Thanks to the way in which the Ukrainian territory of Crimea chose to hastily declare its intent to reject Ukrainian rule in the heat of an armed invasion and Russia’s preparations to annex the former Soviet territory, the crisis in Ukraine is certain to either escalate or sputter out with long-lasting consequences for Russia. Had the referendum been conducted in a more careful and legitimate way, Ukraine and the West may have begrudgingly accepted the result and allowed Putin to keep his spoils, which would have cost Russia little more than the trust and unguarded cooperation of the International Community.
In the eyes of Ukrainians, these actions will not be forgotten for generations. In accordance, anti-Russian sentiments and movements will spread like wildfire, burning any chance of a constructive Ukrainian-Russian partnership in the foreseeable future. This means Ukraine will become far more pro-Western than would have been possible. At the same time, spreading fear and civil unrest can only translate into greater instability and the rise of anti-Russian extremist groups. In turn, Russia will seek to eliminate this perceived threat before it can become reality; therefore, future Russian aggression against Ukraine is likely forthcoming and must be stopped. In the eyes of Putin’s government, they are simply acting as the West does, thus any manipulations of the facts are just as valid now as when the West does it. In the eyes of Pro-Russian Crimeans, their referendum was a valid act of democracy, thus Putin’s argument appears valid. The difference between the Western, Ukrainian view and the Russian, Crimean view is that the ill-democratic referendum was not truly impartial or representative. More importantly, democracy only functions when there is balance, i.e. democratic actions must be balanced with the rule of Law. Without this balance, voter impulses tend to be destructive to the democratic process, thus the world must regard the referendum as invalid. In the eyes of Westerners, Russia’s actions are seen as an act of piracy, because the territory is owned by the Ukrainian People and the People of Crimea must follow Ukrainian law, including when they want to secede. Meanwhile, the West cannot tolerate Russia so blatantly undermining the credibility of the International Community, despite its size and influence. In fact, its size and influence mean the West must react. Consequently, the US and Europe wisely began sanctioning leaders within Russia’s government with other efforts likely on the way. Either way, the West must severely punish Russia’s indiscretions now or face future acts of aggression, including those against other neighbors and states economically dependent on Russia.
Comments
The Obama Administration is planning to reverse the decision of the George W. Bush Administration to loosen policies governing overtime pay for salaried workers and add new requirements of its own. Certainly, businesses have legitimate reasons to be concerned as payroll is often one of their largest expenses. That said, it probably should be and must reflect the value of the labor consumed. After all, businesses function solely because employees provide for the interests of their employers, i.e. do the work. In turn, employees need adequate compensation from their employers to provide for their interests, e.g. living expenses. This is the basics of capitalism and the foundation of the labor market.
Overtime pay serves two purposes, which are both interests of the employee and the Nation. First, overtime discourages employers from overworking/abusing their employees. Second, it encourages employers to hire new employees as it lowers the relative cost of hiring a new worker, thus overworking current employees is less attractive. It does not discourage new hiring as employers hire or extend work hours when there is work to be done due to increased demand for a company’s products or services, though the trend of abusing subcontracting may encourage this. Unfortunately, the need for salaried workers, who often find their work schedules less structured, muddies the water. For those salaried workers in mid- and high- income level fields, the value and often-specialized nature of their “labor” tends affords them the leverage needed to negotiate an actual competitive salary. In other words, those who earn more often have greater means and options should need to leave their current employer for a pay raise. Currently at issue is the treatment of low-end salaried workers. The Obama Administration’s effort is an attempt to prevent companies from using the so-called “white collar” exemption to suppress the wages of workers who happen to have some minor supervisorial or managerial role. Currently, a salaried worker making more than $455 a week, or about $23, 660 per year, is exempt from overtime. This means companies have the ability to force these workers to work as much as they need them to without paying them an extra dime, thus employers are encouraged to make as many employees salaried workers as possible. Clearly, the need for labor laws stems from the need of our Country to foster a healthy economy and to use the leverage of the state to represent the interests of the American People, but businesses also have interests in labor laws. Standards for labor practices help businesses compete in healthier ways. Instead of competing by cutting labor costs, businesses are empowered by labor laws to provide adequate compensation for their employees, so they can compete by making better products and offering better services. More importantly, salaried workers are often employees in significant positions. Shortchanging the leadership and workhorses of your business is a great way to undermine productivity and discourage talented individuals from seeking greater responsibility. Under a capitalist mindset, taking on greater responsibility and doing more work must result in a greater benefit relative to the greater effort. If not, employers are training employees to adhere to lower standards while encouraging them to not try. For salaried workers, there is rarely any extra pay for overtime, even straight pay. Labor laws make it competitive to pay employees adequately. With Russian President Vladimir Putin’s apparent plans to fortify Russia’s defenses and sphere of influence against Western threats moving forward, he is operating under two major assumptions that may well be faulted.
First, he perceives Russia to have greater leverage/power in this situation. Certainly, many economies of the world, especially those of European countries, have become dependent on Russia to varying degrees while Russia has gotten wealthier thanks to soaring oil prices and its massive reserves, so the Russian government is likely feeling stronger. Although Putin is likely fully aware that US military power, especially when coupled with the might of our allies, is far superior to Russia military power, even if his allies are willing to engage the West military, he is trying to utilize the strategic strength of a rogue nation. When countries like Iran or North Korea decide they do not want to follow the conventions of the International Community, our need to keep peace and stability alive is used against us. With a country the size of Russia, this is especially true. Unfortunate for Putin, he has not properly accessed how the size of Russia works against his plans. Russia is so big that the United State and the West cannot ignore Putin’s disruptive behavior, especially when Russian leaders are essentially threatening to expand their intrusive behavior. This means the world must eventually unite against Putin to rebalance international interests and preserve the stability of the International Community. Second, fear of Russia has long driven support for America. Putin apparently has the silver tongues of fools in his ear who promote Russia adapting its economy to have zero dependency on America. The hardy Peoples of Russia have a very long history of survival, but that history is not necessarily built on adaption; it is one built on enduring hardship. Even if it is technically possible for Russia to have zero dependency on the US economy, the Russia People enjoy the many fruits of our modern economy and there is no reason for the Russian People to give up those benefits. The Russian People are not backwards nor are they so isolated that they do not see Putin is the one resurrecting the old Cold War conflict. After all, the most pressing threat of our era is global terrorism, which is fact Putin has often used to crash civil liberties and opponents. As such, the Russian People will ultimately have a choice between their modern way of life and Putin. Is Crimea? Meanwhile, America is the country that adapts. Given a threat, the American People can change their way of thinking and their way of life on a dime. If Russia seeks to economically hurt the United States and the rest of the West through its newfound economy resurgence and alliances, it is America that will quickly free its self of things like foreign imports by dismantling free trade agreements and other policies. In fact, Russia’s actions to date will probably help reinforce confidence in the American economy as the world’s safe haven. In turn, this could help push industries back to America where they know their companies, intellectual poverty, and financial resources will not be subject to random seizures by governments looking to hurt the West. At any rate, Putin has likely already done more long-term damage to the Russian economy. This is, of course, not to mention how quickly the American People will bolster our military might to counteract a credible Russian threat. When the power of US Senators is undermined, they tend to get very aggressive. The CIA’s apparent hacking of the Senate’s computer networks may even lead to the Department of Justice filing criminal charges against CIA officials. Although this reinforces the notion that the members of Congress expect special treatment, which infuriates most Americans, it also demonstrates those who are supposedly overseeing the CIA and the rest of our national security apparatus have no control over the black ops parts of these agencies. Consequently, it is ever more obvious that the national security agencies of the world need reigned in while these latest revelations may well lead to some significant action against those who decide to so blatantly skirt/violate our civil liberties. At the very least, our political leaders may be angered enough to start digging into what the CIA and NSA have actually been doing. Hopefully, this will lead to some more official answers as to what they have been doing wrong.
On Monday, March 10, 2014, Senate Democrats planned to spend all night discussing climate change. Where Republican Senator Rand Paul tried to use his 13-hour filibuster to block the nomination of John Brennan and Texas Democratic State Senator Wendy Davis used her 13-hour filibuster against tighter restrictions on abortion to advanced her political career, Senate Democrats hope this latest copycat stunt will lead to greater coverage for the issue of climate change. Unfortunately, it seems this type of political grandstanding is only useful when elected officials are trying to impede government or looking to advance their interests. Paul and Davis were successful at getting so much attention, because Paul was the first to do something like that in a very long time while Democrats liked the idea of a Democrat doing the same thing. In other words, there was a sense of novelty and genuineness to these actions.
The more often these events happen, the more they seem to be about drawing attention to public officials who are looking to reenergize their reelection campaigns. At the same time, climate change is a very important issue, but it is not one of the most pressing issues of the day in the minds of voters. In fact, it gives Republican’s fodder to use against Democrats in elections, because most people view the established solutions to climate change as damaging to our already hurting economy while the Democrats already appear disconnected from the need for economic growth. Only if Democrats had been pushing credible, in the minds of voters, solutions to climate change that have actually been shown to spur economic growth would the climate change issue resonate with voters. If anything, Democrats should have used their sleepover to focus on economic inequality, tax inequality, etc. More importantly, the reason that these types of protests can only be used to impede the functionality of government or to help politicians get noticed is the same reason the American People are so angry with our government. The people in Washington seem to think change happens when Washington decides change will happen. The real power in our country stems from the American People. The only time politicians change their minds when it comes to key issues is when the American People pressure them to do so. If Democrats want Republican support to deal with climate change, or any other Democratic priority, they need to take effective, balanced solutions directly to the American People, not talk about it in the Senate. |
Read old posts
April 2020
|