Chris Jepson: Selling Earth

I’m fascinated with the idea of what constitutes promoting “the general welfare.” It is in the first sentence of the U.S. Constitution, along with other objectives such as forming “a more perfect union” and establishing justice. General welfare, justice and a more perfect union. We organized ourselves (as a people through governance) with these goals in mind. There are other goals, too, of which you are familiar, common defense, domestic tranquility and the “blessings of liberty.”

America’s Founding Fathers argued over what constitutes the general welfare, largely from a taxing perspective, as well as who has the specific responsibility of providing for it (general welfare) — the individual states or the federal government?

There have been Supreme Court decisions clarifying and expanding federal powers in this regard. I am not so much interested in rehashing liberal platitudes or regurgitating conservative bile regarding America’s welfare (public assistance) programs. That is not my objective for this column.

Is there a legitimate general welfare that we can agree upon as a people? Is there a “common good”? Of course, we all assert there is a common good. Ah, but as has been noted the devil is in the details.

I was watching Bill Moyers (Sunday mornings on PBS) and he recently had on two public health historians (David Rosner and Gerald Markowitz) who have written a book (“Lead Wars”) on lead in our environment, specifically lead paint in low-income housing. There are no safe levels of lead for children. Period.

What came out in Moyer’s interview was that the companies selling lead-based paint knew (let me repeat, knew) from the 1920s that lead paint was deleterious to human health. Yet for next 50-plus years (and today) they successfully prevented any accountability for their product or their industry, with the resulting death and devastating illness of tens of thousands of America’s children. What to make of this? Is there a common good? Are our governments providing for the general welfare?

In 2005, under the auspices of Vice President Cheney’s Energy Task Force, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was amended to exclude “the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities.” This was years before fracking was even on the minds of Americans.

According to the Environment Defense Center the net result of this exemption is, “oil and gas companies can now inject anything other than diesel in association with fracking operations without having to comply with SDWA provisions intended to protect our nation’s water supplies.” Again, is there a common good and are our governments providing for the general welfare?

Our governments are to provide for the general welfare. Where does maximizing corporate profits and exempting corporate liability fall into that mandate (equation)? You be the judge.

I have particular ire and disrespect for the lobbyists who peddle themselves as corporate shills, promoting policies and regulations so obscenely at odds with the common good. And arriving home, they wash their hands and, no doubt, coo to their babies. As if that exculpates their sin.

And for the congressmen and congresswomen who do their bidding, Dante did not imagine a level of hell dark enough for them.

And where exactly do we, the voter, fit into the equation?

Is there a common good? Whose welfare should government (we) be primarily concerned? Is it to remedy the horrors or enrich and re-elect the shills?

Jepson is a 27-year resident of Central Florida. He’s fiscally conservative, socially liberal, likes art and embraces diversity of opinion. Reach him at [email protected]