The Failed Drug War and Growing Latin American Power

The Latin American countries are plagued with the byproduct of US drug war policies. Drug cartels that facilitate drug trafficking to the insatiable US illegal drug appetite wreak havoc on their host countries with violence, crime and act as a government destabilizer.  The Latin American countries are developing not only their economic muscle, but their political muscle that rides the same train and are creating a coalition to effect change on current US illegal drug policy. Even though the US mandates much of the drug policy by asserting its economic and political power via international institutions and direct US financial aid packages, the Latin American countries are beginning to address the glaring failure of these policies.

The trend in the US is to decriminalize possession, use and even sale of marijuana. Like the failed policy of prohibition, illegalization has spawned the same violence, crime and lethal drug organization outcomes. We can look to Portugal who in 2001 decriminalized the use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines for data and studies on the effects of decriminalization. They focused more attention on education and rehabilitation and the current trends demonstrate a surprising drop in usage rates. The Cato report suggests that the US drug policy is based on “fear mongering and speculation” not studies or data that offer objective evidence.

The Latin American countries understand US resistance and are willing to push legalizing marijuana, but are hesitant to push for new policies on harder drugs. It is a system failure with many in the US fighting to maintain their hard line policies. The US is home to 5% of the world’s population, but they are responsible for 25% of the world’s prisoners. With much of the US prisons becoming privatized, there is a significant lobbying force to keep the status quo to maintain incarceration rates. The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) will also maintain their hard line to sustain their bureaucracy and their livelihood. The military industrial complex will lobby hard against the decriminalization and certainly the legalization because they ship weapons and military supplies to countries fighting the drug war and would realize a drop in sales. The cost of education and prevention programs and drug rehabilitation programs would impose a much lower cost to taxpayers than the billions we spend on the failed War on Drugs, but the institutions that stand to lose financially are adamantly opposed to change for economic reasons. The Latin American countries may have to go it alone without the US when they are strong enough to do so.

Perez Diaz, Sonia . Latin America Will Push U.S. To Discuss New Drug War Strategies At OAS Meeting . The Huffingtonpost. 4 Jun 2013.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/04/new-drug-war-strategy-_n_3383786.html   WEB 14 Jul 2013

Szalavitz, Maria.  Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work? Time Magazine. 26 Apr 2009.    http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html   WEB 15 Jul 2013

Puerto Rico: Our Caribbean Child.

Puerto Rico was first a Spanish colony, but then became a US territory in 1898 after the Spanish-American War. It was first a military outpost for Spain and then became a US naval outpost and remains such today. Puerto Rico was largely impoverished and illiterate under Spanish rule. The US saw Puerto Rico as a strategic naval base to bolster its military supremacy in the Caribbean. The US kept Puerto Rico under military rule until 1900 when it transitioned to a civilian government still under the US umbrella of power. It was titled the “Commonwealth of Puerto Rico” by US officials. Their foreign policy is under the control of US foreign policy; however their government is largely independent of US control and acts more like an independent nation making its own trade agreements.

Puerto Ricans have automatic US citizenship. They do not pay federal income taxes, but do pay Social Security and Medicare taxes.  They use the US dollar as its currency as well as the US military for its defense. They cannot vote for President of the USA nor have congressional representation, but they are subject to US federal laws. They have a democracy and vote for their own representation. Puerto Rico has long been comfortable with her Commonwealth status and has in the past voted on whether to become the 51^st state of the USA. It is Constitutional procedure for a territory to first vote to petition Congress with a majority of support from its citizens to become a state. It was the last vote in 2012 that garnered the majority of votes necessary to petition for statehood. Puerto Rico has had three options: continue the status quo as a Commonwealth, go for statehood or declare its independence.   

What I find most interesting is that the House of Representatives is a majority republican. They are not interested in admitting Puerto Ricans who favor democrats into the fold when they are doing their best to gerrymander states to insure republican seats. They would be opposed to their statehood because of the likelihood of more democrats in both houses of congress.

The changing dynamics of the Puerto Rican population are at the roots of why they now favor statehood by a majority of votes. They are experiencing a decline in population as there are more Puerto Ricans on the US mainland than there are on the island itself.  Also according to their Secretary of State Kenneth McClintock, a weak economy and lack of jobs are also contributing factor.   

Economics and social freedoms are primary drivers in any reformist movements. Puerto Rico is our poorest child with a population that places it in the middle of current state members of the USA. Its labor costs are lower than the mainland US while it falls under US laws, banking and finance laws and existing trade agreements make the transfer of goods as easy as from state to state. The kicker for investors is the lack of federal income tax on personal or corporate incomes. I would suspect that those industries that are stationed there would be absolutely opposed to statehood simply because they like the tax advantage and they get cheap labor. The US mainland receives 80% of Puerto Rican exports according to the article on Current Issues in Economics and Finance and they note that 4% of the population works for the pharmaceutical industry.

I never fully understood out relationship with Puerto Rico and I can understand their desire to become a state to help realize better representation since they are American citizens and they are compelled to live by our federal laws. They are acting like a state. Why not become one?

 

Bram, Jason. Trends and Development in the Economy of Puerto Rico. Federal Reserve Bank of New York: Current Issues in Economics and Finance.  Vol 14, No 2 Mar 2008. http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci14-2.pdf  WEB 1 Jul 2013

Brás,Marisabel Ph.D. The Changing of the Guard: Puerto Rico in 1898. Library of Congress, Spanish Division. http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/bras.html   WEB 1 Jul 2013

Palen, Marc William. Will Puerto Rico Become the 51st State? History News Network. 12 Oct 2012. http://hnn.us/articles/will-puerto-rico-become-51st-state  WEB 1 Jul 2013

Puerto Rico: The 51st state? The Economist.17 Nov 2012. http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21566697-america-may-not-want-what-its-caribbean-outpost-now-does-51st-state   WEB 1 Jul 2013

Irresistable Quotes

Charlie Dent (R) "Clearly the economy is on everyone's minds, we're seeing very stagnant job numbers, confidence in the institution of government is eroding and now we're going to have a debate on rape and abortion. The stupidity is simply staggering."

Irresistible Quotes

Foster "  Politics as a system of conflict resolution determines the allocation of resources, allocation of values and allocation of authority."

Irresistable Quotes

Joe Scarsborough (R)“Mark it down, this is going to be a turning point in the history of the Republican Party as well. And let those out there chattering, let them chatter away all they want to and scream like hyenas. … This party that killed this background check yesterday — this party is moving toward extinction. A new Republican Party is going to replace it. And this is going to be a vote that people will look back on and say, ‘That party, that extremism, that was unsustainable.’”

Irresistable Quotes

"a developed country isn´t where the poor drives cars, but where the rich uses public transportation".

The Minimum Wage War

The history of the minimum wage begins under President Roosevelt during the Great Depression with the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. It was passed in response to the failure of the free market system to provide a minimum standard of living for the working labor forces. The first minimum wage was a modest twenty five cents an hour. Since its’ beginning, the minimum wage has fluctuated with its real dollar value simply because of the mood of politics.

There are renewed claims that increasing the minimum wage would result in job losses now that the President has put raising the minimum wage to $9.00/hr from $7.25 on his agenda. In recent years, republican have advocated for the elimination of the minimum wage so it no surprise that they are opposed to an increase. However, historically there has been bipartisan support for the increases including one such increase under Bush Jr.

The argument republicans are making against raising the minimum wage is that it will result in a loss of jobs. It reminds me of the argument that cutting taxes creates economic growth which was disproved by an in-depth study provided by the Congressional Research Service CRS Report R42020 published last year. The republicans were so upset by the findings and conclusions of this report, they ordered it be taken out of public view or face possible defunding for their agency.

There are new studies coming out of our educational institutions that have examined the effects of minimum wage increases. They conclude there is no evidence of any loss in jobs. In fact, there is strong evidence that increasing the minimum wage results in a strong reduction in employee turnover which adds a cost savings to the employer in replacement cost savings. An increase in pay can lead to increases in productivity as well. There is also no evidence that the increase in wages is offset by passing it on to customers when our free market system has a far greater influence on consumer prices. By raising the minimum wage, there is a ripple effect to those who previously sat just above the minimum wage. This money reaches the population that is most likely to spend it thus stimulating the economy. We are lulled into believing that it is only the teenage worker who is affected by the minimum wage when they only represent 16% of the minimum wage workers.

The raising of the minimum wage is a part of the movement we hear about called ‘making work pay’ concept. It works in tandem with the federal Earned Income Credit as well as some of the living wage mandates scattered throughout the country. The concept is to create an environment where it pays to work at lower wages as long as those wages can translate into something you can live on. The Political Economic Research Institute did a study on living wage mandates throughout the country in 2004. They concluded “the weight of the accumulated evidence indicates that living wage laws have an important impact on the living standards of a modest number of beneficiaries, while diffusing the costs broadly among city service contractors and the general public.”

I have frequently discussed the taxpayer being forced to subsidize poverty wages of the working poor by government programs such as Food Stamps and Medicaid. We the taxpayers are paying for companies who are reluctant to pay their employees a living wage. It is a back door subsidy while companies like Walmart and Tyson Foods reap record profits. There are those who hate government pushing for an increase in the minimum wage and yet they are the same who condemn government for helping the working poor.

As the disparity of wealth in our country continues to grow, it is important to understand the value and necessity of establishing minimum standards of living for the working poor. There needs to be a bottom line to keep companies from cost shifting standard of living cost onto the taxpayer in the form of government assistant programs. Between 1973 and 2007, the value of the minimum wage fell 22% while at the same time corporate profits rose more than 50%. We can surmise that from 2007 to present that the gap has only widened. As our country’s economy moves forward at a slow pace and we witness the American Dream dying in front of us, we should consider those who struggle to meet the basic essentials of living as our most vulnerable workers.

 

Brenner, Mark D. The Economic Impact of Living Wage Ordinances. 2004. Political Economy Research Institute, UMass Amerst. Retrieved from www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/.../WP80.pdf

Jeannette Wicks-Lim and Robert Pollin. MAKING WORK PAY: COMBINING THE BENEFITS OF THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT AND MINIMUM WAGE. April 2012. Political Economy Research Institute University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Retrieved from http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/published_study/PERI_WorkPay.pdf