The debate on Global Warming

Is Global Warming A Genuine Threat To The Earth?
by Linda L Smith
What do we have as security if not the earth? It is the air we breathe and ground we walk on. It is the blue sky and azure waters. It is the lush green hills and pastures and the arid deserts, Tropical Island and snowy White Mountains. We fish, we swim, we hunt, we farm, we graze our herd animals, and we ski. The feral animals depend on the earth for their food. We are all bound here by gravity and dependence. Our climate system is tied to our ability to sustain our lives. That is why citizens and scientists alike are concerned about a possible threat to our planet earth from global warming and the possibility of irreversible damage, which could have a devastating effect on civilization as we know it. Some of the perils we may encounter due to global warming could be droughts, flooding, famine, and devastating hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones.
According to some of the most prominent scientists in the world our planet might be in danger if we do not change our habits. These scientists are warning us that there is much to change in order that we do not exacerbate global warming. Most scientists do admit that there is a natural heating and cooling of the earth. However, we need to decide how much responsibility man has in this process, as part of the debate, as well as, what power man might be capable of having over controlling global warming.
Recently, climate scientists met at a hastily organized conference, put together by the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in San Diego. All participants expressed great concerns as to how the media covered the last few months, when climate critics used every little error or glitch in the data they could find to argue that climate change was not happening. Because many critics are lobbiests and people representing special interests that feel action on global warming is not in their interests many of which belong to groups that specialize in public communication (the modern term for propaganda), they can spin the story in such a manner that appeals to people's emotions, without actually conveying any form of scientific content. Unfortunately people fall for much of the hyperbole and dysphemisms, and rhetorical force used to persuade the public. According to recent polls, a growing number of people in the United States, for example, are not only losing their belief that climate change is taking place as we speak, but also that science in general is not to be trusted. Blame can be placed on senator’s such as Imhoffe who using strong emotive language called global warming a hoax.
There are many reasons for believing global warming is a eminently impending threat and that we can do something about it. Global warming has become perhaps the most complex and one of the most contentious issues facing world leadership today (Revkin, A. C. 2010 Feb). On the one hand, warnings from the scientific community are becoming louder, as an increasing body of science points to rising dangers from the ongoing buildup of human-related greenhouse gases — produced mainly by the burning of fossil fuels and forests. On the other, the technological, economic and political issues that have to be resolved before a concerted worldwide effort to reduce emissions can begin still remain complex, particularly in the face of a global economic slowdown (Revkin, A. C. 2010 Feb).
We have a responsibility to the planet; we are responsible for Stewardship of the planet, not only for the sake of our current, existence, but for the sake of those who come after us.
There are many people according to statistics that do not believe that global warming exists, or if it does exist, they are not sure if man has any was responsibility for it. There are those who do not believe any regulation should be implemented. Furthermore a number of people feel that the information on planet warming has been fraudulent and global warming is a hoax.
A recent Rasmussen poll suggests that an alarming number of Americans believe scientists have falsified their data to sell global warming to the public. Add this to some embarrassing comments made in the e-mails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in England, and it has been a long, hot autumn for climate scientists. There have been many challenges arising to the question of possibility of Global warming. According to some in opposition, there are many contending theories and unknowns variables about climate change. It is therefore impossible to claim that a consensus exists and until a true consensus exists, no significant action should be taken (Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009).
Over 30,000 scientists have signed the "Oregon petition" that states that human impacts on the climate can’t be reasonably proven (Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009).
Others argue, despite what computer models say there is no evidence of global warming. Some claim, there was some warming earlier in the last century but it stopped in 1998 and there is now evidence that the globe is cooling (Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009).
According to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) there are some key points of certainties: ” Understanding of how development planners incorporate information about climate variability and change into their decisions is limited. This limits the integrated assessment of vulnerability. The evolution and utilization of adaptive and mitigative capacity depend on underlying socio-economic development pathways. Barriers, limits and costs of adaptation are not fully understood, partly because effective adaptation measures are highly dependent on specific geographical and climate risk factors as well as institutional, political and financial constraints Estimates of mitigation costs and potentials depend on assumptions about future socio-economic growth, technological change and consumption patterns. Uncertainty arises in particular from assumptions regarding the drivers of technology diffusion and the potential of long-term technology performance and cost improvements. Also little is known about the effects of changes in behavior and lifestyles. The effects of non-climate policies on emissions are poorly quantified” (Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009).
Many of the opponents of global warming have observed recent winters have been exceptionally cold and snowy which shows that average U.S. temperatures are going down, not up. Annual mean temperature in the U.S. has fluctuated for decades and the primary cause is changing solar activity levels and ocean temperatures, not CO2. A number of those in opposition argue that the current warming is just a natural cycle (Bretherton, Mantua, and Mote, P., 2009).
Some of the critics believe is that there is no proof that rising CO2 causes global warming. Oppositionists to global warming say CO2 traditionally follows temperature, not the other way around. It has been pointed out by opponents of the Global warming theory that Global warming is happening on Mars and Pluto as well and since there are no humans there burning fossil fuels, CO2 can't be the cause of Global Warming (Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009).
One opposing point of view is that, annual mean temperature in the U.S. has fluctuated for decades and the primary cause is changing solar activity levels and ocean temperatures, not CO2. One of the opposing arguments is that, there is no proof that rising CO2 causes global warming. Climate models can't explain periods when it was even warmer than today, let along predict the weather next week, so why should we believe what they say about 50 or 100 years from now. Another popular argument is that “The Hockey Stick graph”, which is the basis of global warming theory, has been debunked many times. (Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009)
While few climate scientists deny the reality of climate change, some have said that the IPCC report overemphasized the threat of climate change because no data supports the view that a dangerous tipping point is imminent in the near future. Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
“Scientists from Around the World Dissent” is a Senate report that lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and web links to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate (Marino, M.2007). The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in varied fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore (Marino, M.2007).
The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears (Marino, M.2007).

The Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was produced by over 600 authors from 47 countries, and reviewed by over 600 experts and governments. In addition, every major international scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly beyond natural variability and the primary cause is human-induced CO2 emissions. One of the claims of the opposition is that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is made up of extremists, which is an Ad Hominem attack against the organization.
According to the CL Initiative report:
“The different social cultures and political systems these organizations operate within make it hard to see how they would all be environmental extremists The organization members include: NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies ,U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ,U.S. National Academy of Sciences, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, American Geophysical Union American Meteorological Society ,American Institute of Physics National Center for Atmospheric Research, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Royal, Accademia dei Lincei (Italy), Academie des Sciences (France), The Royal Society of the UK , Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina(Germany), Royal Irish Academy, Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Indian National Science Academy, Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Sciences, Australian Academy of Sciences, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of New Zealand, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences” cause ( Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009)

Some people and organizations have claimed the IPCC is biased because it refused to acknowledge information that disproves or downplays the significance of global warming.
After reviewing thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers, some of which supported human-induced global warming and others that didn't, the IPCC concluded through its consensus peer-review process that the preponderance of evidence “unequivocally” supported the conclusion that the earth is warming beyond natural variability and that humans are the primary cause ( Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009)

The mean temperature over the U.S. or any other region does fluctuate from year to year. Some continents, and some portions of different continents, will be warmer or cooler at any given time than other regions. Nevertheless, the average temperature over all major continents and oceans has warmed too much over the past century to attribute purely to random fluctuations. There is no evidence for significant fluctuations in solar radiation over the recent past when temperatures have rapidly risen. There are natural variations in ocean temperature such as El Nino, but again these do not explain why the ocean surface has warmed as much as we have measured. On the other hand, increased greenhouse gases cause the ocean surface to warm, just like the land. (Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009)

Through its nonlinear dynamics and involvement in past abrupt climate shifts the thermohaline circulation (THC) represents a key element for the understanding of rapid climate changes. The expected THC weakening under global warming is characterized by large uncertainties, and it is therefore of significant importance to identify ocean circulation changes over the last century. By applying various statistical techniques on two global sea surface temperature datasets two THC-related modes are separated. The first one involves relatively slow adjustment of the whole conveyor belt circulation and has an interhemispherically symmetric pattern. The second mode is associated with the relatively fast adjustment of the North Atlantic overturning cell and has the seesaw structure. Based on the separation of two patterns show that the global conveyor has been weakening since the late 1930s and that the North Atlantic overturning cell suffered an abrupt shift around 1970. The distinction between the two modes provides also a new frame for interpreting past abrupt climate changes (Dima, M. & Lohmann, G. 2010).

Although Senator Inhofe was quick to point out the cold weather conditions we are having and skillfully ridiculed it, Joseph Romm, a former Energy Department official in President Bill Clinton's administration and the editor of the Centre for American Progress's Climate Progress blog, said "Record snow is not in any way, shape, or form evidence against climate science and in fact it is largely consistent with it,"(Berger.M, 2010)
It is hard to argue with straw men, smoke screens and scare tactic fallacies that are continuingly being used to distort factual discussions and strong inductive arguments. Jim Hansen, is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Adjunct Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University's Earth Institute, is a proponent for the theory of global warming he stated “Most people feel stewardship toward the Earth, but can the public understand the climate issue and see through the smokescreen thrown up by special interests?”(Hanson, J. n.a.)
When opponents of Global warming claim there is no proof that rising CO2 causes global warming, that is a blatant falsehood and downplaying the reality of the situation. According to the Science Climate Leadership Initiative Institute for a Sustainable Environment University of Oregon:
There is very strong evidence - laboratory, satellite, and ground measurements – which shows that higher levels of CO2 by themselves would cause warming. The long-term geological record shows that temperature and the abundance of CO2 are closely correlated throughout time. Analysis of ice taken from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets provides a continuous record going back over 600,000 years [IPCC chapter 6]. The air trapped in the ice of cores drilled into the glaciers provides samples of past atmospheric conditions. A vast data bank of oxygen, nitrogen, CO2, and methane levels is thus now available to scientists. The date of the air can be credibly analyzed and this information shows that when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were high so were temperatures, and ice ages occurred when CO2 was very low. This data gives climate scientists great confidence that temperature and the abundance of CO2 are closely correlated. Further, there is no theory of climate where rising atmospheric CO2 levels does not increase global mean temperatures. There is no dispute about the reality of the “greenhouse effect.” Certain gases, including CO2, methane and others, absorb heat in the atmosphere and re-radiate it downward to the Earth. This process helps to regulate the earth’s temperature (Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009).

One of the opposition’s arguments is that CO2 traditionally follows temperature, not the other way around. Contrary to that opinion, proponents claim, it actually makes no difference whether CO2 follows or leads:
During the ice ages, ice cores suggest that that CO2 increased almost simultaneously with global mean temperature. It is hard to interpret the ice core record exactly enough to tell whether CO2 rose precisely at the same time as global mean temperature. In fact, scientists would not expect this, because the climate also interacted with the slow growth and melt back of ice sheets. Our present climate change is simpler to understand, because we are increasing CO2 so quickly. The warming effects of CO2 have been known for more than 100 years. CO2 has not risen above about 290 ppm any time in the last 650,000 years until now and it is unequivocal that human activities are the cause of this increase (Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009)

Critics claim”, Global warming is happening on Mars and Pluto as well. Since there are no humans there burning fossil fuels, CO2 can't be the cause of Global Warming”. This is a red herring because there is very little evidence of warming on Mars and even if there was, it has nothing to do with warming on Earth. The only factor that the Earth and Mars share is the sun, so if the warming on Mars were real and related it would have to be due to the sun. Solar variability on Earth has been measured very carefully and scientists have affirmed that it is not the primary cause of the warming of the past 60 years (Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009).
Scientific American reported in 2001, the so-called “Oregon petition” is a sham, reporting the information and the science it claims is blatantly false, is misleading and is a scientifically irresponsible charade. They stated, “A simple analysis of the people listed on the petition shows that veterinarians, physicians, business executives and many other non-climate scientists supposedly have signed it” (Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009).
According to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change):
Some planned adaptation (of human activities) is occurring now; more extensive adaptation is required to reduce vulnerability to climate change .Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt. A wide range of mitigation options is currently available or projected to be available by 2030 in all sectors. The economic mitigation potential, at costs that range from net negative up to US$100/ tCO2-equivalent, is sufficient to offset the projected growth of global emissions or to reduce emissions to below current levels in 2030. Many impacts can be reduced, delayed or avoided by mitigation. Mitigation efforts and investments over the next two to three decades will have a large impact on opportunities to achieve lower stabilization levels. Delayed emissions reductions significantly constrain the opportunities to achieve lower stabilization levels and increase the risk of more severe climate change impacts., The range of stabilization levels for GHG concentrations that have been assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are currently available and those that are expected to be commercialized in coming decades, provided that appropriate and effective incentives are in place and barriers are removed. In addition, further RD&D would be required to improve the technical performance, reduce the costs and achieve social acceptability of new technologies. The lower the stabilization levels, the greater the need for investment in new technologies during the next few decades will be. Making development more sustainable by changing development paths can make a major contribution to climate change mitigation and adaptation and to reducing vulnerability. Decisions about macro-economic and other policies that seem unrelated to climate change can significantly affect emissions ( Pachauri, R.K. & Reisinger, A. (Eds.).2007).

According to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis of surface air temperature measurements; 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880. “The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. The two-standard-deviation (95% confidence) uncertainty in comparing recent years is estimated as 0.05°C, exclaiming, we can only conclude with confidence that 2008 was somewhere within the range from 7th to 10th warmest year in the record.” (Goddard 2008)
The hockey stick as mentioned above is constantly debunked by the opposition as mentioned in the Science Climate Leadership Initiative Institute for a Sustainable Environment University of Oregon report
The so-called 'Hockey Stick' graph shows relatively constant global temperatures from AD 1000 to AD 1900, and then a dramatic increase from 1900 to 2000 when emissions from the industrial revolution and land use changes accelerated (thus the graph looks like a hockey stick lying flat with the blade pointing upwards). The conclusion is that human burning of fossil fuels and land use changes have disrupted the climate over the past 100 years. Evidence of rising global temperatures over the past 100 years does not depend on this reconstruction of temperature change. To the contrary, the Hockey Stick is just one of many independent lines of study confirming rising temperatures in the past 100 years. The second reason the objection is false is that although there were some methodological problems with the original paper (by Mann et al) describing the past 1000 years of temperature, they were examined by other climate scientists and found to be minor. The subsequent technical changes made to the methodology did not change the study results. Further, a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions of northern hemisphere temperature change by different organizations all show similar patterns: the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record and warming was most dramatic after 1920 (Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009)
The consensus among scientists on climate change includes the following:

“The climate is warming beyond the range of natural variability. The major cause of most of the observed warming is raising levels of the greenhouse gases including CO2, methane, and others. The rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels and land use changes that have eroded the earth's ability to breakdown and dissipate emissions. Today's 387 ppm of CO2 equivalent concentrations in the atmosphere (more than 30% above the historic levels) signifies that temperatures will continue to rise for the next half century even if greenhouse gas emissions are rapidly reduced. If CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise over this century, the warming will continue and likely accelerate; and the high-end temperature increase projected by the IPCC (more than 11.5o F by century's end) will pose significant danger to civilization. Even the IPCCs 'low scenario' of increased warming of 3.2 F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2° F will produce very serious economic, social, ecological and political consequences” (Pachauri, & Reisinger, Eds.. 2007).

“It’s time for the skeptics, to get off the atmospheric temperature kick and read the earth. Science clearly indicates that humans are playing a new and critical role in driving that warming. But, lack of clarity in the exact degree that humans are causing global warming should not be used as an excuse to ignore the monumental changes that rising sea level and changing climate will bring to the planet, and our society” (Pilkey, O., H., & Young, R. (2010, January 7). In action would be a mistake and would be in the category of the perfectionist fallacy. This principle downgrades policy simply because it isn’t perfection. It is a version of the false dilemma because it says an affect these are the policy is perfect or we must reject it (Moore & Parker 2007 p.181). It is better for us to take actions to try to slow down further damage, even if we are not certain of the exact percentage of damage done by mankind, because the consequences of inaction could result in severe costs to our planet. As already mentioned” Even the IPCCs 'low scenario' of increased warming of 3.2 F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2° F will produce very serious economic, social, ecological and political consequences” (Pachauri, & Reisinger, (Eds.). 2007)
In the style of an argument from outrage fallacy, Senator James Inhofe, Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, describes global warming as "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" and uses McCarthy-like tactics to threaten and intimidate scientists. (Hanson ,J. n.a.) The anti-climate change consensus relies on the mistaken belief that gaps in a scientific theory represent fatal flaws. "The idea that there's uncertainty and gaps in the theory doesn't mean it’s wrong - it just means the theory hasn't been fully articulated yet” (Galef, J. 2010).
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, today made the following remarks regarding the Republican plan to introduce a resolution blocking the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) finding that greenhouse gas
“Pollution endangers public health and public welfare” Senator Boxer said:
"The Republican proposal to overturn EPA's global warming endangerment finding is a threat to America's families who deserve to have their health and communities protected. The endangerment finding is clear - it says in part that greenhouse gases "endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations." The endangerment finding indicates that greenhouse gas pollution poses many risks, including the risk of illness and death from factors such as high temperatures, increased air pollution and extreme weather events. Debating over policy about unchecked global warming is fair, but repealing an endangerment finding based upon years of work by America's leading scientists and public health experts is radical in the extreme. I am urging my colleagues to distance themselves from these dissenters and not to interfere with the independent work of scientists and public health experts from both the Bush and Obama administrations. Republicans are using scare tactics and false economic arguments to support this effort - the same scare tactics that were used to oppose every major environmental law, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. Each of these laws has been successfully implemented while America has led the world in economic growth. Time has disproven the special interest argument that a clean and healthy environment harms the economy - it is just a scare tactic that has been debunked." (Boxer, B. 2009 Dec 17)


The most recent anecdotal evidence of warmer temperatures in the Himalayan Mountains is that: Climbers are complaining about houseflies at base camps on Mount Everest, once too frigid for the insects' survival. But there's more to worry about than having to carry a fly swatter up the world's highest mountain. Global warming is making glaciers in the Himalayas melt faster than anywhere else in the world, according to the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That's cause for apprehension because the region is home to the third-largest perennial ice mass on Earth, and seasonal melting of its glacial ice and snow feeds the major rivers of Asia. Scientists say some of the consequences will be the melting ice could first produce floods and later, as the glaciers recede and finally disappear, catastrophic drought. The IPCC reported that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear entirely by 2035. Some glaciologists dispute the date as far too soon. Many millions of lives depend on the rivers - and the glaciers that sustain them (Donovan, D.2010).


All types of rhetorical ploys, such as scare tactics, slanters, negative hyperbole, for political and monetary gain are being used by the opponents who are opposed to taking any action against Global warming. As with any issue of this nature, there are pros and cons. However, the evidence suggests that the pros of global warming outweigh the cons. After examining both sides of this controversial issue, the logical course of action based on the evidence is to recognize the fact that global warming is a serious threat to the planet, and that we need to recognize that fact and do as much as we possibly can to rectify it through recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and leading experts around the world
References
Berger. M. (2010 February). CLIMATE: SNOWFALL IN NATION'S CAPITAL PROMPTS WARMING DEBATE: Global Information Network; Retrieved; February 16, 2010, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1963111441).
Boxer,B. (2009 December 17). Statement on Republican Proposal to Block EPA Endangerment Finding Retrieved: Saturday, February 27, 2010 from http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Majority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=9e3efb3c-802a-23ad-4c22-95b5c4e97e57&Region_id=&Issue_id=
Bretherton, C., Mantua, N. and Mote, P. , (2009). Setting the record straight: Responses to common challenges to climate. Science Climate Leadership Initiative Institute for a Sustainable Environment University of Oregon. Retrieved on February 21, 2010 from: http://climlead.uoregon.edu
Dima, M. & Lohmann, G. (2010). Evidence for two distinct modes of large-scale ocean circulation changes over the last century. Journal of Climate 23(1), 5-7, 9-16. Retrieved, January 28, 2010, from Research Library (Document ID: 1939489261).
Donovan, D.(2010). ASEE Prism. Washington: Jan 2010. Vol. 19, Iss. 5; pg. 15, 1 pgs Retrieved, January 28, 2010, from Research Library. ProQuest document ID: 1949149651
Galef, J. (2010). Uncertainty in Science The Humanist. Washington, D.C.: Jan/Feb 2010. Vol. 70, Iss. 1; pg. 10, 4 pgs
Global Temperature Trends: 2008 Annual Summation (2008) Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Retrieved February 22, 2010 From: Godard http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
Hanson, J. (n.a.) Global warming .Retrieved February 22, 2010,from: http://www.earthrestorationservice.org/page/78/global-warming.htm
Kennedy, R. (2010). Full Circle. Alternatives Journal, 36(1) 9. Retrieved, January 28, 2010, from Research Library (Document ID: 1942106231).
Marino, M. (2007). U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009 . Retrieved February 21, 2010 from http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority. Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7
Pachauri, R.K. & Reisinger, A. (Eds.). (2007) Climate Change 2007:Synthesis Report.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Chang; Core Writing Team, IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. pp 104.Retrieved Febuary22, 2010 from http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm
Pilkey, O., H., & Young, R. (2010, January 7). Doubt global warming? The planet won't tell a lie. USA Today, A.7. Retrieved, February 18, 2010, from ProQuest Newsstand. (Document ID:1934861131).

The Great Depression and the New Deal: Causes, Effects, and Cures

The Great Depression and the New Deal: Causes, Effects, and Cures

by Linda L Smith,April 4, 2010

History is like a mirror, reflecting our past, it can be used as a guide to help us through the darkness of a depression or it can to be used to deflect an impending disaster from happening if we have the wisdom and knowledge to learn from our past mistakes.

While there are always opposing points of views on how to handle the economy, the progressives believe in government and its responsibility to the people above all else, while the view of conservatives is that capitalism can self regulate,they feel an imposing government undermines the economy.

Throughout the later part of our history there has been a struggle between the middle classes and the wealthy. We have been plagued with boom or bust economy throughout our history. When this happens everyone winds up suffering, even those who appear to be ahead of the game at one point' are affected. Our recent economy is no acceptation to the rule.

Sometimes we can see the future, through the actions of the past. The great crash signaled the start of the greatest depression in the history of the modern world “The Great Depression was a worldwide economic downturn that started in 1929 and ended around 1939, and is now used as a benchmark on how far the world's economy can fall” (US Gov).

During the last U.S. depression there were many parallels to the conditions we find ourselves in today. Perhaps in looking back we can dissect the facts, symptoms and solutions’ examining them to see if any of those solutions can be applied to today’s failing economy.

Causes
In the first few years after the crash the national income fell by half, factory wages also fell by half. Approximately 85,000 businesses failed. European governments defaulted on their war debts to the U.S. Led by Great Britain in 1931, 41 nations abandoned the gold standard. Foreign government’s expectations were to devalue their currencies by expanding their supply of money. Declining sales abroad sent crop prices to new lows. Banks closed panic ensued, consequently there was a run on money. In 1928 construction and the automobile industries began to lose their vitality as demand increased. Industry had done well by keeping the cost of labor and raw materials low as well as by decreasing productivity, but they used their profits to expand factories rather to pay workers higher wages. Without strong labor unions or government support, real wages never kept pace with productivity. Consumers and workers did not have enough money to buy the products they were making more efficiently and at lower costs. Consumer debt rose by 250 percent. By 1929 1 percent of the population owned 36 percent of all personal wealth. The wealthy saved their money and did not put it back into the economy. The working and middle classes did not have enough money to keep the economy going (Davidson, Giennap, et al 2008 p.718-19). Mismanagement greed and the emergence of a new type of executive’s half banker- half broker led banks to divert more funds into speculative investments.
Effects
Since the Glass-Steagall acts repeal, banking economic situations parallels the same kind of irresponsible banker –stock broker mergers where speculation and trading poisonous derivatives transactions led to the banking disaster we have been experiencing, causing huge brokerage houses and Banks to fail. The government had to bail them out. Unions have been weakened, salaries are on the decline, automobile sales declined to the level where the largest Corporations Ford, GM, and Chrysler were in the red, and going into bankruptcy, the government had to bail them out as well to save the bankrupted industry.

Herbert Hoover began his presidency with optimism, but, it soon turned into a personal and professional tragedy. Within his inauguration speech which was held in March, 1929 he announced, “I have no fear for the future of our country, it is bright with hope, unfortunately within seven months a depression began. Hoover put in a lot of effort trying to end the depression; it was he who coined the name “depression” (Davidson, Giennap, et al 2008 p.729). Unfairly and unfortunately for him Hoover was blamed for the depression. In a sense Obama’s situation parallels this because he is now being blamed for the terrible situation he inherited, by the infamitory rhetoric of his opposition. “For all of president Hoover’s promise, innovation and intelligence, his was to be a transitional presidency, important as a break-through from do nothing president’s of past depressions and as a herald of new, more active presidents to come” (Davidson, J.W. Giennap, W.E., et al 2008 p. 730).

Relief organizations with too little money and not enough resources attempted to make headway against the depression’ private charities had dwindled to 6% in all refunds. Ethnic charities try to ward off disaster of their own (Davidson, J.W. Giennap, W.E., et al 2008p.730). “The head of the Federation of Jewish Charities warned that private charity efforts, were failing). Eventually the government would be forced to step into the situation and bring relief on a large scale” (Davidson, J.W. Giennap, W.E., p.730 et al 2008” p.730). City Treasuries became depleted because nearly 30% of taxpayers fail to pay or had fallen behind on paying their taxes. By the end of 1931, Detroit, Boston, and scores of other cities were bankrupt. The state capitals were no of assistants to the city’s because after a decade of wastefulness and mismanagement, many states were already running deficits. Importantly, as businesses and property values collapsed, tax bases shrunk along with state revenues (Davidson, Giennap, et al 2008 p. 730)
Which most economists considered one of the consistent negatives effects of a severe downturn in the economy. New York established its temporary emergency relief administration (TERA) in 1931) no state had any agency or a goal to handle the problem of unemployment (Davidson, Giennap, et al 2008 p.730).

Herbert Hoover assumed leadership in combating the depression. Previously being the secretary of commerce under Harding and Coolidge, Hoover had formed the conceptual philosophy that government should foster private solutions to public problems by promoting voluntary cooperation among businesses and between business and government (Davidson, Giennap, et al 2008 p.731). Presidents of the past had feared any intervention by government would upset an actual working of the economy and that their sole responsibility was to keep the budget balanced” (Davidson, Giennap, et al 2008p.731) Hoover understood the vicious cycle in which rising unemployment drove down consumer demands, he also appreciated the need for stimulating investment.

Hoover set in motion an unprecedented program of government activism. Hoover rallied business leaders who pledged to maintain employment, wages and prices-only to see those leaders backed down as the economy sputtered. He pushed a tax cut through Congress in 1930 in order to increase the purchasing power of consumers but when the cuts produced an unbalanced Federal budget, he reverse the course. He firmly believed that capitalism would generate its own recovery and that a balanced Federal budget was required in order to restore the confidence of business. Too much government’s action he worried might just destroyed the very economic system he was seeking to save, so he agreed to tax increases and 1930 which further undermined investment and consumption. His policies failed. Equally disastrous the president endorsed The Smoot-Harley Tariff (1930) to protect the United States from cheap foreign goods. That bill resulted in little but retaliatory tariffs from abroad, which choke world trade and reduced American sales overseas.

Today we have incurred a similar problem with oversea manufacture of cheap production goods, not only do we have that problem but we also have to deal with a relatively new problem of our jobs being outsourced by huge corporations. Presently, Obama is trying to negotiate that china raise the value of its currency. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have introduced legislation calling for trade sanctions against China if it does not change its currency policy. And unions and manufacturers cite the undervalued Chinese currency as a major culprit for lost jobs (Landler, M. & Jacobs, A. 2010) (Learning from past history, if the issues are not settled it could lead to trade wars and boycotts, as we had in the thirties).

Hoover spent one billion dollars on public works more than the sum total of his entire predecessor combined-did not approach the 10 billion needed to imply it only half the jobless. Spending such a huge sum seemed unthinkable because the entire Federal budget at the time was $3.2 billion dollars. Under pressure from Congress, Hoover took action to save the banks. Between 1930 in 1932 some 51,000 banks one under when worried depositors took their money and ran. Hoover permitted the creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) in 1932; the agency’s purpose was that it could lend money to banks and their chief corporate debtors-railroads and insurance companies within three months failures dropped from 70 a week to 1 every two weeks. The Glass-Steagall banking act (1932) made it easier for banks to loan money by adding two billion dollars of new currency to the money supply, backed by Federal Reserve government bonds.

Despite the success, Hoover drew criticism for rescuing banks and not people, which in my opinion was similar to the bail out of the banks that President Bush put into place and President Obama recently administered. (There are objections to this on the right claiming too much government and left claiming not enough allocated for recovery of people through small business loans and addressing the Mortgage crisis in today’s economy).

“Hoover refused to give Federal aid to the unemployed, fearing a giveaway program would damage the freedom and the initiative of recipients, he worried it might also produce an underclass” (Davidson, Giennap, et al 2008 p. 732). Hoover wrongly felt that the bureaucracy needed to police recipients would meddle in private lives of citizens and along with it bringing corruption and waste. “Hoover also wrongly assumed neighborliness and cooperation would be enough” (Davidson, Giennap, et al 2008 p. 732).

Today the same argument is repeated by the right, saying that poverty should be left to charity. “Unemployment continued to get worse; finally Hoover started to soften his stand and permitted congress to pass the Emergency Relief and Construction Act. It authorized the RFC to lend up to 1.5 billion dollars for the reproductive public works that paid for themselves, like bridge tolls and slum clearance. Another 300million went to states as loans for the direct relief of unemployment. In this depression $300 million was a pittance. When the governor of Pennsylvania requested loans to furnish the destitute with 13¢ a day for year, the RFC sent only enough for 3¢ a day” (Davidson, Giennap, et al 2008 p. 733). (Much Too little, and too late) .

In the election of 1932, although the economy was deplorable, with no improvement in site,

Republicans still endorsed Hoover and his entire depression program at their convention in Chicago. Franklin D. Roosevelt was the democratic choice. Roosevelt promised a new deal for the American people. Hoover denounced Roosevelt’s “New Deal” calling it a dangerous departure from time honored traditions, warning that would destroy American values and institution and would build a bureaucracy such as we have never seen in our history. ” It didn’t matter; the deepening depression ensured that virtually any democratic candidate would defeat Hoover. Roosevelt won the election by a decided of 57%. By now ¼ work force was unemployed 30,000,000 families’s had no means of support and there wasn’t enough money in the treasury to meet the Federal payroll. At Roosevelt swearing in ceremony the stated “let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself “in the election of 1932, Republicans still stuck with Hoover and endorsed his entire depression program at their convention in Chicago. Franklin D. Roosevelt was the democratic choice. Roosevelt promised a new deal for the American people.

Hoover denounced Roosevelt’s “New Deal” as a dangerous departure from time honored traditions, calling it a dangerous departure from time honored traditions, warning that would destroy American values and institution and would build a bureaucracy such as we have never seen in our history. ” It didn’t matter; the deepening depression ensured that virtually any democratic candidate would defeat Hoover. Roosevelt won by a decisive 57%.” By now ¼ work force was unemployed 30,000,000 families’s had no means of support and there wasn’t enough money in the treasury to meet the Federal payroll. At Roosevelt swearing in ceremony the stated “let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”, he promised exercise broad executive powers to wage a war against the emergency.

Cure
In the spring of 1933 the new deal started to unfold with a chaotic three months burst of legislation known as “The hundred days” Roosevelt launched the new deal with record breaking legislation in his first hundred days in office on March 5th, the day after his inauguration, Roosevelt ordered every bank closed for a four day (later extended to 8) day bank holiday as he called it. On March 9th the president introduced emergency banking legislation which the house passed sight unseen, and which senate sanctioned later on the same day. Roosevelt signed it that evening (Davidson, Giennap, et- al 2008 p.736) The emergency bill contained a plan to let sound banks open immediately with government support. Troubled banks would be handed over to the federal “conservators, “who would guide them to solvency. On Sunday, March 12, Roosevelt explained to the public what measures were being taken, it was the first of many fireside chats. When the banks reopened the next day deposits exceeded withdrawals. “To restore confidence in government, Roosevelt pushed through the Economy Act in March 1933, slashing $400 million in veteran’s payments and 100 million in salaries from the federal budget. To guard against future stock crashes, financial reforms gave government greater authority to manage the currency and regulate stock transactions. For liberals and conservatives alike, the Great Depression serves as a natural debating point that "justifies" or "refutes" various economic policies

To understand the Great Depression , it is important to know the theories of John Maynard Keynes "father of modern economics" (Kangas, S. 1997) “ John Maynard Keynes is doubtlessly one the most important figures in the entire history of economics. He revolutionized economics with his classic book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936). This is generally regarded as probably the most influential social science treatise of the 20th Century, in that it quickly and permanently changed the way the world looked at the economy and the role of government in society. No other single book, before or since, has had quite such an impact” (newschool.edu). “John Maynard Keynes had actually recommended the kind of deficit spending that Roosevelt was using. Keynes startling theory called on government not to balance the budget but to spend its way out of the depression. When prosperity returned he argued the government could pay off its debts through taxes. This deliberate policy of “counter cycling” action (spending in bad times, taxing in good) was designed to compensate for swings in the economy” (Davidson, Giennap, et al 2008 p. 755).
In April 1933, Roosevelt dropped the gold standard and began experimenting with the value of the dollar to boost prices. Later that spring, The Glass-Steagall Banking Act restricted speculations by banks and more importantly created federal insurance for bank deposits of up $2,500.Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the results were that few banks failed for the rest of the decade then the best year in the twenties. The Securities Exchange Act (1934) established a new federal agency, the Securities Exchange Commission.” (Davidson, Giennap, et al 2008 p.736 ).

To meet the need to alleviate starvation, Congress created the Federal Emergency Relief Administration in May of 1933. In two the two years FERA’s existence it furnished more than 1 billion in grants. To states local areas and private charities Mortgage relief came in 1934 for the millions who had lost their homes, in the Home Owners Loan Act. Congress passed the soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment act (1936), in it farmers were now subsidize for practicing conservation and the other agencies try to help impoverished farmers. The Farm Credit Administration refinance about a fifth of all farm mortgages (Davidson, Giennap, et al 2008 p. 739).

In 1935 the resettlement administration gave marginal farmers a fresh start by moving them to better land. Beginning in 1937 the farm security administration furnished low interest loans to help tenants by family farms. In neither case did the rural poor have enough political leverage to obtain sufficient funds from Congress. Fewer than 5000 family’s (of the projected 500,000” were resettled, and less than 2% of tenant farmers receive loans (Davidson, Giennap, et al 2008 p.739-40).
“In the second new deal of 1935 – 1936, a year voters had broken and president by returning the party in power to office, giving the democrats the largest majority in decades.” The emphasis shipped in from planning and collaboration with business to greater regulation of business, broader relief, and boulder reforms to protect Americans against a perilous plummet (Davidson, Giennap, et al 2008 p. 740). The Social Security Act passed in 1935; it sought help to who could not help themselves. To assist the elderly and other people suffering from the Great Depression, Roosevelt enacted his New Deal. Roosevelt hoped that his New Deal would allow Americans to cope with the Great Depression, would help end the current economic downturn, and would help prevent another depression from occurring in the future. “The Social Security Act probably has had the longest lasting impact of any of Roosevelt's New Deal programs. This legislation, implemented in 1935, collected one percent of workers' wages to be set aside for the workers' retirement. Businesses also had to contribute an amount equal to their employees' contributions. Once workers reached retirement age, they would receive this money back in monthly payments, assisting these people in supporting themselves when they were less employable due to their age. At first, the monthly stipends varied from ten dollars to eighty-five dollars per month. In the beginning the Social Security Act excluded domestic servants and farm laborers, but it eventually also included these employees as well” (ohiohistorycentral.org).
Roosevelt responded to the growing hostility of business by bucking the wealthy and powerful in 1935. The revenue act in 1935(the wealth tax) threatened the rich with high taxes, although Congress had the last word because in its final version of the law, it levied only moderate taxes on the comparatively small number a high incomes and inheritances (Davidson, Giennap, et al 2008 p.743) .

“The Banking Act of 1935 centralized the money market in the Federal Reserve Board. By controlling interest rates and the money supply, the government increased its abilities to compensate for the swings in the economy” (Davidson, Giennap, et al 2008 p743). “Utilities Holding Company act (1935) limited the size of utility companies. Those giant holding companies produce high profits for speculators and higher prices for consumers. Although Congress deluded the act, as it had a wealth tax, New Dealers could still claim the political victory” (Davidson, Giennap, et al 2008 p.743).

By 1935 the Nation had achieved some measure of recovery, but businessmen and bankers were turning more and more against Roosevelt's New Deal program. They feared his experiments, were appalled because he had taken the Nation off the gold standard and allowed deficits in the budget, and disliked the concessions to labor. Roosevelt responded with a new program of reform: Social Security, heavier taxes on the wealthy, new controls over banks and public utilities, and an enormous work relief program for the unemployed political sociologists over the past twenty years. In particularity the New Deal has served as a major empirical context for developing, testing, or applying broader theoretical models of political change in the United States” (whitehouse.gov)

The house enacted the Securities Act of 1933, often referred to as the "truth in securities" law, the Securities Act of 1933 had two basic objectives: require that investors receive financial and other significant information concerning securities being offered for public sale; and prohibit deceit, misrepresentations, and other fraud in the sale of securities. There have been many new laws enacted since. “The most recent was the 2002 Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, which was passed after a public demand which grew due to the scandalous exposure of several high level financial scandals in which a number of big corporate giants were involved. A number of Fortune 500 companies were found involved in these scandals and the investor confidence, had hit rock bottom. The purpose of Sarbanes Oxley Act was to empower the Securities and Exchange Commission of the U.S. so that it can keep an eye on the corporate governance and the investor's confidence in the market shall be reinstated. Despite overflowing amounts of legalese, there are two major purposes of the Sarbanes Oxley Act. They are to ensure transparency and accountability by implementation of Sarbanes Oxley compliance. These purposes are to be fulfilled at the pain of fine or punishment or both. President Bush stated that, “no law of such significance to businesses has been signed since the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the U.S. which reflected the significance of this act” Bling, K. (n.a).

From the right, there charges of some wealthy business executives and conservatives that Roosevelt was the enemy of private property and a dictator in the making despite the fact that Roosevelt’s methods did save the economy (Davidson, Giennap, et al 2008 p.741).
They are of the same kind of mentality, that fight everything that Obama presents such as the spending programs that congress passed to stave off job losses. and stimulate the economy.
We need politicians with the political courage to stop the current trends and put back methods that kept Wall Street under bit and bridle and yet despite all of the experience of the greed without reason or restraint still prevails.

The 1987 Wall Street crash served to "clearing the decks" so that only the "fittest" survive. In the wake of crisis, a massive concentration of financial power has taken place. From these transformations, the "institutional speculator" emerged as a powerful actor overshadowing and often undermining bona fide business interests. Using a variety of instruments, these institutional actors appropriate wealth from the real economy. They often dictate the fate of companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Totally removed from entrepreneurial functions in the real economy, they have the power of precipitating large industrial corporations into bankruptcy.
In 1993, a report of Germany’s Bundesbank had already warned that trade in derivatives could potentially "trigger chain reactions and endanger the financial system as a whole". While committed to financial deregulation, the Chairman of the US Federal Reserve Board Mr. Alan Greenspan had warned that: "Legislation is not enough to prevent a repeat of the Barings crisis in a high tech World where transactions are carried out at the push of the button". According to Greenspan "the efficiency of global financial markets, has the capability of transmitting mistakes at a far faster pace throughout the financial system in ways which were unknown a generation ago..."What was not revealed to public opinion was that "these mistakes", resulting from large-scale speculative transactions, were the source of unprecedented accumulation of private wealth.

By 1995, the daily turnover of foreign exchange transactions (US$ 1300 billion) had exceeded the world’s official foreign exchange reserves estimated at US$ 1202 billion. The command over privately-held foreign exchange reserves in the hands of "institutional speculators" far exceeds the limited capabilities of central banks, – i.e. the latter acting individually or collectively are unable to fight the tide speculative activity (Chossudovsky 2008).

According to the Economic Policy Institute, China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) was supposed to improve the U.S. trade deficit with China and create good jobs in the United States. But those promises have gone unfulfilled: the total U.S. trade deficit with China reached $235 billion in 2006. Between 2001 and 2006, this growing deficit eliminated 1.8 million U.S. jobs The world’s biggest retailer, U.S.-based Wal-Mart was responsible for $27 billion in U.S. imports from China in 2006 and 11% of the growth of the total U.S. trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2006. Wal-Mart’s trade deficit with China alone eliminated nearly 200,000 U.S. jobs in this period. Jobs in the manufacturing sector pay higher wages and provide better benefits than most other industries, especially for workers with less than a college education. China has achieved its rapidly growing trade surpluses by purchasing more than $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury bills and other government securities over the past few years in order to artificially and illegally reduces the value of its currency and thereby lowers the cost of its exports to the United States and other countries. It has also repressed the labor rights of its workers and suppressed their wages, making its products artificially cheap and further subsidizing its exports. Wal-Mart has aided China’s abuse of labor rights and its violations of internally recognized norms of fair trade behavior by providing a vast and growing conduit for the distribution of artificially cheap and subsidized Chinese exports to the United States. The Wal-Mart effect: Its Chinese imports have displaced nearly 200,000 U.S. jobs (Scott.R 2006).

During 'National Prohibition" the United States of America banned the transportation, sale, and production of liquor, this was done by way of the 18th amendment to the constitution on January 16, 1919. Soon, one of America's largest industries was completely wiped off the face of the country, or was it? Many liquor serving establishments kept on operating during prohibition. Soon, the industry was reaching profits that it could have never before achieved because of the status given to it by being banned (the forbidden fruit). Organized crime grew rapidly and mass killings and gang wars were fought over the trickling supply of liquor. This was the era of gangsters, including the most famous gangster of all, Al Capone. Music and other media also changed during National Prohibition, ushering in jazz. Gangster movies soon became the most popular genre of film, reflecting the careless lawbreaking of the time. After a long period of rampart crime and embarrassment, for the government, the politicians finally realized the error of their ways and ended National Prohibition, but not before it left a profound stain in the history of our nation. In 1932 , within a month after Franklin Delano Roosevelt's election, the alcohol content allowed in beer was raised to 3.2 percent, soon afterward the 18th was Amendment was repealed it was the only constitutional amendment to ever be repealed(Thinkquest.Org).
We should have learned our lesson with prohibition of alcohol, which had instigated illegal activities where innocent bystanders were killed and huge syndicates of crime were formed, but we didn’t because making drugs illegal caused an underground illegal drug culture of gangsters many of the same problems prohibition caused are happening again. Creating law that made drugs illegal did more to develop crime, illegal business and incarcerate otherwise law abiding citizens. The so called war on drugs is costly and a losing proposition. A Washington Post article stated “Thirty-six years and hundreds of billions of dollars after President Richard M. Nixon launched the war on drugs, consumers worldwide are taking more narcotics and criminals are making fatter profits than ever before. The syndicates that control narcotics production and distribution reap the profits from an annual turnover of $400 billion to $500 billion. And terrorist organizations such as the Taliban are using this money to expand their operations and buy ever more sophisticated weapons, threatening Western security.

In the past two years, the drug war has become the Taliban's most effective recruiter in Afghanistan. Afghanistan's Muslim extremists have reinvigorated themselves by supporting and taxing the countless peasants who are dependent one way or another on the opium trade, their only reliable source of income The Taliban is becoming richer and stronger by the day, especially in the east and south of “The war on drugs is defeating the war on terror” (Glenny, M 2007).
The war on drugs is costly and losing propositions in my opinion. The success of the illegal narcotics industry isn't confined to Afghanistan. Business is booming in South America, the Middle East, Africa, and across the United States “(Glenny, M 2007).

Since 1980, the country's prison population has quadrupled, with the South accounting for nearly half of that increase. In 2008, the Pew Center on the States released a study revealing that the United States continues to lock up record numbers of people in jail and prison -- one out of every 100 people is behind bars. Indeed the South continues to lead in U.S. prison population growth, and the rising costs of incarceration have taken a definite significant toll on Southern state budget. Facing south” reported in June 2008 that Kentucky, which has experienced the nation's largest prison population increase, suffered with state budget woes hampered by the amount of money the state spent on prisons. In its 2008 study Pew found that total state spending on corrections--including bonds and federal contributions--topped $49 billion in 2007, up from $12 billion in 1987. The Pew Center's Public Safety Performance Project has recently projected that state and federal prison populations -- under current policies -- will grow by more than 190,000 by 2011, to about 1.7 million, at a cost to the states of $27.5 billion, reports the Associated Press" (southern state .org). At least half of the monies we spend on prison and law enforcement, court processes etc. are because of the drug crimes.

Although President Roosevelt’s New Deal was somewhat successful, it failed to achieve full recovery, in my opinion that was because of the forces of interests that constantly lobbied to dilute his initiatives. “In the 1930s and 1940s, southern representatives possessed a structural veto over Democratic party policy aims, over the course of the New Deal, wartime, and post-war congresses, their utilization of this potential increased steadily” (Katznelson, L., Geiger, K., and Kryder, D. 2003). “The consequences of Southern power have also been widely acknowledged, Southern members of Congress were able to use their leverage to ensure that New Deal social programs did not provide sufficient benefits for African Americans to disrupt the Southern agrarian economy. The overall impact of New Deal relief programs was thereby blunted upon implementation” (Manza 2000).

Today the southern Republicans are trying to obstruction much of the progressive legislation, President Obama and The House has been putting forward. Even though there are always many points of views on how to handle the economy, blending ideas of the progressives and liberals, who believe in government and its responsibility to the people, as well as the view of conservatives who feel that government regulation is a hindrance to large business and can get in the way of profits.

Recently we had the same symptoms and consequences that have occurred in the 20s and 30s. Perhaps in studying the past, and paralleling events they in common with the present, we might be able to offset some of the problems we are having now. History is like a mirror, reflecting back our present and sometimes we can change the future, through seeing the successful solutions and actions of the past.


Reference
Anonymous (2005) Prohibition the Nobel experiment retrieved on April 4, from http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00492/index.html
Bling, K. (n.a.). Purpose of Sarbanes Oxley Act, Retrieved on April 4, 2010 from http://ezinearticles.com/?Purpose-Of-Sarbanes-Oxley-Act&id=713192
Chossudovsky, M. (2008). Global Financial Meltdown: Sweeping Deregulation of the US Banking System Retrieve April 4, 2010 from http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10588
Davidson, J. W., Gienapp, W. E., et al. (2008). Nation of nations: a narrative history of the American Republic (6th ed., Vol. 2). Boston: McGraw Hill
Kangas, S. (1997) "The Great Depression: Its Causes and Cure," Liberalism Resurgent Retrieved March 22, 2010 from http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/THE_GREAT_DEPRESSION.htm
Katznelson, L., Geiger, K., and Kryder, D. (2003). Limiting Liberalism: The Southern Veto in Congress, 1933-1950, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 108, No. 2 (Summer, 1993), pp. 283-306 The Academy of Political Science http://www.jstor.org/stable/2152013
(Katznelson, I., Geiger, K. and Kryder, D. 2003). John Maynard Keynes, 1881946
Retrieved from http://homepage.newschool.edu/het//profiles/keynes.htm on March 22, 2010
Manza, J. (2000). Political Sociological Models of the U.S. New Deal, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 26 (2000), pp. 297-322 Published by: Annual Reviews Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/223446 Accessed: 22/03/2010 21:11
Scott, R. (2006). The Wal-Mart effect: Its Chinese imports have displaced nearly 200,000 U.S. jobs Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved April 4, 2010 from http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/ib235/
"Social Security Act", Ohio History Central, July 1, 2005. Retrieved March 22, 2010 from http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=1433retrieved
White house about the presidents/ Roosevelt. Retrieved on March 22, 2010 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/franklindroosevelt
USA Government Made Easy retrieved on March 22, 2010 from http://answers.usa.gov/cgibin/gsa_ict.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=822
Landler, M. & Jacobs, A. (April 03 2010) Amid Thaw, Obama Talks with Chinese Leader NY Times, Retrieved on April 4, 2010 from http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=27039&article=Amid+Thaw%2C+Obama+Talks+With+Chinese+Leader
Glenny, M. (2007). The lost war. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 2, 2010 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/08/17/AR2007081701716.html
Retrieved April 2, 2010 from http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/01/budget-crises-force-states-to-rethink-prison-policies.html