Progressives in the US vainly tout a financial transaction tax, a tax on stock transactions; Europeans are now suggesting such a tax to finance the necessary bailouts of the Euro's financial troubles. "Mainstream" politicians in the US, however, don't even mention such a tax, yet it's already collected--on every stock transaction--and then refunded!
This tax raises hundreds of billions, but costs traders only a fraction of a cent. And then, it is refunded, so that it won't hurt those poor bank trading sections, or those poor billionaires who make millions of trades. A financial transaction tax would actually be a near ideal tax: it is progressive, in that it would tax those with highest incomes most heavily, painlessly, but it would not hurt "job creation," because it is on stock trading, which trades assets: speculation doesn't create many jobs. The tax would be a slight disincentive to speculation: a positive effect.
Further, the one argument against a transaction tax--that it would make us uncompetitive with European markets--could become irrelevant if the EC adopts it. Ironically, the Brits argue that the tax would make them uncompetitive with us!
Why are taxes on the wealthy so difficult to accomplish politically? There has been a profound and radical upward redistribution of income and wealth since the "Reagan (counter) Revolution," one of the reasons why the wealthy need to be more heavily taxed, but it's also why it's so difficult to do so politically. The lightly taxed top 5%, 1% and .01% have aggressively used their burgeoning wealth to: build a "conservative" empire of propaganda tanks, media outlets, and political clients that have changed the conversation so radically that reality is no longer reflected in the information accessible to most Americans.
A union publication, Solidarity, has a headline on its current cover: "America's NOT Broke": the subheading explains that the problem with our economy isn't out-of-control spending, but an unfair tax system. This is only partly true. Most of the debt and unjustified deficits were caused by Bush II's tax cuts, his illegal wars and the unfunded Medicare Part D, providing prescriptions at prices drug companies can inflate with impunity: Medicare is not allowed to negotiate prices. The wars, the bloated war/"Defense" budget, and Medicare's gifts to Big Pharma have all increased the inequality promoted by the tax "reforms" from Reagan to Bush II (and not rescinded, yet, by Obama). Deficits caused by recession are justified, but they should have been large enough to get us out of it.
We live in a world in which the Selfish Class can megaphone with millions of dollars, while ordinary people are beaten and arrested (on Wall Street), even if they "peaceably" assemble, "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (guaranteed by the First Amendment).
Our contemporary Roman Senators have all but won control: will The People win it back? The Occupy Wall Street movement is only a small beginning. We need millions in the streets.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Execution, the More Horrific the Better
Guillotines were more humane than lethal injection, my lovely wife, Elizabeth Cunningham pointed out, when we were discussing the legal murder of Troy Davis. Chop and it's over, instead of your whole body burning up as the poison slowly paralyzes you.
This led me to thinking about why we punish and legally kill the way we do. As I've noted in a rather long chapter in my book The Selfish Class (available onsite), Romans of the Fifth Century devised more and more visibly excruciating methods of execution. This was in part because the Empire had reached a stage ahead of where we are today, but where the Tea Party would have us go. The government couldn't provide services like an adequate police force (the imperial government had been defunded much the way Grover Norquist advocates today: the wealthy Senators hoarded all the wealth), so the Empire substituted progressively more horrific punishments for those people its security forces captured as either opponents or criminals.
As crime escalated (times went from desperate to worse: banditry was the better alternative to enslavement or death), as the government became increasingly incapable of enforcing order, the methods of execution became as brutal as executioners could devise. Decapitation was too honorable for humble folk (it was reserved for the upper ranks). Crucifixion, used for centuries, was a low-cost death by torture, but no longer acceptable, once the Empire became Christian. Death under the claws of a lion or bear was dramatic, but perhaps too distant for most spectators, and not painful, or prolonged enough. Somehow, the Emperors' executioners had to invent something much worse. A form of drawing and quartering was tried, but the Late Empire hit upon an even more horrifying death: by slow fire where everyone could see the victim die in utmost agony, torches to light the streets.
The Tea Party, radical Republicans, are certainly with the program: they cheered to hear how many Governor Perry had executed (235). The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles was with the program, too, but then Troy Davis was a black man convicted of killing a white policeman, even if 5 out of 7 witnesses recanted the testimony that convicted him.
Long ago, in 1994, New York's newly elected Republican Governor, Pataki, summarily closed all prison college programs (I taught in one), because prison, he opined, should be punishment, not reward: never mind that the program halved the recidivism rate among its enrollees.
So, we are now coming to a debate about capital punishment--abolishing it on one side, and making it easier to carry out, on the other. And isn't it interesting that we've gone from hanging and firing squad (quick deaths both) to frying in an electric chair, to burning up internally with poison--it took Troy Davis 14 minutes to die.
If we wanted to be humane to the condemned, we'd use the guillotine.
This led me to thinking about why we punish and legally kill the way we do. As I've noted in a rather long chapter in my book The Selfish Class (available onsite), Romans of the Fifth Century devised more and more visibly excruciating methods of execution. This was in part because the Empire had reached a stage ahead of where we are today, but where the Tea Party would have us go. The government couldn't provide services like an adequate police force (the imperial government had been defunded much the way Grover Norquist advocates today: the wealthy Senators hoarded all the wealth), so the Empire substituted progressively more horrific punishments for those people its security forces captured as either opponents or criminals.
As crime escalated (times went from desperate to worse: banditry was the better alternative to enslavement or death), as the government became increasingly incapable of enforcing order, the methods of execution became as brutal as executioners could devise. Decapitation was too honorable for humble folk (it was reserved for the upper ranks). Crucifixion, used for centuries, was a low-cost death by torture, but no longer acceptable, once the Empire became Christian. Death under the claws of a lion or bear was dramatic, but perhaps too distant for most spectators, and not painful, or prolonged enough. Somehow, the Emperors' executioners had to invent something much worse. A form of drawing and quartering was tried, but the Late Empire hit upon an even more horrifying death: by slow fire where everyone could see the victim die in utmost agony, torches to light the streets.
The Tea Party, radical Republicans, are certainly with the program: they cheered to hear how many Governor Perry had executed (235). The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles was with the program, too, but then Troy Davis was a black man convicted of killing a white policeman, even if 5 out of 7 witnesses recanted the testimony that convicted him.
Long ago, in 1994, New York's newly elected Republican Governor, Pataki, summarily closed all prison college programs (I taught in one), because prison, he opined, should be punishment, not reward: never mind that the program halved the recidivism rate among its enrollees.
So, we are now coming to a debate about capital punishment--abolishing it on one side, and making it easier to carry out, on the other. And isn't it interesting that we've gone from hanging and firing squad (quick deaths both) to frying in an electric chair, to burning up internally with poison--it took Troy Davis 14 minutes to die.
If we wanted to be humane to the condemned, we'd use the guillotine.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Standing Up On Their Hindlegs
And finding, yes, I think, a little spine in there. I'm referring to both Obama and the Democrats in Congress.
Obama insists on tax increases for the wealthy, including his Buffett Rule, that millionaires should pay taxes at the same rate as the middle class. He came out with a surprisingly muscular jobs bill, although it is still far from enough. And then he issued a veto threat (his first?): against any super-committee budget agreement that doesn't include tax increases as well as cuts to programs. His proposal actually is estimated to come 40% from tax increases on corporations and the wealthy, 60 % from expenditure cuts.
Republicans for months have been insisting that: "you can't raise taxes in a recession." Nor on "job creators," their euphemism for the stinking rich, so Obama's position is no longer compromise; it's confrontation. It's as if somebody finally got to him and said: "They'll compromise with you only if it'll guarantee their chances of defeating you in 2012. They're not sincere; give up trying.
Maybe he's given up trying. The Republicans, especially the House backbenchers are every bit as crazy as the radical Republicans after Lincoln's assassination. It's definitely better to show Americans what they really are.
Which brings us to the US House Democrats: they voted against the short-term budget, and so did enough sane Republicans that the government could shut down beginning next Tuesday.
Sane to shut down the government? Democrats?
What the Democrats were voting against was the insistence by the Republican majority that, counter to all past practice, disaster relief should be "paid for" by cuts to other programs. A program Republicans were going to cut was for developing more highly efficient vehicles: it was already creating jobs and was highly popular.
Now, Speaker Boehner is going to have to find a majority, not among the radical cutters, but among the sane. Insisting that disaster relief has to be "paid for," is like saying: "If I help him, I'll have to take the money from you." That's not going to be very popular.
With accelerating greenhouse gas emissions, and Republican crazies denying that humans have anything to do with climate change (it's just sunspots), disaster relief may become our new growth industry. But if you're going to accelerate disasters, at least you should help out the victims. The polluting companies and their shareholders should fund disaster relief from their excessive profits, even if the Kochs, et al deny any responsibility.
The debt-deficit mania, the austerity abroad, military stalemate, the increasingly polarized (and irrational) politics both in the US and in Europe spell rapid decline, not just of the American Empire but of any kind of western pre-eminence.
We do still have a chance to turn things around: Democrats standing up on their hindlegs is a start.
Obama insists on tax increases for the wealthy, including his Buffett Rule, that millionaires should pay taxes at the same rate as the middle class. He came out with a surprisingly muscular jobs bill, although it is still far from enough. And then he issued a veto threat (his first?): against any super-committee budget agreement that doesn't include tax increases as well as cuts to programs. His proposal actually is estimated to come 40% from tax increases on corporations and the wealthy, 60 % from expenditure cuts.
Republicans for months have been insisting that: "you can't raise taxes in a recession." Nor on "job creators," their euphemism for the stinking rich, so Obama's position is no longer compromise; it's confrontation. It's as if somebody finally got to him and said: "They'll compromise with you only if it'll guarantee their chances of defeating you in 2012. They're not sincere; give up trying.
Maybe he's given up trying. The Republicans, especially the House backbenchers are every bit as crazy as the radical Republicans after Lincoln's assassination. It's definitely better to show Americans what they really are.
Which brings us to the US House Democrats: they voted against the short-term budget, and so did enough sane Republicans that the government could shut down beginning next Tuesday.
Sane to shut down the government? Democrats?
What the Democrats were voting against was the insistence by the Republican majority that, counter to all past practice, disaster relief should be "paid for" by cuts to other programs. A program Republicans were going to cut was for developing more highly efficient vehicles: it was already creating jobs and was highly popular.
Now, Speaker Boehner is going to have to find a majority, not among the radical cutters, but among the sane. Insisting that disaster relief has to be "paid for," is like saying: "If I help him, I'll have to take the money from you." That's not going to be very popular.
With accelerating greenhouse gas emissions, and Republican crazies denying that humans have anything to do with climate change (it's just sunspots), disaster relief may become our new growth industry. But if you're going to accelerate disasters, at least you should help out the victims. The polluting companies and their shareholders should fund disaster relief from their excessive profits, even if the Kochs, et al deny any responsibility.
The debt-deficit mania, the austerity abroad, military stalemate, the increasingly polarized (and irrational) politics both in the US and in Europe spell rapid decline, not just of the American Empire but of any kind of western pre-eminence.
We do still have a chance to turn things around: Democrats standing up on their hindlegs is a start.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Why the "Lost Decade?"
Social justice is a different concept for many of the people who control corporations or large fortunes. "We'll always be rich," is a common refrain among today's "Roman Senators." They not only protect themselves, but their abundant funds insure they have the best governments money can buy.
The Census Bureau simply releases figures: they show increases in poverty from 14.3% to 15.1%, and a median income lower than it was in 1996. Today's poverty rate is as high as it was at the beginning of Clinton's administration (1993); median incomes of working age Americans are as low as they were (in inflation-adjusted dollars) in 1973 (after Nixon, who would be a "liberal" today)!
The New York Times (9/14/11) lead story doesn't ask why. The Times simply observes that things began to get worse after 2001 and have continued to do so, thus the "lost decade."
These trends coincide with the rise to dominance of conservative policies under Reagan. There was some improvement during the Clinton years, partly because the wealthy actually paid a bit more in taxes, and everyone else received more in government services. Bush II did his best to dismantle Clinton's small improvements.
Economic policy makes a difference: so does political worldview. What the dramatic increases in poverty, etc. demonstrate is that trickle down economics doesn't work, while the mild '90's redistributive economics did work. Also an administration that believes government can do good things, will administer more effectively (FEMA is an example, comparing Katrina with Irene).
If social justice is giving everyone a decent chance, and rewarding those who excel, while helping those who need it, we have an increasingly unjust political system and economy.
In practical terms, we'd all be better off--except for the top 0.01% of income earners--if we had a more equitable tax system and a governing philosophy that represented the interests of most people, instead of a small elite. This would not only increase social justice, but it would likely grow the economy faster--and create jobs.
When labeling the last ten years "the Lost Decade," the Times neglected to point out that this is when conservative economics and policies triumphed: lower tax rates for the wealthy; increased deregulation; permanent war; cutbacks in services; "free trade;" the resulting race to the bottom for American workers and the further weakening of unions.
Obama has barely modified most of these policies. Any progress his minimal proposals might have had, were cancelled out by Bush's recession.
"Conservatives," however, advocate less or no government action to help the "less fortunate." Social justice, they maintain, means helping those who "deserve it," the supposed "job creators" imagined by Ayn Rand, and touted by Speaker Boehner. Their worldview holds even when (as demonstrated by the new census figures) the real world results show that all but the selfish class have become markedly worse off.
Social injustice (poverty, inequality) will grow as long as their worldview remains dominant.
The Census Bureau simply releases figures: they show increases in poverty from 14.3% to 15.1%, and a median income lower than it was in 1996. Today's poverty rate is as high as it was at the beginning of Clinton's administration (1993); median incomes of working age Americans are as low as they were (in inflation-adjusted dollars) in 1973 (after Nixon, who would be a "liberal" today)!
The New York Times (9/14/11) lead story doesn't ask why. The Times simply observes that things began to get worse after 2001 and have continued to do so, thus the "lost decade."
These trends coincide with the rise to dominance of conservative policies under Reagan. There was some improvement during the Clinton years, partly because the wealthy actually paid a bit more in taxes, and everyone else received more in government services. Bush II did his best to dismantle Clinton's small improvements.
Economic policy makes a difference: so does political worldview. What the dramatic increases in poverty, etc. demonstrate is that trickle down economics doesn't work, while the mild '90's redistributive economics did work. Also an administration that believes government can do good things, will administer more effectively (FEMA is an example, comparing Katrina with Irene).
If social justice is giving everyone a decent chance, and rewarding those who excel, while helping those who need it, we have an increasingly unjust political system and economy.
In practical terms, we'd all be better off--except for the top 0.01% of income earners--if we had a more equitable tax system and a governing philosophy that represented the interests of most people, instead of a small elite. This would not only increase social justice, but it would likely grow the economy faster--and create jobs.
When labeling the last ten years "the Lost Decade," the Times neglected to point out that this is when conservative economics and policies triumphed: lower tax rates for the wealthy; increased deregulation; permanent war; cutbacks in services; "free trade;" the resulting race to the bottom for American workers and the further weakening of unions.
Obama has barely modified most of these policies. Any progress his minimal proposals might have had, were cancelled out by Bush's recession.
"Conservatives," however, advocate less or no government action to help the "less fortunate." Social justice, they maintain, means helping those who "deserve it," the supposed "job creators" imagined by Ayn Rand, and touted by Speaker Boehner. Their worldview holds even when (as demonstrated by the new census figures) the real world results show that all but the selfish class have become markedly worse off.
Social injustice (poverty, inequality) will grow as long as their worldview remains dominant.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
9-11 Commemorative Blindness
Osama won--in the West. He drove the idiots in power to do just what he'd hoped: alienate Muslims world-wide with our cowboy-frat-boy military aggression--and at-home persecution.
Think about it: we spend hours on TV and radio talking about what 9-11 meant; about the pain it caused the survivors; about what we were doing on that day, or the day before or the day after. And it's true: the death of almost 3,000 at ground zero was a wrenching experience for many times that number. So, what did Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld do about it? Attacked Afghanistan, which is not where the attackers came from, nor where they trained, but only where their spiritual/financial leaders had gained sanctuary before the fact. And then they (we?) attacked Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9-11 (but has oil).
We lost 3,000 in one day, but how many did we kill in Baghdad's "shock and awe?" (Virtually all were civilians). Well over 100,000 lost their lives in Iraq over the course of that war, initiated by the American invasion, although estimates range up to a million. Further, Wikileaks has documented 24,498 fatalities in Afghanistan, including at least 4,000 civilians.
Now, think of all the Afghan and Iraqi stories of what happened to their loved ones and when, and what they were doing on that day, and the day before and the day after, and asking why me, Allah?. Now, consider that Afghanistan has a population estimated to be 29.8 million by the World Bank, while it estimated Iraq's population at 31.5 million. US population in 2000 was 281,421,906.
I won't bother to reduce the fatalities of each to a percentage of their respective populations, but obviously, our 9-11 hit was tiny compared to the devastation the US has wrought on others, ostensibly because they had something to do with 9-11. In fact, Iraq had nothing to do with it: none of the hijackers were Iraqi, none trained there. Saddam had kept al Qaeda out of Iraq, because it was a danger to his power.
All but one of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, so why didn't we attack the Saudis? Because, Saudis were Bush family friends? Because the oil was already in US hands (more or less)?
Osama won by instigating the US (and the UK) to wade into the Middle East maelstrom with guns blazing; he drove the American cowboy into aggressive-defense, which has not only nearly bankrupted us (like the USSR), but has cost us most of our liberties, as well.
If Reagan had a hand in bankrupting the USSR and driving it out of business, then Osama bin Laden could claim something similar: the American Empire is near collapse, aided by his ministrations vis a vis 9-11, other attacks sponsored by al Qaeda and his proclamations against us.
But we spend years deciding on the order of names of the fallen at ground zero!
Think about it: we spend hours on TV and radio talking about what 9-11 meant; about the pain it caused the survivors; about what we were doing on that day, or the day before or the day after. And it's true: the death of almost 3,000 at ground zero was a wrenching experience for many times that number. So, what did Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld do about it? Attacked Afghanistan, which is not where the attackers came from, nor where they trained, but only where their spiritual/financial leaders had gained sanctuary before the fact. And then they (we?) attacked Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9-11 (but has oil).
We lost 3,000 in one day, but how many did we kill in Baghdad's "shock and awe?" (Virtually all were civilians). Well over 100,000 lost their lives in Iraq over the course of that war, initiated by the American invasion, although estimates range up to a million. Further, Wikileaks has documented 24,498 fatalities in Afghanistan, including at least 4,000 civilians.
Now, think of all the Afghan and Iraqi stories of what happened to their loved ones and when, and what they were doing on that day, and the day before and the day after, and asking why me, Allah?. Now, consider that Afghanistan has a population estimated to be 29.8 million by the World Bank, while it estimated Iraq's population at 31.5 million. US population in 2000 was 281,421,906.
I won't bother to reduce the fatalities of each to a percentage of their respective populations, but obviously, our 9-11 hit was tiny compared to the devastation the US has wrought on others, ostensibly because they had something to do with 9-11. In fact, Iraq had nothing to do with it: none of the hijackers were Iraqi, none trained there. Saddam had kept al Qaeda out of Iraq, because it was a danger to his power.
All but one of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, so why didn't we attack the Saudis? Because, Saudis were Bush family friends? Because the oil was already in US hands (more or less)?
Osama won by instigating the US (and the UK) to wade into the Middle East maelstrom with guns blazing; he drove the American cowboy into aggressive-defense, which has not only nearly bankrupted us (like the USSR), but has cost us most of our liberties, as well.
If Reagan had a hand in bankrupting the USSR and driving it out of business, then Osama bin Laden could claim something similar: the American Empire is near collapse, aided by his ministrations vis a vis 9-11, other attacks sponsored by al Qaeda and his proclamations against us.
But we spend years deciding on the order of names of the fallen at ground zero!
Friday, September 2, 2011
Is Obama the "only adult in the room," or is he unconsciously submitting to bullies like Boehner? The go-round about the day of his jobs address to Congress with the Speaker of the House is emblematic--proposing Wednesday, rejected by Boehner ostensibly because of the scheduled debate of Republican Presidential candidates--accepting Thursday, which conflicts with the much more important seasonal kickoff of NFL football.
Boehner didn't act with due deference to the President, even kept him waiting for an answer for 24 hours; then Obama accepted his counter-offer, disadvantageous as it is.
I don't watch football, or any other televised sport, but it is a male institution. Isn't it likely that a lot will prefer to watch NFL's opener, rather than the President?
What is the likelihood Obama will propose dramatic new job-creating ideas? I doubt dramatic. I'm afraid he'll offer a little here and a little there, and claim he's being responsible; that's his style. Democrats are pressuring him to offer a big program. Will he dare offer ideas Republicans would automatically reject?
Obama really should have nothing to lose even if he proposed some New Deal-type jobs program. Republicans would reject any proposal, in any case. They could be painted as anti-jobs, maybe even pro-double-dip recession. Especially given last month's stagnation, the proposal would be popular: people want jobs and prosperity, not losing government services and rising unemployment. No net new jobs last month might make a dramatic proposal more likely.
But Obama instinctively seems to avoid confrontation and seek compromise, even if it means giving up his own principles (if he still has any). The odds are strongly against him proposing something like the WPA. The closest he might come would be the infrastructure bank he's already mentioned, which might provide extra money for rebuilding bridges, repairing or upgrading roads, and retrofitting public buildings like schools.
At this point, it's clear: nothing Obama proposes will see the light of day in the House, and can be blocked by the 41-vote minority in the Senate. But I can't see Obama campaigning against Congress a la Harry Truman.
No one pushed Harry Truman around.
Obama is increasingly ineffectual, in part because he allows others to push him around; it not only looks weak, it is weak.
Obama is becoming progressively like one of the later Roman Emperors. Despite his obvious intellect, he seems as incapable of leading us away from disaster as was Emperor Honorius, who retreated from Rome to Ravenna to shelter from the marauding Goths. Poets memorialized him, anyway.
Does it have to be this way? It doesn't.
Nearly a thousand picketed the White House today, to insist that it doesn't; their target was the proposed dirty oil Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)