) and speculating on who the people will blame if we go "over" the cliff. Someone used the term "austerity bomb," which can't be a good thing.
Well, what is this cliff, anyway, right? The Economic Policy Institute has published a fair amount of decipherable material on the subject, and I am especially fond of their choice to rename the cliff the "fiscal obstacle course." For starters, they explain the cliff as the combined effect of tax and spending cuts that are either about to expire or about to go into effect. This is why, they explain, the "cliff" is an inadequate metaphor. A cliff has the implication of a single, drastic choice: a "grand bargain," if you will. The reality is that there are several different choices to be made that could impact our fiscal situation in different ways, hence the "obstacle course."
The back-and-forth surrounding the fiscal cliff seems to me like it can be summarized into a couple of different types of decisions: one set is the one we've come to associate (however factually inaccurately) with the Obama administration (Increase taxes! Increase spending on social programs!), and the other is the set we've come to associate with fiscal conservatives ("Base-broadening" through cutting spending on certain types of tax credits and deductions).
The Christian Science Monitor article linked above eloquently states, "Didn’t the President just win a second term? The major issue decided in last week’s election was that the rich should pay more." Furthermore, the Center for American Progress just issued an article on data released by the US Census Bureau, exploring the effect of cutting tax credits and social programs that aim to help the working poor. According to the article, US Census data show that "millions of Americans are being lifted up by effective work and income supports that keep families afloat in tough times and provide a pathway to the middle class."
Casey Mulligan's New York Times article provides an interesting perspective on this issue as well, offering that subsidies for the unemployed can make labor more expensive through making unemployed people about the jobs they take, especially when it comes to low-wage jobs. This allows us, too, to consider the workers who for whatever reason find themselves ineligible for unemployment subsidies, and the position it puts them in. For me as a reader, this argument is clear and rational and makes me wonder if I should put the onus on the unemployed. However, this article from the Economic Policy Institute helped me make sense of things.
So where do co-ops fit into all of this? Well, this recent article on transforming the role of the corporation gives insight into the matter. James Gustave Speth critiques the current role of the corporation and presents the idea that, "To move from an exploited or degraded commons to a healthy society, we must reclaim our commons, give it standing and protect it." He goes on to give co-ops a shout-out as the kind of stakeholder-owned companies that can help refocus corporate missions to benefiting the people around them.
On a smaller scale, I can also reflect on cooperatives as a way to explore Speth's suggested shift in consciousness. Co-ops help us to stop with the finger-pointing and assume collective responsibility for our companies, communities, and environment. Co-ops also help us raise questions about what dignified work looks like in a time when economic graphs tell us we should be so lucky to be employed at all. They also allow us the opportunity to examine employment as only one piece of the puzzle of people leading healthy, happy lives, but they also explore how a job can help the other pieces of the puzzle fall into place. To take it one step further, the possibilities offered by cooperatives tend to be sustainable and rooted in the communities where they are located, as a counter-point to job-creation stimulus efforts that may or may not be effective in the long run.
No comments:
Post a Comment