Obama’s message of “hope” has resonated among independents, and even women (Obama beat Hillary among women overall). The Democrats in Iowa voted for a message and philosophy. Obama’s is one of reconciliation, hope, and optimism. To this I say “Bah Humbug.”

I don’t want a candidate who “hopes” that change will occur. Many “independents” seem to have made a last minute decision to vote for Obama in hopes that he will “bring the country together” and transcend “old politics.” Obama’s Reaganesque tone of American pride and idealism uncomfortably smacks of a Reaganism that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Obama believes that hope can defeat all—or at least win elections. As America, we can come together, bring all parties to the table, and solve the nation’s problems.

Right, just about the time that the wolves lie down with the sheep and Lee Scott has an overnight epiphany and sees the value of unions. It is indeed true that America faces many ominous issues: economic inequality, climate change, world hunger, emergent diseases, and US legitimacy in a global context.

This is precisely why I want the most cynical bastard in the race. Let me explain: If my arm gets chopped off, I could sit in a room with some pain relievers and Miracle Grow and “hope” it grows back. Chances are that’s not going to happen. I don’t want a candidate to react to the aforementioned issues by saying “With a little hard work and hope, we can bring in every party and come to a consensus.” I want a candidate that will say, “Holy shit! We better do something about this or we’re toast!”

For example, take climate change. The Bush Administration’s policy has been one of “hope.” We have hoped that humans don’t contribute, and that it is not as big of a deal as the scientists say. We should bring in every party, include Exxon-Mobil and the think tank they fund to stall the issue long enough to prevent action.

This is Obama’s attitude problem. He speaks of optimism, but I’d rather have someone with a pessimistic view of climate change. In the latter case, the president would be more compelled to action. Maybe the president would stop pretending that there isn’t a real economic crisis looming, or that health insurance companies have the best interests of their clients at heart. Obama can hope that health insurance companies will accept everyone and provide adequate care without a mandate, but seeing as they have a profit-motive in denying care, that is no more than a crazy delusion.

Take the economy. Sure, one can be optimistic that the US’s GDP is growing and the stock market seems to be getting along. One can focus on those statistics and hope that the wealth trickles down onto the little guy (like forgetting that excluding pension funds, the bottom 80% of the US owns 7.9% of stock, whereas the top 1% owns 40 %.). The economy seems to be doing good for some parties (that is, the percentage of the population with a weekend home in the Hamptons and a house resident named Jeeves), but what about the 57 million Americans (with households including 1 in 4 children) who do not receive welfare, but are an injury or layoff away from falling below the poverty line? How about the 35 million who went hungry? How about the 200 that will freeze to death in 2008 because they have no shelter?

Let us not forget what rose-colored glasses did in our excursion in the Middle East. Let us not forget that someone can hope so much that problems go away that one forgets about them. It is one thing to have hoped that people had evacuation plans in New Orleans, and another to have buses on the ground ready to get them the hell out if the worst happened. How about hoping that the wealthy developers will include lower income housing to generously cut the value of the other real estate they are building in New Orleans?

Obama is willing to save a seat at the table for the large corporate interests and fellow Republicans for the issues he will hope to address. Edwards recognizes that if it were that simple, it would have been done by now. Let’s not forget how many times I have heard Bush claim that he listened to the other side.

I want somebody who recognizes that organizations have different interests. In some cases, that means one will have to fight to get what is better for the other 80% of us. Edwards spent his life as a lawyer fighting corporations who would not pay victims of their crimes. He knows they won’t be constructive. I don’t want a candidate that will tell me that he will sit down with other Republicans; I want a candidate that will tell me which group of Republicans he can work with on which issues to split the party to his advantage.

This is why I refuse to drink the Kool Aid that solutions are as simple as hope and optimism. Barack Obama speaks in terms of broad feelings of hope and uniting the country, but he has yet to step up with specific policy proposals. This is why I want the crazy son of a bitch ready to box it out for the other 80%; this is why I want John Edwards to get the nomination.

I. A Good Excuse Not to Eat Your Vegetables

A quick review of America’s food regulatory structure reveals the serious American food problem.

• The CDC finds that 76 million Americans get sick, 325,000 are hospitalized, and 5,000 die each year from food borne illness.
• Produce is estimated to contribute to 13% of outbreaks, more than any other food category.
• Domestic produce is largely unregulated, and the FDA can only “recommend” good farming practices and not mandate them. These practices are called “Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs)” for specific crops. All guidelines are voluntary, essentially relying on businesses to govern themselves.
• A 2004 survey of New York Farm workers, taken by Dr. Robert Gravani of Cornell University, found that around 30% of the farmers had even heard of the GAPs for their crop.
• Imported food is no better—especially produce. Around a quarter of the fruit that Americans consume is imported. Imports of food, like imports in general, are being brought in at exponentially increasing rates as “free trade” thrives.
• The FDA only inspects 1% of the food being imported.
• The FDA is not able to go to other countries and look at their production methods to verify that they meet U.S. Guidelines. If the U.S. were to do so, and attempt to enforce regulations (it currently does not have), then it could be brought before the WTO and forced to accept the foreign country’s assertion that the food meets standards.
• The USDA does evaluate in other countries, and inspects 100% of meat and poultry that come to U.S. ports.
• The average American eats 260 pounds of imported foods annually, about 13% of their diet. 12 agencies are responsible for oversight of food imports.
• The number of shipments of food imports has risen from 4 million in 2000 to 9 million in 2006. Of the 361 ports where these products enter the U.S., there were FDA officials on sight at 90 ports the last time they were counted. Today, the agency is estimated to only cover 45 ports.
• Of the 9 million import shipments in 2006, only 0.2% were actually tested in a lab.
• To get a more reasonable amount of FDA-regulated foods inspected, like 20%, the FDA needs around 3,200 full-time inspectors and $540 million.
• China is a particular area of concern in the wake of the pet food, toothpaste, and wheat gluten outbreaks. China is the sixth largest supplier of agricultural products to the U.S., and is ranked third when seafood is added to the calculation.
• China has problems enforcing their regulations because many rural suppliers are too remote and small scale. Also, China has a profit motive to export as much as possible. However, the FDA must assume they are adhering to safe practices.
• The FDA is required to rely upon Customs to notify them when a shipment is suspected of not being to standard. This allows for foreign businesses to slip bad products through ports they know their product is likely to escape regulation.
• The US is forced to first accept results from “independent” private food testing labs if a company offers them. The US is then required to go through a sampling process to test the shipment again. This takes added time, and some bad shipments may slip through.
• The FDA is unable to mandate or really enforce GAPs affecting manure sanitation, or hygiene for producers.
• As a result, the FDA generally acts as a reactor after and outbreak occurs rather than trying to prevent outbreaks.
• The FDA lacks the resources to enforce or sufficiently monitor producers or the food supply. Over the past decade, the FDA’s food safety branch has lost about 1,000 jobs. Since 1972, the number of FDA inspections has declined by 81%. From 2003-2006, the FDA’s field staff has dropped 12% and federal inspections have dropped 47%.
• For 2006, the FDA’s food program was $135 million short, equivalent to a 24% cut.
• Bush’s proposed 2008 budget gives more money to the USDA’s food program (which inspects meats, poultry, and egg products) than the FDA’s, despite the fact that the USDA regulates 20% of the food supply, while the FDA is responsible for the other 80%. This can be ascribed to the fact that the FDA is run by legislation over 100 years old (Safe Food Act). There are provisions in the USDA’s statutes that cause a guaranteed amount of funding (even though that is arguably not enough either, it still prevents legislatures from cutting funds from it).
• The Food Safety Administration does not have the authority to issue a timely mandatory recall for a food product if a company does not voluntarily issue a recall.
• The American Public also seems to agree. A poll published in March 2006 by the University of Minnesota reveals that U.S. citizens are willing to pay $1.13 on food protection for every $1 spent on fighting terrorism.

II. Chop Suey

This issue transcends party lines. This is why it is a great issue for socialists and Republocrats alike to find common ground. Both funding and resources have been cut from the FDA over previous decades. For instance, the FDA has been as much a victim of the Clinton Administration’s Rubinomics (this economic incompetence merits an entirely separate post) as Bush’s supply-side conservatism.

The FDA, along with many other governmental programs, has become victims of a larger ideological shift—that of free market fundamentalism. The past three decades’ economic policy has been built upon the idea that the market is unquestionably the most efficient mechanism to govern people. Thomas Frank illustrates this ideological shift in his book One Market Under God. Under this assumption, all government is seen as inefficient, bureaucratic, and authoritarian.

This is why even the top tier Democrats pledge to have small, but “efficient” government and squirm on the issue of raising taxes. The FDA is a clear case that enforcement requires adequate funding. It is simply not possible to ensure an imported food is safe when only 1% of imports are able to be tested. The FDA simply does not have enough inspectors or resources to monitor anymore.

The idea of more “choices” and a market-based solution is appealing for one-line political ads, but it does not apply in all aspects of the economy. When there are items where a demand is guaranteed, the supply and demand rules cannot ethically regulate the inelastic markets. American food safety is one such case.

The government is required to ensure that the boundaries in which the market works are defined and safe. This does not mean the government is deciding what brand of cheesy nacho chips you are buying, just that it doesn’t give you kidney failure when you eat it.

The market alternative stretches even most conservative ethics. Leaving regulation to the “honesty” of the corporations for self-regulation has failed in the past. Recall Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle (of socialist aims), which was responsible for some of the statues regulating food today.

The other market route is that firms crop up that “certify” food is safe and consumers must pay (either through increased price or directly to the firm for the service) to see how safe their food is. Invariably, those who cannot afford to pay lose out and die. Sure, the brand will lose credibility, but only with the publicity of multiple deaths. Corporations currently have even less enforceable rules governing them to enforce bribery and corruption—people speak of bureaucratic inefficiency but fail to realize it can pale in comparison to corporate inefficiency and dishonesty.

The FDA is not the only institution starved of the funds required to adequately fulfill its purpose—the same can be said for education, healthcare, Social Security, and general infrastructure (government roads, buildings, trains, etc.).

Where to get the funds? Well, the extremely inflated military expenditures that make up arguably half of the government’s expenditure. Do we really need missile defense systems or more advanced hydrogen bombs? Not starting wars in the Middle East may also be helpful…

Or how about actually making large corporations and their rich managers actually PAY THEIR TAXES—or, god forbid, actually raise their taxes?

Using old figures (2000-2001), the government gave corporations $60 billion a year in industry specific tax breaks and $75 billion a year in subsidies. In terms of the social cost that corporations take on topics from lobbying to pollution, Ralph Estes, Professor of business at American University, estimated that corporations cost society $2.6 trillion in 1994.

One specific example of tax evasion was revealed by Seagate Technologies in their 1999 annual report. Using tax holidays in Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, and China, the corporation recorded $1.6 billion in earnings that would have provided $565 million in taxes.

The taxes on corporations have decreased amid the neoliberal idiocy of the previous decades. In 1950, corporate taxes were 26.5% of total receipts, whereas they were just 10.2% in 2000.

America needs to break out of this deadly cycle of cutting government programs before giving them a chance. Washington leaders cut vital funds from government programs on government inefficiency. Not surprisingly, the programs lack the authority and resources to actually do their job. The leaders see the government programs inevitably fail and use the failure to cut further resources. American food safety is an issue that vividly illustrates this deadly cycle, and should be at the tip of every progressive’s tongue.

Obviously, the food safety issue marks a topic where many can agree that something must be done. It is a winner issue for those who want more government support, and serves progressives in their struggle to debunk the neoliberal ideology that has chipped away at American society in recent decades.

———–

DeWaal, Caroline Smith. “Addressing Modern Hazards in the Food Supply: Ensuring the Safety of Fresh and Fresh-Cut Produce.” Testimony before U.S. House Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture. 15 May 2007. 26 Jul. 2007 .

DeWaal, Caroline Smith. “Import Inspection Failures and What Must Be Done.” Testimony before U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. 17 Jul. 2007. 26 Jul. 2007 .

Food and Drug Administration. Summary of FDA’s FY 2008 Budget. <http://www.fda.gov/oc/oms/ofm/budget/2008/summary.html>.