The one issue that we should all agree upon is that in America no one should have to starve because he or she can not find a safe, secure and well-paying job. A lawyer sits on his derriere and perhaps develops a bad heart from the lack of exercise involved in this work; a doctor is exposed to every contagious illness known to mankind, a roofer develops bad knees, a carpenter develops carpel tunnel syndrome.  Smelting steel is hard work. It is hot and dirty, but we have the means to protect workers from diseases associated with these kinds of work.

            I hope we can agree on the simple economic fact that the government can not add a cent to the Gross National Product, and that consumption economics demands that consumers have wealth, and that wealth can not be created through taxation and redistribution. I know these are radical statements, but please suffer along with me to the end of what I have to say. You may find that I am not as dogmatic as I first appear, and probably agree more with the ends that liberals seek you than you might expect.

            My point is that when the poor cannot afford to eat, much less afford health insurance, it is better to give them a job than a handout. I submit that protecting the environment should be one of our highest priorities, but the ethics of achieving that end depends upon the circumstances which exist in any moment in time.  Saul D. Alinsky’s fifth rule is “the ethics of means and ends is that concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.”

            Anyone who denies that the EPA, or OSHA serve a useful purpose is ignorant of the history of capitalists exploiting labors who contracted mesothelioma, Asbestosis, Byssinosis (brown lung disease), Coal Worker’s Pneumconiosis (black lung disease) and Industrial Bronchitis, just to name a few of the preventable diseases.  On the other hand in order to preserve high-paying jobs, we must have reasonable environmental regulations, safety regulations, taxation, and zoning regulations so as not to siphon off profits from corporations that could be used to pay higher wages, and provide less expensive commodities.  Alinsky’s second rule of the ethics of means and ends “is that the judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.”

            The question now is to what extent are those costly regulations still reasonable given the world economy where competition for steel, concrete, and other durable goods, depends upon price. To what extent should we maintain the status quo of protecting the planet against global warming and not produce affordable energy from clean coal fired energy plants, nuclear energy, and drilling for domestic energy, all of which have not only an economic component, but also a component of national security.

            The question is should we continue to sacrifice high paying jobs as a means of maintaining the status-quo on environmental issues and social welfare programs for the uninsured and the poor, or do we move ahead to find the means of recreating industries that can provide high paying jobs for workers who will be able to afford healthcare policies, pay their monthly mortgage and credit card bills, save for retirement, and have the satisfaction of being able to support their families?