Economics
Times Record "Sustain Maine" op-ed series
Four More Years' - Long-lasting Impacts
November 2005
David Vail
PDF format
»
Many of us were surprised on November 4th, when exit polls revealed that the #1 presidential election issue was not war in Iraq, war on terror, or America’s shaky economy, but instead a particular set of “moral values.” Voter concerns about a healthy environment and a sustainable economy were virtually non-existent. The polls suggested considerable backing for the president’s peculiar spin on moral values, especially in “red states.” Unborn fetuses have rights; but the adults they become will have no right to a healthy environment. Nor, when they become elders, will there be any guaranteed right to retirement security.
Back in 2000, the Supreme Court’s coronation of a Wild West oilman seemed ominous to “blue state” voters who believe a healthy environment is crucial for human well-being. In 2004, John Kerry, a passionate environmentalist, made little impression with his plans for energy security, environmental protection, and nature conservation. Indeed, attack ads tarred him as elitist for supporting a gas tax hike in 1993. Republican strategists counted on swing voters to reject a candidate portrayed as threatening their right to cheap gas.
Environmentally sustainable development will not be on the Washington agenda in the coming four years -- although we should be prepared for green rhetoric in Bush speeches. After all, he calls backsliding on air quality goals the “Clear Skies” initiative. From an environmental perspective, how is George Bush likely to spend the “political capital” he claims to have “earned”? What can we expect from a Republican Congress, farther to the right than its predecessor? And how will federal action and inaction affect sustainable development efforts here in Maine?
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Leavitt claims, “The election is a validation of our [free market] philosophy and [deregulation] agenda.” Agencies packed with industry cronies have certainly set the stage. On several fronts, Maine and other Northeast states have opted to fight to protect the environment. We have joined lawsuits to prevent the EPA from diluting power plants’ mercury emission standards. And we have joined the fight to preserve roadless areas in the National Forests, including unique wildlands in western Maine.
Maine can expect little help for its ambitious “Climate Change Action Plan” from a president who refuses to take global warming seriously. Congressional Republicans propose to gut the Endangered Species Act, curtailing funds for Maine’s Atlantic salmon restoration – and probably diminishing our chances of financing dam removal and habitat restoration on the Penobscot River.
Of course, sustainable development means more than a healthy environment. It’s a responsibility to pass forward an abundance of resources and opportunities that will enable our children and grandchildren to prosper.
The massive Bush tax cuts, heavily favoring the rich, may boost private sector investment a bit. But, they are also the largest cause of federal budget deficits, stretching as far as the eye can see. Endless deficits will have enormous negative implications for the next generation. (This conclusion is unavoidable, even leaving aside the scary prospect that foreign investors may get the jitters and stop financing much of our national debt and international trade deficits. If that happens, be prepared for financial mayhem.)
In the near term, a string of $300 to $400 billion deficits squeezes public investments in research, infrastructures, and education -- keys to America’s future prosperity. Maine will feel the federal cost-trimming pinch in highway maintenance funds and shrinking Forest Legacy moneys to support our Land for Maine’s Future initiative.
Most troubling, federal contributions to investment in young Mainers face the budget axe, with slowdowns in “No Child Left Behind”, Medicaid, and even teen suicide prevention. Just last week, Congress cleared the Bush administration to slash grants to low-income college students. The Bush deficits and warped spending priorities contradict our efforts to ensure the skills and future productivity of young Mainers, not to mention their health.
Over the longer term, America’s most serious fiscal challenge will be sustaining our social contract with older Americans. For decades, Social Security and Medicare have enhanced the well-being of senior citizens. Even with the Clinton era budget surpluses, ensuring long-term financial stability of these systems would not have been painless. But with endless deficits in prospect, the available remedies will be all the more painful to swallow. There is a frightening possibility that the Bush legacy will be old age insecurity for many Mainers.
We can be proud of Maine’s initiatives to buck the tide of short-sightedness, fiscal irresponsibility, and crony capitalism flowing from Washington. But we should have no illusions. For Mainers dedicated to sustaining a healthy environment, abundant opportunities, and old age security for coming generations, these will be four tough years.
David Vail teaches ecological economics at Bowdoin College and serves on the Governor’s Steering Committee on Natural Resource-based Industries.