Even the first governments redistributed wealth: in Mesopotamia and Egypt, the people who worked the land were not the ones who accumulated the surplus wealth produced (wealth above subsistence). The governments--and the priests--extracted the wealth for their own enjoyment. As a rationale for doing so, they "protected" society and maintained order.
It still works that way. In the US, approximately half of all discretionary funds are spent on "security," and much of the proceeds go to a small elite, who run or own large corporations especially created to profit from the business of "security." Their friends in the financial sector arrange to siphon off perhaps half of the rest of the surplus wealth created. How do they do it: by buying off the powers-that-be.
My conservative Venezuelan uncle used to explain that American oil-men preferred to work with the dictatorship (of which my family had been a prosperous part), because they didn't have to buy off as many people as they do in a "democracy."
True democracy hasn't been possible since societies emerged from hunting and gathering. With agriculture, with empires, with armies, with currency, some people always find ways to steal everyone else's surplus wealth: in hunting and gathering societies there was no surplus, or it was small enough to be given away. That's why the indigenous Americans of the Northwest, practiced the potlatch: surplus riches were distributed at potlatch parties, so no one would become obscenely wealthy.
In the US today, some people are obscenely wealthy, like Mitt Romney. What we need is something like the potlatch, so that surplus wealth can benefit everyone, not just a tiny few.
When the Roman Empire held sway, there was a highly compensated bureaucracy, but an even wealthier Senatorial class--as well as impoverished plebeians and slaves, the latter doing most of the work. Julius Caesar was heavily in debt until he conquered Gaul; then he became the wealthiest Roman of all.
Long before the western Roman Empire fell in 476, men with swords and armor carried off most of the wealth. The Huns, highly successful for a time in pillaging both Empires; paid no taxes to Attila, but then their king only led them to the spoil; they shared it with him, of course, and his share was mind-boggling.
Now, we have a tax and financial system that ingeniously insures that a tiny percentage of the population carries off most of the surplus wealth. The elites work hard to siphon off government's rewards and society's spoils: like buying off Pennsylvania's government so that they could gain eminent domain over fracking sites: the people are powerless to stop them. Money to the Defense complex and most other government "services" are also huge sources of profit--for a few.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year: you have been so generous to the 1%: it is better to give than to receive.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Friday, December 21, 2012
US House: No One In Charge
Never raise taxes!
The GOP caucus in the House of Representatives will only be mollified if taxes on the wealthy are cut even more. Further, to reduce Government debt, they demand most cuts to the budget have to come from non-Defense spending, especially programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare and food stamps (SNAP) that benefit the middle class and poor, but are unnecessary to the wealthy.
No one seems to be in charge in the House. Speaker Boehner's odious "Plan B," which would have been unacceptable to Democrats and the President, was an attempt to mollify the right-wing extremists in the GOP; still, it didn't pass Boehner's own caucus: it raised taxes on millionaires.
No one is in charge. The President's re-election, an increase in the Democratic minority in the House and of its majority in the Senate, makes no difference within the Republican caucus. This is because the House majority won convincingly in their gerrymandered districts (drawn by state majorities won in the Republican landslide of 2010). Despite receiving fewer votes overall than Democratic Congressional candidates, GOP Congressmen fear, not Democrats--their districts were drawn to be majority Republican--but members of their own party "primarying" them from the right, if they don't follow an extreme right-wing agenda. That means cutting taxes on the wealthy and sticking it to the people Romney tried to stigmatize as the dependent 47% (more like 52%).
The House majority of a majority therefore refuses to compromise, because they'd lose next time round to right-wing challengers if they did. A more moderate majority--of Democrats and pragmatic Republicans--might exist in the House, in theory. However, the majority's leadership controls the House's business, and it's likely that Boehner would block a pragmatic bipartisan majority's proposals from a vote--unless he's willing to risk his Speakership for real statesmanship. That's unlikely.
Therefore, an ideological minority (the House GOP caucus majority) refuses, as of 12/20/12, to allow any tax increases on the wealthy and won't back down from demanding large cuts to social programs, either. So, we could start sliding down the fiscal slope.
Radical Republicans appear truly determined to replay what happened in the Roman Senate in 476, when Roman Senators refused to raise taxes on themselves, and preferred to allow the takeover of the German (Ostrogothic) palace guard. That precipitated the Fall of Rome.
In 2013, taxes will automatically go up--for everyone. Then, if Republicans don't agree to cut taxes on everyone but the wealthy, they will probably cause a renewed recession. Yet, they were the ones who demanded this so-called "fiscal cliff" to cut the debt. Under that default plan, there would be more cuts to the Pentagon than to domestic spending, and entitlements wouldn't be touched. That's why I hope there isn't a bipartisan "grand bargain," except on the above tax "cuts."
Either Republicans have slashed their own throats, or everyone else's as well: welcome to European-style austerity and recession.
The GOP caucus in the House of Representatives will only be mollified if taxes on the wealthy are cut even more. Further, to reduce Government debt, they demand most cuts to the budget have to come from non-Defense spending, especially programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare and food stamps (SNAP) that benefit the middle class and poor, but are unnecessary to the wealthy.
No one seems to be in charge in the House. Speaker Boehner's odious "Plan B," which would have been unacceptable to Democrats and the President, was an attempt to mollify the right-wing extremists in the GOP; still, it didn't pass Boehner's own caucus: it raised taxes on millionaires.
No one is in charge. The President's re-election, an increase in the Democratic minority in the House and of its majority in the Senate, makes no difference within the Republican caucus. This is because the House majority won convincingly in their gerrymandered districts (drawn by state majorities won in the Republican landslide of 2010). Despite receiving fewer votes overall than Democratic Congressional candidates, GOP Congressmen fear, not Democrats--their districts were drawn to be majority Republican--but members of their own party "primarying" them from the right, if they don't follow an extreme right-wing agenda. That means cutting taxes on the wealthy and sticking it to the people Romney tried to stigmatize as the dependent 47% (more like 52%).
The House majority of a majority therefore refuses to compromise, because they'd lose next time round to right-wing challengers if they did. A more moderate majority--of Democrats and pragmatic Republicans--might exist in the House, in theory. However, the majority's leadership controls the House's business, and it's likely that Boehner would block a pragmatic bipartisan majority's proposals from a vote--unless he's willing to risk his Speakership for real statesmanship. That's unlikely.
Therefore, an ideological minority (the House GOP caucus majority) refuses, as of 12/20/12, to allow any tax increases on the wealthy and won't back down from demanding large cuts to social programs, either. So, we could start sliding down the fiscal slope.
Radical Republicans appear truly determined to replay what happened in the Roman Senate in 476, when Roman Senators refused to raise taxes on themselves, and preferred to allow the takeover of the German (Ostrogothic) palace guard. That precipitated the Fall of Rome.
In 2013, taxes will automatically go up--for everyone. Then, if Republicans don't agree to cut taxes on everyone but the wealthy, they will probably cause a renewed recession. Yet, they were the ones who demanded this so-called "fiscal cliff" to cut the debt. Under that default plan, there would be more cuts to the Pentagon than to domestic spending, and entitlements wouldn't be touched. That's why I hope there isn't a bipartisan "grand bargain," except on the above tax "cuts."
Either Republicans have slashed their own throats, or everyone else's as well: welcome to European-style austerity and recession.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Shooters, Drones and Video Games
Is the world going crazy?
Killing children is not so unusual in this modern world of ours. It hasn't just happened in Connecticut. It's happened in Syria, in Mexico, in the Congo; our drones kill children in Afghanistan--the Taliban kill them too--and also in America, in places like Columbine, Colorado--and Newtown Connecticut.
Can you imagine going haywire and killing defenseless kindergartners and first graders cowering before you?
But someone did, after killing his mother--and then, appropriately, killed himself. Too bad, he didn't do that first.
What's American about this story: the killer was armed with two, legally acquired, large magazine, semi-automatic pistols and an assault rifle. That's why so many could be killed in minutes. And then there's the likely influence of video games, a favored pastime of the shooter; there are no plots, no heroes, only anonymous fighters: about as moral as the Roman "games" at the Coliseum.
Modern life can create unbearable stress. Industrial noise builds stress; not knowing what you're supposed to be doing, not able even to find a job is high stress and it's stressful when you can't pay what you owe. There are people who have a low threshold for breaking from stress. In retrospect, we call them crazy: the whole society is going crazy. Fast.
It's crazy that we can't control guns and that even after the Newtown massacre, President Obama can't say the words "gun control," when he mourns the dead children.
It's crazy that we have a health care system in which we can't even talk about government negotiating Medicare prescription drug prices, even when Republicans talk of "reining in entitlement spending." And we still have insurer-dominated health care, even with Obamacare.
It's crazy that in a time of high unemployment and fragile recovery, when bond prices are high and interest rates are low, that the national dialogue is about a supposed fiscal cliff. The government should be spending, and promoting jobs, not cutting them. Cutting is appropriate once you have full employment, not before. Then, cutting spending prevents an overheated economy.
In a crazy world, you can smoke a joint in Colorado, or Washington state, but it's illegal, say the feds, for someone to sell it to you.
It's legal to have an abortion, but providers are harassed out of business, (or killed) and women are legally deceived, or blocked by onerous regulations contrived by the party that inveighs--against government regulation!
Our stress may be higher than for Romans when the world was falling apart in the fifth century and war bands roved the land, but video games give twisted people a model for action: kill everyone in sight.
The Coliseum's games taught Romans to tolerate violence; with video games, you learn to participate without a moral qualm. Remote drone pilots, many likely former video gamers, share that background with the Newtown shooter.
Killing children is not so unusual in this modern world of ours. It hasn't just happened in Connecticut. It's happened in Syria, in Mexico, in the Congo; our drones kill children in Afghanistan--the Taliban kill them too--and also in America, in places like Columbine, Colorado--and Newtown Connecticut.
Can you imagine going haywire and killing defenseless kindergartners and first graders cowering before you?
But someone did, after killing his mother--and then, appropriately, killed himself. Too bad, he didn't do that first.
What's American about this story: the killer was armed with two, legally acquired, large magazine, semi-automatic pistols and an assault rifle. That's why so many could be killed in minutes. And then there's the likely influence of video games, a favored pastime of the shooter; there are no plots, no heroes, only anonymous fighters: about as moral as the Roman "games" at the Coliseum.
Modern life can create unbearable stress. Industrial noise builds stress; not knowing what you're supposed to be doing, not able even to find a job is high stress and it's stressful when you can't pay what you owe. There are people who have a low threshold for breaking from stress. In retrospect, we call them crazy: the whole society is going crazy. Fast.
It's crazy that we can't control guns and that even after the Newtown massacre, President Obama can't say the words "gun control," when he mourns the dead children.
It's crazy that we have a health care system in which we can't even talk about government negotiating Medicare prescription drug prices, even when Republicans talk of "reining in entitlement spending." And we still have insurer-dominated health care, even with Obamacare.
It's crazy that in a time of high unemployment and fragile recovery, when bond prices are high and interest rates are low, that the national dialogue is about a supposed fiscal cliff. The government should be spending, and promoting jobs, not cutting them. Cutting is appropriate once you have full employment, not before. Then, cutting spending prevents an overheated economy.
In a crazy world, you can smoke a joint in Colorado, or Washington state, but it's illegal, say the feds, for someone to sell it to you.
It's legal to have an abortion, but providers are harassed out of business, (or killed) and women are legally deceived, or blocked by onerous regulations contrived by the party that inveighs--against government regulation!
Our stress may be higher than for Romans when the world was falling apart in the fifth century and war bands roved the land, but video games give twisted people a model for action: kill everyone in sight.
The Coliseum's games taught Romans to tolerate violence; with video games, you learn to participate without a moral qualm. Remote drone pilots, many likely former video gamers, share that background with the Newtown shooter.
Monday, December 10, 2012
The Imperial Press
I've always thought we had a more or less free press, until I saw the MSM treatment of: Bradley Manning--and taxes!
Let's start with taxes. In the alarmist rhetoric of the "fiscal cliff" commentators, taxes on dividends are treated as if everyone earns them; if their tax rates go up to the same rates as earned income(!), then the bottom will fall out of the stock market; middle class people with 401K's will suffer along with billionaires. After all, they'll have to pay those higher taxes too.
But owners of 401Ks don't pay taxes on dividends their funds earn, although the funds do, so their investments might earn slightly less. But, the big losers, if taxes on dividends went up, would be the people paying the restored 39% rate. They'd pay it on their dividends, too, which is why, if capital gains were treated the same way, their tax rates would go up not from 35 to 39%, but from an effective tax rate of 15% or less, to one more comparable to what 'ordinary' people pay.
That's the idea. It not only would help pay off the deficits; it would lower income inequality. But the Media doesn't want ordinary Joe Blow to know that. Commentators want you to think these higher taxes will hit you 'ordinary' people especially hard.
The fiscal cliff was really an invention of the Tea Party Republicans to force government to shrink, favoring the wealthy. Obama, that 'poor' negotiator, locked them into a closet: to get out, they'll have to concede on higher taxes for the wealthy to avoid being tarred with raising taxes for everyone.
If Republicans want to protect their favorite charity--the military--they could be pressured to give up even more, like those favored tax-rates on dividends and capital gains, even Romney's carried interest.
Are there enough progressive Democrats to push that far, especially given the MSM's conservative corporatist bias on tax issues?
Another media bias is harder to see: it often is carried out by an absence of coverage, as in Bradley Manning, Wikileaks, et al. Here is a whistleblower with global impact, and he's treated like a terrorist and held incommunicado for almost two years, before he's allowed to speak. And then the media hardly covers him, or Assange, or Wikileaks, which revealed more embarrassing state secrets, and gave newspapers more issues to write/pontificate about for months than any other source. It showed how petty and conniving most governments are--especially the United States.
That's not terrorism. Was the boy who yelled: "The Emperor has no clothes!" a terrorist, or a truth teller?
A free press? We have a press dedicated to maintaining the American Empire and its prime supporters--and beneficiaries--the very wealthy. In Fifth Century Rome, the Emperor and Roman Senators had panegyrists, too.
Let's start with taxes. In the alarmist rhetoric of the "fiscal cliff" commentators, taxes on dividends are treated as if everyone earns them; if their tax rates go up to the same rates as earned income(!), then the bottom will fall out of the stock market; middle class people with 401K's will suffer along with billionaires. After all, they'll have to pay those higher taxes too.
But owners of 401Ks don't pay taxes on dividends their funds earn, although the funds do, so their investments might earn slightly less. But, the big losers, if taxes on dividends went up, would be the people paying the restored 39% rate. They'd pay it on their dividends, too, which is why, if capital gains were treated the same way, their tax rates would go up not from 35 to 39%, but from an effective tax rate of 15% or less, to one more comparable to what 'ordinary' people pay.
That's the idea. It not only would help pay off the deficits; it would lower income inequality. But the Media doesn't want ordinary Joe Blow to know that. Commentators want you to think these higher taxes will hit you 'ordinary' people especially hard.
The fiscal cliff was really an invention of the Tea Party Republicans to force government to shrink, favoring the wealthy. Obama, that 'poor' negotiator, locked them into a closet: to get out, they'll have to concede on higher taxes for the wealthy to avoid being tarred with raising taxes for everyone.
If Republicans want to protect their favorite charity--the military--they could be pressured to give up even more, like those favored tax-rates on dividends and capital gains, even Romney's carried interest.
Are there enough progressive Democrats to push that far, especially given the MSM's conservative corporatist bias on tax issues?
Another media bias is harder to see: it often is carried out by an absence of coverage, as in Bradley Manning, Wikileaks, et al. Here is a whistleblower with global impact, and he's treated like a terrorist and held incommunicado for almost two years, before he's allowed to speak. And then the media hardly covers him, or Assange, or Wikileaks, which revealed more embarrassing state secrets, and gave newspapers more issues to write/pontificate about for months than any other source. It showed how petty and conniving most governments are--especially the United States.
That's not terrorism. Was the boy who yelled: "The Emperor has no clothes!" a terrorist, or a truth teller?
A free press? We have a press dedicated to maintaining the American Empire and its prime supporters--and beneficiaries--the very wealthy. In Fifth Century Rome, the Emperor and Roman Senators had panegyrists, too.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
The Fiscal Slope
It really isn't a cliff; most people don't pay taxes in January; Congress will have time to fix things after the first of the year and has often written tax and spending bills that are retroactive.
One of the advantages of delay is that a "tax increase" on Dec. 31st, i.e. not extending Bush tax cuts, becomes an opportunity for "tax cuts" on January 1st. The Obama/Democratic program of maintaining the lower tax rates for the middle class, becomes "tax cuts" in January. The higher rates, for those with incomes over $250,000, does not become a tax increase: it would simply remain as part of the agreement reached between Congress and the President, as part of the bargain to cut the deficit and debt. The Republican House agreed to this as the fall-back position for cutting the deficit.
This whole "cut the deficit" mania came from the Tea Party caucus in the House: it's miss-timed. The Great Recession has driven most of the current deficit by stimulus and aid to people in distress, and collecting less revenue because fewer people are working.
The whole mechanism of government spending more in a recession in order to ameliorate misery, despite revenue shortfalls, was an innovation of the New Deal. It's not surprising that reactionary Republicans want to repeal the practice.
Consider what would have happened if we'd adopted the balanced budget amendment long advocated by "fiscal conservatives": as revenue went down in the financial collapse of 2008, government would have been required either to raise taxes on those still working, and/or to cut expenditures--on food stamps, schools and everything else, even Defense. The result would have been an ever deeper, broader and self-reinforcing hole in the economy and mass misery. Today we'd still be in a deep depression with no way to dig ourselves out. We'd be in worse shape than Europe.
Once we've spent enough to create jobs (and hopefully to restructure the economy), then is the time to raise taxes on those who currently can't afford it, or to find other ways to balance the books: now is not that time; the economy is still too fragile and too many people are still out of work.
However, to avoid the so-called cliff, to begin to reduce the deficits in ways the nation can afford, raising taxes on high income earners makes sense. They do not "create jobs," from their rising incomes. The corporations they own will hire when there is demand for the goods and services they produce. Not before. High-income earners have garnered almost all the increased wealth since the start of the Great Recession: they are largely sitting on it, or investing it elsewhere.
The Republican insistence on lower tax rates for the wealthy is like the Roman Senate in 476 refusing to raise their taxes to pay the Ostrogoth palace guard. That action precipitated the "fall of Rome."
One of the advantages of delay is that a "tax increase" on Dec. 31st, i.e. not extending Bush tax cuts, becomes an opportunity for "tax cuts" on January 1st. The Obama/Democratic program of maintaining the lower tax rates for the middle class, becomes "tax cuts" in January. The higher rates, for those with incomes over $250,000, does not become a tax increase: it would simply remain as part of the agreement reached between Congress and the President, as part of the bargain to cut the deficit and debt. The Republican House agreed to this as the fall-back position for cutting the deficit.
This whole "cut the deficit" mania came from the Tea Party caucus in the House: it's miss-timed. The Great Recession has driven most of the current deficit by stimulus and aid to people in distress, and collecting less revenue because fewer people are working.
The whole mechanism of government spending more in a recession in order to ameliorate misery, despite revenue shortfalls, was an innovation of the New Deal. It's not surprising that reactionary Republicans want to repeal the practice.
Consider what would have happened if we'd adopted the balanced budget amendment long advocated by "fiscal conservatives": as revenue went down in the financial collapse of 2008, government would have been required either to raise taxes on those still working, and/or to cut expenditures--on food stamps, schools and everything else, even Defense. The result would have been an ever deeper, broader and self-reinforcing hole in the economy and mass misery. Today we'd still be in a deep depression with no way to dig ourselves out. We'd be in worse shape than Europe.
Once we've spent enough to create jobs (and hopefully to restructure the economy), then is the time to raise taxes on those who currently can't afford it, or to find other ways to balance the books: now is not that time; the economy is still too fragile and too many people are still out of work.
However, to avoid the so-called cliff, to begin to reduce the deficits in ways the nation can afford, raising taxes on high income earners makes sense. They do not "create jobs," from their rising incomes. The corporations they own will hire when there is demand for the goods and services they produce. Not before. High-income earners have garnered almost all the increased wealth since the start of the Great Recession: they are largely sitting on it, or investing it elsewhere.
The Republican insistence on lower tax rates for the wealthy is like the Roman Senate in 476 refusing to raise their taxes to pay the Ostrogoth palace guard. That action precipitated the "fall of Rome."
Monday, November 19, 2012
O'Reilly & Romney on "Gifts and Stuff"
Has anyone else noticed: the line Romney handed his donors--and via a surreptitious recording, the rest of the American people--is the same trotted out on Election night, not by Romney, but by Bill O'Reilly on Fox News. It was O'Reilly who blithered on first about why the election was going Obama's way: those "gifts and stuff" Obama had given out to blacks, Hispanics, women, the poor and the middle class.
Romney was simply parroting the nastiness of Fox News and then going further to all but say that 52% of the electorate was dependent on government largess, so of course they voted for Obama. What's a poor powerless multi-multi-millionaire going to do?
Is the Romney-O'Reilly contention true?
What is this "stuff"? Both O'Reilly and Romney speak as if these were bribes given to greedy people, in order for them to vote for Obama. However, when they mention specifics, what do they list: immigration reform, contraception for women, same-sex marriage and higher taxes for, er, "job creators". Unmentioned, except in the Republican primaries was the expansion of Food Stamps (officially SNAP), which has become critical to survival for a lot of people chronically unemployed.
Are these bribes, or are these policy intentions? Immigration reform is something this country has needed for a long time, since it's estimated we have 12 million illegal aliens living in the shadows, and a lot of hiring "under the table," which may work to employers' advantage, but is not a sustainable policy. Is immigration reform a "gift," or is it a needed reform of a broken system?
What is democracy, anyway? Some conservative wags have suggested that Rove and Adelson would have been better off just distributing the money they spent for political ads on directly buying votes. Hah hah.
Same-sex marriage has become something a majority of people feel is justified. So, is Obama's endorsement of it a gift, or a response to changing cultural attitudes?
Contraception for women, paid for by insurance in the ACA, may be seen by O'Reilly as a gift to unmarried women (who voted for Obama by a large margin), but contraception is necessary for women of childbearing age, in order for them to control their own lives. The subsidy means that poor women as well as wealthy ones can decide on their own. Republicans apparently want them "barefoot and pregnant."
So, "gifts" were Democrats offering substantive policies--and Republicans were offering what? God's blessing on a child of rape?
Fox News, it turns out, was giving Romney his lines. Fox is the perfect representative of the .001%, the media arm of our contemporary Roman Senatorial class. Romney's remark about the 47% was how he really thinks. Only now it's 52%, and aren't we lucky enough people knew this, or intuited it, that they didn't vote for this empty shirt!
Romney was simply parroting the nastiness of Fox News and then going further to all but say that 52% of the electorate was dependent on government largess, so of course they voted for Obama. What's a poor powerless multi-multi-millionaire going to do?
Is the Romney-O'Reilly contention true?
What is this "stuff"? Both O'Reilly and Romney speak as if these were bribes given to greedy people, in order for them to vote for Obama. However, when they mention specifics, what do they list: immigration reform, contraception for women, same-sex marriage and higher taxes for, er, "job creators". Unmentioned, except in the Republican primaries was the expansion of Food Stamps (officially SNAP), which has become critical to survival for a lot of people chronically unemployed.
Are these bribes, or are these policy intentions? Immigration reform is something this country has needed for a long time, since it's estimated we have 12 million illegal aliens living in the shadows, and a lot of hiring "under the table," which may work to employers' advantage, but is not a sustainable policy. Is immigration reform a "gift," or is it a needed reform of a broken system?
What is democracy, anyway? Some conservative wags have suggested that Rove and Adelson would have been better off just distributing the money they spent for political ads on directly buying votes. Hah hah.
Same-sex marriage has become something a majority of people feel is justified. So, is Obama's endorsement of it a gift, or a response to changing cultural attitudes?
Contraception for women, paid for by insurance in the ACA, may be seen by O'Reilly as a gift to unmarried women (who voted for Obama by a large margin), but contraception is necessary for women of childbearing age, in order for them to control their own lives. The subsidy means that poor women as well as wealthy ones can decide on their own. Republicans apparently want them "barefoot and pregnant."
So, "gifts" were Democrats offering substantive policies--and Republicans were offering what? God's blessing on a child of rape?
Fox News, it turns out, was giving Romney his lines. Fox is the perfect representative of the .001%, the media arm of our contemporary Roman Senatorial class. Romney's remark about the 47% was how he really thinks. Only now it's 52%, and aren't we lucky enough people knew this, or intuited it, that they didn't vote for this empty shirt!
Monday, November 12, 2012
Letter to a Right-Winger
Workers create value; employers organize a workplace, but only when there is demand for products/services: employers DO NOT CREATE JOBS. Governments create jobs more directly than most investors. And produce value, like census data, standard weights and measures, highways, civil peace, international stability. If you want to know what it's like without government, look at Somalia.
You need taxes to pay for collective values. People with wealth, and owners of businesses benefit more from these collective goods than those who live in ghettos, or under bridges. So, they should pay more. Currently, they don't pay their fair share.
The current tax system is more skewed in favor of the rich than it has been since the 1920's. The money created from economic growth should not all go to the investor, but 95% of all increased value since 2008 has gone to investors, not workers. Is that a fair distribution of value? When you tax, or even if you don't tax, you distribute wealth.
While employers may play some positive role in providing goods and services, investors are much less important, since there is an abundance of capital in the world. Why do you think interest rates can be kept so low? Investment should not be valued more highly than people's work, but that is exactly what our current tax system does. It's unjust (capital gains or "carried interest" at 15%, work: 20-35%). Our current system steals value from workers and transfers it to investors. That's Robin Hood in reverse, and that's what Obama proposes to undo.
If we continue along the same path of taxing investors lightly, then we'll end up like a Third World country with a small wealthy class and a poor, desperate class. Don't be surprised if we end up not with a moderate Obama, but with a revolutionary like Venezuela's Chavez, who gained political traction because of the extremes of wealth and poverty in Venezuela. My mother's family lives there behind doors that look like safe vaults!
In Sweden and Canada, people don't have to lock their doors even in Stockholm and Toronto, because those countries have fairer taxes and higher levels of equality.
Do you want people desperate, or relatively satisfied and willing to support the status quo? If you want stability and civil peace, you have to pay for it. If you have more, then you should pay more: you've benefited disproportionately. Does a black son of a waitress in a central city have your advantages? He struggles not because he's lazy, or stupid, but because our system intensifies his disadvantages; it should eliminate them.
Obama is no revolutionary Robin Hood; he's attempting to rectify a system that favors only a tiny proportion of the population. If that imbalance continues it will impoverish us all, not enrich us--except for the tiny few, like the Roman Senators of Fifth Century Rome prior to the Empire's collapse.
You need taxes to pay for collective values. People with wealth, and owners of businesses benefit more from these collective goods than those who live in ghettos, or under bridges. So, they should pay more. Currently, they don't pay their fair share.
The current tax system is more skewed in favor of the rich than it has been since the 1920's. The money created from economic growth should not all go to the investor, but 95% of all increased value since 2008 has gone to investors, not workers. Is that a fair distribution of value? When you tax, or even if you don't tax, you distribute wealth.
While employers may play some positive role in providing goods and services, investors are much less important, since there is an abundance of capital in the world. Why do you think interest rates can be kept so low? Investment should not be valued more highly than people's work, but that is exactly what our current tax system does. It's unjust (capital gains or "carried interest" at 15%, work: 20-35%). Our current system steals value from workers and transfers it to investors. That's Robin Hood in reverse, and that's what Obama proposes to undo.
If we continue along the same path of taxing investors lightly, then we'll end up like a Third World country with a small wealthy class and a poor, desperate class. Don't be surprised if we end up not with a moderate Obama, but with a revolutionary like Venezuela's Chavez, who gained political traction because of the extremes of wealth and poverty in Venezuela. My mother's family lives there behind doors that look like safe vaults!
In Sweden and Canada, people don't have to lock their doors even in Stockholm and Toronto, because those countries have fairer taxes and higher levels of equality.
Do you want people desperate, or relatively satisfied and willing to support the status quo? If you want stability and civil peace, you have to pay for it. If you have more, then you should pay more: you've benefited disproportionately. Does a black son of a waitress in a central city have your advantages? He struggles not because he's lazy, or stupid, but because our system intensifies his disadvantages; it should eliminate them.
Obama is no revolutionary Robin Hood; he's attempting to rectify a system that favors only a tiny proportion of the population. If that imbalance continues it will impoverish us all, not enrich us--except for the tiny few, like the Roman Senators of Fifth Century Rome prior to the Empire's collapse.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
We Won!
I remember when Harold, the school's maintenance man, came into the dining room as we kids were eating breakfast, and announced to my father: "We won!" The president re-elected was Truman, and the year was 1948.
Money didn't play such an outsized role in 1948 as it did in 2012, but the most important thing: "money," as the song goes, "doesn't buy you love." That was proven pretty decisively in 2012; money didn't buy love for Romney.
Tuesday night I stayed up until NBC declared Obama's victory--I didn't hear about Karl Rove's objections until the next afternoon. Obama really did win and it wasn't as close as Truman over Dewey.
Obama didn't campaign against a "do-nothing" Congress, but he could have; perhaps he should have. Considering Republican obstruction in Congress, it's extraordinary that Obama won on his accomplishments and his character--despite my evangelical friend's deeply held belief that Barack is the Antichrist.
What justifies Obama the Antichrist label? Maybe that he won? Or maybe that he's black, but doesn't act like a 'Yassuh, no Suh' N….., but as a powerful, articulate, well-educated man, who happens to be black.
Some now say Obama is a brilliant politician; I agree. But Obama's win, and that of the Democratic candidates who won a majority of Senate seats, despite the $100's of millions deployed against them, won because, in a democracy, numbers of voters ultimately prevail against raw cash. And Americans, like any people not cowed by authoritarianism, reacted to attempts to suppress them with impressive, stoic determination to push back and prevail. They may have voted in greater numbers than in the previous election when Republicans didn't so actively try to suppress the vote.
That's the strongest message and mandate in this election. Issues like global warming, collective bargaining rights and even inequality were often ignored by both sides--a defeat for democracy--but such a surge of money into the campaign (the money raised by billionaires and spent by "super-pacs"), encouraged Republicans to be more open and more aggressive about their extremist policies.
That was a good thing, because of the reaction: Americans reacted to the concerted effort to buy their votes through indirection, and they didn't like it. They turned out in droves in response to the attempts at voter suppression, and apparently ignored, or discounted, the negative ads flying nationwide. They may also have voted more decisively for Obama because of his real action in the face of Hurricane Sandy.
The day after the election, we still had a slowly diminishing empire, an artificially created "fiscal cliff," and need for a real stimulus to bolster jobs growth. And we still had Republican control of the House. But, for the moment, we've dodged the ultimate takeover of the selfish class, our equivalent of Roman Senators in the Fifth Century.
That's something to be thankful for.
Money didn't play such an outsized role in 1948 as it did in 2012, but the most important thing: "money," as the song goes, "doesn't buy you love." That was proven pretty decisively in 2012; money didn't buy love for Romney.
Tuesday night I stayed up until NBC declared Obama's victory--I didn't hear about Karl Rove's objections until the next afternoon. Obama really did win and it wasn't as close as Truman over Dewey.
Obama didn't campaign against a "do-nothing" Congress, but he could have; perhaps he should have. Considering Republican obstruction in Congress, it's extraordinary that Obama won on his accomplishments and his character--despite my evangelical friend's deeply held belief that Barack is the Antichrist.
What justifies Obama the Antichrist label? Maybe that he won? Or maybe that he's black, but doesn't act like a 'Yassuh, no Suh' N….., but as a powerful, articulate, well-educated man, who happens to be black.
Some now say Obama is a brilliant politician; I agree. But Obama's win, and that of the Democratic candidates who won a majority of Senate seats, despite the $100's of millions deployed against them, won because, in a democracy, numbers of voters ultimately prevail against raw cash. And Americans, like any people not cowed by authoritarianism, reacted to attempts to suppress them with impressive, stoic determination to push back and prevail. They may have voted in greater numbers than in the previous election when Republicans didn't so actively try to suppress the vote.
That's the strongest message and mandate in this election. Issues like global warming, collective bargaining rights and even inequality were often ignored by both sides--a defeat for democracy--but such a surge of money into the campaign (the money raised by billionaires and spent by "super-pacs"), encouraged Republicans to be more open and more aggressive about their extremist policies.
That was a good thing, because of the reaction: Americans reacted to the concerted effort to buy their votes through indirection, and they didn't like it. They turned out in droves in response to the attempts at voter suppression, and apparently ignored, or discounted, the negative ads flying nationwide. They may also have voted more decisively for Obama because of his real action in the face of Hurricane Sandy.
The day after the election, we still had a slowly diminishing empire, an artificially created "fiscal cliff," and need for a real stimulus to bolster jobs growth. And we still had Republican control of the House. But, for the moment, we've dodged the ultimate takeover of the selfish class, our equivalent of Roman Senators in the Fifth Century.
That's something to be thankful for.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Bribes Literal and Legal
I don't live in a battleground state, but Friday I received three unattributed flyers and another only identified as Republican by the micro-print postal stamp code: all were negative ads. One was against the incumbent Republican State Senator, possibly from the Independence Party; the Republican ad was against the Democratic challenger. The only TV ad I saw (I watch TV rarely) was also unlabeled, in lurid colors, against the Democratic Congressional challenger of the tea-flavored incumbent Congressman.
The Obama campaign has solicited my wife and I at least five times a day. Each. I have given small amounts several times and used Obama's phone tool; my wife has given more. Democratic Senatorial and Congressional candidates from Washington and Montana to New Mexico and Massachusetts have solicited me, plus at least five progressive Democratic organizations, and the DCCC, DGA and DSCC. That's only the political groups!
Occasionally, I've given really small amounts ($3.00) to Democratic groups or candidates, but it finally occurred to me: the whole campaign is an enormous business, a sector subset of Entertainment. I've encouraged them--I and all the other millions giving to both parties. But we don't get the kind of returns from the mega-bucks that billionaires "donate."
Neverthelss, I'm investing in the continued viability of Social Security, Medicare, and a universal right to health insurance: my investment will pay me back in kind if Obama wins. So will the aid programs for people in need, like fully funding Food Stamps and expanding grants to education. None of this makes me money; some save money for everyone. All maintain social stability.
Why does someone like Sheldon Adelson pledge to spend "whatever it takes," more than $100 million, to defeat Obama? What does he get out of it, if Romney wins? Adelson is under investigation and may be charged a felony: bribing Chinese officials with $600,000 to $1million, to set up gambling casinos in Macao, China's "autonomous" ex-Portuguese colony. He's likely violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to build the largest gambling complex in the world. He could go to jail, or, he could have a new President, Romney, name an Attorney General who would find a way to dismiss the charges.
How much is that worth to a billionaire worth $25 billion, a good part of it from Macao?
If Obama wins, this should be a whole new source of revenue. An invigorated DOJ could search for other sources of income: Wall Street bankers, private fund speculators like Bain Capital: people gambling with other people's money for their own gain.
Maybe that's the kind of money politics we really need! Take Crime Out of the Suites--To Pay Our Debts. Expropriate ill-gotten wealth and fund services for people they squeezed it from.
That would make it politically possible to reverse the apparently inexorable rise of our contemporary Roman Senators: the super-rich who increasingly monopolize the wealth we all produce.
The Obama campaign has solicited my wife and I at least five times a day. Each. I have given small amounts several times and used Obama's phone tool; my wife has given more. Democratic Senatorial and Congressional candidates from Washington and Montana to New Mexico and Massachusetts have solicited me, plus at least five progressive Democratic organizations, and the DCCC, DGA and DSCC. That's only the political groups!
Occasionally, I've given really small amounts ($3.00) to Democratic groups or candidates, but it finally occurred to me: the whole campaign is an enormous business, a sector subset of Entertainment. I've encouraged them--I and all the other millions giving to both parties. But we don't get the kind of returns from the mega-bucks that billionaires "donate."
Neverthelss, I'm investing in the continued viability of Social Security, Medicare, and a universal right to health insurance: my investment will pay me back in kind if Obama wins. So will the aid programs for people in need, like fully funding Food Stamps and expanding grants to education. None of this makes me money; some save money for everyone. All maintain social stability.
Why does someone like Sheldon Adelson pledge to spend "whatever it takes," more than $100 million, to defeat Obama? What does he get out of it, if Romney wins? Adelson is under investigation and may be charged a felony: bribing Chinese officials with $600,000 to $1million, to set up gambling casinos in Macao, China's "autonomous" ex-Portuguese colony. He's likely violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to build the largest gambling complex in the world. He could go to jail, or, he could have a new President, Romney, name an Attorney General who would find a way to dismiss the charges.
How much is that worth to a billionaire worth $25 billion, a good part of it from Macao?
If Obama wins, this should be a whole new source of revenue. An invigorated DOJ could search for other sources of income: Wall Street bankers, private fund speculators like Bain Capital: people gambling with other people's money for their own gain.
Maybe that's the kind of money politics we really need! Take Crime Out of the Suites--To Pay Our Debts. Expropriate ill-gotten wealth and fund services for people they squeezed it from.
That would make it politically possible to reverse the apparently inexorable rise of our contemporary Roman Senators: the super-rich who increasingly monopolize the wealth we all produce.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Frankenstorm and FrankenLeader
We lost power for about three hours, but were lucky: we lost only one large spruce far from the house.
It's tropical here (the eastern side), but this storm is not normal, dumping feet of snow on the western side. We now know: extreme weather is an effect of global warming.
Is this storm a plus for Romney? Or will it favor Obama?
Obama can be completely non-partisan and still look Presidential, managing the storm, and can make the case that his government works, unlike the response to Katrina: Bush treated FEMA as a dumping ground for cronies.
Obama doesn't have to say this, but others illuminate the difference, even if unintentionally. Republican Governor Chris Christie effusively thanked Obama for his help and concern for New Jersey and remarked on how well they worked together! Christie was the keynote speaker at the Republican convention, who gave Romney a tepid endorsement while inflating himself.
Romney, meanwhile, has slowed the pace of his campaign, and released an ad that is a complete fabrication against Obama, saying Chrysler was going to outsource Jeep production to China. Chrysler released a statement: the charge was false. Romney continues to run the ad!
The big question is: can the Romney campaign get away with lies like this, and simply ignore Chrysler's charges? Will voters finally see that Romney is willing to lie about virtually anything? Abortion: he was pro-choice running for Governor, but now advocates banning abortion with exceptions for rape, etc. Yet, his party platform bans abortion without exceptions. He lies about his tax plan, about his foreign policy, and he's willing to lie about documented facts. Can he get away with this because he looks so clean-cut--because he's not black?
Back to the storm: will Romney complain that FEMA is doing a lousy job because of Obama? Before he began to "re-draw" his program Romney advocated abolishing FEMA, leaving disaster relief to the states. Now, if/when critics bring that up, what will Romney say? FEMA has been doing a good job with Cyclone Sandy. It's likely he'll claim he never said that; he'll find some way to wiggle away from it.
Romney is a sociopath as are most Republican Party leaders. They have no scruples about changing their positions, according to the audience, or the flavor of the minute. If Romney is elected, we will face an unpredictable non-entity wielding power in the world's most powerful nation, backed by radical Republicans. Will he do what he said last, or what his "handlers" tell him?
The US and the world could face chaos: the empire could die of violent storms and foreign adventures, but Romney's fellow Roman Senators probably believe they could move to "pleasant places" elsewhere if Romney's policies wreck us. That didn't work in the Fifth Century: few of the western elite survived. Further, frankenstorms and violent weather aren't respecters of wealth: look at Manhattan!
Comments? Click below, scroll down.
It's tropical here (the eastern side), but this storm is not normal, dumping feet of snow on the western side. We now know: extreme weather is an effect of global warming.
Is this storm a plus for Romney? Or will it favor Obama?
Obama can be completely non-partisan and still look Presidential, managing the storm, and can make the case that his government works, unlike the response to Katrina: Bush treated FEMA as a dumping ground for cronies.
Obama doesn't have to say this, but others illuminate the difference, even if unintentionally. Republican Governor Chris Christie effusively thanked Obama for his help and concern for New Jersey and remarked on how well they worked together! Christie was the keynote speaker at the Republican convention, who gave Romney a tepid endorsement while inflating himself.
Romney, meanwhile, has slowed the pace of his campaign, and released an ad that is a complete fabrication against Obama, saying Chrysler was going to outsource Jeep production to China. Chrysler released a statement: the charge was false. Romney continues to run the ad!
The big question is: can the Romney campaign get away with lies like this, and simply ignore Chrysler's charges? Will voters finally see that Romney is willing to lie about virtually anything? Abortion: he was pro-choice running for Governor, but now advocates banning abortion with exceptions for rape, etc. Yet, his party platform bans abortion without exceptions. He lies about his tax plan, about his foreign policy, and he's willing to lie about documented facts. Can he get away with this because he looks so clean-cut--because he's not black?
Back to the storm: will Romney complain that FEMA is doing a lousy job because of Obama? Before he began to "re-draw" his program Romney advocated abolishing FEMA, leaving disaster relief to the states. Now, if/when critics bring that up, what will Romney say? FEMA has been doing a good job with Cyclone Sandy. It's likely he'll claim he never said that; he'll find some way to wiggle away from it.
Romney is a sociopath as are most Republican Party leaders. They have no scruples about changing their positions, according to the audience, or the flavor of the minute. If Romney is elected, we will face an unpredictable non-entity wielding power in the world's most powerful nation, backed by radical Republicans. Will he do what he said last, or what his "handlers" tell him?
The US and the world could face chaos: the empire could die of violent storms and foreign adventures, but Romney's fellow Roman Senators probably believe they could move to "pleasant places" elsewhere if Romney's policies wreck us. That didn't work in the Fifth Century: few of the western elite survived. Further, frankenstorms and violent weather aren't respecters of wealth: look at Manhattan!
Comments? Click below, scroll down.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Who's the Antichrist?
My Jews-for-Jesus friend maintains that Obama is the Antichrist. Does he mean because he is: "the final Head of the last great Empire before the establishment of the millennial kingdom of our Lord?" [Bible Believers Antichrist]
No, he means, he's "truly so arrogant that he reminds me of Hitler Mussulini(sic) and Castro as a true Demagogue."
I shouldn't be surprised: a super-articulate black man might be perceived as "arrogant." In the debates, Obama, tried to make sense of the complicated world we live in. In the last debate, Romney blithered and was ignorant of basic geography. Syria does not have a common border with Iran, and both have their own access to strategic Seas: Syria, the eastern Mediterranean, Iran, the Persian Gulf, one of the world's most strategic straits, as well as the Gulf of Oman, opening out into the Arabian Sea! But Romney accused Iran of taking sides in Syria to gain "its pathway to the sea." Why didn’t the media jump all over this gaffe?
Romney also remade his Middle Eastern foreign policy on the spot--his etch-a-sketch--so that Obama couldn't attack him; suddenly, they were almost exactly the same: on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria, and hardly a whimper about Libya and Egypt, either. He was "Moderate Mitt."
Obama did elide, and inflate, but he wasn't lying: he was explaining--to his own advantage--what he'd already done, and why it was working.
Neither dealt with important issues like climate change, or the European financial crisis and Romney was caught out in his ignorance of the Navy--and the rest of the Defense complex, despite campaigning on a huge increase in Defense spending. Where's the media to jump all over him on that?
Fox News said the debate was a tie!
Obama knew what he was talking about, at least, but if Romney isn't the AntiChrist; he's the False Prophet.
Does that make Obama the Antichrist, with his right to blow up or assassinate anyone he deems a threat to the United States? At least it isn't just a personal threat to Obama, or the wealthy, or Democrats, but it's still wrong.
If, then, Obama is the Antichrist, then we must have entered into the end times! But remember: Revelations was written in the late first century, not by John, the Apostle, and evidently the writer saw end-times coming, but in his own era.
Evangelists revel in Revelations, yet so far the end times haven't manifested throughout the ages. Yet so many, in this era, anticipate that they will; they look forward to it.
Romney's election might not be the end of the "last great empire," but he could push it there more rapidly. Obama might delay it, at least--or, if pushed adequately, embark on a less destructive path.
No, he means, he's "truly so arrogant that he reminds me of Hitler Mussulini(sic) and Castro as a true Demagogue."
I shouldn't be surprised: a super-articulate black man might be perceived as "arrogant." In the debates, Obama, tried to make sense of the complicated world we live in. In the last debate, Romney blithered and was ignorant of basic geography. Syria does not have a common border with Iran, and both have their own access to strategic Seas: Syria, the eastern Mediterranean, Iran, the Persian Gulf, one of the world's most strategic straits, as well as the Gulf of Oman, opening out into the Arabian Sea! But Romney accused Iran of taking sides in Syria to gain "its pathway to the sea." Why didn’t the media jump all over this gaffe?
Romney also remade his Middle Eastern foreign policy on the spot--his etch-a-sketch--so that Obama couldn't attack him; suddenly, they were almost exactly the same: on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria, and hardly a whimper about Libya and Egypt, either. He was "Moderate Mitt."
Obama did elide, and inflate, but he wasn't lying: he was explaining--to his own advantage--what he'd already done, and why it was working.
Neither dealt with important issues like climate change, or the European financial crisis and Romney was caught out in his ignorance of the Navy--and the rest of the Defense complex, despite campaigning on a huge increase in Defense spending. Where's the media to jump all over him on that?
Fox News said the debate was a tie!
Obama knew what he was talking about, at least, but if Romney isn't the AntiChrist; he's the False Prophet.
Does that make Obama the Antichrist, with his right to blow up or assassinate anyone he deems a threat to the United States? At least it isn't just a personal threat to Obama, or the wealthy, or Democrats, but it's still wrong.
If, then, Obama is the Antichrist, then we must have entered into the end times! But remember: Revelations was written in the late first century, not by John, the Apostle, and evidently the writer saw end-times coming, but in his own era.
Evangelists revel in Revelations, yet so far the end times haven't manifested throughout the ages. Yet so many, in this era, anticipate that they will; they look forward to it.
Romney's election might not be the end of the "last great empire," but he could push it there more rapidly. Obama might delay it, at least--or, if pushed adequately, embark on a less destructive path.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Emperor Mitt?
Perhaps you've heard about the Sensata plant in Freeport, Ill.? Its workers were required to train their Chinese replacements: yes, the manufacturing operation is being relocated to China. Sensata is owned by Bain Capital, the company that Romney founded, the company that pays the majority of his oversized income.
And Romney is going to "get tough with China?"
Right.
Mitt makes it abundantly clear, whenever the subject comes up, that he doesn't manage Bain Capital anymore. He retired from it--either in 1999, when he says he did, or in 2002, when the signed documents say he did. He was the sole owner and CEO. When he retired, Bain Capital didn't hire a new CEO. A management committee manages it, following the business model of its sometime CEO, who still gets the bulk of his income from Bain-related investments, although they're in a "blind trust," wink, wink.
So, about that Sensata plant: it makes high tech automotive parts, and has been highly profitable in Illinois. The plant netted $355 million in 2011, a 16% increase over 2010, part of $1.8 billion in profits to the company that year. Nevertheless, it will be closed down by the end of the year, and its equipment is being shipped to China, which is providing a subsidized new site. A pretty good deal: except for the 170 employees, and the country, since the high tech manufacturing will now be in China, instead. Sensata's owners will profit from the move; they'll deduct the cost of moving from their taxes (a deduction Obama would like to close), and they'll probably be able to defer US taxes on their profits in China--and pay the employees there much less, too.
Is it significant that Romney, with Bain Capital, was an innovator in this kind of operation? It's called off-shoring, and it has cost millions of American jobs. Is this how he's going to "grow American jobs?" Is this how he "knows" how to manage the economy?
The laid off employees of the Freeport plant are camping out in front of the plant and are calling it Bainport. They even have a website with a petition at bainport.com and they've invited Romney to show up, and/or stop the plant's closure. I expect it'll be a long wait.
This really is what Romney's plan for the economy looks like: profits for management, tax breaks for owners, and unemployment for workers. It's part of the monopolization of wealth and power intended by Romney's backers: the .001%, which closely parallels the monopoly of wealth and power held by Roman Senators as the Roman Empire trundled towards its last hurrah. In the fifth century, workers had to become serfs or slaves in order to survive. What will happen to America's workers if Mitt becomes Emperor?
And Romney is going to "get tough with China?"
Right.
Mitt makes it abundantly clear, whenever the subject comes up, that he doesn't manage Bain Capital anymore. He retired from it--either in 1999, when he says he did, or in 2002, when the signed documents say he did. He was the sole owner and CEO. When he retired, Bain Capital didn't hire a new CEO. A management committee manages it, following the business model of its sometime CEO, who still gets the bulk of his income from Bain-related investments, although they're in a "blind trust," wink, wink.
So, about that Sensata plant: it makes high tech automotive parts, and has been highly profitable in Illinois. The plant netted $355 million in 2011, a 16% increase over 2010, part of $1.8 billion in profits to the company that year. Nevertheless, it will be closed down by the end of the year, and its equipment is being shipped to China, which is providing a subsidized new site. A pretty good deal: except for the 170 employees, and the country, since the high tech manufacturing will now be in China, instead. Sensata's owners will profit from the move; they'll deduct the cost of moving from their taxes (a deduction Obama would like to close), and they'll probably be able to defer US taxes on their profits in China--and pay the employees there much less, too.
Is it significant that Romney, with Bain Capital, was an innovator in this kind of operation? It's called off-shoring, and it has cost millions of American jobs. Is this how he's going to "grow American jobs?" Is this how he "knows" how to manage the economy?
The laid off employees of the Freeport plant are camping out in front of the plant and are calling it Bainport. They even have a website with a petition at bainport.com and they've invited Romney to show up, and/or stop the plant's closure. I expect it'll be a long wait.
This really is what Romney's plan for the economy looks like: profits for management, tax breaks for owners, and unemployment for workers. It's part of the monopolization of wealth and power intended by Romney's backers: the .001%, which closely parallels the monopoly of wealth and power held by Roman Senators as the Roman Empire trundled towards its last hurrah. In the fifth century, workers had to become serfs or slaves in order to survive. What will happen to America's workers if Mitt becomes Emperor?
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Columbus and a Deracinated Carib
Some of my present-day relatives, unknown to me, must mourn the coming of that man, whose name changed over time. He was never known to himself as Christopher Columbus.
Colon stumbled on the Americas. He didn't discover them, since whole societies had been there for thousands of years. The people Colon mistakenly landed amongst were not particularly happy that he did so; he kidnapped, enslaved and killed them. Essentially, Colon, and almost every European following him, until a few enlightened souls in the 19th and 20th centuries, saw the indigenous peoples as sub-humans to be subjugated, enslaved, or eradicated.
Unbeknownst to Colon and to most of his successors until very late, the diseases Europeans brought with them unknowingly were the most effective destroyers of the healthy indigenous peoples. Late, in the 19th century, smallpox-smeared blankets were distributed to the Plains Indians to accomplish one of the most horrendous acts of "ethnic cleansing" ever attempted, perhaps the first biological warfare.
Before Colon, indigenous Americans were about as numerous as people in Europe, according to recent archaeology, yet soon after him, Europeans saw the Americas as nearly empty continents ripe for the picking. The Europeans' diseases preceded them, probably because refugees fleeing each plague spread it everywhere, from the Europeans' common cold, to the flu to small pox to malaria. No one understood diseases, then, not Europeans, not First Americans.
Siphilis, America's contribution to global diseases, didn't kill off whole European populations, but did precipitate mass craziness, like the Inquisition.
Spanish Conquistadores in Florida, shortly after Colon, strung up murdered Indians' bodies, and fed them to their dogs. Even now in the US indigenous transsexuals need protection from whites.
None of my indigenous heritage has been acknowledged by my Venezuelan family, but all you had to do was look at my mother and uncle to see it: straight, coarse black hair, not-white skin (except when sheltered always from the sun, as my grandmother apparently did), high cheekbones and small stature. My grandmother's family couldn't afford to admit its heritage: they were prominent landowners, business people and, reputedly, owners of a pearl fishery off the small island where my mother was born. The Coello's, island people, were probably half-Carib for generations, until my grandfather, a "100% Spanish" Andino, married my grandmother.
Columbus didn't just "discover" America. He set in motion the destruction of a whole hemisphere's cultures and societies, and the reduction of its original inhabitants to genetic remnants; I am one small, deracinated part. He also launched Europe onto the world's stage, and the US extended European dominance with its huge new resources in the hastily emptied hemisphere.
But that is past. Despite Republican posturing, Pax Americana will be more fleeting than Pax Romanum; American resources are stretched thin. The American Empire cannot maintain itself militarily, but Republicans would try: until the last penny of the not-rich has been poured down war's rat-hole--and billionaires escape.
Colon stumbled on the Americas. He didn't discover them, since whole societies had been there for thousands of years. The people Colon mistakenly landed amongst were not particularly happy that he did so; he kidnapped, enslaved and killed them. Essentially, Colon, and almost every European following him, until a few enlightened souls in the 19th and 20th centuries, saw the indigenous peoples as sub-humans to be subjugated, enslaved, or eradicated.
Unbeknownst to Colon and to most of his successors until very late, the diseases Europeans brought with them unknowingly were the most effective destroyers of the healthy indigenous peoples. Late, in the 19th century, smallpox-smeared blankets were distributed to the Plains Indians to accomplish one of the most horrendous acts of "ethnic cleansing" ever attempted, perhaps the first biological warfare.
Before Colon, indigenous Americans were about as numerous as people in Europe, according to recent archaeology, yet soon after him, Europeans saw the Americas as nearly empty continents ripe for the picking. The Europeans' diseases preceded them, probably because refugees fleeing each plague spread it everywhere, from the Europeans' common cold, to the flu to small pox to malaria. No one understood diseases, then, not Europeans, not First Americans.
Siphilis, America's contribution to global diseases, didn't kill off whole European populations, but did precipitate mass craziness, like the Inquisition.
Spanish Conquistadores in Florida, shortly after Colon, strung up murdered Indians' bodies, and fed them to their dogs. Even now in the US indigenous transsexuals need protection from whites.
None of my indigenous heritage has been acknowledged by my Venezuelan family, but all you had to do was look at my mother and uncle to see it: straight, coarse black hair, not-white skin (except when sheltered always from the sun, as my grandmother apparently did), high cheekbones and small stature. My grandmother's family couldn't afford to admit its heritage: they were prominent landowners, business people and, reputedly, owners of a pearl fishery off the small island where my mother was born. The Coello's, island people, were probably half-Carib for generations, until my grandfather, a "100% Spanish" Andino, married my grandmother.
Columbus didn't just "discover" America. He set in motion the destruction of a whole hemisphere's cultures and societies, and the reduction of its original inhabitants to genetic remnants; I am one small, deracinated part. He also launched Europe onto the world's stage, and the US extended European dominance with its huge new resources in the hastily emptied hemisphere.
But that is past. Despite Republican posturing, Pax Americana will be more fleeting than Pax Romanum; American resources are stretched thin. The American Empire cannot maintain itself militarily, but Republicans would try: until the last penny of the not-rich has been poured down war's rat-hole--and billionaires escape.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Gilded Age Reaction or Progressive Reform
Obama has to win re-election simply to allow the possibility of a more progressive politics and to prevent an accelerating slide into a revived Gilded Age of Robber Barons. Mitt not only represents the Robber Barons, he is one.
But Obama has been nearly half-bought himself.
Still, that leaves 50% of him that is open to the interests of the rest of us, not just the billionaires. Consider the XL Tar Sands pipeline. Obama's State Department initially passed on it, but under dramatic pressure by environmental activists--surrounding the White House in linked arms, for example--Obama delayed, but did not cancel the project. His department has pushed for a more environmentally benign route, but Obama still might agree to cancel it altogether--if pressured enough.
Romney would have had the protesters arrested and jailed.
If Obama is re-elected, taxes on the wealthy probably will go up and disincentives for outsourcing and offshoring would be a priority. Romney would cut taxes on the wealthy and would encourage offshoring (which he pioneered). It's also likely that Obama would maintain, or lower, tax rates on those least able to pay, maintain the safety net (unemployment insurance, Medicaid, food stamps and entitlements). Romney wants to gut, privatize and merge most, if not all, of these programs.
If Obama is re-elected, the rights of women and gays will be enhanced. If Romney gets elected, they'll be diminished. The same holds true for minorities and immigrants: their rights would be enhanced with Obama, restricted with Romney.
So, why do people support Romney? Why did the Tea Party so capture the GOP that elder statesmen not ideologically pure enough, like Senator Lugar, go down to defeat in their party's primaries? For all his sweet nothings (lies), Romney's attempts in the first debate at softening the hard right positions he's campaigned on are meaningless: he'd be kept in line by the Republican Congress likely to be elected with him if he won.
Obama is no pure progressive. To pull him leftward, we need Democratic progressives like Sherrod Brown in greater numbers in the House and Senate; both bodies need solid Democratic majorities and progressives must mobilize activists on all the issues important to us. Examples: stopping the imperial creep of our military abroad, and our police at home; pushing alternative energies and stopping fracking cold; passing the Dream Act.
Obama is different from Romney, as Gore was different from W. Gore would have responded to the vast demonstrations against starting the Iraq war; W ignored them.
With the improved job numbers, perhaps Obama has a chance. If he does, we also have a chance: to reverse the slide into the kind of lopsided dominance of the few wealthy that characterized the Roman Senators in the fast declining empire of fifth century Rome.
If Romney and Republicans win, the march towards chaos and impoverishment reminiscent of Rome's fall could look inevitable.
But Obama has been nearly half-bought himself.
Still, that leaves 50% of him that is open to the interests of the rest of us, not just the billionaires. Consider the XL Tar Sands pipeline. Obama's State Department initially passed on it, but under dramatic pressure by environmental activists--surrounding the White House in linked arms, for example--Obama delayed, but did not cancel the project. His department has pushed for a more environmentally benign route, but Obama still might agree to cancel it altogether--if pressured enough.
Romney would have had the protesters arrested and jailed.
If Obama is re-elected, taxes on the wealthy probably will go up and disincentives for outsourcing and offshoring would be a priority. Romney would cut taxes on the wealthy and would encourage offshoring (which he pioneered). It's also likely that Obama would maintain, or lower, tax rates on those least able to pay, maintain the safety net (unemployment insurance, Medicaid, food stamps and entitlements). Romney wants to gut, privatize and merge most, if not all, of these programs.
If Obama is re-elected, the rights of women and gays will be enhanced. If Romney gets elected, they'll be diminished. The same holds true for minorities and immigrants: their rights would be enhanced with Obama, restricted with Romney.
So, why do people support Romney? Why did the Tea Party so capture the GOP that elder statesmen not ideologically pure enough, like Senator Lugar, go down to defeat in their party's primaries? For all his sweet nothings (lies), Romney's attempts in the first debate at softening the hard right positions he's campaigned on are meaningless: he'd be kept in line by the Republican Congress likely to be elected with him if he won.
Obama is no pure progressive. To pull him leftward, we need Democratic progressives like Sherrod Brown in greater numbers in the House and Senate; both bodies need solid Democratic majorities and progressives must mobilize activists on all the issues important to us. Examples: stopping the imperial creep of our military abroad, and our police at home; pushing alternative energies and stopping fracking cold; passing the Dream Act.
Obama is different from Romney, as Gore was different from W. Gore would have responded to the vast demonstrations against starting the Iraq war; W ignored them.
With the improved job numbers, perhaps Obama has a chance. If he does, we also have a chance: to reverse the slide into the kind of lopsided dominance of the few wealthy that characterized the Roman Senators in the fast declining empire of fifth century Rome.
If Romney and Republicans win, the march towards chaos and impoverishment reminiscent of Rome's fall could look inevitable.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
The Hunger Games and Romney
What do the Hunger Games tell you about American society right now? In the movie, the images of people from the capital, of the powerful, compared to the images of Katniss's District 12 are stark contrasts. The capital is a gleaming, futuristic metropolis; District 12 is strongly reminiscent of Appalachia in the sixties. Images of the other outlying districts are equally bereft and impoverished, compared to the artificial glitz of the capital and especially its stars.
And then there's the white uniformed security forces, reminiscent both of Star Wars Imperial Guard and of our militarized riot squads today. That leads you to realize: the contour of the Hunger Games future begins to look familiar. It's the kind of class division in the future that we could have with the Republican agenda, and the security forces are already in place--to repress popular protests, like an escalation of Occupy, and to keep people in line, which they did in both District 12 and 11 in the movie.
Even if Obama wins re-election, the power of the wealthy will continue to grow, unless we elect a progressive Congress willing to stand up to them and, as a first step, pass and organize the ratification of the repeal of Citizens United. Otherwise, the kind of society envisioned by Hunger Games looks much more likely than some progressive alternative.
Why? Okay, let's posit a question: why does Romney propose spending 4% of GDP on Defense, when that would add 100's of billions to its budget with no real programmatic reason advanced.
Perhaps you need a more powerful military not only to bully the rest of the world, but to guard against popular, or populist revolution at home. Why would Romney, et al, worry about revolution? How else will people react if it becomes starkly clear to them--as clear as it was in District 12--that they are oppressed by an unfair political system, a system that was supposed to be democratic?
So, if you propose policies that will intensify inequality, which Romney-Ryan have done, then you are also logically required to beef up domestic security: to guard against popular protest--especially if you can successfully steal their votes--and enough people know it.
I suspect that's the real rationale for Romney's proposed Defense buildup, but of course, he'd never tell us. The reason for the Hunger Games, and the disappearance of the 13th district (the Northeast?) was the suppression of "treason"--by the heroic security forces.
Given Romney's energetic sale of himself, and Obama's lackluster rebuttals in the first debate, this kind of future looks all the more possible. His election, too, would include an attempt to extend our shrinking empire. The Roman Empire bankrupted itself in similar attempts; it's likely we would, as well.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Every Man For Himself!
The Ik, an African people studied and described by Colin Turnbull best typify the kind of thinking that the radical right wing tea party Republicans idealize: Everyone is out for themselves.
Of course, the Ik were starving much of the time Turnbull lived with them as a "participant observer." They were hunter-gatherers, who depended for most of their protein on the game, big and small, that lived on what had become national parks and wildlife preserves. They were forbidden to hunt for the game, and there was effective enough enforcement of the no hunting ordinances, that the Ik found it difficult to survive. They resisted agriculture.
Curiously, the Ik didn't band together for redress, or for common economic activity, like learning how to raise their own food. Everyone was out for himself, except for the children, who organized themselves into loose bands of age cohorts. They gathered what food they could find, but sometimes it was food they ripped out of the hands of aged members of the tribe, who had found something edible, but were too feeble to defend themselves.
Turnbull witnessed only one wedding, while he was living with the Ik (over a year), but daily instances of the above predatory behavior.
How is this relevant to the current campaign between Democrats and Republicans? The two parties really do represent two different ways of looking at the world, and the "I'm in it for myself and everyone is on his own," is only a little less radically sociopathic than the Ik.
Then, there's the apparent inability of Republicans to recognize the contribution of workers, as opposed to "job creators:" anything even mildly smacking of collective action they opposed. Anti-unionism may be natural to the GOP, but even Democrats who are antagonistic to unions, wouldn't think of celebrating Labor Day the way Majority Leader, Erick Cantor articulated it on a twitter message this September: "“Today, we celebrate those who have taken a risk, worked hard, built a business and earned their own success.” Nothing about workers, only about entrepreneurs.
The kind of radical sociopathology demonstrated by the Ik, and only a bit less radically, by the GOP, is a symptom of deep distress in society. In the case of the Ik, it was loss of their sources for survival, and Turnbull recommended that the society be forcibly disbanded before it infects others.
In the case of Republicans, the sociopathology may be a reaction to the imminent loss of a demographic majority: whites are fast diminishing as a proportion of the population, and Republicans depend almost exclusively on whites, largely white men. They can't appeal to them without alienating others, and they can't appeal to others (minorities) without losing their appeal to white men.
That may be the major reason for all their attempts to queer the vote.
The relevance to Rome's collapse? The Ik may well be remnants of an even more ancient empire than the Roman: their language appears derived from ancient Egyptian!
Of course, the Ik were starving much of the time Turnbull lived with them as a "participant observer." They were hunter-gatherers, who depended for most of their protein on the game, big and small, that lived on what had become national parks and wildlife preserves. They were forbidden to hunt for the game, and there was effective enough enforcement of the no hunting ordinances, that the Ik found it difficult to survive. They resisted agriculture.
Curiously, the Ik didn't band together for redress, or for common economic activity, like learning how to raise their own food. Everyone was out for himself, except for the children, who organized themselves into loose bands of age cohorts. They gathered what food they could find, but sometimes it was food they ripped out of the hands of aged members of the tribe, who had found something edible, but were too feeble to defend themselves.
Turnbull witnessed only one wedding, while he was living with the Ik (over a year), but daily instances of the above predatory behavior.
How is this relevant to the current campaign between Democrats and Republicans? The two parties really do represent two different ways of looking at the world, and the "I'm in it for myself and everyone is on his own," is only a little less radically sociopathic than the Ik.
Then, there's the apparent inability of Republicans to recognize the contribution of workers, as opposed to "job creators:" anything even mildly smacking of collective action they opposed. Anti-unionism may be natural to the GOP, but even Democrats who are antagonistic to unions, wouldn't think of celebrating Labor Day the way Majority Leader, Erick Cantor articulated it on a twitter message this September: "“Today, we celebrate those who have taken a risk, worked hard, built a business and earned their own success.” Nothing about workers, only about entrepreneurs.
The kind of radical sociopathology demonstrated by the Ik, and only a bit less radically, by the GOP, is a symptom of deep distress in society. In the case of the Ik, it was loss of their sources for survival, and Turnbull recommended that the society be forcibly disbanded before it infects others.
In the case of Republicans, the sociopathology may be a reaction to the imminent loss of a demographic majority: whites are fast diminishing as a proportion of the population, and Republicans depend almost exclusively on whites, largely white men. They can't appeal to them without alienating others, and they can't appeal to others (minorities) without losing their appeal to white men.
That may be the major reason for all their attempts to queer the vote.
The relevance to Rome's collapse? The Ik may well be remnants of an even more ancient empire than the Roman: their language appears derived from ancient Egyptian!
Saturday, September 22, 2012
906 in Truman's 'Do Nothing Congress', 176 in 2012
Those numbers are for laws passed by the respective Congresses: 1948 and 2012. Truman, who had been given little chance to win the 1948 election, because of the stalemate in Washington, made a nation-wide whistle-stop campaign (trains worked in those days, before the Interstate Highway system), successfully running against the "Do Nothing Congress."
That gives you an idea of how dysfunctional our national political system is today. Congress has been unable to pass major pieces of legislation, and has passed "stop-gap" measures just to "keep the lights on."
Obama is not to blame, and if he had a personality like Harry Truman, he could easily run against the "Do Nothing Congress" of today. Obama does make the point that Congress, specifically the Republicans in Congress, have played an obstructionist role.
The Republican House of Representatives has passed bills, but most of them were only statements of their agenda, with no expectation that the Senate's Democratic majority could accept them, and they haven't. The Democratic Senate, on the other hand has been stalemated by the Republican Senate minority's routine use of the "filibuster," rendering the 41 Republican Senators the controlling bloc, while the less unified and more diverse 59 Democrats (including two independents) have been unable to advance even a portion of their agenda.
A few Republicans have attempted to compromise with Democrats, to bring something workable to the floor, but, like Senator Lugar, they have been defeated in their party primaries, defeated by the accusation of "Republicans in Name Only," or RINO's. No Democrats have lost primaries for similar reasons.
Long ago, when I taught Political Science in Florida, a colleague exclaimed he'd just proven, beyond a doubt, that Democrats and Republicans in Congress voted more frequently along party lines than they did with the other party! In those days (the 1970's), this was a fairly significant finding, because Democrats and Republicans did what is now unthinkable: they worked together on important pieces of legislation. Votes were often not along party lines. Now, among Republicans, it is almost unthinkable for them to vote for any policy proposed by Democrats, even if many, like Obamacare, were originally proposed by Republicans. Democrats break ranks more often, but much more rarely than in the 1970's.
Today we have a Congress that is probably as stalemated as the Congresses that preceded the Civil War. The Republican Senate minority has been open about what they intend: to do anything possible to prevent Obama's re-election, even if that drives us back into the Great Recession and immiserates their constituents. They can always blame everything on the Democrats.
Rome's Senate in the fifth century was even less functional: the Emperors, meaning, their advisors, and Senators as office-holders, made the only meaningful decisions--usually for their own self-interest.
That gives you an idea of how dysfunctional our national political system is today. Congress has been unable to pass major pieces of legislation, and has passed "stop-gap" measures just to "keep the lights on."
Obama is not to blame, and if he had a personality like Harry Truman, he could easily run against the "Do Nothing Congress" of today. Obama does make the point that Congress, specifically the Republicans in Congress, have played an obstructionist role.
The Republican House of Representatives has passed bills, but most of them were only statements of their agenda, with no expectation that the Senate's Democratic majority could accept them, and they haven't. The Democratic Senate, on the other hand has been stalemated by the Republican Senate minority's routine use of the "filibuster," rendering the 41 Republican Senators the controlling bloc, while the less unified and more diverse 59 Democrats (including two independents) have been unable to advance even a portion of their agenda.
A few Republicans have attempted to compromise with Democrats, to bring something workable to the floor, but, like Senator Lugar, they have been defeated in their party primaries, defeated by the accusation of "Republicans in Name Only," or RINO's. No Democrats have lost primaries for similar reasons.
Long ago, when I taught Political Science in Florida, a colleague exclaimed he'd just proven, beyond a doubt, that Democrats and Republicans in Congress voted more frequently along party lines than they did with the other party! In those days (the 1970's), this was a fairly significant finding, because Democrats and Republicans did what is now unthinkable: they worked together on important pieces of legislation. Votes were often not along party lines. Now, among Republicans, it is almost unthinkable for them to vote for any policy proposed by Democrats, even if many, like Obamacare, were originally proposed by Republicans. Democrats break ranks more often, but much more rarely than in the 1970's.
Today we have a Congress that is probably as stalemated as the Congresses that preceded the Civil War. The Republican Senate minority has been open about what they intend: to do anything possible to prevent Obama's re-election, even if that drives us back into the Great Recession and immiserates their constituents. They can always blame everything on the Democrats.
Rome's Senate in the fifth century was even less functional: the Emperors, meaning, their advisors, and Senators as office-holders, made the only meaningful decisions--usually for their own self-interest.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
An Empire or Not?
So, the US has sent 200 Marines to Guatemala. So, US arms sales total 78% of global arms sales. So, we have drones in all sorts of unlikely places in addition to Afghanistan and Pakistan--like Australia!
We spend $902 billion a year on so-called 'Defense,' and yet we've effectively lost every major war we've embarked upon after Korea in the 1950's.
Who 'won' in Vietnam? Who 'won' in Iraq? Who's bound to be at least a major party in the government of Afghanistan when we leave? Did you guess the Taliban? We didn't even win in Korea; we fought to a draw, and as a consequence, North Korea is a "rogue nation" that's still very much around. And "our man in Iraq," Nuri el Maliki, Iraq's PM, is tentatively neutral, but actually supportive of Iran vs the US, possibly because of his Shiite connections.
And yet, the US is involved militarily almost everywhere in the world. When a problem erupts, like the Syrian civil war, the first instinct of many Americans is to send in US troops, or air power, or sea power. Progressive hawks (there are many among Democrats) are often even ahead of the GOP, as witness those Marines in Guatemala. They're hunting drug cartels, an example of how we militarize police problems.
At the moment, an "armada" has been assembled in the Persian Gulf, led by the US, of course, but also including the UK and probably some of our Arab "allies." The assembly of the 'armada' could be relatively quiet, apparently, but it has been brought together to confront an enemy that often defies international laws and treaties.
Why? An article I refused to read in the Economist asserted in the first sentence that the US would have to step up vis a vis Syria, because it was supposed to 'police' the world.
Why is our Nobel Peace Prize President, Obama, overseeing so many acts of war all around the globe?
Why do Americans consent to pay such huge defense bills ($902 billions in 2012)? Over 58% of defense money spent by the top ten military powers in the world is spent by the US. And our military complain when China increases its budget!
Defense spending employs relatively few for the money it pays out--war Keynesianism is notoriously inefficient, yet Romney wants to increase spending (to 4% of GDP), possibly because he has no use for diplomacy. He was recently discovered saying on an outrageous video that there was no possibility for an Israeli-Palestine peace agreement, because "the Palestinians don't want peace."
It took Rome a couple centuries to discover it couldn't maintain pax Romanum over the 'known world.' How long before the US exhausts itself in a similar effort? I give us less than 20 years; the explosions over all the Muslim world inspired by a stupid video are only another sign: the US cannot police the world, and shouldn't try.
We spend $902 billion a year on so-called 'Defense,' and yet we've effectively lost every major war we've embarked upon after Korea in the 1950's.
Who 'won' in Vietnam? Who 'won' in Iraq? Who's bound to be at least a major party in the government of Afghanistan when we leave? Did you guess the Taliban? We didn't even win in Korea; we fought to a draw, and as a consequence, North Korea is a "rogue nation" that's still very much around. And "our man in Iraq," Nuri el Maliki, Iraq's PM, is tentatively neutral, but actually supportive of Iran vs the US, possibly because of his Shiite connections.
And yet, the US is involved militarily almost everywhere in the world. When a problem erupts, like the Syrian civil war, the first instinct of many Americans is to send in US troops, or air power, or sea power. Progressive hawks (there are many among Democrats) are often even ahead of the GOP, as witness those Marines in Guatemala. They're hunting drug cartels, an example of how we militarize police problems.
At the moment, an "armada" has been assembled in the Persian Gulf, led by the US, of course, but also including the UK and probably some of our Arab "allies." The assembly of the 'armada' could be relatively quiet, apparently, but it has been brought together to confront an enemy that often defies international laws and treaties.
Why? An article I refused to read in the Economist asserted in the first sentence that the US would have to step up vis a vis Syria, because it was supposed to 'police' the world.
Why is our Nobel Peace Prize President, Obama, overseeing so many acts of war all around the globe?
Why do Americans consent to pay such huge defense bills ($902 billions in 2012)? Over 58% of defense money spent by the top ten military powers in the world is spent by the US. And our military complain when China increases its budget!
Defense spending employs relatively few for the money it pays out--war Keynesianism is notoriously inefficient, yet Romney wants to increase spending (to 4% of GDP), possibly because he has no use for diplomacy. He was recently discovered saying on an outrageous video that there was no possibility for an Israeli-Palestine peace agreement, because "the Palestinians don't want peace."
It took Rome a couple centuries to discover it couldn't maintain pax Romanum over the 'known world.' How long before the US exhausts itself in a similar effort? I give us less than 20 years; the explosions over all the Muslim world inspired by a stupid video are only another sign: the US cannot police the world, and shouldn't try.
99%,1%,47%,13%
If you pay no income taxes and receive Social Security and Medicare, both of which you paid for over a long history of work, then you are, according to Romney, one of the 47% who expect government to take care of you--he has no use for you.
What if you've paid $12,000 in property taxes, and have income of no more than $36,000? You are paying an effective tax rate of 33%, but you still pay no income tax, so you're one of the 47%. What if you earn $40,000, on which you pay payroll taxes of 7.65%, and you also have a property tax bill of $10,000. Then your effective rate is about 32%.
Mitt Romney says he paid "about 13%" of his income in "taxes," but didn't specify which taxes. The one tax year that he deigned to show us included a $77,000 tax write-off for what someone referred to as a "dancing horse" and he paid just over 13% on income taxes. While most people in the middle-income brackets pay at about that rate, Romney's no middle-income taxpayer.
In any case, the video revealing his statement about the 47%, brings up the question: is he one of the 47%, as well as one of the 1%? Many corporations pay no income tax, including GE, for example, and like the average for the bottom quintile of income earners, it had a negative rate of tax--it received subsidies that more than cancelled out any taxes due.
More than ever, Romney should release his past tax returns, if he wishes to appeal to more than a minority of American voters. But maybe he can't, because those returns would reveal either: a felony, like voting fraud--claiming Massachusetts residence to vote and California residence for tax purposes in 2008; or he paid no income taxes in some of the past years, despite multi-million dollar incomes.
Is he a member of the 1%? Certainly. Does he get it that most people struggle? No. He sees them as dependents on government (a projection?), and apparently would treat them that way.
He's a true Roman Senator, although instead of owning slaves and serfs, he's had no compunction driving workers from their jobs, and forcing others to accept dramatically reduced incomes, while he made millions.
The fact that he's ready to double-down on his 47% statement is even more eloquent. It demonstrates that he believes he can--and should--win election with only white males, only those who ascribe his statement to 'others' (minorities, especially), and only those who believe they "made it" on their own. It's a piece with Republicans' "we built that" misinterpretation of Obama's reference to government's role in creating the infrastructure necessary for wealth-creation.
If, despite all this, Romney manages to buy and/or steal the election, anyone not in the 1% will get a government that is actively opposed to their interests.
What if you've paid $12,000 in property taxes, and have income of no more than $36,000? You are paying an effective tax rate of 33%, but you still pay no income tax, so you're one of the 47%. What if you earn $40,000, on which you pay payroll taxes of 7.65%, and you also have a property tax bill of $10,000. Then your effective rate is about 32%.
Mitt Romney says he paid "about 13%" of his income in "taxes," but didn't specify which taxes. The one tax year that he deigned to show us included a $77,000 tax write-off for what someone referred to as a "dancing horse" and he paid just over 13% on income taxes. While most people in the middle-income brackets pay at about that rate, Romney's no middle-income taxpayer.
In any case, the video revealing his statement about the 47%, brings up the question: is he one of the 47%, as well as one of the 1%? Many corporations pay no income tax, including GE, for example, and like the average for the bottom quintile of income earners, it had a negative rate of tax--it received subsidies that more than cancelled out any taxes due.
More than ever, Romney should release his past tax returns, if he wishes to appeal to more than a minority of American voters. But maybe he can't, because those returns would reveal either: a felony, like voting fraud--claiming Massachusetts residence to vote and California residence for tax purposes in 2008; or he paid no income taxes in some of the past years, despite multi-million dollar incomes.
Is he a member of the 1%? Certainly. Does he get it that most people struggle? No. He sees them as dependents on government (a projection?), and apparently would treat them that way.
He's a true Roman Senator, although instead of owning slaves and serfs, he's had no compunction driving workers from their jobs, and forcing others to accept dramatically reduced incomes, while he made millions.
The fact that he's ready to double-down on his 47% statement is even more eloquent. It demonstrates that he believes he can--and should--win election with only white males, only those who ascribe his statement to 'others' (minorities, especially), and only those who believe they "made it" on their own. It's a piece with Republicans' "we built that" misinterpretation of Obama's reference to government's role in creating the infrastructure necessary for wealth-creation.
If, despite all this, Romney manages to buy and/or steal the election, anyone not in the 1% will get a government that is actively opposed to their interests.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
"Apologies"
Terrible, isn't it that America has to "apologize" for a crude youtube movie! Uhm, an embassy spokesperson, in the Egyptian embassy about to be surrounded by protestors, rightly distanced the US from a rancid anti-Muslim piece of propaganda for which America was not responsible.
Romney called this statement an apology and his politicizing a foreign event has blown up in his face. But it's not as if this is a new position for him. He's previously gone around the nation claiming that Obama apologized rather than standing up for America, so he interpreted the sensible statement of the US Embassy in Egypt in terms of his own campaign propaganda. He was reflexively reacting to Obama's famous speech in Cairo.
What Obama attempted, in that famous speech, was to reach out to Muslims worldwide, to demonstrate his understanding of their concerns and to attempt to move US-Muslim relations forward. He said, "There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground." If that were an apology, then the only alternative would be war---for which Americans have no appetite, after two failed wars in the last ten years.
So, it's not just that Romney demonstrated his ability to put his foot in his mouth, especially on foreign affairs; it's that he has shown an inherent inability to see other people from any but his own perspective.
What's Romney's perspective? Much has been made of his flip-flopping on abortion, on global warming, on health care policy and on war policy. But on the latter, he was for the Vietnam War before he was against it (when campaigning for the Senate in Massachusetts), to paraphrase John Kerry, and now is apparently for any war in prospect. He has consistently advocated a "tough" foreign policy, as in adopting Netanyahu's "red line" on Iran's nuclear policy, thereby justifying an immediate attack, identifying Russia as our primary antagonist and vowing he'd name China a currency manipulator (and initiating a trade war) on his first day in office.
So, Romney's perspective is to see any nation not allied with us as against us, and to discount any concerns other nations have, by saying that any attempt to understand them is "apologizing for America." His unconsidered statement about the Egyptian Embassy attack was consistent with his articulated foreign policy--such as it is.
If Rove's and Saudi Arabia's money still wins Romney the election, the United States might embark on a whole series of "wars of choice," which would also be consistent with Romney's insistence that the Pentagon budget not be cut, but increased to 4% of GDP.
So, every other government program would be cut, people would be left without support and the US would be hollowed out by wars, just like the Roman Empire in the fourth and fifth centuries. Not a pretty prospect, but still a possible one.
Romney called this statement an apology and his politicizing a foreign event has blown up in his face. But it's not as if this is a new position for him. He's previously gone around the nation claiming that Obama apologized rather than standing up for America, so he interpreted the sensible statement of the US Embassy in Egypt in terms of his own campaign propaganda. He was reflexively reacting to Obama's famous speech in Cairo.
What Obama attempted, in that famous speech, was to reach out to Muslims worldwide, to demonstrate his understanding of their concerns and to attempt to move US-Muslim relations forward. He said, "There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground." If that were an apology, then the only alternative would be war---for which Americans have no appetite, after two failed wars in the last ten years.
So, it's not just that Romney demonstrated his ability to put his foot in his mouth, especially on foreign affairs; it's that he has shown an inherent inability to see other people from any but his own perspective.
What's Romney's perspective? Much has been made of his flip-flopping on abortion, on global warming, on health care policy and on war policy. But on the latter, he was for the Vietnam War before he was against it (when campaigning for the Senate in Massachusetts), to paraphrase John Kerry, and now is apparently for any war in prospect. He has consistently advocated a "tough" foreign policy, as in adopting Netanyahu's "red line" on Iran's nuclear policy, thereby justifying an immediate attack, identifying Russia as our primary antagonist and vowing he'd name China a currency manipulator (and initiating a trade war) on his first day in office.
So, Romney's perspective is to see any nation not allied with us as against us, and to discount any concerns other nations have, by saying that any attempt to understand them is "apologizing for America." His unconsidered statement about the Egyptian Embassy attack was consistent with his articulated foreign policy--such as it is.
If Rove's and Saudi Arabia's money still wins Romney the election, the United States might embark on a whole series of "wars of choice," which would also be consistent with Romney's insistence that the Pentagon budget not be cut, but increased to 4% of GDP.
So, every other government program would be cut, people would be left without support and the US would be hollowed out by wars, just like the Roman Empire in the fourth and fifth centuries. Not a pretty prospect, but still a possible one.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Do We Develop or Recover?
Romney says drill more; Obama says push oil, gas and alternative energies.
The differences between Economists Paul Krugman and Jeffrey Sachs come down to whether the above matters. Krugman stresses the need to increase demand, and advocates deficit spending--any deficit spending--in order to "grow" the economy. Sachs points out that what you spend the money on makes a difference.
Krugman would agree that spending on Defense, for example, is not going to increase the nation's long-term wealth the way spending on new technologies like alternative energy and infrastructure modernization would. Smart grids and high-speed trains would improve the economy, not just add to it.
One of the greatest barriers to recovery, however, is the huge amount of debt tied up in real estate that has lost value (28.6% of all mortgages owed by homeowners are underwater). Student loan debt is $914 billion, though credit card debt has fallen from over $800 billion last year to $626 billion now. The overhanging private debt deflates increases in demand created by the Fed, or government stimulus funds--regardless of public debt.
Sachs posits that in order for people to have more money, the economy can't just recover to what it was before, but must develop into something different, because the world economy has changed. People need new skills, businesses need new technologies and both need better infrastructure, from those smart grids and universal broadband, to better roads, rails and vehicles.
One of the unexpected growth spots in this otherwise slack economy is an old-fashioned oil and gas boom, unleashed by the environmentally damaging newish technology of fracking. Some of US growth is from cheap natural gas and (not cheap) domestic oil, not from burgeoning wind and solar power. (Oil isn't cheap, because prices are set in the world market, regardless of where it's pumped). Low natural gas prices make solar and wind less attractive.
It's an energy revival led by dinosaurs. The booms are not only environmentally destructive, they will delay necessary development needed for the US to lead as an advanced economy--unless the money they generate is taxed away to create incentives for alternative energies, smart grids and skills.
If we simply revel in the sudden abundance of fossil fuels, while Germany, China and Japan pursue alternative energies, we insure that global warming intensifies. We'll also fall behind technologically and in creating a sustainable future. We'll be like the Spanish Empire, which drowned in the gold and silver it extracted from the Americas, unable to make anything, able only to buy things--until the gold and silver so inflated the world's currencies that Spain became the poor man of Europe.
This also parallels the extractive conquest model of the Roman Empire. It ripped off the "known" world until it could expand no further. Impoverished by contraction, it finally "fell," when it could no longer swagger even down the Italian peninsula.
The differences between Economists Paul Krugman and Jeffrey Sachs come down to whether the above matters. Krugman stresses the need to increase demand, and advocates deficit spending--any deficit spending--in order to "grow" the economy. Sachs points out that what you spend the money on makes a difference.
Krugman would agree that spending on Defense, for example, is not going to increase the nation's long-term wealth the way spending on new technologies like alternative energy and infrastructure modernization would. Smart grids and high-speed trains would improve the economy, not just add to it.
One of the greatest barriers to recovery, however, is the huge amount of debt tied up in real estate that has lost value (28.6% of all mortgages owed by homeowners are underwater). Student loan debt is $914 billion, though credit card debt has fallen from over $800 billion last year to $626 billion now. The overhanging private debt deflates increases in demand created by the Fed, or government stimulus funds--regardless of public debt.
Sachs posits that in order for people to have more money, the economy can't just recover to what it was before, but must develop into something different, because the world economy has changed. People need new skills, businesses need new technologies and both need better infrastructure, from those smart grids and universal broadband, to better roads, rails and vehicles.
One of the unexpected growth spots in this otherwise slack economy is an old-fashioned oil and gas boom, unleashed by the environmentally damaging newish technology of fracking. Some of US growth is from cheap natural gas and (not cheap) domestic oil, not from burgeoning wind and solar power. (Oil isn't cheap, because prices are set in the world market, regardless of where it's pumped). Low natural gas prices make solar and wind less attractive.
It's an energy revival led by dinosaurs. The booms are not only environmentally destructive, they will delay necessary development needed for the US to lead as an advanced economy--unless the money they generate is taxed away to create incentives for alternative energies, smart grids and skills.
If we simply revel in the sudden abundance of fossil fuels, while Germany, China and Japan pursue alternative energies, we insure that global warming intensifies. We'll also fall behind technologically and in creating a sustainable future. We'll be like the Spanish Empire, which drowned in the gold and silver it extracted from the Americas, unable to make anything, able only to buy things--until the gold and silver so inflated the world's currencies that Spain became the poor man of Europe.
This also parallels the extractive conquest model of the Roman Empire. It ripped off the "known" world until it could expand no further. Impoverished by contraction, it finally "fell," when it could no longer swagger even down the Italian peninsula.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Who Holds the Power?
Political conventions are mostly to activate the base these days, since the selection of the nominee has taken place long before. That's when Romney bought the primaries, through his superior funding, the support of Rove's Crossroads GPS and Wall Street.
Of course, Obama, as incumbent didn't have to fight contested primaries; the nominee had been selected by his previous election, although there was some opposition and lack of interest, especially among activists
If you look at the two conventions as venues to gin up the activists, the Democrats were far more effective. Obama was by far a better speaker than Romney, and the GOP has no one like Bill Clinton, who gave one of the best speeches of his life. The Democratic convention was much more integrated and the many other speakers created a meaningful whole, climaxing with Obama's speech.
It probably wasn't his best, but it was inspirational for anyone listening, by the climax, though it started out slowly.
Former supporters who had cooled to the President, said in the convention's aftermath, "He's doing the best he can, maybe the best anyone can--and I'm going to give money, and/or I'm going to do something for his campaign."
I hope many saw parts, at least, of the two conventions; apparently, not that many did. From my vantage point (admittedly biased towards Democrats, but wary of its Wall Street wing), they did seem to differ, the way Bill Clinton encapsulated it: the Republicans stressed on-your-own-individualism, while Democrats demonstrated, as well as advocated, for a society in which everyone-is-in-it-together. The second model seemed to work for Democrats. Republican stars hardly gave a nod to Romney in their speeches.
Another expression of this difference was the GOP's insistence that the wealthy already paid too much, and should get tax cuts, while Democrats said they should pay their fair share, meaning higher tax rates, above the top rate of 35% as of now, at least back to Clinton's 39.6% (the top rate was 91% under Republican President Eisenhower). The wealthy are already paying the lowest rate since 1931 (only the 20's had a lower rate--25%) and we know where that led.
Some surprises from the conventions: Democrats came across celebrating the military and national security (the execution of Osama bin Laden), Obamacare, the auto bailout, as well as the partial recovery from the economy's depths in 2009, after Obama's inauguration.
Republicans totally missed any military celebration, entertained warnings from neo-cons that Americans should take on Syria, Iran--or threats anywhere--and complained that Obama had failed abroad, and at home with the recovery.
Neither party focused on financial sector abuses, or impunity, indicating that both are heavily beholden to Wall Street--AG Holder just dropped all suits against banks and banksters.
Even if Obama and Democrats win, the selfish class, our Roman Senators, firmly hold the reins, even though it's clear: most of them would prefer Romney. He's one of their own.
Of course, Obama, as incumbent didn't have to fight contested primaries; the nominee had been selected by his previous election, although there was some opposition and lack of interest, especially among activists
If you look at the two conventions as venues to gin up the activists, the Democrats were far more effective. Obama was by far a better speaker than Romney, and the GOP has no one like Bill Clinton, who gave one of the best speeches of his life. The Democratic convention was much more integrated and the many other speakers created a meaningful whole, climaxing with Obama's speech.
It probably wasn't his best, but it was inspirational for anyone listening, by the climax, though it started out slowly.
Former supporters who had cooled to the President, said in the convention's aftermath, "He's doing the best he can, maybe the best anyone can--and I'm going to give money, and/or I'm going to do something for his campaign."
I hope many saw parts, at least, of the two conventions; apparently, not that many did. From my vantage point (admittedly biased towards Democrats, but wary of its Wall Street wing), they did seem to differ, the way Bill Clinton encapsulated it: the Republicans stressed on-your-own-individualism, while Democrats demonstrated, as well as advocated, for a society in which everyone-is-in-it-together. The second model seemed to work for Democrats. Republican stars hardly gave a nod to Romney in their speeches.
Another expression of this difference was the GOP's insistence that the wealthy already paid too much, and should get tax cuts, while Democrats said they should pay their fair share, meaning higher tax rates, above the top rate of 35% as of now, at least back to Clinton's 39.6% (the top rate was 91% under Republican President Eisenhower). The wealthy are already paying the lowest rate since 1931 (only the 20's had a lower rate--25%) and we know where that led.
Some surprises from the conventions: Democrats came across celebrating the military and national security (the execution of Osama bin Laden), Obamacare, the auto bailout, as well as the partial recovery from the economy's depths in 2009, after Obama's inauguration.
Republicans totally missed any military celebration, entertained warnings from neo-cons that Americans should take on Syria, Iran--or threats anywhere--and complained that Obama had failed abroad, and at home with the recovery.
Neither party focused on financial sector abuses, or impunity, indicating that both are heavily beholden to Wall Street--AG Holder just dropped all suits against banks and banksters.
Even if Obama and Democrats win, the selfish class, our Roman Senators, firmly hold the reins, even though it's clear: most of them would prefer Romney. He's one of their own.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Chaos
It's what happened in the Fifth Century, well ahead of the "fall" of Rome, and it can happen here, especially if Romney is elected. Even if he isn't, as long as this nation remains so polarized, it's almost inevitable: we'll have chaos, as in large segments of society no longer acting as if they belong to it.
One of the more poignant quotations coming down from the early Sixth Century: the monasteries reporting they had little time for learning, because of the omnipresence of "war bands," that ripped off whatever of value the monks and their neighbors had managed to gain.
As I've pointed out before, the dream of Grover Norquist is realized in Somalia. There is no government: "war bands" roam the countryside. Government was "drowned in a bathtub." Moreover, different war bands roam the seas: we call them 'Somali pirates.'
Seriously. If the obscenely wealthy gain even more power and wealth, by buying the election, or at least government stalemate, then the working class (which no one mentions anymore) will be even more desperate. The middle class will bifurcate into the few 'successful' and the many even more desperate than the working class--because children of the middle class don't expect to be poor.
I taught Revolution as a Political Science class. One of the leading theories for why revolutions emerge, and why some succeed: the leaders came from the disaffected, but highly educated, middle class. That's even true if their class is a small portion of society, like Mao's rich peasants and Castro's private school elite. Roman bandits came from this class.
Chaos will come if Romney is elected, because his policies make no sense: they'll generate a new depression. Even a new war with Iran would only make it worse, but the very rich will get even wealthier. Romney's tax plan, reportedly, would reduce his tax rate from his claimed (and outrageously low) 13% to 1%.
Okay, here's the recipe: depression, increasing misery, savage cuts to income maintenance programs like Food Stamps, skyrocketing medical costs, by repealing Obamacare, government support for breaking unions, cutting wages and raising taxes on everyone but the wealthy; the wealthy clearly flourish. What do you get?
Perhaps Syria is the model for our future. The peaceful reform movement there was brutally repressed, thereby stoking desperation and violence, which eventually led to civil war, maybe it will lead to revolution, once Assad is ejected.
Leftists, don't take heart. Not all revolutions are leftist: Hitler and Mussolini were revolutionaries. The US could go either way and given past history, Americans have tended to blunder right, not left. FDR and Lincoln were outliers.
So, chaos: even if Obama wins--unless he carries his party's progressives with a real mandate to slash unemployment, control the banks, and radically reduce inequality.
How likely is that? Well, maybe if Elizabeth Warren were the Democratic convention's keynoter, there could be cause for optimism. But she won't be.
Comments? See below and scroll down.
One of the more poignant quotations coming down from the early Sixth Century: the monasteries reporting they had little time for learning, because of the omnipresence of "war bands," that ripped off whatever of value the monks and their neighbors had managed to gain.
As I've pointed out before, the dream of Grover Norquist is realized in Somalia. There is no government: "war bands" roam the countryside. Government was "drowned in a bathtub." Moreover, different war bands roam the seas: we call them 'Somali pirates.'
Seriously. If the obscenely wealthy gain even more power and wealth, by buying the election, or at least government stalemate, then the working class (which no one mentions anymore) will be even more desperate. The middle class will bifurcate into the few 'successful' and the many even more desperate than the working class--because children of the middle class don't expect to be poor.
I taught Revolution as a Political Science class. One of the leading theories for why revolutions emerge, and why some succeed: the leaders came from the disaffected, but highly educated, middle class. That's even true if their class is a small portion of society, like Mao's rich peasants and Castro's private school elite. Roman bandits came from this class.
Chaos will come if Romney is elected, because his policies make no sense: they'll generate a new depression. Even a new war with Iran would only make it worse, but the very rich will get even wealthier. Romney's tax plan, reportedly, would reduce his tax rate from his claimed (and outrageously low) 13% to 1%.
Okay, here's the recipe: depression, increasing misery, savage cuts to income maintenance programs like Food Stamps, skyrocketing medical costs, by repealing Obamacare, government support for breaking unions, cutting wages and raising taxes on everyone but the wealthy; the wealthy clearly flourish. What do you get?
Perhaps Syria is the model for our future. The peaceful reform movement there was brutally repressed, thereby stoking desperation and violence, which eventually led to civil war, maybe it will lead to revolution, once Assad is ejected.
Leftists, don't take heart. Not all revolutions are leftist: Hitler and Mussolini were revolutionaries. The US could go either way and given past history, Americans have tended to blunder right, not left. FDR and Lincoln were outliers.
So, chaos: even if Obama wins--unless he carries his party's progressives with a real mandate to slash unemployment, control the banks, and radically reduce inequality.
How likely is that? Well, maybe if Elizabeth Warren were the Democratic convention's keynoter, there could be cause for optimism. But she won't be.
Comments? See below and scroll down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)