Dark Weed

Think about this: if you're involved in an unregulated, illicit market, there are no guarantees, often no product description, or quality described.

Of course, I'm talking about Pot. The illicit market in states where marijuana is illegal, or 'not legal," is completely without any regulation, as well as without any taxation. Not only doesn't the state get to tax the proceeds, and the municipalities or counties lose increased sales taxes, but the customers often don't know what they're buying.

In medical marijuana states, patients can ask for particular kinds of marijuana, and growers attempt to meet their needs, through breeding and selective cultivation. In Colorado and Washington, look for tailored tastes and moods. In states where the trade is illegal, you don't know what you're getting, or where it came from: illegal grows in trashed state or national forests, with chemical fertilizer and pesticides, instead of from certified organic farms with an address.

And, of course, illegality raises the price, sometimes as much as ten or twenty-fold. Successful drug dealers reap huge profits, but illegal drug costs are much steeper for the seller, too: it costs a lot to hire killers, or psychopaths and the risk premium is huge: you have to be able to cover your losses. Cultivation of the crop is the same or higher than it would be for a legal operation, but there are few incentives to tailor a substance like marijuana to particular needs: other than potency.

There is one reason only why New York state does not have at least medical marijuana: the dysfunctional state legislature. Medical marijuana bills have passed the Democratic State Assembly several times, but because of Republican control, the State Senate refuses to vote on them, or votes them down. In this current session, a Democratic majority was elected, but the Republicans, and reportedly, Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo, encouraged just enough disgruntled Democratic Senators to form an independent caucus and make a deal with them. In effect, the minority Republicans can, and have still, blocked medical marijuana, by again being part of the majority--with the rump Democrats.

Why? Andy is protecting himself, in case he can run for President: all those parts of the country that still abhor legal pot. Besides, he's more conservative than the state Democratic Party. If legalization keeps on gaining in popularity, though, count on Andy to lead the charge.

This has nothing to do with the Roman Empire, except no drugs or liquors were explicitly outlawed there, but distilled liquor wasn't invented until the 12th century. Wine was actually part of the Roman dole. I can't imagine how state-seized wine tasted, but most taxes were collected in kind in the last centuries of the Empire: currency was too debased to support the troops--or the dole.

Cuomo & Obama Both Betray Us

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.

Class War!

A clueless friend of mine, referring to the protesting workers in Wisconsin, said, "It's all about greed!"

Class war: it's what the budget battles at state and federal levels are really about. In Wisconsin, Governor Walker cut taxes, taxes for business, therefore for the better-off, greatly increasing the deficit; at the same time he demanded not only cuts to state workers' wages and pensions, but insisted: collective bargaining rights for most public employees had to go.

Governor Walker's excuse is the budget shortfall, a good part of which was caused by his tax cuts--to the wealthy. Meanwhile, police, who Walker exempted from losing their collective bargaining rights, are fraternizing with the protesters; they sang Solidarity Forever in the Capitol rotunda! They know what's at stake.

Fox News demonizes public employees as greedy, but its commentators, like Hannity and O'Reilly are members of AFTRA, a union for performers in radio and TV; I bet their pay is much better than the teachers they trash as greedy.

Even in New York, the most unionized state, the new Democratic governor, Cuomo, talks about getting tough with public employee unions, to extract pay and pension give-backs, while vowing never to raise taxes on the wealthy!

At the Federal level, not only does the Republican majority target cuts against women's and children's health programs--among other programs benefiting the middle class and poor--but Obama, tries to make nice with the budget cutters by offering to slash food stamp funds in half!

Only a small minority in Congress supported amendments to the continuing resolution (in lieu of a budget), cutting Pentagon spending, yet defense accounts for more than half of the Federal budget's discretionary spending. And the deficit has grown because Republicans insisted on maintaining Bush tax cuts, including "for millionaires." Top bracket cuts will cost about $800 billion, and trillions if made permanent. And the wealthy won't spend; they'll save, or buy stocks abroad.

Over 9% of workers are officially unemployed, another 10% are probably discouraged workers, but the media ignore both. Meanwhile, workers still working are likely to be over-worked and underpaid: they aren't represented by unions.

The Republican onslaught on public employee unions could weaken the union movement even further. Republicans know, but many Democrats forget: killing unions would drastically weaken support for Democrats.

It's war on Democrats, who don't have a clue, but more importantly, it's a war on anyone who isn't wealthy, who doesn't own substantial parts of the corporate system; who aren't the people whom Marx labeled capitalists.

Why don't Democrats know what's going on? Why do the Cuomos collaborate? Some Democrats are also capitalists--or want the chance to be.

Wisconsin, et al are all out war, and if Corpolicans win, even Coporocrats lose and we'll be turning onto the road trod by effete Roman Senators; they sold Rome to the Barbarians in 476.

Cut Social Security!

The conclusion always is: cut benefits and raise the retirement age. That's how Economists think, apparently. A self-described Economist, said, the way Economists do, that public employees were overpaid (i.e. paid "above the average" for private sector workers) and paid more "generous," hear 'over-generous', pensions. Those "golden years lifestyles" are going to have to change.

And yet, private pensions have become scarcer and scarcer, and remember what happened to retirees' IRA's and 501K's with the stock market crash? This is not progress. The retirement plans of public employees ought to be seen as a model to head for not to dismantle. Are we a humane society, or not? We should find ways to pay for those pensions, and for private pensions as well.

Furthermore, to say public employees earn more is to compare apples to oranges, and the economist knows it: government workers do not work in factories, or in the fields; very few are manual laborers, or work with heavy machinery; and most are more educated than the average.

But still, there is the assumption that benefits must be cut, not that taxes on the rich should be raised.

Why the rich? They have more money than they can spend, and tend to spend more of it abroad, or to speculate with it, thereby fueling asset bubbles. No, their money is not creating jobs. In fact, at the moment, capital is in the business of shedding jobs: when jobs are cut, corporate profits go up. Higher tax rates for the wealthy would create jobs, because they could fund government programs.

Many progressive economists point out something most Americans don't want to hear: Americans pay lower taxes than other developed nations, and the wealthy pay much lower taxes than they do in almost any developed country. Tax havens (i.e. places with even lower taxes) happen to be in poor countries, i.e. in countries with even fewer public services, but with private services westerners buy at low cost--for them, but not for most natives.

It is astounding how little play a mildly progressive politics has in the US. In "liberal" NY State, the highly popular Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, concedes economic policy to conservative positions: cut public sector pay; cut pensions and establish a property tax cap, similar to the one in California. California's tax cap defunded their world-class education system built up even under Reagan. California's experience with the tax cap has been not just an education disaster, but a financial one, too, as their huge deficit demonstrates.

But few dare to propose a "millionaire tax," though the wealthy pay lower tax rates than everyone else; few propose rebating the stock transaction fee: both could yield enough for NY to pay its budget.

We have entered an era, when only the wealthy are allowed to win--the interests of ordinary people are dismissed as "special interests." That kind of society led to Rome's impoverishment and its eventual "fall" in 476. It's happening here.