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.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Dollar Collapse!
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Billions, Anger and Inequality
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.
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.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Occupy Wall Street Goes New York City
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!
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!
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Military vs Police Action
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Romney, Wall Street Occupation and Obama
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Occupy Wall Street--and the Nation!
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.
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.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Execution, the More Horrific the Better
Guillotines were more humane than lethal injection, my lovely wife, Elizabeth Cunningham pointed out, when we were discussing the legal murder of Troy Davis. Chop and it's over, instead of your whole body burning up as the poison slowly paralyzes you.
This led me to thinking about why we punish and legally kill the way we do. As I've noted in a rather long chapter in my book The Selfish Class (available onsite), Romans of the Fifth Century devised more and more visibly excruciating methods of execution. This was in part because the Empire had reached a stage ahead of where we are today, but where the Tea Party would have us go. The government couldn't provide services like an adequate police force (the imperial government had been defunded much the way Grover Norquist advocates today: the wealthy Senators hoarded all the wealth), so the Empire substituted progressively more horrific punishments for those people its security forces captured as either opponents or criminals.
As crime escalated (times went from desperate to worse: banditry was the better alternative to enslavement or death), as the government became increasingly incapable of enforcing order, the methods of execution became as brutal as executioners could devise. Decapitation was too honorable for humble folk (it was reserved for the upper ranks). Crucifixion, used for centuries, was a low-cost death by torture, but no longer acceptable, once the Empire became Christian. Death under the claws of a lion or bear was dramatic, but perhaps too distant for most spectators, and not painful, or prolonged enough. Somehow, the Emperors' executioners had to invent something much worse. A form of drawing and quartering was tried, but the Late Empire hit upon an even more horrifying death: by slow fire where everyone could see the victim die in utmost agony, torches to light the streets.
The Tea Party, radical Republicans, are certainly with the program: they cheered to hear how many Governor Perry had executed (235). The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles was with the program, too, but then Troy Davis was a black man convicted of killing a white policeman, even if 5 out of 7 witnesses recanted the testimony that convicted him.
Long ago, in 1994, New York's newly elected Republican Governor, Pataki, summarily closed all prison college programs (I taught in one), because prison, he opined, should be punishment, not reward: never mind that the program halved the recidivism rate among its enrollees.
So, we are now coming to a debate about capital punishment--abolishing it on one side, and making it easier to carry out, on the other. And isn't it interesting that we've gone from hanging and firing squad (quick deaths both) to frying in an electric chair, to burning up internally with poison--it took Troy Davis 14 minutes to die.
If we wanted to be humane to the condemned, we'd use the guillotine.
This led me to thinking about why we punish and legally kill the way we do. As I've noted in a rather long chapter in my book The Selfish Class (available onsite), Romans of the Fifth Century devised more and more visibly excruciating methods of execution. This was in part because the Empire had reached a stage ahead of where we are today, but where the Tea Party would have us go. The government couldn't provide services like an adequate police force (the imperial government had been defunded much the way Grover Norquist advocates today: the wealthy Senators hoarded all the wealth), so the Empire substituted progressively more horrific punishments for those people its security forces captured as either opponents or criminals.
As crime escalated (times went from desperate to worse: banditry was the better alternative to enslavement or death), as the government became increasingly incapable of enforcing order, the methods of execution became as brutal as executioners could devise. Decapitation was too honorable for humble folk (it was reserved for the upper ranks). Crucifixion, used for centuries, was a low-cost death by torture, but no longer acceptable, once the Empire became Christian. Death under the claws of a lion or bear was dramatic, but perhaps too distant for most spectators, and not painful, or prolonged enough. Somehow, the Emperors' executioners had to invent something much worse. A form of drawing and quartering was tried, but the Late Empire hit upon an even more horrifying death: by slow fire where everyone could see the victim die in utmost agony, torches to light the streets.
The Tea Party, radical Republicans, are certainly with the program: they cheered to hear how many Governor Perry had executed (235). The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles was with the program, too, but then Troy Davis was a black man convicted of killing a white policeman, even if 5 out of 7 witnesses recanted the testimony that convicted him.
Long ago, in 1994, New York's newly elected Republican Governor, Pataki, summarily closed all prison college programs (I taught in one), because prison, he opined, should be punishment, not reward: never mind that the program halved the recidivism rate among its enrollees.
So, we are now coming to a debate about capital punishment--abolishing it on one side, and making it easier to carry out, on the other. And isn't it interesting that we've gone from hanging and firing squad (quick deaths both) to frying in an electric chair, to burning up internally with poison--it took Troy Davis 14 minutes to die.
If we wanted to be humane to the condemned, we'd use the guillotine.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Standing Up On Their Hindlegs
And finding, yes, I think, a little spine in there. I'm referring to both Obama and the Democrats in Congress.
Obama insists on tax increases for the wealthy, including his Buffett Rule, that millionaires should pay taxes at the same rate as the middle class. He came out with a surprisingly muscular jobs bill, although it is still far from enough. And then he issued a veto threat (his first?): against any super-committee budget agreement that doesn't include tax increases as well as cuts to programs. His proposal actually is estimated to come 40% from tax increases on corporations and the wealthy, 60 % from expenditure cuts.
Republicans for months have been insisting that: "you can't raise taxes in a recession." Nor on "job creators," their euphemism for the stinking rich, so Obama's position is no longer compromise; it's confrontation. It's as if somebody finally got to him and said: "They'll compromise with you only if it'll guarantee their chances of defeating you in 2012. They're not sincere; give up trying.
Maybe he's given up trying. The Republicans, especially the House backbenchers are every bit as crazy as the radical Republicans after Lincoln's assassination. It's definitely better to show Americans what they really are.
Which brings us to the US House Democrats: they voted against the short-term budget, and so did enough sane Republicans that the government could shut down beginning next Tuesday.
Sane to shut down the government? Democrats?
What the Democrats were voting against was the insistence by the Republican majority that, counter to all past practice, disaster relief should be "paid for" by cuts to other programs. A program Republicans were going to cut was for developing more highly efficient vehicles: it was already creating jobs and was highly popular.
Now, Speaker Boehner is going to have to find a majority, not among the radical cutters, but among the sane. Insisting that disaster relief has to be "paid for," is like saying: "If I help him, I'll have to take the money from you." That's not going to be very popular.
With accelerating greenhouse gas emissions, and Republican crazies denying that humans have anything to do with climate change (it's just sunspots), disaster relief may become our new growth industry. But if you're going to accelerate disasters, at least you should help out the victims. The polluting companies and their shareholders should fund disaster relief from their excessive profits, even if the Kochs, et al deny any responsibility.
The debt-deficit mania, the austerity abroad, military stalemate, the increasingly polarized (and irrational) politics both in the US and in Europe spell rapid decline, not just of the American Empire but of any kind of western pre-eminence.
We do still have a chance to turn things around: Democrats standing up on their hindlegs is a start.
Obama insists on tax increases for the wealthy, including his Buffett Rule, that millionaires should pay taxes at the same rate as the middle class. He came out with a surprisingly muscular jobs bill, although it is still far from enough. And then he issued a veto threat (his first?): against any super-committee budget agreement that doesn't include tax increases as well as cuts to programs. His proposal actually is estimated to come 40% from tax increases on corporations and the wealthy, 60 % from expenditure cuts.
Republicans for months have been insisting that: "you can't raise taxes in a recession." Nor on "job creators," their euphemism for the stinking rich, so Obama's position is no longer compromise; it's confrontation. It's as if somebody finally got to him and said: "They'll compromise with you only if it'll guarantee their chances of defeating you in 2012. They're not sincere; give up trying.
Maybe he's given up trying. The Republicans, especially the House backbenchers are every bit as crazy as the radical Republicans after Lincoln's assassination. It's definitely better to show Americans what they really are.
Which brings us to the US House Democrats: they voted against the short-term budget, and so did enough sane Republicans that the government could shut down beginning next Tuesday.
Sane to shut down the government? Democrats?
What the Democrats were voting against was the insistence by the Republican majority that, counter to all past practice, disaster relief should be "paid for" by cuts to other programs. A program Republicans were going to cut was for developing more highly efficient vehicles: it was already creating jobs and was highly popular.
Now, Speaker Boehner is going to have to find a majority, not among the radical cutters, but among the sane. Insisting that disaster relief has to be "paid for," is like saying: "If I help him, I'll have to take the money from you." That's not going to be very popular.
With accelerating greenhouse gas emissions, and Republican crazies denying that humans have anything to do with climate change (it's just sunspots), disaster relief may become our new growth industry. But if you're going to accelerate disasters, at least you should help out the victims. The polluting companies and their shareholders should fund disaster relief from their excessive profits, even if the Kochs, et al deny any responsibility.
The debt-deficit mania, the austerity abroad, military stalemate, the increasingly polarized (and irrational) politics both in the US and in Europe spell rapid decline, not just of the American Empire but of any kind of western pre-eminence.
We do still have a chance to turn things around: Democrats standing up on their hindlegs is a start.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Why the "Lost Decade?"
Social justice is a different concept for many of the people who control corporations or large fortunes. "We'll always be rich," is a common refrain among today's "Roman Senators." They not only protect themselves, but their abundant funds insure they have the best governments money can buy.
The Census Bureau simply releases figures: they show increases in poverty from 14.3% to 15.1%, and a median income lower than it was in 1996. Today's poverty rate is as high as it was at the beginning of Clinton's administration (1993); median incomes of working age Americans are as low as they were (in inflation-adjusted dollars) in 1973 (after Nixon, who would be a "liberal" today)!
The New York Times (9/14/11) lead story doesn't ask why. The Times simply observes that things began to get worse after 2001 and have continued to do so, thus the "lost decade."
These trends coincide with the rise to dominance of conservative policies under Reagan. There was some improvement during the Clinton years, partly because the wealthy actually paid a bit more in taxes, and everyone else received more in government services. Bush II did his best to dismantle Clinton's small improvements.
Economic policy makes a difference: so does political worldview. What the dramatic increases in poverty, etc. demonstrate is that trickle down economics doesn't work, while the mild '90's redistributive economics did work. Also an administration that believes government can do good things, will administer more effectively (FEMA is an example, comparing Katrina with Irene).
If social justice is giving everyone a decent chance, and rewarding those who excel, while helping those who need it, we have an increasingly unjust political system and economy.
In practical terms, we'd all be better off--except for the top 0.01% of income earners--if we had a more equitable tax system and a governing philosophy that represented the interests of most people, instead of a small elite. This would not only increase social justice, but it would likely grow the economy faster--and create jobs.
When labeling the last ten years "the Lost Decade," the Times neglected to point out that this is when conservative economics and policies triumphed: lower tax rates for the wealthy; increased deregulation; permanent war; cutbacks in services; "free trade;" the resulting race to the bottom for American workers and the further weakening of unions.
Obama has barely modified most of these policies. Any progress his minimal proposals might have had, were cancelled out by Bush's recession.
"Conservatives," however, advocate less or no government action to help the "less fortunate." Social justice, they maintain, means helping those who "deserve it," the supposed "job creators" imagined by Ayn Rand, and touted by Speaker Boehner. Their worldview holds even when (as demonstrated by the new census figures) the real world results show that all but the selfish class have become markedly worse off.
Social injustice (poverty, inequality) will grow as long as their worldview remains dominant.
The Census Bureau simply releases figures: they show increases in poverty from 14.3% to 15.1%, and a median income lower than it was in 1996. Today's poverty rate is as high as it was at the beginning of Clinton's administration (1993); median incomes of working age Americans are as low as they were (in inflation-adjusted dollars) in 1973 (after Nixon, who would be a "liberal" today)!
The New York Times (9/14/11) lead story doesn't ask why. The Times simply observes that things began to get worse after 2001 and have continued to do so, thus the "lost decade."
These trends coincide with the rise to dominance of conservative policies under Reagan. There was some improvement during the Clinton years, partly because the wealthy actually paid a bit more in taxes, and everyone else received more in government services. Bush II did his best to dismantle Clinton's small improvements.
Economic policy makes a difference: so does political worldview. What the dramatic increases in poverty, etc. demonstrate is that trickle down economics doesn't work, while the mild '90's redistributive economics did work. Also an administration that believes government can do good things, will administer more effectively (FEMA is an example, comparing Katrina with Irene).
If social justice is giving everyone a decent chance, and rewarding those who excel, while helping those who need it, we have an increasingly unjust political system and economy.
In practical terms, we'd all be better off--except for the top 0.01% of income earners--if we had a more equitable tax system and a governing philosophy that represented the interests of most people, instead of a small elite. This would not only increase social justice, but it would likely grow the economy faster--and create jobs.
When labeling the last ten years "the Lost Decade," the Times neglected to point out that this is when conservative economics and policies triumphed: lower tax rates for the wealthy; increased deregulation; permanent war; cutbacks in services; "free trade;" the resulting race to the bottom for American workers and the further weakening of unions.
Obama has barely modified most of these policies. Any progress his minimal proposals might have had, were cancelled out by Bush's recession.
"Conservatives," however, advocate less or no government action to help the "less fortunate." Social justice, they maintain, means helping those who "deserve it," the supposed "job creators" imagined by Ayn Rand, and touted by Speaker Boehner. Their worldview holds even when (as demonstrated by the new census figures) the real world results show that all but the selfish class have become markedly worse off.
Social injustice (poverty, inequality) will grow as long as their worldview remains dominant.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
9-11 Commemorative Blindness
Osama won--in the West. He drove the idiots in power to do just what he'd hoped: alienate Muslims world-wide with our cowboy-frat-boy military aggression--and at-home persecution.
Think about it: we spend hours on TV and radio talking about what 9-11 meant; about the pain it caused the survivors; about what we were doing on that day, or the day before or the day after. And it's true: the death of almost 3,000 at ground zero was a wrenching experience for many times that number. So, what did Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld do about it? Attacked Afghanistan, which is not where the attackers came from, nor where they trained, but only where their spiritual/financial leaders had gained sanctuary before the fact. And then they (we?) attacked Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9-11 (but has oil).
We lost 3,000 in one day, but how many did we kill in Baghdad's "shock and awe?" (Virtually all were civilians). Well over 100,000 lost their lives in Iraq over the course of that war, initiated by the American invasion, although estimates range up to a million. Further, Wikileaks has documented 24,498 fatalities in Afghanistan, including at least 4,000 civilians.
Now, think of all the Afghan and Iraqi stories of what happened to their loved ones and when, and what they were doing on that day, and the day before and the day after, and asking why me, Allah?. Now, consider that Afghanistan has a population estimated to be 29.8 million by the World Bank, while it estimated Iraq's population at 31.5 million. US population in 2000 was 281,421,906.
I won't bother to reduce the fatalities of each to a percentage of their respective populations, but obviously, our 9-11 hit was tiny compared to the devastation the US has wrought on others, ostensibly because they had something to do with 9-11. In fact, Iraq had nothing to do with it: none of the hijackers were Iraqi, none trained there. Saddam had kept al Qaeda out of Iraq, because it was a danger to his power.
All but one of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, so why didn't we attack the Saudis? Because, Saudis were Bush family friends? Because the oil was already in US hands (more or less)?
Osama won by instigating the US (and the UK) to wade into the Middle East maelstrom with guns blazing; he drove the American cowboy into aggressive-defense, which has not only nearly bankrupted us (like the USSR), but has cost us most of our liberties, as well.
If Reagan had a hand in bankrupting the USSR and driving it out of business, then Osama bin Laden could claim something similar: the American Empire is near collapse, aided by his ministrations vis a vis 9-11, other attacks sponsored by al Qaeda and his proclamations against us.
But we spend years deciding on the order of names of the fallen at ground zero!
Think about it: we spend hours on TV and radio talking about what 9-11 meant; about the pain it caused the survivors; about what we were doing on that day, or the day before or the day after. And it's true: the death of almost 3,000 at ground zero was a wrenching experience for many times that number. So, what did Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld do about it? Attacked Afghanistan, which is not where the attackers came from, nor where they trained, but only where their spiritual/financial leaders had gained sanctuary before the fact. And then they (we?) attacked Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9-11 (but has oil).
We lost 3,000 in one day, but how many did we kill in Baghdad's "shock and awe?" (Virtually all were civilians). Well over 100,000 lost their lives in Iraq over the course of that war, initiated by the American invasion, although estimates range up to a million. Further, Wikileaks has documented 24,498 fatalities in Afghanistan, including at least 4,000 civilians.
Now, think of all the Afghan and Iraqi stories of what happened to their loved ones and when, and what they were doing on that day, and the day before and the day after, and asking why me, Allah?. Now, consider that Afghanistan has a population estimated to be 29.8 million by the World Bank, while it estimated Iraq's population at 31.5 million. US population in 2000 was 281,421,906.
I won't bother to reduce the fatalities of each to a percentage of their respective populations, but obviously, our 9-11 hit was tiny compared to the devastation the US has wrought on others, ostensibly because they had something to do with 9-11. In fact, Iraq had nothing to do with it: none of the hijackers were Iraqi, none trained there. Saddam had kept al Qaeda out of Iraq, because it was a danger to his power.
All but one of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, so why didn't we attack the Saudis? Because, Saudis were Bush family friends? Because the oil was already in US hands (more or less)?
Osama won by instigating the US (and the UK) to wade into the Middle East maelstrom with guns blazing; he drove the American cowboy into aggressive-defense, which has not only nearly bankrupted us (like the USSR), but has cost us most of our liberties, as well.
If Reagan had a hand in bankrupting the USSR and driving it out of business, then Osama bin Laden could claim something similar: the American Empire is near collapse, aided by his ministrations vis a vis 9-11, other attacks sponsored by al Qaeda and his proclamations against us.
But we spend years deciding on the order of names of the fallen at ground zero!
Friday, September 2, 2011
Is Obama the "only adult in the room," or is he unconsciously submitting to bullies like Boehner? The go-round about the day of his jobs address to Congress with the Speaker of the House is emblematic--proposing Wednesday, rejected by Boehner ostensibly because of the scheduled debate of Republican Presidential candidates--accepting Thursday, which conflicts with the much more important seasonal kickoff of NFL football.
Boehner didn't act with due deference to the President, even kept him waiting for an answer for 24 hours; then Obama accepted his counter-offer, disadvantageous as it is.
I don't watch football, or any other televised sport, but it is a male institution. Isn't it likely that a lot will prefer to watch NFL's opener, rather than the President?
What is the likelihood Obama will propose dramatic new job-creating ideas? I doubt dramatic. I'm afraid he'll offer a little here and a little there, and claim he's being responsible; that's his style. Democrats are pressuring him to offer a big program. Will he dare offer ideas Republicans would automatically reject?
Obama really should have nothing to lose even if he proposed some New Deal-type jobs program. Republicans would reject any proposal, in any case. They could be painted as anti-jobs, maybe even pro-double-dip recession. Especially given last month's stagnation, the proposal would be popular: people want jobs and prosperity, not losing government services and rising unemployment. No net new jobs last month might make a dramatic proposal more likely.
But Obama instinctively seems to avoid confrontation and seek compromise, even if it means giving up his own principles (if he still has any). The odds are strongly against him proposing something like the WPA. The closest he might come would be the infrastructure bank he's already mentioned, which might provide extra money for rebuilding bridges, repairing or upgrading roads, and retrofitting public buildings like schools.
At this point, it's clear: nothing Obama proposes will see the light of day in the House, and can be blocked by the 41-vote minority in the Senate. But I can't see Obama campaigning against Congress a la Harry Truman.
No one pushed Harry Truman around.
Obama is increasingly ineffectual, in part because he allows others to push him around; it not only looks weak, it is weak.
Obama is becoming progressively like one of the later Roman Emperors. Despite his obvious intellect, he seems as incapable of leading us away from disaster as was Emperor Honorius, who retreated from Rome to Ravenna to shelter from the marauding Goths. Poets memorialized him, anyway.
Does it have to be this way? It doesn't.
Nearly a thousand picketed the White House today, to insist that it doesn't; their target was the proposed dirty oil Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Going Downhill
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.
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.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Buffett's Good Deed
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Rip-off Artists
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Empire or Republic?
--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.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Obama the Cowardly Lion
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.
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.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Money Trumps Empire
"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.
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.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
We'll Always Be Rich
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).
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).
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Centuries of Idiocy
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.
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.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Selling Out to the Devil
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
A Fatal False Issue
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 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.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
The Paradox of Thrift
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)