America Now, Roman Empire Then

Banks To Get a Tap on the Wrist

2012-01-25T18:36:00.000-05:00

Here are some revealing figures: because of the housing boom and bust, created by the recklessness of the large banks and their associates: mortgage service companies, rating agencies, etc., there is $700 billion in negative equity in the housing market today. About 3.5 million Americans are homeless, 18.5 million homes sit vacant, and since 2007, more than 7.5 million homes have been foreclosed.

Here are some more revealing figures: last year, Wall Street lavished $147 billion on bonuses to its executives. Estimated assets of the six largest banks: $7.29-8.7 trillion (with a T) in 2010.

Meanwhile, Obama's US Attorney General Holder is pushing the 50 states' Attorneys General to sign on to a negotiated settlement with the banks, in which the banks will pay penalties to aid in restitution of the housing market they destroyed. The total penalties: $20 billion, a large figure, but compared to the amounts of money controlled by these banks, it's miniscule; compared to the damage they did, it's like swatting at a fly on a raging bull.

What makes this proposed settlement even more outrageous: the banks wouldn't pay that $20 billion out of their own pockets. "Paying" means they can raise the money by devaluing the Mortgage Backed Securities on their books (but owned by investors), not the mortgages owned by the banks. So, the banks would only pay a tiny fraction even of the bonuses they lavish on themselves, and they wouldn't even use their own money!

Besides the insignificant punishment: the important part for the banks is a guarantee against further investigations into the banks' wrongdoing. There are piles of evidence, and witnesses that crimes of fraud, theft and extortion were committed widely, against millions of homeowners and hundreds of thousands of investors. But with no more investigations, the banks can just keep on doing all the things they did before, like robosigning, fraudulent foreclosures, wrongful evictions and mis-allocation of funds.

Worse, the agreement pushed by Holder and probably supported by Obama, would grant the banks and their officers immunity from additional suits for damages: immunity for the corporations and people who drove this country into the ditch, and hugely enriched themselves in the process!

They might still be liable for criminal prosecution, but the terms haven't yet been agreed to.

No wonder New York's AG, Eric Schneiderman, and about nine other state AG's, refuse to sign on to the proposed settlement; more are considering joining them.

Why would Holder negotiate this? His former law firm works for five of the six banks. Why would Obama? Wall Street provided a large portion of his campaign funds in 2008. Super-pacs can raise unlimited amounts of money for his Republican opponent. If Obama blasts Wall Street rhetorically, but makes a deal with them, he could still raise enough to win.

So, our Roman Senators go scot-free, their dominance remains unchallenged and everyone else is impoverished--and has no recourse, just like fifth century Rome.

Lockouts: Capitalism 2012

2012-01-24T11:08:00.000-05:00

Corporations, or rather, their CEO's, are feeling their oats. They're sitting on mountains of profits and can see, from their corner window offices, the endless reserve army of the desperate, just waiting to be asked: work, no matter how badly paid, is better than no work at all.

So, more and more corporations aren't tolerating their union workers any longer: they're locking them out, or threatening to do so. If unions attempt to negotiate for their members, corporations refuse to listen. Instead, they demand: lower wages and benefits; they don't budge. It doesn't matter that their corporations have high profits at current wage levels; they want to cut wages, cut benefits, and claim they'll go out of business, or relocate, or offshore, if they don't get their way, or simply will hire replacement workers. After they make their claim--unsubstantiated by their balance sheets--they lock the doors if unions don't cave. Seventeen have done so in 2011, but before this year, lockouts were rare.

It's the new face of management: take it or leave it: capitalism 2012 style.

What managements want is clear: higher and higher profits, huge salaries for themselves and higher dividends if that will enhance the value of their stock, and incomes. What is also clear: workers may do the work necessary to the corporation, but workers are now fungible, just like money. They can be traded in for cheaper models, just like retiring high interest loans for lower cost ones. There are just so many willing to work, and so few jobs available.

Manufacturing is supposedly reviving in the US. This may be one reason: highly skilled, educated, hard-working (willing to work way more than 40-hour weeks), American workers come cheap, now that unions have been beaten down to the point where they are weak, almost impotent. Strikes are no threat to many corporations: replacement workers, what unions call "scabs," are willing and ready to take the place of strikers, and the authorities will send in the police, armed, armored and dangerous to insure the safety of replacement workers and corporate property. Strikers are no match for them.

There are few political representatives, in this supposed democracy, to stand up for workers' rights. The Occupy movement represents the helplessness many feel in the face of corporate aggression and no countervailing force. What do we get instead? Obama will now take a more populist tone, will pledge to reinvigorate "the middle class," (no one speaks of "workers") and Romney, Gingrich, et al, clearly represent corporate interests and people like themselves with high incomes--Romney's unearned income came to over $20 million in each of the last two years!

This does look like the takeover of a class very like the fifth century's Roman Senators, with inequality growing, not receding. It's a prescription for stagnation and decline--just like the late Roman Empire.

Romney, Roman Senator

2012-01-18T22:25:00.000-05:00

You wouldn't think that in 21st Century "democracy," one that has stood the test of two and a half centuries, that we would emulate the Roman Empire of the Fifth Century, but Willard (Mitt) Romney is the perfect Roman Senator, like the ones that ran the Empire in its dying days--ran it into the ground.

Perhaps, historically, he's most like Petronius Maximus, the Roman Senator who became Emperor after he arranged the assassination of Valentinian III. He was reputed to be the wealthiest of the wealthy, and Roman Senators (a legal class) had pretty much cornered the wealth of the Empire, in land, slaves, serfs and gold. Maximus lasted less than a year (455). He was literally ripped apart by the mob, in response to the Vandals landing at Ostia, before Vandals earned the meaning of their name, sacking and pillaging (vandalizing) Rome.

Just like those Roman Senators, Willard is to the manor (or manner) born, and just like them, he is a master at draining off wealth from those who have created it. He calls it "creative destruction," but the trail of ruined, looted businesses and lost or down-priced jobs, is a tale of predation. He hasn't made his case that he's created wealth--except his and his class, through financial wizardry and exploitation.

Willard is not the richest of the wealthy, but he's definitely high up in the modern senatorial class, at somewhere around a quarter of a billion dollars; he's not yet a billionaire. His candidacy, however, is emblematic of that class, and of its urge to take over this nation, and as much of the rest of the world as it can.

With Citizens United giving that corporate/senatorial class the perfect tool (its money) to take over, the only thing that stands in its way is Barack Obama and some Democrats, who may not represent the senatorial class quite so slavishly. There is the People, but with our modern version of Roman circuses, the people are lulled into passivity, or taught to follow their natural leaders. Only if Americans can awaken to what is happening in the United States, center of an undeclared, retreating global empire, can the people counterbalance the surge of money on the one side, and the weak reeds on the other.

Romney and the Republicans clearly represent the modern Roman Senators, what the OWS labels "the one percent." The Democrats, while partially bought off, still have some predilection to represent a larger portion of the population. The GOP is explainable in Marxist terms, as I pointed out previously: the party of the emergent super-rich, eager to wield their power.

It would take too much space, this time, to explore the likely results of a GOP takeover, but it could be like the destructive reactionary politics that drove the Empire in mid-Fifth Century Rome. The western Empire "fell" in 476.

Reaction and Sharing--Romney, et al

2012-01-12T22:36:00.000-05:00

Reactionary means someone whose politics could be characterized as "an action in a reverse direction or manner." Our whole politics is reactionary!

Santorum, and Romney have both endorsed "personhood" legislation: it would ban most methods of contraception. Even conservatives haven't been against contraception for about three decades! Dewey, Eisenhower, Nixon all accepted the New Deal. Nixon expanded the Great Society. Yet, since Reagan, Republicans have progressively dismantled parts of both, helped by Milquetoast Democrats. Now, they want to repeal the Progressive era: cut and flatten taxes further and repeal all regulations.

The Republicans are driven by ideology and money, big money. Romney has recast himself as a conservative, from his moderate stance when he was Governor of Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states in the nation. Reaction may be his more natural mode: he's a very rich man, son of a very rich man, and became wealthier as a predator capitalist.

Why would Republicans drive so far right? Marx would have a good explanation: they represent the rise of an extremely wealthy class, which has cornered (stolen) most of the growth in productivity for the last thirty years. They have done so through corporate-friendly policies, favorable taxation, easy government contracts, imperial protection and the lax oversight they buy.

Romney, who never saw a pink slip and never imagined one until he blithered about it while electioneering, likens criticism of the wealthy expropriating more and more as "the politics of envy."

People who envy the wealthy, don't advocate fairer taxes, they play the lottery and vote Republican. It's people who object to the deck being stacked against them, who advocate progressive policies. They don't want hand-outs, they want fair wages, salaries and opportunities. They want the kind of health care that can keep them healthy. They want their children to have the chance to meet their full potential, too, just like the Romney boys, and they want to be able to retire when they're old and tired, to enjoy what's left of their lives, just as the elder Romneys have done.

That's not envy; that's equal opportunity and humanity. Perhaps, one of the most disturbing aspects of the Republican primary campaigns is the sense that all of the Republican candidates think that equal opportunity is unfair to them; they don't really want to share their cozy little world. Linked with this is an unspoken assumption that we live in a zero-sum world: if the hoi-polloi get more, then they will get less.

They would get less power; they might get less money and they might not, but living in a more egalitarian society has benefits: lower stress, greater safety, more stability, greater predictability, higher productivity and more happiness--for them, too. Studies demonstrate this. They wouldn't lose their riches, but they might save their necks: from revolution, or fascism.

But, like fifth century Roman Senators, our selfish class doesn't want to share.

Only His Hairdresser

2012-01-08T11:31:00.000-05:00

…knows for sure. After seeing the ABC debate in New Hampshire: both Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney must dye their hair, including those carefully crafted perfect gray temples connoting wisdom. Neither projects a real person. Rick Santorum manages to look chinless, despite his long face; he's not quite as robotic as Romney, but still there is something not real about him. Gingrich, the Newt, projects a real person, albeit an unpleasant, even a nasty one. My wife found Rick Perry the only candidate who was at all attractive, but he was oh, so dumb! And then there's Ron Paul: he's not stupid, and he's real, but he's crazy, like a crazy older uncle.

I find it unbelievable that the 1% hasn't found a more personable representative than any of the above, especially Romney, to whom the major money seems to be flowing. Republicans should hire a real actor, like Reagan.

The ABC panel lobbed such softball questions. The classic: Do you, Rick Perry, believe that because you served in the military you'd be the best to lead this country as Commander in Chief?

What's he going to say? "Of course not; I wasn't a General?" Gingrich claims to empathize with every soldier he would send to war, because he was an Army brat growing up. He brushes aside the claim that he got five deferments.

Gingrich came across as the most articulate--and cantankerous--but he made a major booboo at the end: he said he'd be watching Saturday night basketball; it's still the football season.

Every GOP candidate except Ron Paul acts as if he's raring to attack Iran. Each, again except Paul, also states as fact that Iran is developing nuclear weapons: there is no proof that it is, only data that imply it's keeping the option open. Santorum goes everyone one worse. We should attack Iran: our credibility is at stake.

All of the candidates, excepting Ron Paul, also deplore Obama's proposed cuts to Defense: Romney and Santorum want to spend more, although they make pro-forma noises about cutting the deficit. Only Paul addresses our fundamental budget problem with Defense--maybe that's why significant campaign funds come from rank and file military--but his solution--cut almost everything government does--would usher in the Dark Ages, like the Goths' takeover in 476.

If any one of these men becomes President, we'll have a disaster that makes 2008 look like a minor rehearsal. Slash regulations to unleash business--like the deregulation that led to the 2008 collapse? We need more regulations. Cut taxes on "job creators," cut or eliminate the corporate tax--and the "death tax?" Who will pay for the expanded military, the police to enforce abortion and immigration laws and the support for unwanted babies, generated by banning abortions and Santorum's desired elimination of contraception?

The "99%."

These "leaders" are as awful as Honorius and Valentinian III at the tail end of the Roman Empire.

Ron Paul vs Obama

2012-01-03T22:00:00.000-05:00

Ron Paul says we should get out of the Middle East (and everywhere else), but is also for dismantling the so-called 'social welfare' state and the IRS!

If Ron Paul were a major candidate, instead of consigned to the "loony right-wing fringe," we could have a real debate: on foreign and military policy, on civil liberties and national security policies, on drug policies and on the function of government.

What is more important: protecting (minimally) the already shredded safety net, or personal liberties? Obama is for the former. However, Obama signed the NDAA, with its provision for indefinite detention by the military of anyone, anywhere in the world, deemed to have some undefined relationship or alignment with al Qaeda, with no right to trial or even Habeas Corpus. Obama is no protector of civil liberties. He has signed the death warrant for democracy, as we have known it.

Just as in the Roman Empire, the military has been given the power of judge, jury and executioner, even though emperor Obama and his successors are supposed to approve their actions. During most of the Roman Empire, the military chose the Emperor: that could happen here. As of now, someone like Ron Paul, who is judged "anti-military" could never become President. Could an anti-military Caesar have become Emperor?

Ron Paul opposed the NDAA, and its predecessors, the Patriot Act and FISA, because they infringed on our civil liberties.

He's opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our involvement in wars and conflicts all over the world. He would dismantle our overseas military empire! Obama is only "winding down" our involvement in the two wars, but is an interventionist in Libya, Yemen, Pakistan and the South China Sea.

Ron Paul has not been particularly forthcoming about racist statements in past newsletters attributed to him. He would also eliminate, like any other Republican, whatever safety net Democrats have already eviscerated. And his economic policy of abolishing the Fed, the IRS and reinstating the gold standard would be disastrous.

But Ron Paul advocates an end to the drug war, legalization, and points out what most black people know and white people deny: the war on drugs is racist and fuels the prison-industrial complex. He was labeled racist, because he was against the Civil Rights Act, ironically, because he's against government controlling everyone's behavior--which is also why he's against drug laws! He's also been tarred with anti-Semitism, probably because he's against slavishly supporting Israel's every policy, but that's also a position with which a lot of progressives, and progressive Jews, agree.

Maybe Ron Paul is racist, anti-Semitic, a disastrous economist and against even Social Security, but he brings into political discussion many issues that have been "off the table" for far too long. He would be the most interesting Republican nominee--he'd likely lose--but he'd bring the empire--and a whole lot more--into question.

Campaigning Against the 1%

2011-12-28T16:17:00.000-05:00

What will it take for putative progressive politicians to realize what a gift the Occupy Wall Street movement has offered them? While campaigning against "the one-percent," the OWS has begun to awaken the slumbering giant that is the American public.

I wonder, however, if elected leaders will get the message. I have a friend, Joel Tyner, who holds a position in the local legislature. He now sees his chance: he's campaigning for Congress; his opponent, the incumbent, is a Tea Party Republican elected in the 2010 wave.

I'm not sure my friend will have what it takes, which is a ton of money and good organization, even to be heard, even to be part of the electoral debate. It's no secret that the Republican will not only have sufficient campaign funds, he will also be supported, if necessary, with piles of corporate money. My friend will probably reject special interest funding, and doesn't know many likely wealthy contributors. He'll do things like hold demonstrations outside the Congressman's office; he's known for his publicized hikes to highlight political grievances, yet not even the local newspaper covers him most of the time.

The American political system, as presently constituted, favors the wealthy, and rewards those who side with them. Charles Beard, an American revisionist historian, made the case that the American Constitution was a counter-revolution by the propertied, looking out for their special interests. Their interests included "worthless" war bonds and deeds to western lands issued to Revolutionary War veterans in lieu of pay. George Washington and others bought them up for tiny fractions of their face value. The Constitution insured that the new government would protect their new lands and honor the war bonds, making the speculators--many in the Constitutional Congress--extremely wealthy.

Today we have a continuation of that tradition in Congress's immunity from insider trading laws, which is probably one of the reasons why most Congress-persons and Senators are much wealthier than their constituents.

Any reform, let alone revolution, has to overcome this. Further, it will have to overwhelm party establishments that are set up to protect special interests, rather than represent popular concerns. Only sustained popular mobilization, like the civil rights movement and the suffrage movement, has overcome the entrenched status quo. Effective leaders can help promote change, but our complicated structure tends to keep things the way they were.

If far-reaching reform doesn't happen, the American system ultimately may be overthrown by an enraged 99%; it's what happened in France, Russia, China, etc. Alternatively, the US political and economic system could continue to become increasingly dysfunctional, until it collapses of its own weight, like the Roman Empire. Rome went bankrupt because its Senators refused to raise taxes on themselves: they had extracted all the available wealth from everyone else, but had no sense of obligation to the Empire or society as a whole. Sounds like Wall Street, doesn't it?

The NDAA: Plunging Downhill

2011-12-20T10:38:00.000-05:00

Regardless of who is President, once grabbed, the executive branch never gives up power without a fight: the Imperial Presidency. In other words, Obama will sign the NDAA, which may authorize the President to detain citizens indefinitely (they'll leave it up to the courts to decide if a President can do this) and that's okay, because Obama says he won't use that power!

Would anyone, trust a President Gingrich or Romney with that power? Hell, no one knows what either of them think, especially Romney, who the big boys don't like, but for whom they may have no choice. They don't trust Gingrich, who's fading, and would never consider anti-militarist Ron Paul; their money is where their mouths are, and he'd also disrupt the corrupt games of their primary constituents: the financial industry.

But I'm not so sure Obama wouldn't use those powers in the NDAA.

One of the things that seems to be happening worldwide, is that global protests are now being suppressed with greater and greater ferocity. First, Occupiers were tolerated, then they were penned and arrested, then they were driven out of Zuccotti Park, and a whole lot of other, similar encampments in places like Oakland, Seattle, Tampa, Washington, DC, and even places like Poughkeepsie, NY. Some violence in New York, more in Oakland, pepper spray apparently everywhere, but nothing compared to the beatings and bludgeoning of women in Tahrir Square, and not by police, but by the Army. Their actions were preceded in Bahrain, spearheaded by the Saudi Army. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are both recipients of tons of American weapons, and training by the US military.

Now, the NDAA gives power to detain indefinitely, and who gets to take the primary role in combating "terror" in the US? Not the police, not the CIA/FBI, it's the military. If I were paranoid, I'd think the American military was getting ready for a coup d'etat, gaining the power to carry one out legally. I'm not paranoid, and I don't like conspiracy theories as explanations, but I do think the NDAA is setting us up, even if no General or Admiral, or Secretary of Defense even dreams of a military takeover: it makes a military takeover much more possible.

I also think that Obama as President is more than the man, he is the institution, which has a terrible logic of its own: increase the power of the Presidency whenever possible. It's this kind of progression that led to the absolutism of the Roman Emperors and the totalitarianisms of Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union.

But we're starting late down that road: the Empire is beginning to self-destruct. The military is still determined to maintain world dominance, even when we can no longer afford one war against insurgents in one of the poorest nations on the globe.

In 476, the victors against Rome were barbarians. Now, they could be American soldiers.

Cash on the Barrel-head

2011-12-18T09:27:00.000-05:00

The world is too much with me

now and then:

The pipeline revisited, the NDAA

indefinite detention, perhaps

me and thee.

Methane fountains in the Siberian Sea--

nothing to worry about

says he,

A Danish scientist.

Who pays his bills?

Obama temporizes, his party caves,

Republicans tie the noose and

the pipeline is saved.

Job-killer they'll say,

if he vetoes it,

Earth poisoner, greens'll say,

if he signs it.

The environmental President

owned by coal and oil;

350 parts per million

long gone

but then,

Gingrich the kook

could say:

it's all for sale.

That's how we do it

in the free market!

Congress and Obama Sabotage the US Constitution

2011-12-14T21:18:00.000-05:00

Obama is going to sign the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that he earlier threatened to veto.

He didn't threaten a veto, because the NDAA declared the whole world at war, including within US borders. His threat wasn't because the NDAA authorized indefinite detention by the military of anyone even suspected of terrorism, even US citizens in the US. It wasn’t because, the NDAA might permit here in the US the kind of assassination carried out against US-Yemeni Anwar al-Awlaki, gunned down by a drone in Yemen.

No, the President threatened a veto because the act presumed to tell him that he had to detain through the military by default, instead of through the CIA and FBI: it was a process thing.

Well, Congress found a way around that little disagreement, but all appear agreed, that the President, at least, should have absolute power in the truly GLOBAL war on terror.

Obama will sign this; the former professor of Constitutional Law will sign it! Whatever happened to right to a lawyer, right to a trial, habeas corpus, the Fifth Amendment's "No person shall ….. be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law?" This is especially true in capital cases. People must be indicted by a Grand Jury, if they are to "be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime."

But since the whole world is within the battlefield, well, Constitutional rights pfff, who needs them? Said Senator Lindsay Graham of detainees, "They should not be read their Miranda Rights. They should not be given a lawyer." Huffpo 11/29/11.

Thought that just applied to swarthy guys with black beards or heavy five-o'clock shadow? Think again: the enemy isn't specifically described; it could be anyone, if somehow they are suspected--not proven--to be a terrorist threat. Then, there is one hearing, before military officers, but no trial. You could be put away in Guantanamo, or one of the other hell-holes our boys (and girls) have devised--in places like Afghanistan, or converted top security prisons here--and left there for the rest of your life--with no recourse.

Doctor Manette in Tale of Two Cities,, lost his mind during his indefinite detention in the Bastille. That’s the kind of thing that's made legal by the NDAA that Obama now says he will sign.

Roman Emperors held powers that were even more arbitrary, but they couldn't effectively wield them far beyond Rome or, later, Ravenna. Obama could carry out this new writ in any corner of the world.

Except, political analysts say, he's really signing it to forestall Republican criticism that he's soft on terrorism. Right.

He still might use it, even against peaceful Occupiers, or Tea Partiers. Who can say no? Congress gave him the power. And think what could come next: think of President Gingrich with this power!

Life is Complicated For Obama

2011-12-13T10:50:00.000-05:00

President Obama claims a number of accomplishments, but some are like finally agreeing to bring US troops home from Iraq. His Defense Secretaries tried hard to keep them there.

Obama can also claim rescinding Don't Ask Don't Tell; he touts his flawed healthcare law and rescuing the economy from collapse, even though the subsequent recovery is like a depression. He hasn't yet raised taxes on the highest incomes, but insists they need to be, not lowered as Republicans demand

How would Obama see himself? I'll bet his greatest disappointment is that despite all his efforts to promote a more civil politics of centrist good sense, his opponents hate him and are doing everything they can to defeat his re-election bid. He also knows that it's not only partisan; it's also racial, plus the Senate and Congress are bought and paid for by the biggest bucks on the planet.

He must love to hear about the sorry parade of Republican candidates, their mishaps and stupidities, but he must grind his teeth to hear Fox's commentators falsifying what's actually happening.

He may, finally, be getting it: he will never reach agreements with Republicans, unless it's to tie the noose around his neck. Boehner and McConnell are subtle, but, secretly, they wish they could lynch this uppity black man.

Why has Obama actually intensified the war in Afghanistan and the drone war over Pakistan? The military and Hillary were for the surge; Biden was for the drone war and against the surge. So, compromise! Have both!

I wonder if Obama credits himself that they got bin Laden: probably. Hillary joked about it. The Republicans try to claim that it only happened because of what George W did before, but they're wrong; Bush closed the bin Laden Section; Obama reopened it.

Obama is a disappointment: he tried to compromise, tried to be the "adult" in the middle, instead of the leftish statesman he projected on the campaign trail. He had progressive ideas, but he's probably more conservative than Nixon, "our last liberal President." Every Republican, however, is to the right of Hoover and even of Coolidge, or Taft.

Yet, it's not at all clear that the majority of Americans are conservative, even many self-identified as such. Most are like the tea partier whose sign shouted: 'Keep your hands off my Medicare', what they want demands liberal, not conservative policies. Except for the crazy religious, most are also socially liberal: hence the abolition of Don't Ask, and the spread of same-sex marriage.

Maybe Obama represents them better than he realizes, in these last years of a tired, crazy, polarized Empire, How many years until the re-play of 476, when the Barbarians took possession of bankrupt Imperial Rome? If Obama is reelected, we'll have a slightly better chance of avoiding that scenario: the Barbarians could be Chinese bankers.

From: MilitaryEducation.org

Occupy Poughkeepsie Comes Home

2011-12-08T22:26:00.000-05:00

Well, a few of its members, who were evicted in the cold, rainy early morning hours when everyone was trying to sleep: 3:30 to be precise. The City had issued eviction notices last week, but when 200+ people showed up to support the Occupiers, the police stood down. They waited and planned patiently. Wednesday morning early, when only about seven Occupiers were onsite, sleeping, at the occupied park, the police came, announced that all of them had to leave and tore down their encampment. They also confiscated all their equipment: blankets, sleeping bags, tarps, anything the seven didn’t immediately grab and carry with them.

The Occupiers were in shock.

We got a call in the morning: could we pick up some of them, since we'd offered a place for them to rest and recuperate. When we went down to the library, where several were waiting, only one man decided to come with us.

It was interesting to get to know him a little. He's in his early 40's, has traveled all over the world, lived in intentional communities, graduated in Sociology, done academic work in Germany and had just been thrown out by his mother; he's also divorced. He doesn't have a job, and finds it difficult to look for one without a phone or a computer. He's obviously bright, thoughtful and very lost.

One of the other Occupiers was younger, hoarse from shouting, and apparently a bit off in the head. He stayed behind to hold signs at the site of the eviction, but had just been downloading something on a library computer about which his colleague remarked: "He claims he can make a billion dollars from it."

While Abe was older and needed a rest, the younger man was bursting with energy, and couldn't leave.

The Occupiers were anything but the stereotyped "dirty hippies," and their occupation had turned the park into a community meeting place, instead of a drug market, its previous incarnation. Crime rates in the area reportedly went down. Yet the police had to evict them, or rather, the City Manager decided that they had to go.

This isn't a meaningful sample of Occupiers. But still, it illustrates something that the Occupy movement exemplifies: the terrible waste of human talent and energy created by our economic and political system. I've seen this before, when I worked in prison. The men I got to know both in nonviolence workshops and in my college classes were bright, engaged, high energy, but barely literate. If they had gotten adequate schooling, what a resource they would have been! Instead, they were costing the State over $40,000 a year.

Maybe empires--Roman, British, Soviet, American--are lost because such people are squandered and thrown away. The OWS is in search of a different solution, where everyone is valued. I hope they/we can find it.

Job Destroyers II

2011-12-05T11:04:00.000-05:00

In a previous post, I wrote that CEO's and takeover specialists like Mitt Romney are the very opposite of job creators: they are job destroyers when they lay off workers, "downsize," pit American workers against foreign workers and "offshore" jobs.

The banks are job destroyers, too, as is the Pentagon.

The banks provide capital to enable CEO's to offshore, for example, and loot industries through the kinds of scams that brought about the derivatives collapse. That particular scam, precipitated by the sub-prime implosion, dried up the booming construction sector, killing many more jobs. Banks also finance the corporate takeovers that cause companies to shed thousands of jobs. They promote these job-killing programs, because they can make handsome profits from them.

The Pentagon is also a job destroyer. That may sound strange, because politicians, especially those with defense industries or military bases within their districts, instantly complain that area jobs will be lost when anyone proposes cuts to defense programs.

The economic principle here is 'opportunity cost.' Numerous studies have found that defense jobs require twice as much capital per worker as non-defense jobs; they are capital intensive. They also don't produce things that enrich the nation; they produce instruments for destruction, mostly for use elsewhere. Incidentally, the move to legalize indefinite detention or assassination of American citizens in the US might mean that the destruction we finance could be our own.

In any case, it costs twice as much to employ a defense worker, or a soldier, as it does to employ a non-defense factory worker and three times as much as employing a teacher or healthcare worker. In some cases, the opportunity cost is much higher: a soldier in Afghanistan costs $1 million a year; it's probable that same million could employ ten teachers. The non-monetary cost is even greater: teachers educate the next generation, soldiers kill people abroad, or terrorize them, or, at best, help foreigners maintain security in their own countries. Meanwhile, children at home are crammed into larger and larger classes, getting less and less of the attention and help they need.

What benefits do we get for sending our military all over the world? Oil is probably cheaper here because of it, but think of what it costs us to accomplish that: three quarters of a trillion dollars a year. Walmart gets its goods mostly from China, where we don't have military influence, but perhaps imported goods would be costlier if there were no global American military presence.

Considering the effect cheap imports have had on our economy and our jobs, I rest my case: the military destroys millions of jobs.

Who benefits? The military brass and the owners of defense industries: the latter are our contemporary Roman Senators, described by the OWS as "the 1%."

Republicans call them "job creators!"

93-7 Guantanamo Here We Come!

2011-12-05T10:48:00.000-05:00

That was the margin of passage of the Defense Authorization bill (NDAA) in the Senate, the one that declares the whole world, including the United States, as a global battlefield (between Good and Evil?). This enables the military to take out, by assassination or indefinite detention and torture (therefore 'Guantanamo'), anyone, anywhere in the world, even American citizens in Peoria, if the President secretly declares them a danger to national security.

Remember those novels: The Tale of Two Cities and The Count of Monte Cristo? People were imprisoned indefinitely in dungeons, on the whim of a nobleman. That's what we are approaching today. Due Process? Forgeddaboudit. Innocent until proven guilty? Hah! Right to a jury trial and a lawyer? We lost both some time ago.

It's astounding what rights Americans have given up without a whimper! Because we're terrified of terrorists? Aside from 9-11--a terrorist's wet dream come true--there have been only a few hundred people killed by terrorists in this country and abroad. Many times that number are killed every year on our nation's highways, and nearly as many more are murdered in our cities and towns.

Modern societies, especially imperial ones, should be vigilant and able to protect themselves. But if everyone is to lose their rights, then there is nothing left to defend: we might as well elect the Taliban to a majority in Congress, or elect a dictator, who can order us shot at will, and have himself re-elected for life.

That's what ushered in the Roman Emperor, even though times were good. The Roman Senate's succession and election machinery didn't function: a dictator was better than civil war.

Why are we so scared, now, that we're so readily giving up our freedoms? Less than a hundred Americans may have gone off to fight for a branch of al Qaeda (in Somalia or Yemen), and we're terrified they'll come back and--what? Stage another 9-11?

Security here, already, is enough to stop all but the most determined individual maniac. No security will ever stop every fanatic.

A woman asked Benjamin Franklin, at the close of the Constitutional Convention, if the US would be a republic or a monarchy. "A republic, if you can keep it," he replied.

We've not crowned Obama, and we're unlikely to crown Gingrich or Romney, either (I hope), but we're headed towards elective dictatorship with the NDAA. Obama, by the way, has threatened a veto, because it "micromanages" war against al Qaeda. So, unlike Augustus, Obama may have little stomach to be Imperator. But Newt or Mitt? A salamander or a baseball glove?

The NDAA is a caricature of 1984! It's parallels 31 BC (when Augustus was crowned, replacing the Republic with the Empire), except that this empire is in decline, more like Rome's decades-long run up to 476 (when it "fell" in bankruptcy to the Goths).

We have to stop the NDAA any way we can.

Job Destroyers I

2011-12-01T11:04:00.000-05:00

The US Chamber says Democratic Senators Sherrod Brown and John Tester are anti-employer, so, it will spend millions against their reelection.

Maybe Brown and Tester are pro-employee, i.e. for most of the people who vote, most of the people who live paycheck to paycheck. There's many, especially now, when wages have been stagnant for 30 years (yes, you read that right; since 1980, when Reagan brought the counter-revolution to the White House).

Sherrod Brown is reputed to be progressive; John Tester says he's a small Montana farmer, and I expect that neither claim he's a businessman. Oh yes, we want Senators who represent employers, says the Chamber.

Why can't employers see that they're killing their golden egg? If no one pays Americans enough for them to afford the "American Lifestyle," then it will go away; has gone away. Henry Ford's brilliant idea to pay workers enough so they could buy his cars, that's gone away even for Ford. CEOs cut jobs and get bonuses for doing so. Now, can't afford means can't afford to buy the goods businesses sell, not piling more on your credit card.

Actually, people did just that on Black Friday, apparently, but that can't go on: wages actually went down last month, and escalating personal debt is what got us into the Great Recession. Let me emphasize: it was personal debt as in mortgages, and the scams run by banks, not public debt. It's true, as conservatives argue, there were policies encouraging banks to lend to lower income people, who were necessarily higher risk. But the reasons for the policy were to promote equality, not a bad reason. However, the banks, in response, invented the sub-prime mortgage, and its very creation built into itself the logic for the financial implosion. Sub primes were inherently unstable, with low sucker introductory payments, and then balloons, or variable interest rates that suddenly escalated. They were also being tendered to people who likely couldn't make the payments unless everything went right.

Nevertheless, "the one percent" saw sub primes as a grand new market to exploit--until they needed Uncle to bail them out. Our equivalent of the Roman Senators of the fifth century, were grabbing more and more of the nation's wealth, with outsourcing and offshoring (destroying jobs, not creating them), so, it was less likely for the sub-primers that things would go right. Inevitably, the unstable market finally collapsed, and all its derivatives with it.

Republicans speak of the 1% as "job creators;" most are the opposite. Mitt Romney is a good example: while running Bain Capital, he oversaw corporate takeovers that stripped down companies, sold off parts, and jettisoned chunks of the workforce. He got rich by destroying jobs! Republicans are the true heirs of Goebbels: if you say black is white often enough people begin to believe it.

Yet, Democrats, said Cornel West last night, are "milquetoasts." Will our Roman Senators prevail with either party?

Comments welcomed.

Game Over O' Canada!

2011-11-24T09:48:00.000-05:00

The Tar Sands in Alberta: Now that the US pipeline is delayed, Robert Redford, at a Toronto Film Festival, exhorted his Canadian colleagues to save Canada, by stopping the Canadian government from permitting a western pipeline route, over the Rockies and the Cascades, through British Columbia's pristine wilderness and an unspoiled coast, to export the dirty oil to China.

Maybe he was wasting his breath. Canada may be more liberal than the US in some ways, but its parliamentary Federal government has been more thoroughly taken over by Karl Rove's type of conservatives than, so far, in the US: both chambers are controlled by absolute Conservative majorities. The Prime Minister closely controls the majority, even vets every public statement made by his Ministers.

And who paid for the Conservatives? Western (Canadian) oil interests (probably also the Kochs, etc.), the interests turning swathes of Alberta's boreal forest into a wasteland, while they mine and cook the tar sands.

The tar sands will still be piped out. Capitalism will hang us all, even after a hard-fought, much touted victory by environmental groups, spearheaded by Bill McKibben's 350.org, to persuade Obama to stop the XL Keystone pipeline from being built from the tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico. Obama, under pressure, put off a decision till 2013. Republicans will probably yell that Obama gave American jobs to Canadians.

But the real point is: that tar sand oil is going to be developed, no matter what Obama decides, or climate scientists say. It was James Hansen, formerly NASA's top climatologist, who said that if the tar sands are exploited (the equivalent of Saudi Arabia's oil, but much, much dirtier) that for the climate it's "game over."

I hope I'm wrong, but unless there is a massive popular protest in Canada, that physically blocks the westward pipeline, James Hansen may prove prescient. We already see climate change all around us. In the US northeast, there was both freakish weather, including over a foot-deep snowstorm in October with thunder and lightning, and trees turning color later, or curling up brown weeks too early. We've had too much rain, while Texas was literally burning up with drought this summer. Violent storms and tornadoes became more frequent, and hurricanes strengthen more easily.

There is no conspiracy of scientists pushing global warming theory so that governments will be forced to become more socialistic. The money is all on the denialist side, as it is in Canada.

Protests in Canada are just as violently repressed as in the US, and their Prime Minister, Harper, is a fundamentalist Christian. This is what the US will look like if Republicans win both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

The environmental disaster caused by the Roman Empire (Mediterranean deforestation and desertification) will look miniscule compared to the destruction of our benign and livable global climate, unless, somehow, the tar sands exploitation is stopped.

Dodging the Bullet

2011-11-22T20:18:00.000-05:00

At least the Democrats on the super-committee didn't cave to the intransigence of the Republican members.

The Republicans claimed that they proposed a compromise, in which they offered tax/revenue increases of $300 billion over 10 years, in addition to their demands to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, but their proposal was misleading. It was no compromise, because they also demanded tax cuts totaling many times the $300 billion, by lowering the top income tax rate to 28%.

Unfortunately, the mainstream media seems to buy the Republican line: neither side was willing to compromise. That wasn't true. The Democrats and Obama offered cuts to Medicare that were too large and were offset by tax increases (on the top income earners) that were too small.

It's a good thing that Republicans rejected the Democrats' compromise proposals as too much of a tax increase, and it's a surprise blessing that the Democrats didn't counter with even more capitulation to the Republican agenda of slash, burn and fill the pockets of the super-rich. Perhaps, finally, Democrats are getting the message that you can't compromise with ideological absolutists, who are bent on destroying virtually all programs that benefit anyone but our modern day Roman Senators.

Republicans have become the equivalent of fifth century panegyrists; they sang the praises of the Roman Senators: they had pillaged through politics, instead of legions. Now, we have Republican Congressmen and Senators who yawp about "job creators," even though they're not "creating" jobs. Entrepreneurs and/or corporations do not "create" jobs, they hire people when there is demand for whatever it is they're selling--usually not their creation, either. With the exception of someone like Steve Jobs, most inventors have had their creations ripped off by "entrepreneurs," and haven't profited from their genius. Capitalism rewards people who know how to make money, not people who know how to make things, or think original ideas.

In the fifth century the 1% controlled even more of the wealth: there was much less of it to control. They didn't create wealth; they sequestered it in gold or land. The 1% today can't possibly spend their earnings, nor can they find worthwhile investments in developed nations; they can speculate--hence the wild gyrations of the stock market--and they can invest in developing nations like China, or increasingly, in nations like Vietnam or the Philippines. When they invest in factories, or partnerships in these countries, or service industries like tech assistance in India, they may be hiring, but not in the US.

If they create demand, it isn't here; they are sequestering the wealth, just like the Roman Senators, and just like them, they can't see that the end is coming, because their dominance is unsustainable.

Fairer income distribution, what Republicans label "Socialism," would energize the economy, stimulate demand and wipe out unemployment--and most of the deficit. So, workers should be paid more and executives a lot less.

How would we accomplish that?

Eviction Does NOT = Defeat

2011-11-16T22:31:00.000-05:00

What's to become of the OWS movement? The evictions in New York, Oakland, Seattle and other places almost simultaneously bespeak national coordination that was confirmed, inadvertently, by Oakland's mayor, Quan.

But the movement isn't about encampments in various cities. It is about the problems we face as a society, in which a tiny proportion (the one percent) monopolize the growth of wealth in this potentially wealthy world; they demand that people whose incomes are stagnating, or worse, pay the price for any amenities society offers--or do without.

This has been coming for years. Private luxuries proliferated, like toll roads for those who can pay to avoid traffic jams when they commute. Libraries are underfunded, because the wealthy don't need them; they have their own. The same is true of health care: the CEO's etc. have costly insurance policies paid for; why would they be for universal health care that might cost them higher taxes?

An old New Dealer used to say FDR saved Capitalism, because he realized that only by giving people a chance, a stake in the system, could the US in the Great Depression avoid either a Communist revolution or a Fascist takeover. We face the same choices in this Great Recession. Republican conservatives don't recognize that people will revolt, if their only choice is rebellion or misery. Timorous Democrats hardly offer an alternative.

Occupiers, now ousted from some of their encampments, were not slackers, were not losers by choice, when the effective unemployment rate is twice the official rate of 9%, and youth unemployment is higher than that. In addition, young workers are deeply in debt because student aid was reduced and student loans follow you to the grave.

What are people supposed to do, when jobs have been outsourced, along with opportunities? Only the owner class has chances, but even they depend upon people somewhere buying what they're selling. So, occupiers have made a basic point: the system is not working--for them--nor for most who are one job away from disaster.

The Roman Empire had a similar problem, created by the massive import of slaves from its conquests: Roman citizens were driven from jobs and land and the only solution Senators provided was "bread and circuses."

People don't want bread and circuses; they want dignity, meaningful work and a fair share of society's riches. Empires don't provide that; they breed the kind of inequality we're facing, because the tiny international elite, like Halliburton and Xe, grabs all the wealth ripped off in imperial adventures, while honest jobs at home are destroyed.

Evicting the Occupiers won't make that go away; it'll wake people up: the elite don't think about anyone but themselves. The rest of us, the 99%, have to look after each other, have to prevent the modern day Roman Senators from continuing to rip us off and have to claim the wealth we can create together.

Syria and the American Empire

2011-11-12T22:51:00.000-05:00

I'm a great admirer of Gandhi and of MLK and of the notion that non-violent protest, civil disobedience, passive resistance are far better than violence. But those strategies take even greater courage and determination, and especially, patience, than facing your oppressor/murderer with your own gun.

But I can understand how men grow impatient, and then lash out violently, or seek out someone who will organize them to do so, even when their movement, or protest, has been overwhelmingly committed to non-violence. Short of another Gandhi, an almost messianic leader, it's unlikely that Syrians can avoid a more violent revolution.

We're witnessing the beginning of this transition in Syria, when it becomes clear that the murderous intent of the government seems almost limitless (kill the country to save it). Qaddaffi had the same intent, although it's possible, hallucinatory as he was, that he really believed what he said, i.e. he was defending The Libyan People.

It is sad to see people with power act so ruthlessly, and it's sad to see that the only rational response is to fight. In this case, it looks like it is (the only rational response), but unless there is international support, the opposition will get nowhere against a well-armed security force and army.

That's why they rebelled nonviolently in the first place.

So, unless other governments or private entities (like Saudi oil sheiks) support the insurgents, it's more likely that they'll all be captured or slaughtered than that they will prevail.

I am not suggesting that the US aid the insurgents, and I'm especially not suggesting that the US and/or NATO do what they just did in Libya.

What's a good thing? The Arab League just endorsed sanctions against Bashar al-Assad, without (as far as we know) any US intervention. This is the one area in which I'm in almost total agreement with the right-wing perennial Republican Presidential candidate, Ron Paul.

The US should stand back and let these regional groupings solve their own problems. Sooner or later, the neighborhood is going to have to do something about a disorderly neighbor, and outsiders should let them sort it out.

That would also be a vastly more democratic foreign policy than the US has ever had, and it would effectively dismantle the whole imperial edifice. Americans, soon, would not have to support a 3/4 of a Trillion dollar a year military, there would be no budget deficit, and debt would automatically shrink as the nation raced forward with growing civilian business and burgeoning civilian jobs (more than twice the number of defense jobs that would be lost).

But Ron Paul won't win: the imperial side will, in both parties, although Obama may not have been a part of it, at first. There's too much money to be lost by the powerful, who are now identified as the 1%. The Roman Empire got bogged down in Syria, and we could too.

Extraordinary Times

2011-11-08T13:50:00.000-05:00

There are crowds massing in the streets in places as far-flung as Nashville, TN, Oakland, CA and New York City, protesting inequality, corporate control and an unresponsive political system.

On the other hand, despite clear poll support for government to do something to create jobs, the Republican House and Senate Minority block any part of Obama's proposed jobs bill, persistently and repeatedly. Some Democrats are too scared of them to vote for jobs, either.

A Republican town council votes to raise property taxes by 29%: building revenues are down and the local government has decided to buy, move and renovate "historic" buildings, while also laying off employees. When challenged for the insensitivity of their action, one of the council members stated: "This isn't a democracy; it's a republic," explaining that they were elected to decide our best interests. He also stated that no one in the Town would have difficulty paying the increased taxes! He continued to insist on this, even after several townspeople rose to say, tearfully, that the tax increase would be an incredible burden for them, because they were barely hanging on as it was.

A Republican analyst has noted that Republicans gain their vision of 'reality' from talking to other Republicans, and that Herman Cain's ignorance of the world was simply a reflection of this self-referential loop.

If Herman Cain's insists that a 9% flat tax, corporate tax and national sales tax will be sufficient to pay for everything government does (his 9-9-9 proposal), while benefiting everyone, then Republicans accept Cain's argument, even though none of it is true.

If Rick Perry and the rest claim that cutting taxes will increase government revenue, then Republicans repeat the claim, although it has been proven false on every occasion after JFK's tax cut. It was the reason for the massive deficits under Reagan, and then under Bush W, but still, Republicans repeat it as gospel.

McConnell and Boehner reject all tax increases on the wealthy, because, they claim, they are the "job creators," even though they're not creating jobs and taxes are already at historic lows. Every Republican repeats the tag "job creators," and no tax increases.

A takeover is taking place: Republicans are manipulating redistricting, and voter eligibility, so that millions of voters--mostly poor and Democratic--will be excluded from the polls. At the same time, Fox and radio personalities deliver a skewed worldview: people aren't hurting, they're simply whiners demanding handouts from the "real producers"--welfare cheats threatening virtuous corporate leaders, who are paid hundreds of times their workers pay--more if they fire hundreds or thousands of them.

Are we being taken over by a cult? Republicans remind me of the Roman Church, which took over the fragments of the Roman Empire, after barbarian devastation in the Fifth Century. It ruled with magical thinking, too, all through the medieval period.

Maybe the Occupations are our chance for reclaiming the 21st century.

Dollar Collapse!

2011-11-03T12:57:00.000-04:00

It hasn't happened yet, but financial gurus are predicting the dollar will collapse, and "your American lifestyle" with it--unless you follow their prescriptions.

These gurus are describing a real problem: US indebtedness to the rest of the world. But the Fed didn't cause this, and it's not because The Government spends too much money; it's because we all do--abroad.

"Free Trade" agreements have advantaged American corporations. They have been able to export their manufacturing and services to lower wage, lower tax countries with lax or no regulations. They've driven American wages down and unions out, because American workers can only compete by earning less: wages have stagnated since the 1970's, while corporations have earned higher and higher profits. Furthermore, everyone buys imported goods and services, even when a product claims "made in America." Most have a huge amount of imported components, even if assembled here.

So, what can workers do? Until the bust, they adapted by working two plus jobs, depending on other family members working, and when these strategies weren't enough, they borrowed from their homes. Wall Street was awash in cash, encouraging wilder and wilder speculation--before the collapse, and after. That's why so much of the economy migrated to the financial sector; workers were providing it money through debts, and corporations were providing it money through overseas profits going to the 1%, who "earn" too much money to spend; so, they "invest" it.

Free trade means freedom for corporations, not freedom for workers, and it means importing nearly everything. So, how do we pay for the goods and services we no longer produce? We borrow through fiat dollars, which have, greatly depreciated since Nixon closed the "gold window" in 1971. Gold sold for between $1,726 and $1,743 on 11/2/11; but its price was set by the US until 1971 at a guaranteed $35 per ounce. Money supply has increased 13-fold since 1971.

Fiat money is designed to inflate a little bit each year: the Fed's target is about 2%. Moderate inflation stimulates the economy; deflation would accelerate depression.

But the real problem is: we are paying dollars created by the Fed, for goods and services abroad, while not selling enough to earn the Euros/Yen/Yuan, etc. to pay for those dollars. The "Free Trade" agreements, and policies encouraging corporations to export jobs and import goods have created the huge trade debt.

The trade debt causes government budget deficits, especially when the only people enriched by "free trade" (our Roman Senators) don't pay enough taxes, while everyone else is impoverished by it and needs help: "bread and circuses."

The dollar and the economy would regain strength, if Americans stimulated domestic production, creating jobs, got off imported oil and penalized corporations exporting jobs/production. It appears, however, that the "one-percent," like the Senators of the late Roman Empire, don't want to allow such reforms.

Perhaps the OWS movement can force their hand.

Billions, Anger and Inequality

2011-10-26T22:08:00.000-04:00

Back when I taught in Florida, I was attempting to explain why progressive taxes made sense, when one resource-enhanced student exclaimed: "If the poor don't like being poor, then why don't they get rich!" My explanation was not as simple as the viral U-Tube of Elizabeth Warren, but I did say that everyone benefits from society, and the rich benefit more.

Progressive taxation means that if you get more from society, enabling you to become rich, then you should also pay more: you didn't do it alone. Furthermore, a good portion of government services, including police and our imperial military benefit the rich disproportionately.

But the United States is still cursed with its "pioneer" heritage, memorializing people like Daniel Boone, who went out into the wilderness and thrived. Of course, even the Daniel Boones depended on others to raise them, teach them to shoot a gun, even get dressed. Most had mothers and fathers, at least. Most were also aided by fellow pioneers, and, surprisingly, by indigenous people they encountered along the way: even they didn’t do it alone. However, that's the story we tell ourselves in these disUnited States.

That's why Herman Cain, and now Governor Perry, are proposing to replace our (very mildly) progressive income tax with a flat tax. A flat tax implies that everyone benefits equally from the present configuration of society. Lenin pointed out that the poor also benefit from bridges: they can sleep under them.

Cain's 9-9-9 proposal would not benefit everyone equally. The poor, the elderly and those on fixed income, would see their taxes rise considerably, most others would see their taxes rise, too, but the wealthy would see their taxes fall even more. There would be huge savings for the ultra-rich like the Koch brothers, even though they pay lower tax rates than most taxpayers pay already. Their main sources of wealth are capital gains and the hedge-fund traders' special loophole for their outrageous profits, and in both cases, since Bush W's tax "reforms," they are taxed at lower rates than work.

In fact, that's what the OWS movement is about: the unfair advantages of those who don't work, except with numbers: from hedge-fund heads, to bank honchos, to corporate CEO's, to speculators, to inherited wealth; these are the 1%. Thing is, it's been that way for years, and getting worse. While productivity has doubled since the '70's, wages have remained stagnant. Guess where all the extra money went.

The US today, has the most unequal income of all developed countries: we match Turkey! We've been on a trajectory towards a society like fifth century Rome, divided between all-powerful Senators holding all the wealth, a vanishing middle class, and the Senator's serfs. Cain and Perry know where they're headed. Thanks to OWS, a growing number of Americans are opening their eyes, even some Democratic politicians.

Let's hope corporate billions can't undo their anger.

Occupy Wall Street Goes New York City

2011-10-17T21:02:00.000-04:00

This is beginning to look like the real thing, a movement that could undo, or begin to undo, the damage done in the last 30 to 40 years! It also begins to look like something that could energize the enervated Left, of which I am not proud to call myself a member.

There is no parallel to the occupy Wall Street movement in the Roman Empire. The closest goes all the way back to the Spartacist uprising in the late Republic, and that's not a very promising parallel at all. Spartacus and most of his fellow rebels were killed, committed suicide, or were captured and executed. The movement was crushed by the professional military.

Slaves--and serfs--never did mount a meaningful rebellion afterwards, let alone a revolution, until the French Revolution at the dead end of the feudal system, inspired by our own, more moderate American Revolution.

Feudalism evolved in the later Roman Empire, when slavery became less viable, but the super-wealthy Senators could enslave their tenants instead, making them slaves of the land (servae terrae) instead of personal property. Spartacus was not forgotten, however. The powers-that-be were so afraid of his return, that no slaves were recruited into Roman armies until nearly the end of the Empire and then, only because they were so desperate for anyone who could carry a weapon.

If you read the Occupy Wall Street statement, on the Occupy New York page I've just added, you'll see that their vision is broad, and consistent.

I was a Quaker for about 15 years, so I'm familiar with, and impressed by this movement's inclusive consensus process. They hit a long list of issues, but they're all expressive of this general statement: "all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies."

The declaration lists myriad corporate wrongs and my only caveats are:
The declaration uses the term "colonialism at home and abroad," and I'd argue that imperialism is a better term: imperialism denotes the international corporate system of mutual dependence between our military and the large, "defense-related" corporations, the non-defense-related trans-national corporations and the US's open pursuit of global control of oil, other resources, and markets.

My other caveat is when the declaration states: "They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas," it doesn't include the torture, and murder of prisoners here, in the US, especially in "private prisons." It happens, not infrequently, but Americans rarely hear about it: prisoners while dying in custody, of their beatings, or while "attempting to escape."

The big question is: what happens next?

One possibility: even local towns and cities are rocked by protests, like the one brewing in my conservative hometown, about the huge outlay for moving and "preserving" an historic building to use as town office space, with little public input, while at the same time laying off employees for "lack of money."

Town Democrats couldn’t even find candidates this year!

Military vs Police Action

2011-10-13T10:48:00.000-04:00

People really do conspire to blow up other people, but the FBI is on the job.

The story, of an Iranian-American caught conspiring to use a hit-man from a Mexican drug cartel to blow up the Saudi ambassador in Washington--and anyone else in the vicinity--illustrates an important point.

It's government doing its job, which is protecting people from murder and mayhem. And it didn't do it with troops and aircraft carriers, but with good police work. Given the times, and the propensity to blow up people, whether they are Iranian or Mexican, Arab or Tamil (Tamils in Sri Lanka began the whole suicide bombing thing), we do apparently have to protect ourselves from would-be terrorists.

But it's police work, not the military, which was most effective here. Even with Osama bin Laden, while it was Navy Seals who carried out the assault, what made for success was undercover police/intelligence work, and the use of informers.

But informers can lead down a slippery slope. In the Roman Empire of the Fifth Century, spies were everywhere; they were the only effective policing tools available and everyone informed on everyone: not exactly a democratic or human rights outcome. Democracy had disappeared centuries before, anyway.

Fifth Century Rome was not like contemporary America in many ways, but it presents a picture of the direction in which we may be heading. We live in a dangerous world. Much of that danger has been caused by America, as in unnecessarily attacking Iraq and Afghanistan. American actions have also promoted violence, such as the CIA coup in Iran that brought in the Shah, the Mullahs, and ultimately our would-be bomber. Our meddling in Afghanistan in the 80's to undo the Soviet takeover, and in Guatemala, Chile, Vietnam and so on, each contributed to more violence. But, as I noted above, suicide bombing began in Sri Lanka independent of US intervention.

However, the creation of religion-based states first became legitimate among modern states with Israel (sponsored by the US) and Pakistan (supported by the UK), and then, in reaction, spawned many more, and with it a new, uncivil, international system.

I won't argue that religion-based states were the proximate cause of terrorism, but they did make it more likely: true believers are more absolutist in their thinking, and absolutists will stop at nothing to promote their beliefs. Religion-based states like Israel, Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia do appear to spawn terrorists, either in support--as in Pakistan and Iran--or in opposition--as in Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Would a more peaceful US deter terrorists? Possibly; between our military and our militarizing police, our response to terrorism doesn't really defeat it; it creates martyrs and sympathizers. One terrorist killed by drone--with "collateral damage--" ten inspired to fight back.

The Occupy Wall Street movement--if it has lasting effect--could enable less coercive policies; that might promote dialogue, instead of police repression or military adventure.

Romney, Wall Street Occupation and Obama

2011-10-05T10:23:00.000-04:00

After three weeks of protests, or "occupation," the Wall Street movement (for want of a better term) has begun to pick up enough momentum that even Mitt Romney noticed: he griped it was "class warfare."

In Egypt, the demonstrations at Tahrir Square met with some police violence, just like the Wall Street protests, but they were largely peaceful and prevailed in the end. In Bahrain, the King called in the Saudi army to suppress the protesters. One hopes our military is more like the Egyptian than the Saudi; it's largely American, at least.

In some ways, the Wall Street grievances are not comparable to those of the Middle East. There, all the governments were openly corrupt dictatorships. The elite that has taken power in the US has used more subtlety.

First of all, there really was a counter-revolutionary coup, but in stages. It was first partly successful with Reagan, and the selfish class steadily gained power even with Clinton. The rate of takeover accelerated with the Supreme Court coup that put Bush II into the White House, and has hardly been retarded by Obama. Obama's capitulation to the corporate position on the environment (against science and his own EPA) and at least temporarily on taxes is symptomatic: the Obama "revolution" hasn't happened yet.

A friend of mine, more centrist than I am, was outraged when I remarked I wasn't going to donate or work for the Obama campaign the way I did in 2008. Then, I not only gave money, many times, I also volunteered to work in the campaign out of Poughkeepsie, NY and also in Pennsylvania. I'll still vote for him, probably, if I vote, unless there really is the possibility that a more liberal/anti-war, pro-New Deal third party could emerge. But, and this is a warning to others similarly inclined, the one time I did vote for a third party candidate, because I was disgusted with the Democrat, was the Reagan election against incumbent, Jimmy Carter.

Either Obama is much less progressive than he made himself out to be, or he was overawed by "the experts," professionals (both civilian and military), and by the selfish class elites. Obama is very bright, but he naturally seeks out compromise, even when the other side was considerably weaker (before 2010) and intransigent. To seek compromise under such conditions only ensures that radical conservative positions tend to become even more radical.

FDR's advantage was that he was Old Money, and couldn't care less if members of his class hated him. Obama is an arriviste; he's too impressed/overawed by the Lawrence Summers and Tim Geithners of this world.

That's why the Wall Street protests are on target, and why Mitt Romney's remark is an indication they are beginning to hit home. Maybe Obama will finally get it.

We still have a chance to escape the fate of Fifth Century Rome, but Obama needs to turn into another Truman, not another Carter.

Occupy Wall Street--and the Nation!

2011-09-28T22:13:00.000-04:00

Progressives in the US vainly tout a financial transaction tax, a tax on stock transactions; Europeans are now suggesting such a tax to finance the necessary bailouts of the Euro's financial troubles. "Mainstream" politicians in the US, however, don't even mention such a tax, yet it's already collected--on every stock transaction--and then refunded!

This tax raises hundreds of billions, but costs traders only a fraction of a cent. And then, it is refunded, so that it won't hurt those poor bank trading sections, or those poor billionaires who make millions of trades. A financial transaction tax would actually be a near ideal tax: it is progressive, in that it would tax those with highest incomes most heavily, painlessly, but it would not hurt "job creation," because it is on stock trading, which trades assets: speculation doesn't create many jobs. The tax would be a slight disincentive to speculation: a positive effect.

Further, the one argument against a transaction tax--that it would make us uncompetitive with European markets--could become irrelevant if the EC adopts it. Ironically, the Brits argue that the tax would make them uncompetitive with us!

Why are taxes on the wealthy so difficult to accomplish politically? There has been a profound and radical upward redistribution of income and wealth since the "Reagan (counter) Revolution," one of the reasons why the wealthy need to be more heavily taxed, but it's also why it's so difficult to do so politically. The lightly taxed top 5%, 1% and .01% have aggressively used their burgeoning wealth to: build a "conservative" empire of propaganda tanks, media outlets, and political clients that have changed the conversation so radically that reality is no longer reflected in the information accessible to most Americans.

A union publication, Solidarity, has a headline on its current cover: "America's NOT Broke": the subheading explains that the problem with our economy isn't out-of-control spending, but an unfair tax system. This is only partly true. Most of the debt and unjustified deficits were caused by Bush II's tax cuts, his illegal wars and the unfunded Medicare Part D, providing prescriptions at prices drug companies can inflate with impunity: Medicare is not allowed to negotiate prices. The wars, the bloated war/"Defense" budget, and Medicare's gifts to Big Pharma have all increased the inequality promoted by the tax "reforms" from Reagan to Bush II (and not rescinded, yet, by Obama). Deficits caused by recession are justified, but they should have been large enough to get us out of it.

We live in a world in which the Selfish Class can megaphone with millions of dollars, while ordinary people are beaten and arrested (on Wall Street), even if they "peaceably" assemble, "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (guaranteed by the First Amendment).

Our contemporary Roman Senators have all but won control: will The People win it back? The Occupy Wall Street movement is only a small beginning. We need millions in the streets.

Execution, the More Horrific the Better

2011-09-24T08:53:00.000-04:00

Guillotines were more humane than lethal injection, my lovely wife, Elizabeth Cunningham pointed out, when we were discussing the legal murder of Troy Davis. Chop and it's over, instead of your whole body burning up as the poison slowly paralyzes you.

This led me to thinking about why we punish and legally kill the way we do. As I've noted in a rather long chapter in my book The Selfish Class (available onsite), Romans of the Fifth Century devised more and more visibly excruciating methods of execution. This was in part because the Empire had reached a stage ahead of where we are today, but where the Tea Party would have us go. The government couldn't provide services like an adequate police force (the imperial government had been defunded much the way Grover Norquist advocates today: the wealthy Senators hoarded all the wealth), so the Empire substituted progressively more horrific punishments for those people its security forces captured as either opponents or criminals.

As crime escalated (times went from desperate to worse: banditry was the better alternative to enslavement or death), as the government became increasingly incapable of enforcing order, the methods of execution became as brutal as executioners could devise. Decapitation was too honorable for humble folk (it was reserved for the upper ranks). Crucifixion, used for centuries, was a low-cost death by torture, but no longer acceptable, once the Empire became Christian. Death under the claws of a lion or bear was dramatic, but perhaps too distant for most spectators, and not painful, or prolonged enough. Somehow, the Emperors' executioners had to invent something much worse. A form of drawing and quartering was tried, but the Late Empire hit upon an even more horrifying death: by slow fire where everyone could see the victim die in utmost agony, torches to light the streets.

The Tea Party, radical Republicans, are certainly with the program: they cheered to hear how many Governor Perry had executed (235). The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles was with the program, too, but then Troy Davis was a black man convicted of killing a white policeman, even if 5 out of 7 witnesses recanted the testimony that convicted him.

Long ago, in 1994, New York's newly elected Republican Governor, Pataki, summarily closed all prison college programs (I taught in one), because prison, he opined, should be punishment, not reward: never mind that the program halved the recidivism rate among its enrollees.

So, we are now coming to a debate about capital punishment--abolishing it on one side, and making it easier to carry out, on the other. And isn't it interesting that we've gone from hanging and firing squad (quick deaths both) to frying in an electric chair, to burning up internally with poison--it took Troy Davis 14 minutes to die.

If we wanted to be humane to the condemned, we'd use the guillotine.

Standing Up On Their Hindlegs

2011-09-21T22:10:00.000-04:00

And finding, yes, I think, a little spine in there. I'm referring to both Obama and the Democrats in Congress.

Obama insists on tax increases for the wealthy, including his Buffett Rule, that millionaires should pay taxes at the same rate as the middle class. He came out with a surprisingly muscular jobs bill, although it is still far from enough. And then he issued a veto threat (his first?): against any super-committee budget agreement that doesn't include tax increases as well as cuts to programs. His proposal actually is estimated to come 40% from tax increases on corporations and the wealthy, 60 % from expenditure cuts.

Republicans for months have been insisting that: "you can't raise taxes in a recession." Nor on "job creators," their euphemism for the stinking rich, so Obama's position is no longer compromise; it's confrontation. It's as if somebody finally got to him and said: "They'll compromise with you only if it'll guarantee their chances of defeating you in 2012. They're not sincere; give up trying.

Maybe he's given up trying. The Republicans, especially the House backbenchers are every bit as crazy as the radical Republicans after Lincoln's assassination. It's definitely better to show Americans what they really are.

Which brings us to the US House Democrats: they voted against the short-term budget, and so did enough sane Republicans that the government could shut down beginning next Tuesday.

Sane to shut down the government? Democrats?

What the Democrats were voting against was the insistence by the Republican majority that, counter to all past practice, disaster relief should be "paid for" by cuts to other programs. A program Republicans were going to cut was for developing more highly efficient vehicles: it was already creating jobs and was highly popular.

Now, Speaker Boehner is going to have to find a majority, not among the radical cutters, but among the sane. Insisting that disaster relief has to be "paid for," is like saying: "If I help him, I'll have to take the money from you." That's not going to be very popular.

With accelerating greenhouse gas emissions, and Republican crazies denying that humans have anything to do with climate change (it's just sunspots), disaster relief may become our new growth industry. But if you're going to accelerate disasters, at least you should help out the victims. The polluting companies and their shareholders should fund disaster relief from their excessive profits, even if the Kochs, et al deny any responsibility.

The debt-deficit mania, the austerity abroad, military stalemate, the increasingly polarized (and irrational) politics both in the US and in Europe spell rapid decline, not just of the American Empire but of any kind of western pre-eminence.

We do still have a chance to turn things around: Democrats standing up on their hindlegs is a start.

Why the "Lost Decade?"

2011-09-15T13:55:00.001-04:00

Social justice is a different concept for many of the people who control corporations or large fortunes. "We'll always be rich," is a common refrain among today's "Roman Senators." They not only protect themselves, but their abundant funds insure they have the best governments money can buy.

The Census Bureau simply releases figures: they show increases in poverty from 14.3% to 15.1%, and a median income lower than it was in 1996. Today's poverty rate is as high as it was at the beginning of Clinton's administration (1993); median incomes of working age Americans are as low as they were (in inflation-adjusted dollars) in 1973 (after Nixon, who would be a "liberal" today)!

The New York Times (9/14/11) lead story doesn't ask why. The Times simply observes that things began to get worse after 2001 and have continued to do so, thus the "lost decade."

These trends coincide with the rise to dominance of conservative policies under Reagan. There was some improvement during the Clinton years, partly because the wealthy actually paid a bit more in taxes, and everyone else received more in government services. Bush II did his best to dismantle Clinton's small improvements.

Economic policy makes a difference: so does political worldview. What the dramatic increases in poverty, etc. demonstrate is that trickle down economics doesn't work, while the mild '90's redistributive economics did work. Also an administration that believes government can do good things, will administer more effectively (FEMA is an example, comparing Katrina with Irene).

If social justice is giving everyone a decent chance, and rewarding those who excel, while helping those who need it, we have an increasingly unjust political system and economy.

In practical terms, we'd all be better off--except for the top 0.01% of income earners--if we had a more equitable tax system and a governing philosophy that represented the interests of most people, instead of a small elite. This would not only increase social justice, but it would likely grow the economy faster--and create jobs.

When labeling the last ten years "the Lost Decade," the Times neglected to point out that this is when conservative economics and policies triumphed: lower tax rates for the wealthy; increased deregulation; permanent war; cutbacks in services; "free trade;" the resulting race to the bottom for American workers and the further weakening of unions.

Obama has barely modified most of these policies. Any progress his minimal proposals might have had, were cancelled out by Bush's recession.

"Conservatives," however, advocate less or no government action to help the "less fortunate." Social justice, they maintain, means helping those who "deserve it," the supposed "job creators" imagined by Ayn Rand, and touted by Speaker Boehner. Their worldview holds even when (as demonstrated by the new census figures) the real world results show that all but the selfish class have become markedly worse off.

Social injustice (poverty, inequality) will grow as long as their worldview remains dominant.

9-11 Commemorative Blindness

2011-09-10T21:26:00.000-04:00

Osama won--in the West. He drove the idiots in power to do just what he'd hoped: alienate Muslims world-wide with our cowboy-frat-boy military aggression--and at-home persecution.

Think about it: we spend hours on TV and radio talking about what 9-11 meant; about the pain it caused the survivors; about what we were doing on that day, or the day before or the day after. And it's true: the death of almost 3,000 at ground zero was a wrenching experience for many times that number. So, what did Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld do about it? Attacked Afghanistan, which is not where the attackers came from, nor where they trained, but only where their spiritual/financial leaders had gained sanctuary before the fact. And then they (we?) attacked Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9-11 (but has oil).

We lost 3,000 in one day, but how many did we kill in Baghdad's "shock and awe?" (Virtually all were civilians). Well over 100,000 lost their lives in Iraq over the course of that war, initiated by the American invasion, although estimates range up to a million. Further, Wikileaks has documented 24,498 fatalities in Afghanistan, including at least 4,000 civilians.

Now, think of all the Afghan and Iraqi stories of what happened to their loved ones and when, and what they were doing on that day, and the day before and the day after, and asking why me, Allah?. Now, consider that Afghanistan has a population estimated to be 29.8 million by the World Bank, while it estimated Iraq's population at 31.5 million. US population in 2000 was 281,421,906.

I won't bother to reduce the fatalities of each to a percentage of their respective populations, but obviously, our 9-11 hit was tiny compared to the devastation the US has wrought on others, ostensibly because they had something to do with 9-11. In fact, Iraq had nothing to do with it: none of the hijackers were Iraqi, none trained there. Saddam had kept al Qaeda out of Iraq, because it was a danger to his power.

All but one of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, so why didn't we attack the Saudis? Because, Saudis were Bush family friends? Because the oil was already in US hands (more or less)?

Osama won by instigating the US (and the UK) to wade into the Middle East maelstrom with guns blazing; he drove the American cowboy into aggressive-defense, which has not only nearly bankrupted us (like the USSR), but has cost us most of our liberties, as well.

If Reagan had a hand in bankrupting the USSR and driving it out of business, then Osama bin Laden could claim something similar: the American Empire is near collapse, aided by his ministrations vis a vis 9-11, other attacks sponsored by al Qaeda and his proclamations against us.

But we spend years deciding on the order of names of the fallen at ground zero!

2011-09-02T23:26:00.000-04:00

Is Obama the "only adult in the room," or is he unconsciously submitting to bullies like Boehner? The go-round about the day of his jobs address to Congress with the Speaker of the House is emblematic--proposing Wednesday, rejected by Boehner ostensibly because of the scheduled debate of Republican Presidential candidates--accepting Thursday, which conflicts with the much more important seasonal kickoff of NFL football.

Boehner didn't act with due deference to the President, even kept him waiting for an answer for 24 hours; then Obama accepted his counter-offer, disadvantageous as it is.

I don't watch football, or any other televised sport, but it is a male institution. Isn't it likely that a lot will prefer to watch NFL's opener, rather than the President?

What is the likelihood Obama will propose dramatic new job-creating ideas? I doubt dramatic. I'm afraid he'll offer a little here and a little there, and claim he's being responsible; that's his style. Democrats are pressuring him to offer a big program. Will he dare offer ideas Republicans would automatically reject?

Obama really should have nothing to lose even if he proposed some New Deal-type jobs program. Republicans would reject any proposal, in any case. They could be painted as anti-jobs, maybe even pro-double-dip recession. Especially given last month's stagnation, the proposal would be popular: people want jobs and prosperity, not losing government services and rising unemployment. No net new jobs last month might make a dramatic proposal more likely.

But Obama instinctively seems to avoid confrontation and seek compromise, even if it means giving up his own principles (if he still has any). The odds are strongly against him proposing something like the WPA. The closest he might come would be the infrastructure bank he's already mentioned, which might provide extra money for rebuilding bridges, repairing or upgrading roads, and retrofitting public buildings like schools.

At this point, it's clear: nothing Obama proposes will see the light of day in the House, and can be blocked by the 41-vote minority in the Senate. But I can't see Obama campaigning against Congress a la Harry Truman.

No one pushed Harry Truman around.
Obama is increasingly ineffectual, in part because he allows others to push him around; it not only looks weak, it is weak.

Obama is becoming progressively like one of the later Roman Emperors. Despite his obvious intellect, he seems as incapable of leading us away from disaster as was Emperor Honorius, who retreated from Rome to Ravenna to shelter from the marauding Goths. Poets memorialized him, anyway.

Does it have to be this way? It doesn't.

Nearly a thousand picketed the White House today, to insist that it doesn't; their target was the proposed dirty oil Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.

Going Downhill

2011-08-31T09:52:00.000-04:00

When I was born, liberal New Deal politics was dominant. As I grew up, Republicans first made headway using the Red scare, McCarthyism and anti-union propaganda: "union bosses," vs "corporate statesmen." The first chinks were Taft-Hartley, the McCarran Act, and Cold War hysteria.

Still, Ike, a Republican, continued New Deal policies (including top-end tax rates of 91%) and sponsored large government programs like the Inter-State Highway system. Then, the John Birch Society was at the right-wing fringe of politics, inveighing against the Communist threat, and seeing liberal movements like civil rights for blacks as Communist conspiracies.

Ron Paul keynoted last year at the 50th anniversary of the Birchites, and yet it appears the only reason that conservative Republicans ignore his Presidential campaign is because he says things like: the empire is nearing its end.

On other issues, Paul is even to the right of Bachman and Perry. He's against all abortions, even pregnancies caused by rape. In effect, he'd enable rapists to pick the "carriers" of their babies. He'd also abolish the Fed and the income tax, both of which date to the Progressive era before we entered WWI, yet he's even popular among some progressives.

How did we get here from there, from a political system in which a relatively conservative Texas Democrat--LBJ--could propose and pass Medicare, Medicaid and the voting rights act?

Part of the answer has to be the success of a reactionary slice of the wealthy, which sank billions of dollars into think tanks, educational institutions and the media, beginning as a reaction against LBJ's Great Society, and Nixon's continuation of it--and Nixon's elimination of the last remnant of the gold standard, (which Ron Paul would undo).

Part of the answer is the successful demonization of "big government" as partial welfare state, when the demand-driven inflation from the Vietnam War, met the supply-driven inflation caused by OPEC.

And part of the answer is the successful recruitment of front men: Reagan, especially, and a whole series of young, conservative Supreme Court Justices.

And then, along came Bush II. He may not be the culmination of this conservative counter-revolution, despite the crash, in part because liberals/progressives did such a poor job recruiting their own front men. Obama is determinedly non-ideological and appears constitutionally incapable of confrontational politics. I bemoan Truman's absence: he was re-elected by bashing the "Do-nothing Republican Congress."

Even if Obama is re-elected, he'll stand for little but the lesser evil. Perry, Bachman and Ron Paul offer small government premised on the dominance of the super-wealthy (the selfish class)--who wish to eviscerate government services, because they don't need them--they only want profitable government contracts.

It'll be a privatized world of crony corporations. However, they won't create jobs when there's no demand (only government would do that). It's doubtful they can resuscitate a dying empire, either.

Maybe they'll try to "outsource" and privatize it.

Buffett's Good Deed

2011-08-26T00:21:00.000-04:00

Whee, it's great to be a billionaire! You can do good and make even more money at the same time! I'm writing about Warren Buffett: he sinks $5 billion into Bank of America preferred stock, which pays a guaranteed 6% dividend, gets a warrant for buying 700 million more shares at $7.14: the stock opens at $8.29 and still closes at $7.65.

Buffett supported a bank that has a legion of lawsuits against it for it’s alleged fraudulent mortgage vehicles; it lost 36% of its stock value because of its overexposure to those same mortgages, made worse by the continued decline of the housing market, and its over-investment in European sovereign debt: Greece, Ireland, etc.

Buffett is viewed as doing the administration a favor, by helping to rescue a bank that looked as if it might lead to a replay of 2008. Credit Default Swaps on BAC had reached higher spreads than it faced in 2008-09 at the height of the financial panic.

So, Warren Buffett is not only a rich man getting richer, he's a hero to the administration, especially since he just advocated (in a New York Times op ed) that Congress should raise taxes on people like him. If he weren't so old, perhaps Obama should ask him to run for Vice President, or other Democrats might urge him to run against Obama.

Billionaires. Have you noticed that billionaires seem to be taking over our politics? On the "left" we have Warren, George Soros and… (are there any others?), in the center there is Michael Bloomberg, and on the far right there are the Koch brothers, among many, many others.

Does that tell you something?

One of our two political parties refuses to raise taxes on the wealthy. On the other hand, the GOP wants, in effect, to raise taxes on the middle class. It advocates discontinuing the payroll tax cut put in place last year to stimulate the economy, while insisting on extending the Bush tax cuts permanently.

The Bush tax cuts disproportionately favor the wealthy, which is one of the reasons why there is such a proliferation of billionaires, and other super-wealthy. Not only are the top tax rates the lowest they've been since the 1920's, many dividends are exempt, and capital gains are taxed at less than half the top rate--lower than middle class incomes. On the other hand, the payroll tax is a flat tax with a cap at a bit over the first $100,000 of income. A cut in its rate disproportionately favors those earning under that, but, those with million dollar incomes only pay the tax on one-tenth of their income. The tax cut hardly matters to them, so, the GOP wants to scrap it. Why?

Perhaps to drive the nation back into recession, to enable Republicans to beat Obama, to dismantle the New Deal and to insure that the wealthy rule. The takeover of the new Roman Senators: it could happen here.

Rip-off Artists

2011-08-24T21:40:00.000-04:00

The King of Kings is on the run, but it doesn't really matter. Qaddafi started out with apparent promise, ruling for the common man, so he claimed. But really, he just ended up ripping people off in novel ways, while attempting to control their lives.

What does matter is that the Wall Street banks are not on the run, and they are also ripping off the common man in novel ways. Now, paralleling the obstructionist extortion of the GOP in Congress, the banks are "negotiating" with the states' Attorneys General, who are also being pushed by the Arbitrator-in-chief, for a quick, painless settlement (for the banks).

The primary issue is the robo-signing scandal, in which millions of mortgage defaults were falsified, but the other questionable, probably illegal, practices of the banks are also in question.

Some State Attorneys General, Eric Schneiderman of NY chief among them, insist that there must be thorough investigations of the fraud, before any settlement can be reached.

But the banks, those same huge banks that drove us into the "Great Recession," the same banks that are now falling all over themselves with mega bonuses, are offering a paltry $50 billion or so. to help defaulting homeowners keep their homes in some circumstances, or help them move to an apartment in others. But the banks did over $750 billion in damages to homeowners, and are worth trillions.

What are they asking in exchange for that $50 billion? Immunity. In other words, this whole "negotiation" on what really amounts to massive banking fraud, is like the plea deal that prosecutors strike with some felons, in order to convict other felons. Except, in this case, they're all buying immunity, and for that they're willing to pay $50 billion.

If they can't get Schneiderman and four or five other state Attorneys General, to sign on, however, then they'll offer less, not even $50 billion. Administration officials are urging the AG's to sign on: their model seems to be, everybody rich and powerful should be protected, but those whom the R and P have exploited, can't be helped, except with rhetoric, or that measly $50 billion. House underwater and you've lost a job because of the banking debacle, well, too bad. There's only that tiny fund to go around for all of you.

Schneiderman has just been kicked off the AGs' committee negotiating with the banks, because he's not willing to give them immunity; he wants to investigate them, and is doing so. The New York Times applauded him, but it's likely that, with three or five exceptions, a settlement will be reached soon; it will not hold the banks responsible, will not investigate and will not permit any party to the agreement to investigate the banks further.

It looks like Schneiderman will try to hold our contemporary Roman Senators accountable; his chances aren't great, given his opponents' resources. But that's the 21st century, more and more like the 5th.

Empire or Republic?

2011-08-17T23:01:00.000-04:00

--the crippling costs of a defense policy that makes global hegemony a mindless imperative. Salon, 8/13/11: "The Pentagon's New China War Plan."

Congressman Chris Gibson, R, NY, comment: "America is a republic, not an empire."

The Pentagon, it appears, is an independent entity that throws its weight around. It is much like the field army of the later Roman Empire, which operated independently of the Emperor. The major difference: the field army enthroned and dethroned Emperors; the Pentagon only controls the President.

Just Foreign Policy News notes that on Pentagon spending, the President is to the right of conservative Republican Senator Coburn. Obama's Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, is insisting now that any cuts to his budget beyond the $420 billion already passed in the budget-ceiling agreement will "hollow out" the military. He and his underlings are also attempting to persuade Iraqis that we should keep 10,000+ troops in Iraq after the end of the year, when they're all scheduled to leave, as per Bush's negotiated settlement. Iraqis are resistant, as well they should be.

Senators like Coburn and Congressmen like Gibson may be very conservative and even pro-military (Gibson was a Colonel, and served 4 tours in Iraq), but their positions on the military budget are getting closer to anti-war Democrats: spending has to be cut, and the military should bear the brunt of it. Coburn apparently approves of a cut of a trillion dollars to defense, which is what the fall-back position of the debt-ceiling agreement will call for if the "super committee" fails to reach agreement on cuts.

This "new China war policy?" It appears that our military is moving to protect their perceived global hegemony. Cuts to troop strength in the Middle East are matched by naval and air force deployments to places like Guam and Diego Garcia. One observer commented on the buildup of those two island bases: twin anchors for maintaining global supremacy. Further, the military appears intent on picking a fight with China. It sees China's new assertiveness, especially in the South China Sea, as a threat. Why? Perhaps China would be a threat if it muscled in on the eastern Pacific rim, or the Caribbean, but do we have to protect the Communist Vietnamese from the Communist Chinese?

The military thinks in military/strategic terms, but doesn't appear to consider their economic impact, nor their political/psychological impact, either. All they see is the global map: land masses, sea lanes, communications routes, resources and potential threats to "their" people, which includes global corporations and US clients, regardless of how corrupt or exploitative they may be.

The military is oblivious to their effect upon the US, but some American conservatives are beginning to get it: the military will drive us into bankruptcy if it gets its way, bending Obama and Panetta before it.

Obama the Cowardly Lion

2011-08-09T10:02:00.000-04:00

I voted for Kennedy, and LBJ, with diminishing hope for Carter, and with a certain detachment for Bill. But with Barack Obama, I confess I was won over, as I had been for JFK back in early 1960.

Kennedy was far from perfect, but Obama isn't just a disappointment; he isn't just a failing President the way Carter was, he's failing the country, and it's probably because of who he is. Drew Westen's essay in the NYT is damning, with faint praise. Clearly, Westen is an admirer of the New Deal (so am I), but he sees Obama as someone who doesn't really know who he is; it changes with each person he works with; and he doesn't know how to deal with a bully.

Obama's pacific nature would have been well-suited to the situation Bush W faced in 2001. The outcome would have been very different, as it probably would if the Supremes had allowed Gore to be elected.

Westen pointed out that Obama's stories never include a real villain; anything bad is rather abstract, or in passive mode. And, he doesn't stand up to a bully, like McConnell, or Boehner; he wants to appease.

My wife, the inestimable Elizabeth Cunningham, told me long ago, "He's just like me! He wants to placate so the unpleasantness will go away. I know how to stand up to a bully, though; he doesn't."

But he also doesn't know if he's for progressive politics, although that's where he started, or if he really thinks more like Reagan. He may have been corrupted, in the moral sense, or he's just more of a chameleon than anyone knew: conservative when Republicans make everyone seem to be to his right--not a comfortable place to be--progressive when among Democrats, but never far out left.

That's why "centrism" is like a religion in the Obama White House: along with Change We Can Believe In, Obama's other great theme in the election was Unity. After health care, it's been little change, but too much effort for achieving unity when none is possible, except through a dead-pan or ambiguous surrender.

It's true that S&P blamed the GOP's obstructionism in their downgrade missive, but they're seeing only half of the picture; the other half has Obama cringing before GOP leaders. Obama enables bullies. The bullies are also incredibly destructive. They brought the US over the brink of fiscal credibility, and it's probably like the title of my long ago discarded first novel: When Wrong Ways Prevail.

The novel wasn't about the Roman Empire; it took place in modern India, and the wrong ways were personal, not economic or political. However, my non-fiction book, the Selfish Class, available onsite, details 21st Century parallels with the late Roman Empire's takeover by the wealthy and the military.

That's what seems to be happening here, now: tragically, even with Obama.

My novel, Attila, also onsite, takes place only decades before Rome's fall.

Money Trumps Empire

2011-08-08T09:15:00.000-04:00

"We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act." On Page 4 of the official Standard & Poor's "Research Update."

Republican obstructionism on behalf of their constituency, the wealthy and selfish (cf. the Selfish Class on this site), has done what the debt-ceiling agreement narrowly averted: brought into question the financial credibility of the US Government.

This is a big deal. Whether S&P used questionable measurements, whether it acted out of its own political agenda, it still did what no one had done since the US dollar became the reserve currency of the world. A credit downgrade from AAA to AA+, unless it is quickly reversed (unlikely), will lead, first of all, to higher borrowing costs for all of us.

Take that, barely whimpering economy!

But the decision will also hasten the day when the dollar will no longer be The reserve currency. That's an even bigger deal. It could mean the beginning of the end of the American Empire, because how can the US pay for its bloated military in 120+ countries, when borrowing costs really begin to rise? It can no longer just continue to borrow and expect the rest of the world to lend to us at rock bottom rates. Of course, the US can continue to borrow, and to inflate the value of the dollar, since it still owns its own printing press (the Treasury), and supposedly controls its own reserve bank (the Fed).

But then the US would be acting like any banana republic, except that US debt far exceeds the debt of any other country, or combination of them. There is no one who could bail us out, and most economies--including the US, of course--would be driven into such a Depression that the 1930's would look like an early rehearsal.

The world economy would have good reason to collapse. If it doesn't do so, then political leaders will have finally come together to save our civilization, but, on the evidence of the last 12 years, cooperation is not a great bet.

America's fall may come a lot faster than Rome's.

Rome had terrible credit and was continually diluting (inflating) its currency. But during Rome's long expansion it was also robbing the wealth of the peoples it conquered; it paid off its debts with the proceeds: gold, other treasures, and most of all, slaves. In the US, the considerable profits of empire are pocketed not by the US government, but by private, effectively stateless, global corporations. Maybe that's why they pay so little in US taxes, even with billions in profits--profits are earned abroad. Corporations avoid declaring profits in those nations, also. It's easy to find an island/city-state with nearly zero taxes.

We'll Always Be Rich

2011-08-04T00:05:00.000-04:00

What a wealthy man said to a plumber, working for him.

That's what's most tragic about the whole debt-ceiling "debate;" the rich are always sure they'll always have it all. The plumber was "ripped off for $40,000" by a friend of the man who said this. He was also rich.

Not all wealthy people are indifferent, or feel so entitled, or are as unfeeling and cheap, but a lot are. The debate, if you can call a one-sided shouting fest a debate, so often appeared to be based on the same assumption, but with one further step: if they're always rich, then I have to court them, because I need campaign funds if I'm going to get re-elected.

Yes, there were some Democrats (and one independent) who objected that not raising taxes on the wealthy was unfair, but most Democrats were rather circumspect with the same argument. None, not even independent Sanders, were as vehement as were the Republicans against raising taxes. Many Tea Party Republicans had actually signed a pledge never to raise taxes, and people like Boehner declared that he would not raise taxes on the "job creators." He added, that he'd never voted to raise taxes, and never would.

To get a debt-ceiling compromise, somebody had to blink; it was the Democrats. You could argue that Obama and the Democrats were the grown-ups, while the GOP was having a tantrum--and got away with it. However, Democrats didn't get such a bad deal. They gained a veto over any further cuts, by requiring that half of all cuts would have to come from the military ($750 billion), if the super-committee did not come up with an additional $1.5 trillion reduction in the deficit.

Republicans hate cutting Defense about as much as they hate raising taxes. Further, the Bush tax cuts will be expiring, reducing the deficit, and raising taxes on the rich, as well as everyone else. In addition, entitlements are protected in this second round, except for Medicare providers, and so is Medicaid and some other programs benefiting the needy.

There are enough pro-Defense Democrats on the committee to make a majority, so they will have to come up with a solution. Will there be enough Democrats to prevent that "the solution" will only cut programs that don't affect the rich? There aren't enough of them; they'll have to raise taxes somehow.

Will the rich always be rich? FDR attempted redistribution, to moderate extremes of wealth and poverty; he probably saved capitalism. Without the New Deal, we could have had a Communist or Fascist revolution. If the New Deal is turned on its head, we could have Tahrir Square, or a Fascist takeover. In Pinochet's Chile, the wealthy were happy; they were in charge again.

In Rome, the Senators drove the Empire into the hands of the barbarians, and thought, until the end: "We'll always be rich."

Their selfishness cut their throats (and almost everyone else's).

Centuries of Idiocy

2011-07-24T09:09:00.000-04:00

We seem to have stepped into the fifth century--or the 15th: in the latter, economists posited that the strength of nations was measured in holdings of gold and silver. Therefore, nations tried to hoard as much as they could, beggaring their neighbors. While the Ron Paulists subscribe to the 15th century theory, most Tea Partiers are much more enamored of magical thinking--like Romans of the fifth century.

For Paulists, paper currency is anathema. Paper, or fiat money, can be managed by central banks like the Fed, whereas only the market manages gold. If you have more gold than other nations, you're rich, if not, not. If that leaves you without capital to develop your nation, tough luck, unless you sell out to the global elite.

The magical thinkers, on the other hand, believe that if you cut government spending in a recession, you create jobs. If there is even less money earned or spent in the economy, how does that create jobs? Corporations and small businesses expand and hire in response to perceived demand for their products or services. They're not hiring for lack of capital, but because people have too little money; you can't grow demand for goods and services with less consumption. As more become unemployed, there will be even less money to sustain purchases.

So, why would cutting the deficit create jobs? It requires cutting jobs, cutting programs that create jobs, and cutting payments to hospitals, seniors and poor people, making less money available to buy goods and services. If someone's Social Security is slashed, he's going to be more frugal; he may be unable to keep up his house payments: less money is spent in the economy. A default on a home even subtracts wealth. Finally, Republicans insist: you can't possibly raise taxes on the one segment of the population that is actually doing very well.

The argument (or propaganda line) is: they're "job creators," so you can't raise their taxes, or they won't create jobs. But they don't create jobs; they invest in places like China. Why? In China, there is surging demand for goods and services.

Demand creates jobs, not millionaires/billionaires; they just take advantage of demand--when it's there. They go elsewhere when it's not, or 'invest' in speculation, or, like fifth century Roman Senators, in gold. Roman Senators didn't survive long after Rome's fall.

The worst time to cut the deficit is in a recession: expenditure cuts cause lower government revenues and increase the need for government relief--thereby increasing deficits, and the nation's debt.

Yet, Obama offered devastating cuts, and puny tax increases in the debt-ceiling talks; Republicans walked out, refusing to raise taxes at all.

Only a small rump of Democrats still lives in the 21st century: they object to needless cuts and demand government jobs programs plus tax increases for the wealthy.

Selling Out to the Devil

2011-07-21T21:24:00.000-04:00

I don't believe in an actual devil, but I do believe that people sell out to the one they conjure up themselves. Anyone who saw Rupert and James Murdoch probably perjure themselves in front of the British Parliament may have had some inkling of this.

What has Rupert Murdoch, and his son, done to the so-called 'information industry?' Rupert clearly has a conservative, or simply pro-Murdoch politics, but what he's specialized in is sleaze that purports to be news, so that he can titillate and horrify and excite, and appeal to the basest of instincts, like ghouls sniffing at corpses. And at the same time, he specializes in misinforming his publics so that he can make even more money with even fewer restraints.

An honest and honorable man, captain of a huge corporation, would take responsibility, like the captain of a ship. But no, Rupert and his son deny all responsibility. Funny, how hacking into phones, and bribing for information do not seem to be limited to just one publication, News of the World, or even one country, the UK. It must have been, um, someone else, one of his employees, someone who has betrayed him. Right. Rachel Maddow pointed out parallel findings for some of Murdoch's American holdings several nights ago.

It wouldn't be fair to blame Murdoch for all the trivialization of the media, the sensationalism of it, the depraved depths to which it now sinks. But Murdoch has had a marked influence on the degradation of news, which he, and his emulators, only see as "product" that can be sold; the more gruesome, disgusting or exploitative a 'true' story, the better the 'product,' because it gains more audience.

There is another side to this sordid news: it rivets the masses' attention, so they don't even care that Rupert, and others, are ripping them off, front, right and center. And Rupert's political ideas are subtly, or not so subtly driven home: the best government is the one that leaves him, or others like him, alone to prey on everyone else.

People like Murdoch, and the leaders of banks and hedge funds, are in business to seize everyone else's wealth; like Mitt Romney, they play at being "job creators."

Republican politicians are almost all either part of this predator class, or spokesmen/women for it. Democrats are a more mixed bag: there certainly are Democratic politicians who are conscientious, and who have a sense of the interests of the voters they represent; they may even share them, or they may, at least, try to represent them. There are other 'Democrats,' unfortunately, who either are, or share the interests of the predators; in subtle or not so subtle ways, they have been bought off.

Predators: the selfish class, like the Roman Senators of fifth century Rome, is like Rupert Murdoch today.

A Fatal False Issue

2011-07-20T21:33:00.000-04:00

There is something fundamentally wrong with what's going on in Washington. A false issue--the debt and debt ceiling--could trigger economic apocalypse, while the real economic issue--jobs and the housing market--are brushed aside.

The extreme right, true-believer "tea party" Republicans, the new guys on the block, are the tail wagging the dog.

Neither Obama, nor Democrats, nor the Republican leadership want to risk default. Also, Democrats know, at least, that Americans support them on not cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. But they also believe Americans want them to be reasonable, so if Republicans refuse to budge until the last minute, Democrats and Obama may compromise even on cuts to the big three--in order to avoid a default.

Such a compromise may be in the works between Senate Majority Leader Reid, and Minority Leader McConnell. Reportedly, it would cut $1.5 trillion, contains no new revenue, and is only short-term. You can bet that cuts won't be in subsidies to oil and coal, or more than token Defense cuts. That leaves the big three.

Also, there emerged the "gang of six" Senators: three from each party, who have now proposed a sweeping plan that would cut $4 trillion in ten years, while also dramatically lowering taxes for the wealthy, more so than for anyone else, but cruelly slashing funding for programs and transfer payments that help people, rather than corporations--and cutting Medicare and Medicaid.

Why can't Obama and Democrats stand up, and fight for the issues they believe in, issues supported overwhelmingly by the American public. Are Democrats in Congress and the Whitehouse as scared of the extremist fringe as German moderates were of Hitler? Moderate German politicians thought they could compromise with him, especially since Nazi (NSDAP) strength in the Reichstag was far from a majority. Yet, in less than a year, Hitler gained virtual control over all Germany.

Could it happen here? Crisis breeds authoritarianism, but Obama seems an unlikely Diocletian; he was the Emperor who took military power, and then turned the whole empire into a totalitarian state to avoid more civil war. Nevertheless, Obama's actions in Libya and the drone war confirm the tug of the imperial Presidency.

If Republican back-benchers refuse compromise on the debt ceiling, the economy could collapse with the default. American anger might explode. Either Obama emerges in 2012 as a new Diocletian who will set things right, or an extremist like Bachman will triumph; she has all the answers.

Given America's rightward turn, an imperial, Diocletian-type totalitarianism, or a fascist takeover seems more likely than a popular revolution, but either would take over a fast failing empire. We'll no longer be able to borrow to maintain it.

Do our Roman Senators, the extremely rich, think they will survive the apocalypse? They do think so, which is a big part of the problem. The Roman Senators of old did not survive, despite their huge caches of gold.

The Paradox of Thrift

2011-07-13T21:49:00.000-04:00

If I were to teach a course on Economics, or American Politics--the two most likely courses for me to teach--I'd explain why cutting the debt and the deficit now, when we're in a jobless stagnation, is certainly not going to create jobs. It is a perfect example of the Paradox of Thrift. If one family, or a small proportion are thrifty, they will thrive, and others only less so. They will be saving in an expanding economy in which most people spend too much, or almost too much, and maintain demand for goods and services. The thrifty will save more.

When everyone is thrifty, or simply isn't spending because they don't have any money, even less will be sold; there will be fewer transactions of any kind. To cut spending by governments, laying off workers, closing parks, doubling up in classrooms, even laying off police, is only going to compound the problem: even more people who did have jobs, no longer have them. How is this going to create jobs?

Why would the investor class, what the GOP calls "job creators," hire more workers, when demand is sagging even further?

Perhaps it's counter-intuitive, but if government spends more money now, in targeted ways, to employ the unemployed--there's much to do with our crumbling infrastructure that's falling far behind the world standard, for example--it will more likely erase deficits sooner than if it cut back expenditures and reinforced the "beggar thy neighbor and thyself" process that Obama has caved to. His strength was not economics.

It's very simple: if people are already spending too little to maintain the kind of demand--for goods and services--that will employ the unemployed, then cutting jobs and programs in the government sector will only make things worse. This is especially true because the investor class ("job creators") are sitting on huge piles of cash, or are investing it in places like China, so it's not a lack of capital that stymies the US--and Europe; it's low demand.

Only the Federal Government can create money, and only the government can create demand when there is none: by employing people, and paying them. Despite all the anti-government sentiment in the US, governments do a lot of positive things, when it's creating demand. In the Depression, the CCC restored land destroyed by the dustbowl, roads were built, even, the WPA hired painters to paint murals for our central post offices; they are still there today. Now, a new WPA could build high-speed rail lines, or rehab neighborhoods blighted by defaults, install insulation in public or private buildings, teach smaller classes; there are lots of things the unemployed could do. Americans are among the most highly skilled of workers, but they will be decreasingly so, the longer large portions of the workforce remain out of work.

Rome tried the "beggar thy neighbor" policy in the 3rd Century: it never recovered.

Debt Ceiling Chicken

2011-07-11T21:59:00.000-04:00

The debt ceiling debate is degenerating into a game of chicken. Each side is waiting for the other to cave. Obama says we have to set a long-term deficit/debt reduction in process, and wants to shoot for $4.5 Trillions in cuts over ten years; the Republicans, until recently, were saying they'd work for a $2 Trillion cut, because, frankly, they're scared of taxes. Scared that if they vote for any increase in taxes for the wealthy (they call them "job creators," which they definitely are not, especially now in this jobless "recovery"), they'll suddenly lose all the huge corporate campaign contributions they're counting on to gain the majority and the Presidency in 2012.

Perhaps the Republican leaders do get it, that a default would be bad, very bad, but both Boehner and McConnell have as much as said, more than once, that their real mandate is to insure that Obama fails, and is not re-elected. If they do force a default, however, it's not clear that Obama wouldn't be able to campaign against them for causing it, and for opening the way for other unpleasant things: like the dollar no longer being the reserve currency, our huge debt becoming hugely more expensive and our freedom to import whatever we want whenever we want it going away.

I think Obama knows this, so he's playing chicken, too. No short-term fixes, he asserts: this is America; we don't fix our books for 3 months at a time.

Some tea party types do actually argue that a default would be a good thing, and I could, too, from one perspective. They argue, and I wouldn't agree, that we'll have to cut back on all those senseless 'consumption' programs like Medicare and Social Security (say insurance), and that as far as Medicaid is concerned, the recipients are mostly no-goods, anyway.

I argue that a default would mean we'd no longer be able to afford our costly military and its world empire. We actually can't afford it anyway. And, ultimately, we'd be much better off without it: all those things we "can't afford," like high quality education and Medicare for all, we'd easily be able to pay for--if we weren't spending almost three-quarters of a trillion yearly on "Defense" and its relatives, like Intelligence, Energy and "Homeland" Security.

And we'd be freer, too. No longer would our police forces try to emulate (and get funds from) the military, for things like tanks and armored cars. No longer would the military be so sacrosanct. And no longer would the rest of us be treated as if we were potential terror suspects.

However, a default would be painful for everyone but bond and currency traders; for them it could create fortunes. A default would mean: the beginning of the end of American Empire. Bankruptcy caused the "Fall of Rome."

Cuomo & Obama Both Betray Us

2011-07-07T23:26:00.000-04:00

Governor Cuomo asked, how do we protect New Yorkers who are vulnerable to abuse. It occurred to me that one of his apparent decisions would make many New Yorkers vulnerable to an ultimate abuse: allowing big corporations to put their drinking water at risk, polluted by natural gas fracturing (fracking).

Now, why would he do that?

Frackers have a lot of money to spend on politics, on lobbying and campaign funds. Vulnerable New Yorkers do not. Most of western New York will be put at risk and Cuomo's decision will make it impossible for them to protect themselves. Here's why.

By the very nature of fracking--horizontal drilling--frackers can do damage to their neighbors for miles around, even if they only buy a few acres in which to place their well-head, or, they find one agreeable landowner, who sells them drilling rights. Then all the neighbors' wells can be polluted, either by the secret toxic cocktails used in fracking, or by the release of gas, which can percolate upwards into their water sources. And, of course, while the fracker, and possibly the landowner, can profit, everybody else potentially loses.

It's all about money.

If the government does not protect those vulnerable New Yorkers, there is no way they can protect themselves--unless they vote overwhelmingly against any politician, including Governor, who acquiesces in such palpable injustice, such obvious obeisance to BIG MONEY.

In Washington, Obama is now offering Republicans the enticement of substantial cuts to Social Security and Medicare, in return for closing loopholes allowing multi-millionaires and billionaires to pay lower tax rates than anyone else. Yes, you read that right: cuts to Medicare and Social Security. This is after the special election in New York's 26th Congressional District, a very Republican District, where Kathy Hochul, the Democrat won by opposing Republican plans to cut Medicare. Further, national polls show super-majorities oppose cuts to either Social Security or Medicare; even a majority of Republicans are opposed.

Why does Obama do this, i.e. hand away the store before the bargaining begins?

It's about money, and maybe character. Obama is continually trying to "split the difference" between outrageous GOP proposals and his own agenda; so the more outrageous Republicans become, the more he buys into their agenda, not his own. It's also about money, simply because multi-millionaires and billionaires have it--lots of it--and since so much of it is discretionary (i.e. surplus beyond their most extravagant dreams), they can spend it on--politics. Obama apparently believes he has to get his "fair share" of that money, or at least deny it to his opponents.

Does Obama really think voters will support him if he sells out?

Who's really in charge? If Obama gets a few symbolic loopholes plugged, in return for his proffered entitlement cuts (likely), only Republicans and our contemporary Roman Senators will gain. They may have already won.

Short-term Profits, Long-term Disaster

2011-06-29T11:33:00.000-04:00

"He plants trees to benefit another generation," quoted by Cicero.

American corporations don't think like this. At most, they plan ahead for the next quarter, or the next year. Speculators and large Wall Street firms gamble to exploit people's misfortunes, they don't plan ahead to help others (only themselves).

The issue of fracking is illustrative of how this works. Natural gas producers are flocking to fracking, because there appears to be an abundance of gas in a large number of enormous shale deposits deep in the earth. However, fracking requires two things that make it potentially damaging to huge numbers of people. One landowner could sell drilling rights on his land to a drilling company, but the company, after drilling down about a mile, turns the drill bit horizontal, so one surface well could have impact on people for miles around, even if all of them oppose drilling under all circumstances.

And what is the impact?

Once the wells are drilled, both vertically and horizontally, the producer pumps in a toxic stew at high pressure to fracture (hence, to frack) the shale formation in which the gas has been trapped. The drillers claim there is no danger from the toxics--they pump them out again--but no one can guarantee they won't end up in our drinking water, either from natural upward flow, or from unintended spills. This is a short-term venture that could spoil a long-term resource that is not only in short supply, it's essential to life. Many civilizations have foundered when they destroyed, or lost, their water supply. The Mughal city of Fatehpur Sikri was abandoned shortly after it was completed; it had too little water. Mayan cities disappeared for the same reason. The Romans piped water in North Africa from the southern mountains: Islamic extremists destroyed them and with the aqueducts the agricultural resources of the whole region.

Fracking oil companies act like these ancient doomed civilizations: short-term thinking only, in pursuit profits.

All this is to say: business will pursue fracking because they can make short-term profits and either: 1) they believe all the complaints about adverse effects are wrong, or 2) they're betting they'll do no damage, or 3) any damage they do won't appear until they've extracted their profits and gotten out.

In New York State, frackers have been pouring money into the legislature to prevent a moratorium, or to limit its duration. Yet, the Marcellus shale region undergirds almost all the water resources needed by New York City in its extensive reservoir system. If natural gas, or worse, the frackers' injection fluids pollute those reservoirs, New York, our financial and cultural capital, might have to be abandoned like Fatehpur Sikri, or those Mayan cities. This is just plain stupid; especially since frack wells don't last as long as conventional ones.

Instead of 'do no harm,' modern corporations appear to believe in 'do harm' if there's profit in it.

Nowhere Near Enough

2011-06-24T23:12:00.000-04:00

Thirty-three thousand over more than two years; ten thousand this year. When you consider the numbers of troops involved (about 100,000) that Obama proposes is certainly not a rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan--and yet it's more than the "military wanted."

More than "the military wanted." Do you get it? Barack Obama is not Commander in Chief: David Petraeus is. He set out the "options," and the only gesture made towards popular opinion, especially towards Obama's 2008 supporters, is that Barack chooses the "option" that draws down the troops a little faster than the military would like. Maybe even that takes courage, given how dominant the military has become. The President was elected on a groundswell of get-us-out sentiment vis a vis Iraq, and secondarily, Afghanistan. Obama's main focus re Afghanistan was about stopping al Qaeda.

In his speech, Obama made no implied criticism of spending $2 billion a week on sustaining the Afghan war and the corrupt government we put into power there. Yet, he proposes only a 10% cut in the number of troops, even if Obama said the right things about rebuilding America, instead of some foreign country. We'll still be spending about $1.8 billion per week on this senseless war. Meanwhile, honeyed demands rise for cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, to pay for the deficits incurred by our imperial overreach.

What do we get out of the Afghan war? Are we safer? Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan not Afghanistan, The Afghan government is almost mythically corrupt. Our man, President Karzai, keeps on making noises about not wanting us there: if he honestly said what he wanted--continued American presence so that he could continue to rip us off--Afghans and Americans would both be dismayed. Karzai is dependent on our largesse, not just because it enriches him, but because it gives him extraordinary means to pay off his followers.

The economy of Afghanistan appears to be largely dependent upon American/NATO aid and opium sales, and it's still one of the poorest nations on the planet.

More and more Americans are agreeing that we shouldn't be going into debt to "develop" or pacify Afghanistan, when we don't have enough money for our own schools, or our retirees.

Obama's decision is clearly too little, too slow and too obeisant to his military overlords, who don't mind if they impoverish and then bankrupt the rest of us.

Would even Ron Paul, or Russ Feingold do any better if either were President? Or would the military overawe them, too? It seems likely, but then neither would be able to get elected, anyway.

What has been emerging since Reagan, at least, is a military that is NOT really subject to civilian control--although it still keeps up appearances. While the generals don't interfere with domestic policy, they have gained a stranglehold on military policy/foreign policy. They will drive the American empire either to Armageddon, or more likely, to bankruptcy.

All Temples Fall

2011-06-20T09:16:00.000-04:00

The military has all but taken over war policy; it is determined to preserve American dominance, regardless. The cost of empire is now finally becoming plain: Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and much more.

Nations that have never been empires don't spend more than half their discretionary budgets on "Defense." Instead, they spend to make their people better off. Does spending three-quarters of a trillion dollars a year on war-making give Americans better lives? It's spent all over the world by our generals, trying to maintain dominance. Germany learned through bitter defeat, but Germany, today has universal healthcare and lower unemployment than they had before the Great Recession; they aren't spending their substance on foreign wars.

Americans spend $750+ billions on the most deadly killing machine the planet has ever seen: our military. So, they bomb Afghanistan. Are we better off? We help in bombing Libya, while our generals work hard to persuade Afghans and Iraqis that American troops should stay in their countries indefinitely, even if they do bomb the occasional wedding procession, or informal gathering.

Why does Karzai, originally American-sponsored, want Americans to stay? He wants Americans because he can siphon billions off us, for him, for his family, for his cronies, for his allies bought and paid for. Can he really believe that more years of war are better for his people than a settlement? The Taliban has a central demand, which, for nationalists makes sense: any settlement must require that US and NATO forces leave. Our negotiators refuse to discuss withdrawal, but demand the Taliban submit to "the constitution," which was written with American guidance. Why not negotiate when to leave, and what to get in return and negotiate how to work under the present constitution?

American generals don't want to leave Afghanistan: it's a moneymaker, as well as an opportunity for promotion, power and cushy jobs after retirement. The same goes for Iraq, and for any of the 120+ countries in which we have a presence.

Wall Street promotes empire, too, because of the money it can make from war, and so does the media. Until recently, no one cared whether we had to go into hock to maintain "full-spectrum dominance."

At least, the "budget warriors" are beginning to realize: useless wars cost too much. Who is hurt by empire? Anyone affected by all the cuts to programs aiding them, or the taxes they have to pay for useless wars. Few in power stand up to the generals and say "No!"

But the generals are determined: they desperately hold on; they don't care if America can't afford it. They'll bankrupt and impoverish us to get their way.

All temples fall," Elizabeth Cunningham sings. All empires do, too. Elizabeth will sing this song when she promotes her upcoming Red-robed Priestess the last of her Maeve Chronicles, set during Boudicca's rebellion against Rome. But it's happening now with the American Empire.

First They Came for the Jews

2011-06-13T11:53:00.000-04:00

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

The above was written by Pastor Niemoller protesting the Nazis after millions of Jews were gassed and he was nearly executed. Now, similar things are beginning to happen, a step at a time, here in the US and abroad, under US aegis. First, foreigners are detained arbitrarily, then American citizens, even tortured, held for years with no charges, held in solitary, force-fed if they protest their illegal imprisonment with hunger strikes. It's not only Bradley Manning and Abdullah al Kidd, but hundreds of others.

While we may sign petitions, and while some protest in the streets, the screws only get tighter: we are marching rapidly towards a police state. What's scary is that Obama's election appears to have accelerated the process, but his next electoral opponent would likely be even worse.

Guantanamo is not closed, Bagram has expanded rapidly, "super-max"-security prisons proliferate in the US, routine solitary confinement goes viral, while ordinary citizens are subjected to intrusive searches in airports. Furthermore, Abdullah al Kidd, the Supreme Court has ruled, cannot sue former US-AG John Ashcroft for wrongful detention, and as Daniel Ellsberg (of Pentagon Papers fame) has noted, now everything Nixon did to him (like breaking into his psychiatrist's office for blackmail material) is now legal.

The creep of surveillance in this supposedly democratic nation has reached the point in which no one is safe and virtually anyone can be watched. Given our more highly developed communications technology, surveillance is also easier.

The government has been given the legal legs through the just renewed Patriot Act to continue and expand its Big Brother activity, but even private corporations like Progressive Insurance are pushing new versions of surveillance: Progressive will discount rates for customers who submit to electronic monitoring of their "driving habits." Ironic name, right? The states also get into the business: a friend was mailed a speeding ticket, after Easy-Pass monitored his speed from Great Barrington to Boston on the Mass Pike!

The protest against full body scanners (also referred to as 'porno-scanners') has pretty much died down. Either you go through them at the airport, or a TSA officer will feel you up--all for "security" reasons.

Why do Americans passively allow these outrages? As Ben Franklin noted: "Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY, deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY."

The American Empire, like the Roman one, has jettisoned both--even for our equivalent of Roman Senators, like Congressman Weiner and ex-Governor Spitzer.

Our Debt Trap

2011-06-11T17:35:00.000-04:00

The "new" economy: workers have no rights, and are paid a few dollars over minimum wage. They have to pay for an American lifestyle: a decent rental, at very least, a car, insurance and gas, cable and phone, electricity, medical care and food, going up almost as fast as gas.

I have friends who are barely making it, working full time; they're good at what they do, highly valued by their employers, yet they're paid too little to afford the minimal American lifestyle.

Prices go up, although Bernanke tells us we don't have meaningful inflation, that deflation is the danger. Deflation is a danger, not just in the housing market, where prices are marching downward, but in the labor market. Workers are paid less and less, because everything, including rent, goes up--except their wages. The result is that people have less and less money to spend; they economize. In the country, people only drive to the store when they have multiple tasks; gas costs too much for multiple shopping trips, so there is less money as demand for goods and services.

Meanwhile, corporations are sitting on piles of cash, much of it from foreign earnings, and from squeezing more work out of fewer workers. The rise in unemployment (from 8.8% to 9.1%) is driven by labor deflation, i.e. people don't have enough money to maintain the demand necessary for businesses (small and large) to hire more workers.

No tax cuts for corporations and wealthy investors will stimulate job creation when there is flagging demand for the goods and services those businesses sell. No lay offs of public employees (Federal, state and local) is going to create more jobs; the opposite is true; layoffs drive demand downward.

Two policies would create jobs: resolving the housing collapse by allowing people to stay in their homes and renegotiating mortgages based on their homes' current value, and/or subsidizing housing payments. And, government creating needed jobs directly. Our crumbling infrastructure alone indicates that WPA-type jobs would be positive investments in the nation's future. It doesn't matter where the money comes from, but only the Federal government can make a political decision to invest in jobs.

Instead, governments slash jobs and spending, suddenly reducing money available for goods and services. The result is a debt trap. Fewer jobs mean less money being spent. This results in lower tax revenue and higher expenditures on services to the unemployed, which then forces cuts of even more jobs. This self-reinforcing deflation, is a debt trap. Deficits will rise as expenditures are cut; debt will increase as unemployment rises and as people spend less. That's not a paradox, it's how things work.

Rome was caught in a debt trap in the 4th century--and never got out of it. Keynes and FDR found a way out in the 1930's. Why don't we?

What's Wrong with GOP's Hensarling?

2011-06-04T23:44:00.000-04:00

Texas Congressman (R) Jeb Hensarling proclaimed: "one of the biggest impediments to job creation today…is a lack of confidence in the future." He blamed this on "an administration where regulators have gone wild…threatening the largest single tax increase in America’s history and…[it] doesn’t take seriously the debt that is threatening our job creators.” [NYT 6/4/11]

What's wrong with this picture? Regulators have gone wild? Polluters went wild under Bush, speculators went wild; banks went wild, causing the recession. The "tax increase" Hensarling mentions, is the expiration of Bush's unfunded top-rate tax cuts. Tax rates for millionaires are lower now than at any time since 1929 and income inequality is higher.

Who are "job creators?" People who put up the money? Neither large corporations nor entrepreneurs are hiring. This is because employers do not "create" jobs. In order for hiring to happen, there has to be demand (or its potential) for goods or services in the economy (demand is not created by the employer), and there have to be people with the requisite skills to fill the jobs needed (provided by good schools). Entrepreneurs take advantage of many things they don't create: people, skills, demand, a legal system, and basic security.

Imbedded in that legal system are regulations, which establish a predictable marketplace. They also force businesses to compensate for damages to society. Polluters, for example, either pay the costs their pollution caused to society, or society has to pay it instead: in poorer health, a major cost. Why should a polluter profit from the lung cancer he causes in a hundred victims downwind?

As for debt: the greatest part of the debt Republicans like Hensarling rail about was caused by: two Bush tax-cuts, two unfunded wars and an unfunded mandate added to Medicare (Part D) by Bush and his Republican Congress. Then, to the debt was added the Great Recession caused by the lack of regulation which culminated with Bush, but had been building since Carter.

In recessions, governments take in less (in revenue) but have to spend more (for things like unemployment payments and Food Stamps), unless they're going to revert to a Dickensian age when people starved in the streets. Our experience in the Depression demonstrated that government programs (contrary to conservative dogma) created jobs, value and demand, and started the US climb out of the Depression--not completed until the massive deficit spending necessary to wage WWII.

Cutting spending does not create jobs, as evidenced by the rise in unemployed state and federal workers here, and renewed recession in budget-cutting UK. But it does increase inequality, and therefore the power of the extremely wealthy, our equivalent of the Senators of Fifth Century Rome.

Those Senators did much the same thing, weakening Rome, laying the stage for its fall, in 476.

We Won't Pay!

2011-06-03T12:56:00.000-04:00

The Portuguese Communist Party is campaigning against the Euro-IMF bailout; their slogan: "We won't pay!"

It makes sense in the US, too. Who caused the global recession, and what is causing the world economy to lean towards a renewal of it? The banks speculated and committed fraud on all of us, and got away with it--at our expense. The American economy is limping towards a "double-dip" in part because of all the government cutbacks (federal, state and local). It's also because jobs in the private sector are not returning; there was too little stimulus--except for the trillions thrown at Wall Street.

In Greece, Ireland and Portugal, the bankers demand huge cutbacks to services, pensions, any public expenditure, but it was the bankers who caused the crisis, yet the banks are not being asked to pay for it. The bailouts will probably doom those countries to continued recession; their governments won't be allowed to re-stimulate their economies.

The US may be doomed as well, by political shortsightedness, greed, ideological blindness and the overweening power of the Selfish Class, our contemporary Roman Senators.

When you have persistent unemployment rates (officially now 9.1% and unofficially 16-18%), with wages flat and workers scared, you are not going to have expansive demand. Without growing demand, corporations are not going to hire, whether their taxes are raised or lowered. Corporations have been sitting on piles of money and neither hiring, nor investing.

Ordinary people have been left in the lurch. Any commitment on the part of the Obama administration to stimulate hiring, or to aid the housing market by mortgage reform has been abandoned in the face of Republican demands. Impose the same kind of draconian cuts and restructuring as the IMF: huge cuts in services, pensions (like Social Security and Medicare) and jobs, to pay for the debts incurred by the finance nightmare, two unfunded wars and a series of unfunded tax cuts that have enriched a tiny 1% of the nation.

We are told that the US is broke; it's not. The problem is that the wealthy and the corporations are looting the nation--as they looted Portugal and Greece--and they have the political clout (and paid media support) to persuade the political elite, that massive cutbacks are necessary--on others' backs. They even insist, via Republicans like Ryan, that they are over-taxed; the opposite is true.

Many corporations avoid paying any taxes, despite huge profits; many wealthy find enough loopholes, too, to reduce their already low, 33% top tax rate. In the booming 50's, the top rate was 91%, and it was still 70% in the prosperous 1960's.

Shout: "Hell no! We won't pay!" The people and corporations who created this mess should pay for it. Governments should create jobs with their money. To accept the cutbacks is to reinforce the takeover by our Roman Senators. We'll retreat to Fifth Century society made up of Senators and serfs.

Who Controls This "Democracy"?

2011-06-01T12:16:00.000-04:00

Polls show that Americans want to preserve Medicare; they favor raising taxes on the "rich" and corporations, they want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and at least a bare majority prefer cutting Defense spending to control the budget.

Yet pundits, experts, politicians and decision-makers all propose the opposite: cut taxes on the wealthy, revamp or cut Medicare, urge Iraqis to keep American troops after 2012, and minimize any withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Among the in-crowd in Washington and the major media markets, the burning question of the day is: how to cut the deficit and the debt. Beyond the beltway, where most people live, the deficit isn't the problem: it's jobs.

Nine percent unemployment implies 91% employed, so most are still working--non-workers are not counted. Given declining demand driven by the double-dip housing market and the fall in demand for workers, a large proportion of those employed fear lay-offs and therefore put up with speed-ups, increased workloads, longer hours and stagnant wages. Further, unions are so weak they can't even keep their members' wages abreast of escalating costs of living.

But Republicans ignore the jobs issue, after using it to gain power in Congress in 2010: everyone they know is doing pretty well. Just ignore all that whining about jobs. Eliminate all social programs like Medicare, instead.

Obama is only marginally better.

The debate on alternative budgets demonstrates how skewed our public dialogue has become. It leaves out the only proposed budget to truly cut the deficit, reduce the debt and create jobs. Why is GOP Ryan's budget proposal considered the only serious alternative to Obama's? It would replace Medicare with vouchers and block grants for Medicaid, and wouldn't significantly cut deficits; it might actually raise them, because of Ryan's tax cuts for the wealthy. Yet, it's considered serious. Obama's budget freezes Federal pay, cuts Food stamps, finds savings in Medicare and Medicaid cut-backs and greater efficiencies in health care, and nominally cuts Defense. Obama doesn't raise taxes on the wealthy until after 2012, and he doesn't significantly cut the deficit, either.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus's budget raises income taxes and estate taxes for the top 1% of earners, on high-earners' payroll taxes and corporate taxes, while capital gains are taxed as ordinary income. It cuts healthcare costs through negotiating Medicare pharmaceutical prices, better management and by adding a public option. It cuts defense by bringing the troops home and shifting defense priorities. It also invests $1.66 trillion in job creation, infrastructure and alternative energy. Progressives claim they'd achieve a budget surplus of $30.7 billion by 2021.

So, why isn't it considered a "serious" alternative? Oh, it's only what the people want, but the public "debate" doesn't include what people want, only what the elite wants. They want to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense, like the Roman Senators in the Fifth Century. If they succeed, we'll have a declining empire, mass impoverishment and no democracy.

The World Map: Moral Decline of Empire

2011-05-29T21:18:00.000-04:00

Amnesty's map is gray, so much of it, gray because people are arbitrarily imprisoned, tortured, and/or dissenters are violently repressed. There are a few white spots; France, Germany, Spain. Ironically, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary. And then there's Canada, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Australia, New Zealand.

The US is gray, as is the UK, China, India, Russia and South Africa, most of Africa, Asia and more than half of Latin America. Yes, America is not an exceptional island of humanity and civil liberties. Bolivia is, and so is Uruguay.

Two years after Obama pledged to close Guantanamo, it's still open for business, still holding people without charges and without justification. And there are still reports of abusive treatment of prisoners. June 3, 2009, Muhammad Ahmad Abdallah Salih succeeded in committing suicide, somehow, despite being on a suicide watch: he and five others had been force-fed through their noses for years.

And then, of course, there is Bradley Manning, who has been confined for almost a year now, has been held in solitary most of that time, with extreme isolation enforced (not even allowed to exercise in his cell, not even allowed clothes some of the time), yet he is still not charged--with anything! Many torture specialists say isolation like this is worse than physical torture; it melts the mind.

Until this spring, we also sent some of our detainees to Mubarak, have him overtly torture for us. Thanks, Hosni! Still, when the Egyptian Spring happened, we reluctantly climbed on and threw Hosni under the bus.

So, the US, even under Barack Obama, is no oasis of humanity. Canada is; Costa Rica is; Chile is; even Paraguay is, but it almost looks, when you look at this gray map of the world, that only minor nations, ones without imperial or regional ambitions--with the exception of France and Germany--can any longer "afford" to honor human rights.

Was there a time when an American President could truthfully say, "We don't torture," "We don't detain people arbitrarily?" FDR could boast the first, but not the second (the Japanese-American detainment camps), but after WWII we could boast both, with the possible exception of Vietnam, until George W. But now, still, with Obama, champion of human rights and peace, both practices are even admitted. Obama has drawn a line: excluding most direct physical torture, including water-boarding, but the treatment of Manning is on his watch, and it's torture, too: for an American citizen who has yet to be charged with a crime!

Such is the cost of Empire. Americans, struggling now to dominate the world, (remember Full Spectrum Dominance?) are now so insecure we have to torture our own to insure our "security." We have to give up our rights and allow our leaders to imprison and torture us arbitrarily (oh, there are rules and regs about how to do it, but still it's arbitrary).

This is life in the American Empire, in its rapid decline.

The Predator Class

2011-05-26T10:59:00.000-04:00

The Senators of the Late Roman Empire stole wealth from everyone: the peasants, the middle class, the Emperor and the army, by avoiding taxes, sheltering those who couldn't pay, then enslaving them, and engineering corrupt deals with the army and the government.

Our selfish class has escalated the plunder of the rest of us to an order of magnitude that makes Roman Senators look like petty criminals in comparison.

Fraud permeated the housing market that collapsed in 2007-8; it was endemic at every level. But, the profits and risk escalated with each additional layer of resold, insured, sliced, repackaged, resold "mortgage securities." And where did the original money come from, the funds that underlay this whole wobbly house of cards? Mortgage payments, an increasing number of which were either sub-prime or of questionable soundness, with their fraudulent enticements of low starter rates and escalating payments, no money down but higher and higher interest rates.

The money that underpinned the great mortgage bubble came from the poor, and working middle class. Through bank swindles on those loans, the people were tossed out of their homes and the banks were left holding huge numbers of foreclosed properties.

This wasn't a great deal for the banks, initially, but before the crash, it transferred billions of dollars from the poor and near poor to the very, very rich. In the bailouts, the government handed the banks billions more, so that even if they were left holding hundreds of thousands of homes they couldn't sell, they were able to resume their speculation and create huge profits, mostly out of thin air--and made-up money.

As for the people thrown out of their homes, in many cases for clearly fraudulent reasons, they had nowhere to go. So, the collapse of the housing market, and of the financial system, threw millions out of work. But the so-called stimulus that was supposed to promote job creation--the green jobs touted by candidate Obama--was much too small, due to political timidity, to do much more than keep employment from falling off a cliff. It stabilized unemployment at below 10%. Since, it has slowly crept down to 9% or slightly lower (not counting discouraged workers).

Meanwhile, the bailed-out banks are profiting hugely, in the still largely unregulated financial markets. Corporations are posting huge profits, too, but hiring is very slow: employers would rather squeeze as much as they can out of existing employees.

As if to underline their client status to the banks and corporations, Republicans consistently advocate cutting corporate and high-earner taxes, while bewailing the huge debts incurred from similar tax cuts they adopted previously, and from their unfunded wars. To make up the difference, they propose draconian cuts to entitlements (running surpluses, so far) and to all programs serving anyone not rich.

Debtors prison has already resurfaced: will Republicans try to legalize serfdom next?

Should Dems Compromise Or Fight?

2011-05-25T12:14:00.000-04:00

Republicans have thrown down the gauntlet: Ryan's proposal to turn Medicare into a voucher program, and Medicaid into a block grant essentially eliminates both popular programs. Earlier, Republicans forced the tax giveaway to millionaires by extending all Bush's tax cuts. Now, they seem to think that Obama and the Democrats will cave before their demands on the debt ceiling negotiations: for huge program cuts in any programs serving the poor, like food stamps, or the middle class, like the mortgage tax deduction, in order to cut taxes on the wealthy even more. In Texas, Republicans debate a major tax cut for yacht owners.

If the Republicans are intransigent, Obama and the Democrats should demonstrate that they attempted reasonable compromise, but Republicans refused, demanding only capitulation.

Ultimately, Republican sponsors, the financial firms and large corporations, will force the hardliners to blink: they don't want the US to default, either.

Democrats should not give up their principles, or let down their constituents, many of whom depend on governments for their livelihood or safety.

Where do these conservative ideas come from, which demand that Texas cut its budget by about a quarter ($23 billion), to meet its shortfall, at the expense of its children (and its future), while not raising taxes on corporations, or millionaires and billionaires by one cent--and cutting taxes on yachts? Even worse is the spectacle of Florida's Rick Scott, who simultaneously lowered "business" taxes by billions, to be paid for by corresponding billions of cuts in education and unemployment compensation.

In other words, to Republicans, people don't matter, unless they're worth millions or billions. Teachers are overpaid, they argue, and unemployment insurance just encourages laziness.

And what do corporations, millionaires and billionaires do with all this wealth for which they've avoided paying taxes? They speculate, or they buy more "property," or collect ancient coins, or gold bars. Corporations have used their profits to go private, by buying up their outstanding stocks at premium prices. Until this last quarter, they hardly spent any of their excess cash on "creating jobs," except in other parts of the world.

Kathy Hochul, a progressive Democrat, just won a special election for Congress in an upstate New York district that's about as Republican as Nebraska. She won nearly a majority, despite having three opponents, including a Tea Party candidate on the far right, a Republican who dutifully followed the party line on eliminating Medicare, and a Green candidate on the left.

Clearly, Newt was onto something when he backed away from Ryan's Medicare plan, but Republican hard-liners made him eat crow.

Maybe there's hope yet that the great muddled middle will understand that corporatists are not their friends: they represent what I've called "the selfish class" (on this website); supporting them will kill any possibility of democracy, or of a viable middle class. Their way will lead us to our own "476."

Schneiderman for President

2011-05-20T13:30:00.000-04:00

We need leaders like Eric Schneiderman, because he's willing to pursue the big banks for driving us into the Great Recession.

I do mean that. The banks created the Great Recession. People were thrown out of work; people were thrown out of their homes, because big banks played such high-stakes fraud with all the nation's mortgages. They sliced them and diced them, sold them and resold them, and cut a lot of corners when they did all this, starting with the higher than usual number of fraudulent mortgages on which these securities were based.

Unemployment still has barely fallen to an official 9%, or a real 16%, the wave of foreclosures on homes seems unending, and is about to get even worse, now that "the paperwork" has been cleared up. Ordinary people are hurting, but it's because of the insane gambling by the banks, with depositors money, their money and money the Fed, a quasi-government entity, virtually gave to them, through extremely low cost loans.

When the banks were in danger of going bankrupt, the Government and the Fed offered $700 billion to bail them out with TARP, and then gave them extraordinary access to virtually costless money from the Fed. The program worked --for the banks and bankers. They're having one of their best years, bonuses are higher than ever, profits are soaring--

But we still have 9-16% unemployment, and we still have a sinking housing market, with millions of people ejected from their homes. During normal times, construction jobs are relatively plentiful. Now they are not; housing starts have fallen off a cliff.

All of this started because the wise-asses at places like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan thought they could play fast and loose with everybody's money. They thought they couldn't lose: until they did, beginning in mid-2007, when the bottom almost fell out of the whole global financial system, and it was because of their reckless behavior.

So far, no one has gone after the banks even for the fraud. I think they're responsible for much more, but at least the fraud has been documented. Still, neither Obama's DOJ, nor the 50 states attorneys general in their suit, have pursued the banks' massive fraud, even though it dwarfs any financial crime in history. That is, until now.

Enter Eric Schneiderman, New York's progressive Attorney General: he's going after Goldman, JP Morgan and Bank of America! I voted for him twice (first, in a five-way primary). The man's been busy in his first year: going after tobacco companies, Medicare fraud, corruption in state contracts, but now? Schneiderman has spurned the "deal" other AG's are negotiating. Instead, he's demanding documentation on the mortgage securitization that destroyed the housing market: he's looking for fraud. Finally, someone is!

Alert to Roman Senators! Slip some coke in Schneiderman's suit-coat; get a pimp to hook him! Your predatory schemes are suddenly at risk!

Medicare Voucher Madness

2011-05-18T09:27:00.000-04:00

"Conservatives" persist in saying Medicare has to go! These guys really believe their own lies, the biggest one being that Medicare and Social Security cause the deficit.

An article by John Cogan in the Wall Street Journal (5/12/11), lays out what Republicans are trying to do: persuade us that for our own good, we just can't afford what we've been promised.

What we've been promised, Cogan claims, is an average of a million dollars per couple in combined benefits, while we've only paid in an average of $500,000. He doesn't bother to mention that the latter figure is dollars in the past, and the million is dollars in the future, i.e. inflated dollars with earned, compound interest.

It's true that Medicare was set up for fiscal disaster; that was done quite cynically by Republicans, with Bush's expansion into Medicare Part D, covering prescriptions, and overpaying insurance companies to participate in Medicare Advantage programs, without providing additional funding. Medicare still cannot negotiate drug prices, under the reform law, because big Pharma found enough Democrats, as well as solid Republican support, to block it.

Republican Ryan was touted, briefly, as "courageous" for daring to call for phasing out Medicare for private insurance vouchers, until he and his cohorts went to their districts and attempted to explain his plan. Then reality hit the fan. People don't believe their lies, or simply don't accept their conclusions: they don't want vouchers; they want Medicare.

And still, "pundits" opine that we can't afford Medicare, and Republican candidates must support Ryan's plan: Gingrich was almost disowned for opposing it.

Almost all other 'developed' nations have publicly provided, or heavily subsidized healthcare, not only for seniors, but for everyone. Their health outcomes are better than ours, yet they cost less, in some cases less than half what Americans pay.

So, why can't the United States, supposedly the richest, most powerful nation on earth, afford health care even for seniors, and retirements as generous as those of other 'developed' nations?

Because we have to spend so much on Defense, or on billionaires?

Let's be clear: Medicare was created because health care for an older person was too expensive for private insurance. Seniors do need more health care; age breaks down our bodies, although, because of superior medical care, more live longer than in past eras. Most seniors, including me, would be excluded from standard health insurance programs, because of "pre-existing conditions." So, our premiums would be sky high, our vouchers would pay only a portion of our real costs, and there is no way that the "magic of the market" would somehow make healthcare affordable.

Medicare replaced by vouchers? I know I'd be bankrupted by it, yet I'm pretty healthy.

But that's the idea: impoverish seniors: one more cohort to turn into serfs, so the new Roman Senators can have more money to play with in the money markets.

The US a Slum for the World's Wealthy

2011-05-17T10:03:00.000-04:00

"…we're where Europe comes to slum--in the low-wage factories of the South and the run-down houses of South Los Angeles." LA Times editorial, 5/15/2011

It wasn't always this way. The United States, after World War II, modeled high wage, highly skilled union workers, producing goods for the world, and living well while doing so.

When the US occupied Germany and Japan after World War II, our government exported the highly unionized American model. Part of our rationale was that unions would foster democracy, thereby combating Japanese fascism and German Nazism. Unions would also improve lives, giving them a stake in postwar governments. Today, Germany runs a trade surplus: Germans earn high wages, work shorter hours, have long vacations and are relatively highly unionized (27% vs 9.6% in the US private sector).

And the US? Wages have at best stayed where they were in the early 1970's, while productivity has doubled. Work hours are longer in the US, and vacations get shorter. Meanwhile, our buying power erodes, and we have the priciest, least effective health care system among developed nations. Further, there are US states where unions are so scarce and so scared (like North Carolina: 3.2%) that workers effectively compete with the Chinese for lowest cost manufacturing sites. High unemployment drives down costs further.

The US competes with China for low cost work, while running huge deficits and cutting benefits. China has the largest surplus, but Germany sells high wage goods, and has the second largest surplus in the world; it even keeps its social democratic benefits largely intact under a "conservative" government!

Whether Germany will continue to do so well as union membership declines, is an open question, but greater union clout still makes a political difference. German firms setting up shop in the US, however, (mostly in the South) keep unions out and enforce work conditions unthinkable in Germany. Also, in the US, Deutsche Bank perpetrated mortgage rip-offs it could never have gotten away with in Germany.

All the American talk of cutting deficits and debts is a diversion. We're a mine of money for predatory capitalists the world over; we're also the center of predatory capital on Wall Street.

In the past 30 years, the US has almost done away with its New Deal legacy; coincidentally, unions have been losing ground since Reagan and regulations were stripped from financial institutions--freeing them to fail so spectacularly in 2007-8.

And who pays? Not the banks, not large corporations: everyone else, but especially our children and anyone dependent on government services: ultimately, anyone who is not wealthy.

America is so like Rome before its fall, when Senators governed in their own interests. They drove the peasants and middle class into serfdom, and monopolized the empire's wealth, laying it open to collapse, and, ironically in retrospect, to piecemeal takeover by Germanic invaders.

Osama bin Laden Wasn't Killed?

2011-05-16T09:56:00.000-04:00

I know people who think the bin Laden assassination was a hoax, otherwise, they argue, why did the Seals ditch the body at sea?

The answer is probably two-fold: it was the Navy Seals, after all, which provided the muscle for the operation. But probably more importantly, a burial at sea, while it can be scrupulously correct in Islamic ritual--reportedly it was--also disposed of the body without thereby creating a martyr's shrine.

That's important on the Indian subcontinent: veneration of a martyr's grave, that becomes a shrine for a saint, in Islam, or an altar to a local god, in Hinduism, has a long and bloody history. Better, people have no specific place for pilgrimage--except the mansion in Abbotabad; that can't be avoided.

In the fifth century, people speculated that Attila didn't die, because he was buried in a secret grave beneath the river Tisza. All the captives who worked to divert the river, and to dig the grave, were summarily executed. Attila as Told to His Scribes on this site.

We've read or heard stories of Jesus's resurrection, or, in the case of Kazantzakis, succumbing to the temptation not to be crucified, and going on, living his life anonymously, somewhere else. There is also Elizabeth Cunningham's Passion of Mary Magdalen, in which Jesus rises again: Cunningham claims: "Maeve put the erection back into the resurrection."

Wait for it: Osama bin Laden will rise again.

What about the legality of the President ordering the assassination of someone who has publicly declared himself an enemy, and boasts that he's attacked us? It's probably stretching the elastic limits of Presidential authority as Commander in Chief, but unfortunately, there are precedents, at least since Wilson, and certainly since Kennedy. JFK apparently approved plots to assassinate Fidel Castro. His own assassination might very well have been blow-back. Lee Harvey Oswald had earlier defected to the USSR and later defended the Cuban Revolution.

The unreal world of government covert action and anti-government terror is a game that supposedly grown people play. Presidents are advised that they must, that it's their responsibility to Protect and Defend, that these super-secret operations are absolutely necessary.

And so, President Obama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, acted as judge, jury and Commander of the executioner.

If Obama had ordered bin Laden's capture, instead of murder, bin Laden's trial might have become a cause célèbre worldwide, and al Qaeda would have exploited it--to recruit more suicide bombers. Any dispassionate coverage of the trial would have infuriated true believers.

I suspect there is another, simpler reason why bin Laden was killed in the raid: Navy Seals, especially special units like the one which carried out the raid in Abbotabad, are probably trained to kill, not to capture.

Anyway, enough people, including Republican Congressmen, saw the gruesome photos of bin Laden, that we can be sure: he's dead.

Crime and Revolution

2011-05-13T14:33:00.000-04:00

Egyptian police are demoralized, according to the New York Times (5/13/11) and a crime wave has swept through the country. People blame the chaos on the revolution.

When you release pressure from a pressure cooker, there's a SWOOF, as air escapes in a rush. Egypt was under authoritarian rule analogous to a pressure cooker. When Mubarak was overthrown, not only human rights workers but also criminals escaped from jails: about two-thirds have been recaptured. However, the police literally don't know what to do, because they were trained for an authoritarian regime and their abuses were exposed (torture and corruption were routine).

Since the US sends billions in aid to Egypt, it's obvious what we should spend it on: re-training the remaining police and training new recruits in democratic procedures (there's a shortage of police; many fled during the Tahrir uprising).

Change causes unforeseen consequences. Unless there is a rational response, there will be an irrational one: reinstitute a dictatorship to re-establish order.

This happened in Russia. The transitional democratic system fell because of terror from the Chechen civil war, and the outrageous corruption of the transition from the Soviet's managed economy to a "free market system." Corruption, fear and Russia's history of powerful rulers, helped create the Putin/Medvedev authoritarian model.

The same thing happened in the late western Roman Empire: chaos (lasting almost a century), led to Diocletian (284-305) creating a totalitarian regime; it limped into the fifth century before it gave up the ghost--to more primitive monarchies first set up by the Goths.

Democracies are messy, as the American experience amply demonstrates, but they are ultimately less fragile; mistakes and disasters call for changes through elections, not complete upheaval. The advantage is that institutions like the police are not destroyed, although they may be reformed, if they have been abusing their power.

It took the French from 1789 to the 1950's, over 150 years, before a stable democratic political system was finally established. Why? The Bourbon regime was disastrous, but the radical revolution overthrowing it was absolute and horrific. Institutions were abolished; new ones started from scratch, while the animosities created by the ensuing regimes took generations to neutralize.

In other words, upheaval, of the wholesale kind, taking place throughout the Middle East, causes many unwelcome changes. It may be a long time before things settle down, but there are ways to promote stability.

Institution building is key. Whether a nation had a poorly functioning police force, or none at all, it needs a force that keeps the peace, is not corrupt, and does not abuse its citizens. Aid to create such institutions, and a civilian-led military, could be much more effective than billions for sophisticated weapons. That's what the US should be doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well, instead of occupying them.

Up Against the Wall?

2011-05-11T22:32:00.000-04:00

Aren't we all!

Actually, some people are doing very well, thank you-and they want to keep it that way.

Do they worry about $4+ a gallon gas? Of course not. Do they worry that they can't afford to heat their home in the winter? Why should they? Heating bills are nothing, besides, The real question is: Tahiti or Crete? As for oil, they hope it goes higher--they own Exxon, or maybe StatOil: their dividends would rise even more.

A lot of people if they have substantial commutes and substandard wages, worry about $4 gas. Anyone in the northeast, who owns a home and lives near the edge of their income (most people), will worry about heating costs after a winter like the one we just survived.

Yet some people build huge houses: 40,000 square feet or more, and could care less if they cost a lot to heat. If they're also environmentally minded, they might install a geothermal/solar system, and never concern themselves about fuel costs again.

But the rest of us? I'm lucky to have a ready, sustainable supply of firewood, but I'm 72, so I don't expect to be able to get it myself too many winters longer. A lot of people turn their thermostats far below what's comfortable. And some are just cut off. Our power company was nasty when an old, transferred account was overdue.

And then there are the millions who have lost their homes, or are in danger of doing so: underwater, foreclosed, evicted.

The banksters, however, make out like bandits. They financed mortgages they knew were poor risks, made more so by the supercharged costs, and then sold them, over and over again. Their loans were fraudulent, the economy tumbled when their whole house of cards collapsed--and then Bush, succeeded by Obama, bailed them out.

Trillions for banksters, not enough billions for everyone else. The consequences: huge bonuses on Wall Street, soaring corporate profits, but continuing high unemployment and waves of mortgage defaults. The high joblessness keeps wages down, an advantage for any employer, which is why corporate clients--including virtually all Republican Representatives and Senators and many Democrats as well--scream about deficits and debts, but not about jobs, or middle class homes going into default.

Joblessness, and home foreclosures transfer trillions to the perpetrators of this whole scam, especially banks: joblessness keeps wages down, favoring employers, especially large ones, especially ones fending off unionization. Meanwhile, home foreclosures concentrate wealth in financial institutions.

This slow recovery, if it is a recovery, is what the elite prefer; it's why they press for cutting spending, while cutting their taxes. Profits are up and wages are down, so they have increasing power. Cut Food-stamps, public education, heating subsidies: the wealthy don't need them.

Soon, we'll be like Roman Senators and their serfs, but even now, the wealthy get more, and everyone else tries to make do with less.

So, the Wicked Witch is Dead?

2011-05-03T20:31:00.000-04:00

Let's notice: Osama bin Laden was not killed in a conventional military operation, and no conventional American or NATO forces are in Pakistan, nor was it a drone attack.

Many opposing war in Afghanistan have advocated tactics like the assault on Abbotabad. I have. It was a military maneuver, to be sure, but it was the kind of action that police forces also do: swooping in on helicopters to take a criminal head of a crime family, which is really what Osama was. Further, the intelligence, while more sophisticated than most police forces, was similar to good detective work.

Meanwhile, we've spent over $1.5 trillion on two wars to "destroy" the terrorists, but covert operations and police work have been the most effective. The question therefore arises: why are 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan?

Why don't we boost our Special Operations forces, and our CIA covert ops, use the kind of surveillance that pinpointed bin Laden's hiding place, and withdraw our troops from a fruitless Afghan war? Even Karzai wants us to go, and there are indications that some Taliban are willing to negotiate: they know they can't win, but we can't either.

Our goal in Afghanistan was to "destroy al Qaeda," but most of its operatives are elsewhere, and we got its honcho in Pakistan, not with full-scale military action, but with covert police action.

AQ is "hiding in plain sight" in Pakistan, in Yemen, and probably in other places. Covert action like the assault in Abbotabad makes sense against a movement like the formless, territory-less al Qaeda.

The Taliban is not the same thing: it's confined to Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan, and is largely a Pashtun movement, aiming at Pashtun control of Afghanistan, or southern Afghanistan and the western tribal areas in Pakistan. It does not threaten the US--unless we're in Afghanistan.

The problem is: the US military doesn't want to forego an expensive war, or a foothold in central Asia. Further, we have clients there who don't want us to leave: they make billions on us. There's also a pipeline route.

Osama bin Laden has already accomplished a good part of his agenda: to bankrupt the world's superpower, and to terrorize us into doing away with a significant part of our freedoms: a beacon for Muslims as well as other peoples.

Our military in Afghanistan results in many civilian casualties, even if more of them are at the hands of the Taliban. Even our reluctant client, President Karzai, says we should leave. Further, our counter-productive actions drive Afghans into the arms of the Taliban--young men whose family-members are killed in poorly targeted attacks on their compounds, or on mistaken bombing raids, or when fathers are summarily hauled off to prison at Bagram.

But will an Empire withdraw before it's defeated? Osama's assassination would give us the excuse.

Jobs, Quantitative Easing and a Capital Strike

2011-05-01T23:33:00.000-04:00

Americans elected a Republican House because Democrats let them down, especially on creating jobs. Yet, Republicans think you can make more jobs by radically cutting Government spending, especially for the poor. That hasn't worked for the Tories in Britain, and it makes no sense: there is too little demand for new jobs, already; cutting spending reduces the demand further.

The absence of a strong fiscal policy is at the heart of the problem.

Bernanke began the Fed's Quantitative Easing II (QE 2) as a monetary substitute for the stimulus and job creation the Government should have been doing; QE2 will be completed in June. The Fed will have injected $600 billion in new money into the economy, but unemployment is only slightly lower. The more direct effects are: the stock market has been toying with a 13,000 Dow, and corporations have been meeting and beating profit expectations. The flood of money helped drive gold and silver to historic highs, oil to over $113/barrel; food and other commodity prices are soaring.

QE2 may have driven some of these price hikes through speculation, but hiring was only weakly boosted, and with QE2 ending soon, official unemployment is only a shade under 9%.

The Fed could face a capital strike if it attempted more. It's maintaining interest rates at historic lows, and Bernanke claims inflation will remain low, or even go lower. With S&P threatening to downgrade US debt ratings, with the Street clamoring against monetizing the debt, and Paul Ryan chairing the House Budget Committee, the Fed is unlikely to do more.

QE2 could only accomplish so much, anyway. Bernanke implied at its inception that he preferred a rational Government fiscal policy. QE2 was adopted because it was unlikely Obama and House Republicans would be able to reach an agreement to stimulate the economy.

Instead, we face stalemate. Radical Republicans demand the cuts outlined by Congressman Ryan and more. Speaker Boehner already faced difficulty corralling votes for the 2011 budget compromise. Democrats know they'll lose their base if they cave further to Republican demands. What is needed is what Obama and the Democrats didn't have the courage, or votes in the Senate, to push through in 2009-10: a real jobs bill, and a real takeover of the housing mortgage mess.

Will we hang on until 2013? With no jobs program, only the payroll tax stimulus, and housing markets falling further? Would corporations hire more, with falling demand for goods? Would banks resolve their mortgage mess: admit their fraud and losses? Dream on!

A deadlock on the debt could slam us into a Depression, and a likely Republican takeover. They favor putting corporations in control, much like the monopoly of power held by the Senatorial class of the late Roman Empire. Americans would be reduced to surplus labor, competing with low-wage workers worldwide.

Maybe we'll get bread and circuses?

The Trouble with Royal Weddings

2011-04-28T22:30:00.000-04:00

Royal weddings excite the masses, even in this long-lost colony, and even the classes. A surprising number have a craving for pomp and circumstance, and the homey, back-of-the-house type glimpses of the Royals, themselves.

Royal weddings leave me cold, royal gossip does not interest me in the slightest. However, royal weddings, royal this's and royal that’s's do play important political roles.

For example, as style-setters, royal weddings promote the "wedding industry," which pushes cookie-cutter weddings that are way too expensive for most young couples, or their usually strapped parents. The extravagance of the royal wedding this Friday will be recreated thousands of times in imitation over the next few years. And Americans, as well as Brits, Canadians and so on, will want to emulate the winsome couple--to the distress of their bank accounts, which are nowhere near as substantial as Prince William's.

The British Royals are very wealthy, very upper-caste, very white and pretty boring--on purpose, now, after Diana. Their lifestyle is not one most people can afford, but people want to emulate it. To me, that's unfortunate. One example of this unconscious emulation are the sweeping lawns in suburbs and exurbs here--no one mowed lawns until they got a gander at the aristocratic piles in Britain, with broad sweeps of what the British called "shaved grass." Those expanses, and the aped expanses here (where a man sits on a $5000 mower and mows for hours), are simply extravagance, lands that could be used for pasture, vegetables or allowed to grow wild. At Buckingham Palace, goes the story, an admiring American tourist asked a gardener, "How do you grow such a beautiful lawn?" The answer: "Oh, it's easy, Sir. Just keep mowing it for 300 years." I should add: English rain probably helps a lot, too: lawns in Britain, maybe, but in Arizona?

The left wing of the Labour Party wanted to abolish the monarchy until recently. The royals, they argued, epitomize the old class system in which a few are extremely wealthy and the rest may even be poor, but are grateful to the few for their spectacle. Monarchy popularizes a retrograde class system.

My daughter got married on April Fools; she and her groom were married at his mother's smallish house, in the back yard--in costume. Family and friends pitched in to carve hors-d'oeuvres or arrange trays. Everyone wore zany costumes: I was a Roman Senator. I've been to many weddings--my wife, as interfaith minister, officiated at many--but this was the most fun and memorable I've seen. The wedding cost about $1,500.

Too bad Darshann and Peter couldn't be models, instead of Kate and William. A lot of young couples would avoid incurring huge debts. And the elites wouldn't be even more emboldened to act like British aristocracy--which modeled itself after Roman Senators.

The Newsletter Path to Riches

2011-04-26T12:04:00.000-04:00

Let's say XXX is a "penny stock"promoted for the day. Promoted by online penny stock newsletter writers. Xxx went up from 1.12 to 1.46 in one day, because of the hype. If you invested $10,000 in Xxx on Monday, it would be worth over $13,035.71 on Tuesday. On Wednesday it went down again. Where is that money from small-time investors going?

Apparently, this speculation is raising money in $500,000 increments, for the man who is Xxx, a professional, who offers services to companies, as a company on the Over the Counter market; it's not clear that there is any more than one man in the company, but he's raised millions this way.

What kinds of services does this one-man company offer: contract advice with other companies, advising and facilitating offshore contracting, "to lower your costs," technology licensing and acquisitions of other companies, i.e. mergers.

Will Xxx rise tomorrow? One of the more revealing statements I've read on these penny newsletter sites is: "It rose to .01 before it fell back to .001, but it's set to rise even further this time."

What's going on here? I've been dabbling in this field for six months, even investing in some of the weightier "penny stocks" promoted; so far I've only lost a few hundred bucks. None of the stocks promoted have gained a dime; one has lost 77% of its value, another 47%. I did not invest in Xxx, but the second loser was a Chinese stock that collapsed when its CEO was caught fiddling the books. I didn't get the news--about the CEO--until too late.

I also invested in a silver mine, but right now, while silver goes through the roof, the mine shares lost 90 cents!

This is a game. The only people who win are either full-time gamblers (they call themselves day traders), or entrepreneurs who manipulate the market to raise money for themselves--or their companies.

But that's the point, isn’t it? They raise money for business enterprises. Small-time investors rush in to strike it rich with the next Microsoft, Google, or Facebook. It's the gamblers who make money on the boobs buying penny stocks to make their fortunes. The gamblers do play a role: they provide incentives to the hungry public, drawing in millions, billions of dollars from small-time investors, who are easily gulled.

But how else do you get rich when the producers of anything tangible, the actual producers, get little more than subsistence? "If the poor don't like being poor, then why don't they get rich?" asked a student in one of my classes. By investing in speculative stocks? It brings money out of the proverbial mattresses, into the hands of entrepreneurs, fiddling CEO's and speculators.

This is Late Capitalism; it's like the 'Late Roman Empire,' where all the gold flowed upward, into the hands of the predatory few.

Trump and Emperor Maximus

2011-04-21T10:21:00.000-04:00

Donald Trump is awful! But a lot of Republicans think he should run for President: 17%, as many as for Huckabee, only behind Mitt Romney, and 20% of tea party ID'd Republicans expressed support.

Trump has his special quirks, one being his birther schtick, which may or may not be a genuine concern. At least one commentator points out birtherism's racist undertones, or at least that it could encourage racism. Birtherism feeds the fears of whites who cannot believe we elected an African-American President; they want to believe he's an impostor, regardless of all the data proving his birth in Hawaii. Why? Because he's black?

Bitherism and racism are one thing: what's even scarier, however, is that Trump represents the new breed of brash, political billionaire: he dismisses his closest rival, Mitt Romney, as "a small businessman," and claims that he, Trump, is "much, much bigger than he is." And that, dear America, is why he feels he should be President: he has more money.

Romney's business past may come back to haunt him. He's no small businessman: Bain Capital, the private equity firm he helped found, buys and sells businesses, and not only employs several hundred, but as with most such firms, it has also been in the business of firing hundreds or more of the purchased companies in order to "streamline" them.

This may be a portent of the kind of politics we'll be offered, either in the next few cycles, or for the foreseeable future. Billionaires vs multi-millionaires, these self-funded candidates run in part to protect the interests of their super-rich brethren, who will probably support them with their own money, too.

I would pair Trump with Roman Emperor: Maximus (ruled 3 months in 455); he was known as the wealthiest of the Senatorial class; he conspired to assassinate Valentinian III, in part, because the Emperor had seduced his reputedly beautiful wife, but also to gain power for himself. His "rule" was a disaster; it gave the Vandal King, Gaiseric, the pretext to sack Rome. "Emperor" Maximus was torn apart by an enraged Roman mob as the Vandals approached.

The question is: will all the money spent by and for someone like Trump/Romney, seduce Americans?

Or, will people begin to get it: the filthy rich want to keep it all for themselves. Congressman Ryan's budget makes clear what the future could begin to look like with people like Trump or Romney in charge. They'd cut taxes on themselves, the wealthy (Ryan calls them "job creators" even when, like Romney they are job destroyers). Those tax cuts would be paid for by draconian cuts to services (including Medicare and Social Security) and cut tax loopholes that benefit the poor and what remains of the middle class.

In late Imperial Rome, the middle class had two options: seek protection from the wealthy, becoming serfs, or escaping to the hills as bandits. Is that what we want?

Stories Win Nations

2011-04-18T23:00:00.000-04:00

"Job creators" are being unfairly attacked, their money stolen from them: there are only two kinds of people in the world, producers and users, or parasites.

Parasites control governments everywhere and legally steal from producers, through taxes: governments are intrinsically parasitic. Governments produce nothing; they suck blood out of those who do. If there were no governments, merely security forces to protect property, then free enterprise would truly flourish.

That's why conservatives support tax cuts for the wealthy, and cuts in services for everyone else; they tell each other the above story: it all makes sense. Ayn Rand makes heroes of supposed producers, and villains of anyone who doesn't "produce." Roman Senators thought like that.

The villains are ordinary people, especially those who have the temerity to think they should be paid decently; they support unions because they're greedy and lazy. Roman elites felt that way about slaves. Also, governments unfairly penalize producers by caving into the mob--like weak Roman Emperors.

Unions, of course, are just gangsters, gangs to rip off the honest man's sweat, for which he worked so hard--on his telephone all day! That's why union busting, even with baseball bats and armed guards, is justified.

Paul Ryan is a Randist, apparently. It's likely Ron and Rand Paul are, too. And many tea partiers. Ayn Rand's story (above) doesn't really make sense, but that doesn't matter, it's a framework for the emerging GOP worldview; it makes emotional sense to them.

What doesn't make sense? First, if all but the few are producers, then, workers contribute nothing? What if the mighty entrepreneur hoards his money, pays his workers peanuts, and demands police repression to keep wages down? What if every hero entrepreneur acts likewise, in this perfect Randian world? Who will have the money to buy goods and services? Luxury markets do not a mass-market make. Secondly, if there is no government, who will provide collective goods like roads, rules of the market, standard measures, let alone security for everyone? (Governments do produce quite a lot, actually). Third, would everyone else agree to live in misery because they don't sit behind an Executive desk?

It doesn't matter to radical conservatives whether their arguments make sense. What matters is the story. It's surprising how persuasive it is to people whose interests are diametrically opposed.

The basic problem that progressives face is: they don't have a compelling story, not anymore. Progressives did have a story, a very compelling one, in the 1930's. It has been waning in strength ever since. The Great Recession didn't revive it, nor did Obama. Big business media won't revive it; it's "anti-business."

A spellbinding movie or novel might create a new story, or revive the old one--union solidarity defeats oppressive bosses; slaves rebel against cruel masters (Spartacus lost). Progressives need a story, badly, or we'll plunge headlong into something far worse than Rome's fall in 476.

Obama and Class War

2011-04-14T10:45:00.000-04:00

In his deficit-cutting address Wednesday, Obama's approach to the Defense budget was vague, but at least he pointed to Defense as a large target for cuts that must be made, some by re-examining the mission and role of our military in a "changing world."

Here's an example of his problem: while the administration considers transferring some Egyptian aid from military to economic programs, "some lawmakers fear that would mean cutting sales of U.S. military hardware." [Just Foreign Policy 4/13]. When there's peace, we can't sell arms. That's one reason why the US sticks its nose in globally: to sell arms. Our adventures are not only investments in future arm sales; they are also driven by the defense industry's insatiable appetite for ever-larger Defense budgets.

The arms dynamic is hard to overcome, as our sudden involvement in Libya demonstrates. Our allies are urging a more active role on the US, after it stepped back, making way for Europeans to lead (and pay the costs). But they want us because our huge Defense budget gives us capabilities no one else can bring to bear--in Libya, or elsewhere.

As a Medicare recipient, I've always felt Medicare should negotiate drug prices, but Bush banned negotiated prices; pharmaceutical corporations charge Medicare outrageous prices because they can. Obama proposes allowing Medicare to negotiate prices as a deficit-cutting measure, a clever move. His vision to change the way providers are paid makes sense, too. Real deficit-cutters should like both reforms: they would cut the deficit considerably. Medicare was set up to be a financial train-wreck by Bush/Cheney's prescription drug and privatization schemes (Medicare Advantage programs, etc.).

Obama's deficit cutting approach is reassuring; his riposte to Republican Ryan's deficit-cutting budget proposal was pointed. He declared he'd never permit Ryan's proposed voucher-ization of Medicare.

Even more heartening was Obama's recognition that the wealthy have done well while others still suffer, and they owe it to the nation to make a proportionally greater contribution (through tax hikes), to enable necessary services and investments in the future. The tax cuts proposed by Ryan, he noted, would take from those who needed help and give to those who didn't: not the kind of America Obama (or I) believe in.

Did Obama blame Wall Street? No, but his DOJ is simultaneously pursuing mortgage fraud by Goldman, JP Morgan, Washington Mutual and others--even possible criminal prosecution.

Obama claimed his proposal would cut $4 trillion from the debt--as much as Ryan, but with high-end tax increases, not draconian slashes to services and tax cuts for the wealthy.

It's class war part II. Who will prevail: the new Roman Senators, billionaires like the Koch brothers, represented by Republicans, or Obama, now representing ordinary people? It's a classic choice: Obama's way maintains democracy; Ryan's would usher in something comparable to Rome's last years, with Senators dominant and everyone else impoverished and powerless.

Taxes and Class War

2011-04-11T20:40:00.000-04:00

When Republicans insist and some reluctant Democrats agree: we have to cut the deficit and slow the rise in the debt, they look in the wrong direction, on purpose. Certainly, the US is the largest debtor in (and to) the world, and our debt continues to rise, increasingly to Japan and China.

The Republicans' budget guru, Congressman Paul Ryan, wants to cut $6 trillion from government spending in the next ten years--and also cut $4 trillion in taxes to corporations and high-income earners! It becomes more clearly class war when you see his targets for cutting spending: programs that benefit the poor, like education, Medicare and Food Stamps, programs and tax loopholes that benefit the shrinking "middle class," including Medicare, Social Security and mortgage and state income tax deductions. He wants these cuts, and more, to pay for the tax cuts.

The US is a relatively lightly taxed nation, especially for high-income earners and corporations. While conservatives cite the 35% corporate tax rate as the highest in the developed world, two-thirds of corporations pay no taxes, and few pay the full 35%, because of all the loopholes for which they've lobbied strenuously. The total tax breaks for corporations has been estimated to cost $660 billion in the next five years. Further, most high-income earners don't pay much of their taxes at the highest rate (cut by W and continued with Obama's reluctant signature in the tax deal last December). CEO's and other wealthy people earn most of their income in capital gains or dividends, taxed at 15%, about half the rate of "earned income." There are hedge fund directors who earn billions a year, and pay only at the 15% rate; they are hardly over-taxed.

We need to solve our deficit and debt problem by raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations and by re-configuring our defense, bringing most of our troops home, shrinking our forces, and recognizing that we can't afford to police the world. Those two measures alone would more than solve our deficit and debt problem, if we also allowed Medicare to negotiate drug prices as well as streamline its operations, as planned in the Health Care reform act.

We need to change the conversation. Our income tax is hardly progressive, and overall, our tax system takes more from the poor and middle class than it does from the wealthy. Our tax system hasn't yet become as cruelly inequitable as the Roman system in which the wealthy paid almost nothing and everyone else paid oppressively high taxes, or sold themselves into serfdom. But that's the direction in which Republicans like Paul Ryan want to go. Some Democrats are bought off, because billionaires have a lot of money. Some Democrats don't have a clue. And liberals like Feingold have been driven out by just some of the big boys' money, leading all politicians to draw their own conclusions.

Do ordinary people stand a chance?

Noblesse Oblige

2011-04-07T22:01:00.000-04:00

There used to be such a thing as noblesse oblige. I've heard people argue that FDR was its epitome. He was a slightly downwardly mobile aristocrat (they were spending "principle," not just income, FDR lamented). He found empathy for the people out there suffering in the Great Depression, possibly because of his own sudden disability from polio.

Noblesse Oblige makes sense for the elite, FDR argued, although most of his own class disagreed. His argument, the argument of the intellectuals of the New Deal, makes sense today: unless you moderate the extremes of income, unless you make sure the needy are taken care of and unless you ensure that more and more have the opportunity to make something of themselves, you will either have revolution, or fascism. Democracy will die, or be destroyed.

Of course, in the 1930's it was easy to see the alternatives: the USSR and the 1000-year Reich. Today, the elite feel falsely secure: there is no alternative. Communism is dead and Fascism is invisible. Maybe this is what Capitalism Triumphant looks like.

The Nobel economist, Joseph Stiglitz, points out that when a society becomes as unequal as ours, when 1% rule and gain more and more of its wealth--the US today--there is a loss of community. The elite have less and less in common with the lower classes, and reject any need to help them even when they are in dire economic straits. They cut funds to services, which don't serve the elite, like public libraries, Head Start, even Food Stamps and unemployment insurance. And they cut taxes on themselves. After all, it's their money.

The US has a myth of a classless/middle class, mobile society that never really existed; it's now, by income and wealth, the most class stratified of any developed country. Our politics shows that.

While cutting everything else, the elite support the military. Their children won't serve in it, but they can make money on all our military adventures; it's good for business.

The GOP represents the elite rather faithfully, but a good number of Democrats represent them, too, due to bribes (campaign funds) and/or a common class. So far, there are very few like FDR, even among Democrats.

But FDR's argument is relevant: without real reform--and government helping people in need--by creating jobs, for example--the chances for radical revolution increase exponentially. Revolution could be either of the right or of the left, but the elite ultimately lost even with the right-wing totalitarian dictatorships they favored in the past.

Yet, clearly, the GOP doesn't buy FDR's argument.

Most Democrats bought it long ago, but forgot about it.

Protests may be the only way to get even progressives to remember--and act, despite their Wall Street supporters. Otherwise, we'll end up serfs or slaves to the new Roman Senators--until there is an explosion: a Spartacan uprising, or a radical revolution.

Budget Insanity

2011-04-05T22:03:00.000-04:00

How can Republicans believe that they'll win votes for "courage" to stand up to the poor on behalf of all those victimized rich guys? Unlike the Beatles' song, they seem to think that money can buy them love.

If Fox and corporations can spin this, then we have wholly entered into a corporate-run nation, in which only the CEO's and billionaires count--perhaps GOP activists will gain perks like the apparatchiks in the Soviet CP, or the higher ups in Germany's NSDAP. The rest of us just better keep our heads low, and work hard for our diminishing crusts of bread.

Congressman Ryan, the GOP budget boss, proposes draconian cuts to services, eventual privatization of Medicare at the likely expense to future seniors, and then proposes cutting high-end tax rates by a whopping 10%, while closing middle class loopholes like the mortgage deduction.

So, let's be clear about what he's proposing: take from the poor and middle class, who are hurting from this recession. Take from them some of the services that are enabling them to survive, take from them the loopholes that make middle class tax rates affordable, take from the people who are being thrown out of work, losing their homes--or, know they are at risk for one or both. Take from them the assurance that in their old age, their health care will be there for them.

What does this great subtraction buy? The first thing is tax cuts for the rich and corporations (almost half of which avoid paying any taxes). What will that buy? More speculation, not more jobs. The rich are already sitting on trillions of dollars; they are not investing in job creation--except possibly in places like China or Brazil.

A large enough cut in government spending to reduce the size of government, could also buy a renewed recession--unless we're lucky enough to have a real recovery before it takes effect.

Which brings us to the budget impasse on the 2011 budget: Boehner and his cohorts demand huge cuts, but they also demand programmatic cuts, like defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood. The programmatic cuts won't cut the deficit, so their argument for them is disingenuous. But the huge cuts to states, to services, to health care, to programs could be a recessionary strong right fist to the economy, especially since the tax cuts to everyone have only enabled unemployment to be pushed back a little; the elite aren't investing their gains in jobs; they're just expecting their workers to work harder--without unions, of course.

So, Ryan and Boehner, and those behind them, want to shove us on the economic path built by the late Roman Empire, in which a few own virtually everything, and everyone else is a slave or a serf.

It weakened Rome, too.

Beware Pentagon's Imperial Ambitions

2011-03-30T10:28:00.000-04:00

An Undersecretary of Defense, Michele Flournoy, can undermine efforts by Obama and Clinton to initiate negotiations with the Taliban. She let slip on purpose that the Pentagon planned to continue Special Operations counter-terror missions in Afghanistan even after most troops withdraw in 2014, and would retain Bagram Air Base to support them.

One requirement of the Taliban, which is willing to negotiate, is that all foreign forces would leave in any final settlement.

Why does Obama countenance such self-serving, aggrandizing behavior by military spokespeople? So, now we're going to have bases and operations in Afghanistan, as in Iraq, after (most of) our troops have "left?"

Does no one in the Pentagon realize that we can't afford to garrison the world? Now we're expanding operations into Libya. While Obama may intend to limit the operation, to step back from US command to US-dominated NATO command of the Libyan intervention, it's likely the Pentagon will push for more money if Qaddafi continues to resist and his military makes mincemeat of the revolutionaries. We'll have to send in "advisors," "trainers," and weapons, of course.

Obama's rationale for intervention makes moral sense up to a point: to protect civilians. The US does have unique capabilities: to blow up Qaddafi's well-armed militias and artillery units, while never touching feet to the ground. Loyalist forces exhibit no compunction at brutalizing and massacring civilians along the way, so, literally, bombing tank units saves civilian lives.

On the other hand, what Undersecretary Flournoy demonstrates, is the Pentagon's insatiable appetite: for more bases, more operations, on into the future. Secretary Gates has made gestures towards cutting the Defense budget, but his underlings make sure that Defense's budget will keep on growing.

A dangerous world is profitable.

So, it is perfectly reasonable to worry that we'll get further drawn into Libya, and that ten years down the road we'll be holding onto bases in that country, even after we "withdraw."

However, something's happening that is cause for guarded optimism: conservative Republicans are beginning to question the unending spending lavished on the military, when they're struggling to find places to cut the Government budget. And conservative/libertarian Republicans are joining with progressive Democrats to question the Libyan adventure.

Why has it been axiomatic until now: cutting budget deficits requires slashing programs that help people who need help, while not touching the lavish Defense budget, which costs more than all other nations' defense budgets combined? Why, also, is there such muted discussion about the other side of the budget deficit: the lowered tax rates for the extremely wealthy, who not only could afford to pay more, but should, since they have gained virtually 100% of the profits from US productivity gains since 2000, and most from the gains accrued since 1980?

Just as in Rome in the 5th Century, it's the military and the super-rich who will bring us down. Maybe we shouldn't let them.

Political False Advertising

2011-03-28T19:57:00.000-04:00

Radical Republicans won elections by claiming that they would create jobs. People in the US either fear losing their jobs, or don't have them at all (about 16% when "discouraged workers" and part-time workers are counted). Therefore, people thought they were voting rationally. But despite their rhetoric, the radical Republicans had a very different agenda: not job creation at all.

Of course, it's not just Republicans who do this. Back in 1964, I hurried back from Europe after the Army, because I felt I had to vote for LBJ to prevent the fire-breathing Goldwater from committing us to a "quagmire in the Asian jungles." That's what LBJ campaigned against. Once elected, he escalated the Vietnam War! This was despite LBJ's apparent belief (revealed posthumously) that the war was doomed. Luckily for me, I was never re-called. We then went on to elect Nixon, who claimed he had a "secret plan" to stop the war! He didn't.

In the current situation, we have Republican Congress-people, Senators, state legislators and Governors, who, once elected, have proceeded to carry out radical agendas that have nothing to do with creating jobs.

How does legalizing the murder of abortion providers create jobs? South Dakota legislators proposed this. How does direct state abolition and takeover of local municipalities create jobs? Michigan's new governor has proposed this. How does abolishing collective bargaining among public employees create jobs? Wisconsin's Senate passed this late one night, in a rump session; Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey and other states are in the process of passing similar laws.

How does redefining rape to require proof of violence create jobs? Congressional Republicans withdrew this proposal, but still want to pass more stringent anti-abortion laws. How does cutting spending on services for poor people, and for their children (like the cuts to food stamps and head start), create jobs? These are part of a campaign to bash the poor, the unions, and any government institution unpopular with conservatives. All have been promoted or passed in the US House, despite Democratic opposition. None create jobs; they destroy them.

The measure that began this process was extending the tax cut for those earning over $250,000, which passed in the post-election session of the last Congress. If the Republicans hadn't extorted that concession from Obama and Reid, there would be $600 billion more in revenue, reducing the need for budget cuts considerably.

Their fiscal austerity costs jobs; it doesn't create them. Further, the moneyed won't hire because of lower taxes; they will hire when there is demand for their products or services. Even then, they might hire in China or Vietnam, not the US. They're rolling in money, anyway: they've stolen virtually all of America's productivity gains for themselves since the 1980's.

Justice would demand a fair share returned, but monopolists are like the Roman Senators of the Fifth Century, (when Rome fell): they want it all--and they think they've purchased it--with their new governments.