The vaunted American system of politics.
We have endemic and pervasive gun violence in the cities, and frequent massacres of innocents by crazies in the suburbs, and make it easier to buy and keep guns than any other "developed" country. And yet, the Senate can't even get to a vote on expanded background checks (supported by about 90% of Americans), because the murderous, corporate NRA cows most Republicans and enough Democrats.
Immigration reform may be stopped in its tracks for the same kind of reason: a small minority represented by a disproportionate number of Senators and/or Representatives, will try to block any immigration reform bill because, in this case, majorities in the South and the under-populated southern mid-section of the nation, are paranoid xenophobes.
On the other hand, Monsanto can insert special language in the Food bill, privileging GMO's, in what has been unofficially labeled "the Monsanto Protection Act." It passed and Obama signed it.
Finally, we have a Democratic President who won reelection championing defense of Social Security and Medicare, legacy programs of Democratic Presidents, but now he attacks them in the name of reform. Obama proposes to cut benefits through indirection: changing the price index used to calculate Social Security benefits, and by cutting payments to providers like doctors and hospitals, to "reform" Medicare.
Social Security does not contribute to government deficits: over the years, Congress and Presidents have borrowed trillions from its trust fund to pay the bills, and now it needs to be paid back. It has pre-funded the bulge in senior boomers, but 'bidness' wants to get its greedy little hands on those funds. Social Security won't need additional funding until the 2030's. Obama's "reform" is splitting his party, and he still won't get Republicans to support it.
A better case can be made for reform of Medicare/Medicaid: to make medical care more efficient. The US shouldn't spend double what other countries pay for comparable medical care. A restructuring is in order, involving what is paid for: patient outcomes, or discrete tests and hours; drug prices should be negotiated, not monopoly prices and hospital fees need to reflect medical needs, not business priorities. Maybe that's what Obama has in mind.
The most positive aspect of Obama's retrograde offer: Republicans will defend both programs in order to attack him.
It seems that only through the courts, sometimes, can progress be realized, as in the Pennsylvania Judge who found that corporations could not claim proprietary secrets for fracking fluid. How long will that "anti-corporate" ruling last?
The Supreme Court may attempt to sidestep the same-sex marriage issue, yet it boosted corporate power in Citizens United when that wasn't even the intent of the suit.
Who rules? The 0.1% and the corporations they own, whom I've labeled "our Roman Senators", like the Selfish Senators of 5th Century Rome. Their influence may be even more pernicious.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
The Stalemated State
Lobbies, and the corporations behind them, block almost all change in the US.
Back in the 1830's, de Tocqueville rhapsodized about how the new United States had groups organized wherever he went. He saw it as the blossoming of democracy.
Now, however, organization itself is big business. Lobbyists in the thousands insure that the powers-that-be maintain their monopoly-oligopoly, their stifling of innovation that might threaten a lock on their markets--as well as a government that caters to their interests and therefore discriminates against smaller, more nimble competitors.
The IMF recently held that subsidies for traditional energy companies (oil, coal, gas) were holding back the move to non-traditional sources (wind, solar, bio-fuels). Still, even the elite-led demand for reducing government expenditures hardly touches on those subsidies: billions a year to companies making billions in profits. In addition, thanks to people like VP Cheney, drilling companies are largely free of regulation. We still don't know what poisons frackers inject into the earth in order to force out oil or gas, because that's a "proprietary secret." Pennsylvania even gives frackers powers of eminent domain!
Chemical companies (mostly petroleum based) are also protected. Smaller competitors attempting to replace toxic materials like styrene with bio-based non-toxic materials are stymied: the EPA is not allowed to declare styrene's known carcinogenicity, let alone ban it, and similar hands off treatment is SOP for a whole raft of other chemicals. In addition, Monsanto succeeded in inserting language in the new food law that virtually exempts GMO's from regulation. Meanwhile, the FDA can't require them to be labeled as GMO's, either.
Big Pharma protects its monopoly patents world-wide, but especially in the US, and Medicare/Medicaid is required to buy drugs at inflated prices (often 10 times a possible generic); no negotiated prices are permitted.
So, it's not surprising that Congress, after much effort on the part of gun victims families, gun control advocates, governors and even the President, may or may not pass the most minimal of gun control measures: universal background checks, despite 90% support for it in most polls. Gun manufacturers have organized the NRA and now the even more militantly "pro-gun" Gun Buyers of America, to lobby all their captive Congressmen against any regulation except for militarizing the schools with subsidized armed guards (creating another subsidized market).
The ultimate subsidized market is Defense. Corporate contractors still get cost-plus contracts, still get reimbursed even for hotel taxes in Maryland--and then, Lockheed has the chutzpah to demand that Maryland reimburse it, too! And that's in addition to the huge subsidy derived from US insistence on maintaining hegemony worldwide.
The US is truly a corporate state wedded to outdated technologies, corporate behemoths and the greedy class, our Roman Senators, who own them. Stalemate will doom it, unless it and the corporations are able to transfer their dominance worldwide. That's why the Indian decision against Novartis is so important: the sclerotic American Empire is losing control.
Friday, April 5, 2013
Bad Ideas
George McGovern endorsed a terrible book, The Promise of the Coming Dark Age: it saw the Cambodian Khmer Rouge as the great promise: our communitarian future, in which capitalism would be transmuted into abundance for all.
From 1975-1979, the Khmer Rouge murdered a larger share of their people than the Nazis or Stalin: virtually any non-Maoist with education, or anyone from the middle class and any city-dweller. Later, anyone not ideologically "reliable" was eliminated, as well. The total murdered were between 1.7 and 2.3 million out of a population of only 7 million: between a fourth and a third of all Cambodians.
The idea that attracted McGovern was the Khmer Rouge's advocacy for a communitarian (Communist) agrarian society that was supposed to be fully self-sustaining, and purged of all western influence or technology. McGovern, et al ignored the violence, the authoritarianism, the ideological rigidity and the KR's flight from reality.
Finally, Vietnam ousted the KR in 1979, but Cambodia has suffered famines and near social collapse ever since, unable to overcome the KR's nearly successful attempt to destroy urban Cambodia and western education.
The KR glorified their agrarian past, just as the GOP glorifies a Norman Rockwell view of "real America." Ayn Rand, their ideological guru, glorified the unrestrained entrepreneur stifled by big government. As politicians attempt to put her vision into practice, it might not be so bloody as the KR, but many more will be impoverished. Randism inspires Republican enthusiasm for the sequester, in which the poor and middle class lose the services they depend on, while a small elite benefit from the cuts through privatization and lower taxes.
Ever since Reagan broke the Air Traffic Controllers' strike, the corporate wealthy have successfully carried Republicans and many Democrats with them. Since 1980, income and wealth have concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Disasters, like Katrina in New Orleans, and Sandy in New York, and the nationwide implosion of the financial sector in 2008, have accelerated the process. Wall Street was bailed out, but the country as a whole is still only slowly recovering. The vast majority of productivity gains and new wealth created since the implosion has ended up in the pockets of the wealthy; the banks that precipitated the crisis have gotten bigger and wealthier, yet last month only 88,000 private sector jobs were created. The nation needs at least 150,000 per month to recover.
The wealthy want the Government to cut back, not because there is a real, immediate debt crisis, but because continuing high unemployment serves them: it keeps wages low, workers compliant.
Unless there is some revolutionary upheaval, some Hugo Chavez, the takeover of the wealthy corporate class will continue, much like the monopolization of wealth and power in the hands of the Roman Senatorial class in the late 4th and early 5th century. It won't end well.
From 1975-1979, the Khmer Rouge murdered a larger share of their people than the Nazis or Stalin: virtually any non-Maoist with education, or anyone from the middle class and any city-dweller. Later, anyone not ideologically "reliable" was eliminated, as well. The total murdered were between 1.7 and 2.3 million out of a population of only 7 million: between a fourth and a third of all Cambodians.
The idea that attracted McGovern was the Khmer Rouge's advocacy for a communitarian (Communist) agrarian society that was supposed to be fully self-sustaining, and purged of all western influence or technology. McGovern, et al ignored the violence, the authoritarianism, the ideological rigidity and the KR's flight from reality.
Finally, Vietnam ousted the KR in 1979, but Cambodia has suffered famines and near social collapse ever since, unable to overcome the KR's nearly successful attempt to destroy urban Cambodia and western education.
The KR glorified their agrarian past, just as the GOP glorifies a Norman Rockwell view of "real America." Ayn Rand, their ideological guru, glorified the unrestrained entrepreneur stifled by big government. As politicians attempt to put her vision into practice, it might not be so bloody as the KR, but many more will be impoverished. Randism inspires Republican enthusiasm for the sequester, in which the poor and middle class lose the services they depend on, while a small elite benefit from the cuts through privatization and lower taxes.
Ever since Reagan broke the Air Traffic Controllers' strike, the corporate wealthy have successfully carried Republicans and many Democrats with them. Since 1980, income and wealth have concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Disasters, like Katrina in New Orleans, and Sandy in New York, and the nationwide implosion of the financial sector in 2008, have accelerated the process. Wall Street was bailed out, but the country as a whole is still only slowly recovering. The vast majority of productivity gains and new wealth created since the implosion has ended up in the pockets of the wealthy; the banks that precipitated the crisis have gotten bigger and wealthier, yet last month only 88,000 private sector jobs were created. The nation needs at least 150,000 per month to recover.
The wealthy want the Government to cut back, not because there is a real, immediate debt crisis, but because continuing high unemployment serves them: it keeps wages low, workers compliant.
Unless there is some revolutionary upheaval, some Hugo Chavez, the takeover of the wealthy corporate class will continue, much like the monopolization of wealth and power in the hands of the Roman Senatorial class in the late 4th and early 5th century. It won't end well.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Who's More Corrupt?
Did you know that the "oil spill" in Arkansas over the weekend was actually tar sands (the stuff to be piped through the proposed Keystone XL pipeline)? Tar sands are probably exempt from the taxes that fund the clean up of such spills, yet this sludge is more toxic and more difficult to clean up than conventional crude.
Some interesting facts: the first, for me, was Oil Change's report, identifying the spill with Canadian tar sands. It wasn't reported that way in the New York Times, which used the euphemism "heavy crude from western Canada," nor on NPR, which simply reported it as a major oil spill until the following day.
Tar sands aren't oil. After much processing (requiring much heat, polluting more than coal), this "bitumen" sludge can be converted into an oil feedstock for further refining, but to call it "heavy crude" conceals what it really is and why a spill is much worse than conventional oil.
Toxicity is one of the reasons for blocking the XL Pipeline, which may be why even supposedly "objective" media outlets misled. Tar sands money has corrupted Canada's politics, and is adding to the endemic, legal corruption here. It may inspire right-wing billionaires, like the Kochs, to purchase media outlets like the LA Times.
Look at the contrast between India and the US: here the courts are influenced by major corporations, especially after Citizens United, and demand outrageous privileges, like patent monopolies indefinitely extended.
India is famous for its petty and not so petty corruption, personally observed when I lived there 33 years ago. Contemporary accounts imply it's as bad now. However, in some ways it might be less corrupt than the US, where corporations get anything they want, like Novartis' minor tweaking of an AIDS drug allowing indefinite monopoly protection. An Indian judge did something our Congress and courts have rarely managed: he stood up to Big Pharma, striking down Novartis' claim that its minor modification justified a new patent (monopoly protection) for the 20 years the Indian patent law permits.
In the US, regulators, courts and Congress bend over backwards to give corporations what they want--like the covert insertion of the "Monsanto protection act" into the Food bill.
The US may have fewer officials and politicians with their hands out, but the powerful use legal corruption. Their bribes are more lucrative: campaign funds, insider info, high paying jobs, and promotions when they recycle back from private to public sectors.
They are in service to our ultimate Roman Senators--the Koch brothers, Murdoch or Lockheed Martin--who know that control of the media is key.
Outside the US, people get freer news: in the US, Congress is writing a law to more strictly control the Internet, our best remaining source for a free flow of information.
Are we already a corporate state, a plutocracy like the later Roman Empire? Hard to tell with the managed information we're fed.
Some interesting facts: the first, for me, was Oil Change's report, identifying the spill with Canadian tar sands. It wasn't reported that way in the New York Times, which used the euphemism "heavy crude from western Canada," nor on NPR, which simply reported it as a major oil spill until the following day.
Tar sands aren't oil. After much processing (requiring much heat, polluting more than coal), this "bitumen" sludge can be converted into an oil feedstock for further refining, but to call it "heavy crude" conceals what it really is and why a spill is much worse than conventional oil.
Toxicity is one of the reasons for blocking the XL Pipeline, which may be why even supposedly "objective" media outlets misled. Tar sands money has corrupted Canada's politics, and is adding to the endemic, legal corruption here. It may inspire right-wing billionaires, like the Kochs, to purchase media outlets like the LA Times.
Look at the contrast between India and the US: here the courts are influenced by major corporations, especially after Citizens United, and demand outrageous privileges, like patent monopolies indefinitely extended.
India is famous for its petty and not so petty corruption, personally observed when I lived there 33 years ago. Contemporary accounts imply it's as bad now. However, in some ways it might be less corrupt than the US, where corporations get anything they want, like Novartis' minor tweaking of an AIDS drug allowing indefinite monopoly protection. An Indian judge did something our Congress and courts have rarely managed: he stood up to Big Pharma, striking down Novartis' claim that its minor modification justified a new patent (monopoly protection) for the 20 years the Indian patent law permits.
In the US, regulators, courts and Congress bend over backwards to give corporations what they want--like the covert insertion of the "Monsanto protection act" into the Food bill.
The US may have fewer officials and politicians with their hands out, but the powerful use legal corruption. Their bribes are more lucrative: campaign funds, insider info, high paying jobs, and promotions when they recycle back from private to public sectors.
They are in service to our ultimate Roman Senators--the Koch brothers, Murdoch or Lockheed Martin--who know that control of the media is key.
Outside the US, people get freer news: in the US, Congress is writing a law to more strictly control the Internet, our best remaining source for a free flow of information.
Are we already a corporate state, a plutocracy like the later Roman Empire? Hard to tell with the managed information we're fed.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Gay Marriage, Drones & Inequality
Social progress seems slow, but in societal terms it's probably moving about as fast as it can: acceptance of gays, even if the Supreme Court can't keep up with the changes in society, is lightning fast.
On the other hand, environmental progress is moving in reverse along with economic equality. War and instability have become more destructive, even if there is no "world war."
Post-Citizens United: corporatist conservatives must punch themselves with glee: successes small: sneaking through "the Monsanto protection act" in the Food bill, and big: persuading the chattering classes inside the Beltway that the deficit/debt is an urgent problem that only can be solved by cutting what they derisively call "entitlements," not subsidies to the burgeoning wealthy.
Our media is so skewed towards the agenda of the wealthy and corporations, that it doesn't seem absurd that we're slashing government spending when unemployment is far too high. Our media is more controlled by wealth and corporate interests than it was in Venezuela before Chavez. He opposed it with state-owned media, and selective de-licensing.
US media excoriated Chavez as a dictator, while he won landslides in at least five elections, elections certified by Carter as freer than the US.
Venezuela may have more democracy than we do, since Republicans work assiduously to deny the right to vote to likely opponents, and a Supreme Court Justice derides Voting Rights Act Section 5 as establishing voting rights as a "racial entitlement."
The US claims it's exceptional; it isn't, except in things we shouldn't crow about, like the highest per capita rate of incarceration, the most expensive and least effective health care system, a falling working wage, soaring inequality, and endemic violence fueled by our wide open "gun culture."
We don't, any longer, score high on educational attainment: almost every other OECD nation has higher college graduation rates: the US used to lead.
Our military is exceptional: the US has the world's most effective killing machine--long before we started using drones. But it still loses wars: Vietnam, Iraq (really), and now Afghanistan.
The size of our military is also exceptional, but that demonstrates another American failing: like North Korea, we spend more money on war-making than on any other "discretionary" government function--we substitute brute strength for sense. We value guns over children, even our own children (100+ days since Newtown and no new Federal gun control law). But the Bible is "brought to you by Walmart," an American company. Exceptional!
The American Empire hasn't lasted long; it's failing progressively and making enemies everywhere. Soon the muscle-bound US will be only the second wealthiest nation.
Targeting immigrants and homegrown terrorists with drones, disenfranchising minorities (those we haven't jailed) and the poor, the US is also becoming almost as authoritarian as China, our successful competitor.
On the other hand, environmental progress is moving in reverse along with economic equality. War and instability have become more destructive, even if there is no "world war."
Post-Citizens United: corporatist conservatives must punch themselves with glee: successes small: sneaking through "the Monsanto protection act" in the Food bill, and big: persuading the chattering classes inside the Beltway that the deficit/debt is an urgent problem that only can be solved by cutting what they derisively call "entitlements," not subsidies to the burgeoning wealthy.
Our media is so skewed towards the agenda of the wealthy and corporations, that it doesn't seem absurd that we're slashing government spending when unemployment is far too high. Our media is more controlled by wealth and corporate interests than it was in Venezuela before Chavez. He opposed it with state-owned media, and selective de-licensing.
US media excoriated Chavez as a dictator, while he won landslides in at least five elections, elections certified by Carter as freer than the US.
Venezuela may have more democracy than we do, since Republicans work assiduously to deny the right to vote to likely opponents, and a Supreme Court Justice derides Voting Rights Act Section 5 as establishing voting rights as a "racial entitlement."
The US claims it's exceptional; it isn't, except in things we shouldn't crow about, like the highest per capita rate of incarceration, the most expensive and least effective health care system, a falling working wage, soaring inequality, and endemic violence fueled by our wide open "gun culture."
We don't, any longer, score high on educational attainment: almost every other OECD nation has higher college graduation rates: the US used to lead.
Our military is exceptional: the US has the world's most effective killing machine--long before we started using drones. But it still loses wars: Vietnam, Iraq (really), and now Afghanistan.
The size of our military is also exceptional, but that demonstrates another American failing: like North Korea, we spend more money on war-making than on any other "discretionary" government function--we substitute brute strength for sense. We value guns over children, even our own children (100+ days since Newtown and no new Federal gun control law). But the Bible is "brought to you by Walmart," an American company. Exceptional!
The American Empire hasn't lasted long; it's failing progressively and making enemies everywhere. Soon the muscle-bound US will be only the second wealthiest nation.
Targeting immigrants and homegrown terrorists with drones, disenfranchising minorities (those we haven't jailed) and the poor, the US is also becoming almost as authoritarian as China, our successful competitor.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Next Question:
Why are the Democrats so timid, especially in the face of unapologetic Republican extremism? And this goes for Obama, too. He keeps talking about the "grand bargain" that he wants to negotiate, by compromising with the same Republicans who want to eviscerate any program or service that aids the poor or "middle class," want to repeal Obamacare and are determined to make Obama's presidency a failure, even if he was reelected.
Nader pointed out the obvious, when he identified the "defeatist" Democrats, who took no advantage in 2012 of the incredibly unpopular policies and votes of the Republican Congress, like cutting programs for the poor, while cutting taxes on the rich.
As I pointed out last week, the deficit/debt/austerity politics that roils inside the Beltway is also highly unpopular, except with one demographic: the wealthy. But Democrats, who call themselves The People's Party, are too scared to take a popular stand because they are almost as dependent on wealthy donors as Republicans.
In other words, we live in an extremely corrupt political system: politicians may not get direct payoffs, but they do get wealthy from currying rich people's favor. They don’t organize politics like old Boss Tweed, or Mayor Daley Senior, but they are even more corrupt: their whole agenda, such as it is, justifies and rewards the extremely wealthy--and this is not just the extremist GOP, but the "mainstream" GOP, and some Democrats, as well. Democracy does not come trippingly off the tongue.
However, the Congressional Progressive Caucus offers a no-nonsense alternative to GOP Paul Ryan's vague, reactionary budget and cancels the sequester. Progressives claim their budget, entitled Going to Work, would reduce the deficit in three years by producing 7 million jobs and increasing GDP by 5.7%.
Supporters claim that investing in jobs, in infrastructure, which civil engineers recently pinpointed for much needed repair, in teachers and cops--in people--would reduce the deficit. The budget also raises revenue by closing tax loopholes on higher incomes and raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires, including taxing investment income the same as wages; it's now at preferential low rates. Proponents claim the expansionary budget would cut the deficit by $4.4 trillion. Some of the loopholes to be cut, aside from investment income: $112 billion fossil fuels industry subsidy; $70 billion: food and entertainment corporate deductions; $13 billion: yachts and vacation homes deductions and $25 billion: eliminating a stock options loophole.
The Democratic Senate's budget is timorous by comparison, although at least it protects Medicare and Social Security from cuts. But why can't mainstream Democrats advocate for an expansionary budget to grow revenue? The Fed's Bernanke says we shouldn't cut spending until growth stabilizes; even Republicans admit the "fiscal crisis" is only a future problem.
Because our Roman Senators, the extremely wealthy, control the political debate and promote their interests: lower taxes for them; no protection from their rapacity and reduced/no services for everyone else. They want a society like Fifth Century Rome.
Nader pointed out the obvious, when he identified the "defeatist" Democrats, who took no advantage in 2012 of the incredibly unpopular policies and votes of the Republican Congress, like cutting programs for the poor, while cutting taxes on the rich.
As I pointed out last week, the deficit/debt/austerity politics that roils inside the Beltway is also highly unpopular, except with one demographic: the wealthy. But Democrats, who call themselves The People's Party, are too scared to take a popular stand because they are almost as dependent on wealthy donors as Republicans.
In other words, we live in an extremely corrupt political system: politicians may not get direct payoffs, but they do get wealthy from currying rich people's favor. They don’t organize politics like old Boss Tweed, or Mayor Daley Senior, but they are even more corrupt: their whole agenda, such as it is, justifies and rewards the extremely wealthy--and this is not just the extremist GOP, but the "mainstream" GOP, and some Democrats, as well. Democracy does not come trippingly off the tongue.
However, the Congressional Progressive Caucus offers a no-nonsense alternative to GOP Paul Ryan's vague, reactionary budget and cancels the sequester. Progressives claim their budget, entitled Going to Work, would reduce the deficit in three years by producing 7 million jobs and increasing GDP by 5.7%.
Supporters claim that investing in jobs, in infrastructure, which civil engineers recently pinpointed for much needed repair, in teachers and cops--in people--would reduce the deficit. The budget also raises revenue by closing tax loopholes on higher incomes and raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires, including taxing investment income the same as wages; it's now at preferential low rates. Proponents claim the expansionary budget would cut the deficit by $4.4 trillion. Some of the loopholes to be cut, aside from investment income: $112 billion fossil fuels industry subsidy; $70 billion: food and entertainment corporate deductions; $13 billion: yachts and vacation homes deductions and $25 billion: eliminating a stock options loophole.
The Democratic Senate's budget is timorous by comparison, although at least it protects Medicare and Social Security from cuts. But why can't mainstream Democrats advocate for an expansionary budget to grow revenue? The Fed's Bernanke says we shouldn't cut spending until growth stabilizes; even Republicans admit the "fiscal crisis" is only a future problem.
Because our Roman Senators, the extremely wealthy, control the political debate and promote their interests: lower taxes for them; no protection from their rapacity and reduced/no services for everyone else. They want a society like Fifth Century Rome.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Democracy?
Does the United States have a functioning democracy? All the platitudes about democracy, thundered from every quarter, would make you believe so. But if you look even at the surface of our political "debate," and of the policies that issue from it, and then look at public opinion, as expressed in polls, the US doesn't look democratic.
It looks about as democratic as Marie Antoinette, or Diocletian (see http://www.roman-empire-america-now.com/history-of-the-roman-empire.html).
What are the main concerns of the public at large? Jobs, higher wages, more equity, health care, assurance that the older generation is taken care of, better schools, safety. The debt and deficits are hardly even a concern.
The debate in Washington, and in state capitols, is how to cut the debt and the deficits, and the way to do so is to cut the very services the public wants more of. The alternative offered: raise taxes on the wealthy, is still to cut deficits.
Paul Krugman, the Nobel economist, continually points out that the deficits are not a problem to be solved now, when the economy is only barely emerging from The Great Recession. And he says it's not the terrible problem those he calls "Very Serious People" constantly rail about. Government expenditures and deficits, relative to the huge size of the economy, are actually going down, and were never too large. He also points out that the deficits run by the Bush-Cheney administration were mostly wasted, while the current deficits are largely due to the extremely slow recovery and the inadequate attempts by the Obama administration to stimulate the economy: it would have been better if such deficits had been larger.
Yet, the VSP continue to insist: we must cut government expenditures now, because we have to "solve the debt crisis." And our media, and Congress, and even the President go along. Obama talks about reaching a "grand bargain," which apparently would cut benefits to Medicare, Social Security, Medicare, and a whole raft of other social programs like Head Start, in return for even a few concessions on cutting tax loopholes for the wealthy.
Popular opinion supports higher taxes on the wealthy. People know, without looking at statistical tables, that the wealthy have radically increased their share of the wealth, are grabbing even more and are taxed less, in relative terms, than the poor, or the middle class.
But higher taxes for the wealthy are a non-starter, while cuts to Medicare and even to Social Security, which doesn't contribute to deficits, are "on the table."
What's going on here?
Polls have shown that the very wealthy want cuts to social services (they don't need them); say large deficits are our worst problem and must be cut, by cutting expenditures for things they don't need--like Medicare and Social Security--but not by raising taxes on them; they need their yachts.
That's who the VSP represent: the equivalent of Rome's Selfish Class, the Roman Senators: that's plutocracy, not democracy.
It looks about as democratic as Marie Antoinette, or Diocletian (see http://www.roman-empire-america-now.com/history-of-the-roman-empire.html).
What are the main concerns of the public at large? Jobs, higher wages, more equity, health care, assurance that the older generation is taken care of, better schools, safety. The debt and deficits are hardly even a concern.
The debate in Washington, and in state capitols, is how to cut the debt and the deficits, and the way to do so is to cut the very services the public wants more of. The alternative offered: raise taxes on the wealthy, is still to cut deficits.
Paul Krugman, the Nobel economist, continually points out that the deficits are not a problem to be solved now, when the economy is only barely emerging from The Great Recession. And he says it's not the terrible problem those he calls "Very Serious People" constantly rail about. Government expenditures and deficits, relative to the huge size of the economy, are actually going down, and were never too large. He also points out that the deficits run by the Bush-Cheney administration were mostly wasted, while the current deficits are largely due to the extremely slow recovery and the inadequate attempts by the Obama administration to stimulate the economy: it would have been better if such deficits had been larger.
Yet, the VSP continue to insist: we must cut government expenditures now, because we have to "solve the debt crisis." And our media, and Congress, and even the President go along. Obama talks about reaching a "grand bargain," which apparently would cut benefits to Medicare, Social Security, Medicare, and a whole raft of other social programs like Head Start, in return for even a few concessions on cutting tax loopholes for the wealthy.
Popular opinion supports higher taxes on the wealthy. People know, without looking at statistical tables, that the wealthy have radically increased their share of the wealth, are grabbing even more and are taxed less, in relative terms, than the poor, or the middle class.
But higher taxes for the wealthy are a non-starter, while cuts to Medicare and even to Social Security, which doesn't contribute to deficits, are "on the table."
What's going on here?
Polls have shown that the very wealthy want cuts to social services (they don't need them); say large deficits are our worst problem and must be cut, by cutting expenditures for things they don't need--like Medicare and Social Security--but not by raising taxes on them; they need their yachts.
That's who the VSP represent: the equivalent of Rome's Selfish Class, the Roman Senators: that's plutocracy, not democracy.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Not Just Conservative Libertarians
Rand Paul's filibuster may have uncovered an issue that resonates with more than his core conservative base. It's the overweening reach of the executive branch, especially the President's use of drones, and his claim that he has the power to kill citizens if he determines--without proof--they are "enemy combatants" involved in terrorism against the US. This is a real danger: any President unchecked could become like a King or dictator, with no limits to his power.
Paul's protest is consistent with the conservative-libertarian view that government must be limited. Progressives, like Democratic Senator, Ron Wyden, who supported Paul's filibuster, could make common cause on the issue of war powers, but not on the government's role in the domestic economy.
Conservatives and progressives might collaborate on cutting back the overreach of imperial powers, and ultimately, on reducing, or withdrawing support from the United States as empire.
Back in the Interwar Period, this impulse was first labeled isolationism; then it was short-sighted. The rising powers of Togo's Japan, and Hitler's Germany had to be stopped: they were determined to dominate everyone. Their hegemony could have created a terrifying world. The dominance of the US after WWII was relatively benign in comparison.
However, US super-power status has been fraying for years, and although the US is still by far the most powerful militarily, and largest economically, trends are against its maintaining preeminence for long. First of all, as Vietnam and then Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrated, military might is limited: it cannot impose American control over an unruly world, despite the US spending more on its military than all other major powers combined. Often, our "adversaries" have been able, like a judo master, to use our strength against us.
In Vietnam, the Viet Cong gained a goodly proportion of its arms from a vibrant black market, because of the flood of weaponry sent by the US. In Afghanistan, we created our own enemies: the Taliban and al Qaeda, when intervening against the Soviet takeover. In Iraq, we destroyed a relatively stable dictatorship, a sometime ally (Saddam worked with the CIA until invading Kuwait). Instead, we created an unstable "democracy" naturally allied with Iran.
In addition to the limits to military power, there is America's relative economic decline, caused by the dramatic rise of the BRIC nations, especially China, and by our trade debt. The US will not have the largest economy for long, and will not be able to afford the luxury of its huge military establishment. This is especially true as the US Dollar's reserve status weakens and we have to pay our debts with dollars earned!
It's likely we're seeing the beginning of the decline of the American Empire. I hope we can manage it more benignly than did the Romans, Spanish, or Soviets. So, Rand Paul has a point.
Maybe we can become like Monty Python's post-imperial Britain. We could have more fun!
Paul's protest is consistent with the conservative-libertarian view that government must be limited. Progressives, like Democratic Senator, Ron Wyden, who supported Paul's filibuster, could make common cause on the issue of war powers, but not on the government's role in the domestic economy.
Conservatives and progressives might collaborate on cutting back the overreach of imperial powers, and ultimately, on reducing, or withdrawing support from the United States as empire.
Back in the Interwar Period, this impulse was first labeled isolationism; then it was short-sighted. The rising powers of Togo's Japan, and Hitler's Germany had to be stopped: they were determined to dominate everyone. Their hegemony could have created a terrifying world. The dominance of the US after WWII was relatively benign in comparison.
However, US super-power status has been fraying for years, and although the US is still by far the most powerful militarily, and largest economically, trends are against its maintaining preeminence for long. First of all, as Vietnam and then Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrated, military might is limited: it cannot impose American control over an unruly world, despite the US spending more on its military than all other major powers combined. Often, our "adversaries" have been able, like a judo master, to use our strength against us.
In Vietnam, the Viet Cong gained a goodly proportion of its arms from a vibrant black market, because of the flood of weaponry sent by the US. In Afghanistan, we created our own enemies: the Taliban and al Qaeda, when intervening against the Soviet takeover. In Iraq, we destroyed a relatively stable dictatorship, a sometime ally (Saddam worked with the CIA until invading Kuwait). Instead, we created an unstable "democracy" naturally allied with Iran.
In addition to the limits to military power, there is America's relative economic decline, caused by the dramatic rise of the BRIC nations, especially China, and by our trade debt. The US will not have the largest economy for long, and will not be able to afford the luxury of its huge military establishment. This is especially true as the US Dollar's reserve status weakens and we have to pay our debts with dollars earned!
It's likely we're seeing the beginning of the decline of the American Empire. I hope we can manage it more benignly than did the Romans, Spanish, or Soviets. So, Rand Paul has a point.
Maybe we can become like Monty Python's post-imperial Britain. We could have more fun!
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Why "Conservatives" Insist on Cuts
Cutting government programs across the board, heedless of their impact, appears to be intentional on the part of Tea Party Republicans in Congress. At best, some of them may acknowledge that more unemployment isn't good, but all claim that the need to cut government is of much greater importance.
What macroeconomists like Paul Krugman, and liberal policy wonks like Robert Reich ignore is that radical conservatives have a radical agenda, which is why they don't care about precipitating more recession. In their simple worldview, any government that does more than maintain order, protect property and defend our borders is doing too much. In some of their rhetoric, doing more seems to be equivalent to doing the Devil's work.
The mass of people mobilized as Tea Partiers are largely motivated by an unformulated libertarian ideology pre-figured by Ayn Rand, but are also bolstered by American mythology of the frontier; Don't Tread On Me flags have been prominent in Tea Party demos, for example, along with the faux Revolutionary War costumes. Radical conservatives tend to be white, non-urban and older, they appear to subscribe to the idea that everyone is out for themselves, and everyone should be left to sink or swim.
Given such a worldview, cutting Head Start, Mental Health, etc. and furloughing thousands of Federal and State workers is seen as a first victory, not as an economic disaster. That's why compromise with these folks is virtually impossible as Democrats and Obama are discovering. Further, Boehner realizes that he'll only keep his Speakership if he goes along with them, not with Democrats or Obama, or common sense.
What has made the Tea Party, or radical conservative libertarianism, a viable political movement is the money behind it. Why do billionaires like the Koch brothers invest hundreds of millions in the conservative movement? It's to their interest to dismantle government, not only to cut their own tax bills, or their regulatory headaches. It's to their advantage to disarm all the protections that citizens gained through the Progressive movement, the New Deal and the Great Society.
Once people are no longer protected by government, by entities like the National Labor Relations Board (rendered nearly toothless, already), employees will be helpless when facing their employers; small landowners will be helpless confronting corporations and minorities and immigrants will be unable to claim any rights.
Rank and file radical conservatives don't realize that "Freedom" doesn't mean their freedom; it means freedom for corporations and "job creators," aka the wealthy, and the oppression and exploitation of everyone else.
That's what happened at the end of the Roman Empire, when Senators took all the wealth and power, and reduced everyone else to serfdom or slavery.
It's already happening here: Americans have lost most rights they'd won as employees: they work longer hours, are paid less and can be fired almost at will. And all of us are losing our civil rights.
What macroeconomists like Paul Krugman, and liberal policy wonks like Robert Reich ignore is that radical conservatives have a radical agenda, which is why they don't care about precipitating more recession. In their simple worldview, any government that does more than maintain order, protect property and defend our borders is doing too much. In some of their rhetoric, doing more seems to be equivalent to doing the Devil's work.
The mass of people mobilized as Tea Partiers are largely motivated by an unformulated libertarian ideology pre-figured by Ayn Rand, but are also bolstered by American mythology of the frontier; Don't Tread On Me flags have been prominent in Tea Party demos, for example, along with the faux Revolutionary War costumes. Radical conservatives tend to be white, non-urban and older, they appear to subscribe to the idea that everyone is out for themselves, and everyone should be left to sink or swim.
Given such a worldview, cutting Head Start, Mental Health, etc. and furloughing thousands of Federal and State workers is seen as a first victory, not as an economic disaster. That's why compromise with these folks is virtually impossible as Democrats and Obama are discovering. Further, Boehner realizes that he'll only keep his Speakership if he goes along with them, not with Democrats or Obama, or common sense.
What has made the Tea Party, or radical conservative libertarianism, a viable political movement is the money behind it. Why do billionaires like the Koch brothers invest hundreds of millions in the conservative movement? It's to their interest to dismantle government, not only to cut their own tax bills, or their regulatory headaches. It's to their advantage to disarm all the protections that citizens gained through the Progressive movement, the New Deal and the Great Society.
Once people are no longer protected by government, by entities like the National Labor Relations Board (rendered nearly toothless, already), employees will be helpless when facing their employers; small landowners will be helpless confronting corporations and minorities and immigrants will be unable to claim any rights.
Rank and file radical conservatives don't realize that "Freedom" doesn't mean their freedom; it means freedom for corporations and "job creators," aka the wealthy, and the oppression and exploitation of everyone else.
That's what happened at the end of the Roman Empire, when Senators took all the wealth and power, and reduced everyone else to serfdom or slavery.
It's already happening here: Americans have lost most rights they'd won as employees: they work longer hours, are paid less and can be fired almost at will. And all of us are losing our civil rights.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Gold and the Sequester
Paul Krugman, liberal Nobel Economist, points to a huge increase in the corporate share of the economy since President Reagan: from 4-5% to 10% currently, except in the troughs of downturns. In addition, corporations aren't spending this doubled share: they're saving it.
The Roman Senatorial class in the fifth century controlled an even larger share of their economy: their capital was land, slaves, serfs, and gold. They hoarded all of them, but especially gold.
It's argued by conservative economists (non-Keynesians) that corporate hoarding (or saving), doesn’t matter, because it isn't like hoarding gold--the Roman Empire's main currency. Corporations have bank accounts: banks can turn around and lend out corporate deposits; that's their business.
Bank speculation, however, instead of lending, has become the great profit driver for big banks: they don't lend out enough during a recession like ours, because they can make so much more through playing the 'Russian Roulette' Finance game, creating derivatives, and derivatives of derivatives, betting for and against their success (hedging) and selling them to other speculators.
In the case of the Roman Senators, the effect of their hoarding gold and land was to so severely reduce the availability of money in the economy that there was long-term deflation that impoverished almost everyone.
The effect of withdrawing money from Roman society was to reduce the ability of most people to buy anything, and to increase their dependency on those with wealth. That's what precipitated the Dark Ages, AKA feudalism. The other side of this: those hoarding might have been able to buy anything their jaded hearts desired, but since there were few of them, the Empire became progressively poorer. And even marketable goods became less marketable.
The same is true of the effect of corporations hoarding: fewer goods and services are produced or consumed: hoarding intensifies lack of demand that triggers a depression or recession.
Hoarding complements austerity, the cause radical Republicans now proclaim in order to reduce dependency on government. But if people were dependent on government programs to survive or prosper, then, without them, they would be even more vulnerable to exploitation by people and corporations with money. This gets us back to the Sequester, which takes place today, cutting $85 billion in programs "across-the-board" from Defense, the big untouchable, to Head Start and Air Traffic controllers.
The radicals don't seem to care if unemployment worsens, because of the cuts they demand. If you don't have a job, you're a loser; why should we take care of you?
But look on the bright side: the cuts slash bloated Defense the most, so maybe the Sequester isn't all bad. It might force newly appointed Defense Secretary Hagel to really cut the Defense budget. He's the one who called Defense 'bloated' after all.
On the other hand, Tea-Partiers love the domestic cuts: they only hurt "takers," they're told: so far, they hear no other voices.
So, expect a down-turn by Spring.
The Roman Senatorial class in the fifth century controlled an even larger share of their economy: their capital was land, slaves, serfs, and gold. They hoarded all of them, but especially gold.
It's argued by conservative economists (non-Keynesians) that corporate hoarding (or saving), doesn’t matter, because it isn't like hoarding gold--the Roman Empire's main currency. Corporations have bank accounts: banks can turn around and lend out corporate deposits; that's their business.
Bank speculation, however, instead of lending, has become the great profit driver for big banks: they don't lend out enough during a recession like ours, because they can make so much more through playing the 'Russian Roulette' Finance game, creating derivatives, and derivatives of derivatives, betting for and against their success (hedging) and selling them to other speculators.
In the case of the Roman Senators, the effect of their hoarding gold and land was to so severely reduce the availability of money in the economy that there was long-term deflation that impoverished almost everyone.
The effect of withdrawing money from Roman society was to reduce the ability of most people to buy anything, and to increase their dependency on those with wealth. That's what precipitated the Dark Ages, AKA feudalism. The other side of this: those hoarding might have been able to buy anything their jaded hearts desired, but since there were few of them, the Empire became progressively poorer. And even marketable goods became less marketable.
The same is true of the effect of corporations hoarding: fewer goods and services are produced or consumed: hoarding intensifies lack of demand that triggers a depression or recession.
Hoarding complements austerity, the cause radical Republicans now proclaim in order to reduce dependency on government. But if people were dependent on government programs to survive or prosper, then, without them, they would be even more vulnerable to exploitation by people and corporations with money. This gets us back to the Sequester, which takes place today, cutting $85 billion in programs "across-the-board" from Defense, the big untouchable, to Head Start and Air Traffic controllers.
The radicals don't seem to care if unemployment worsens, because of the cuts they demand. If you don't have a job, you're a loser; why should we take care of you?
But look on the bright side: the cuts slash bloated Defense the most, so maybe the Sequester isn't all bad. It might force newly appointed Defense Secretary Hagel to really cut the Defense budget. He's the one who called Defense 'bloated' after all.
On the other hand, Tea-Partiers love the domestic cuts: they only hurt "takers," they're told: so far, they hear no other voices.
So, expect a down-turn by Spring.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
The Pope and Vatican Scandal
The Vatican, said my wise wife, is the model for all the (predatory) corporations that are despoiling our world. Her comment was prompted by the current brewing scandal of a possible reason for the Pope resigning so suddenly. According to a report in La Repubblica, a committee of Vatican octogenarian insiders revealed to Benedict XVI a faction within the Vatican “united by sexual orientation” that had been subject to “external influence” of a “worldly nature.” This translates as: a gay faction inside the Vatican, probably being blackmailed. Another Vatican source explained: “Everything revolves around the non-observance of the sixth and seventh commandments,” i.e. adultery and thievery.
What do predatory corporations and the Church, qua institution, have in common? Ironically, it's amorality; the willingness to do almost anything, for power, or for corporations, profit.
When did the Roman Catholic Church first become an institution more powerful than the state? Back at the cusp of the Fifth Century (390), when Bishop Ambrose of Milan excommunicated Emperor Theodosius the Great, who underwent months of penance, before, so goes the story, climbing the cathedral steps on his knees. His surrender entailed outlawing all worship of pagan gods, acknowledging the Church's monopoly on religious power.
By the end of the next generation, the Roman Church, in effect, took over from the failing Roman Empire . The power of non-Catholic Christian Visigoths and Ostrogoths like Odoacer and Theoderic, took longer to overthrow: Franks and other Catholic German tribes, replaced them with the support of the Roman church.
Do not think of the Roman church back then as a religious institution: it was the literate brains for the illiterate brawn of their Germanic allies. Priests, Bishops--and Popes--had mistresses and families. Some probably had boyfriends. They did not practice poverty, either, but since they had no military power, safety depended upon controlling the succeeding kings, in order to protect their wealth in turbulent times.
There was considerable overlap between the Senatorial class and the leadership of the church. Sidonius, one of the best-known Senators, known for his elegant writing style, became a Bishop, later sainted, in what is now Provence. He defended his diocese from the Arian Christian Goths, was imprisoned, but later was freed to (supposedly) hear Mary Magdalen's confession (according to the tablet in his crypt, although the Magdalen lived there 300 years earlier).
It's true that what classical learning and literacy survived, as well as any remnant of science and philosophy, was due to the Church. But the moral flexibility of the church was one of the reasons for the failure of the western empire: it transferred its secular support to insure its spiritual monopoly. It's likely that the Church supported the "fall of Rome," when Senators voted to overthrow the boy Emperor, Romulus Augustulus for the Ostrogothic King Odoacer, ceding him the land he coveted in Italy; they refused to tax themselves to pay him off.
What do predatory corporations and the Church, qua institution, have in common? Ironically, it's amorality; the willingness to do almost anything, for power, or for corporations, profit.
When did the Roman Catholic Church first become an institution more powerful than the state? Back at the cusp of the Fifth Century (390), when Bishop Ambrose of Milan excommunicated Emperor Theodosius the Great, who underwent months of penance, before, so goes the story, climbing the cathedral steps on his knees. His surrender entailed outlawing all worship of pagan gods, acknowledging the Church's monopoly on religious power.
By the end of the next generation, the Roman Church, in effect, took over from the failing Roman Empire . The power of non-Catholic Christian Visigoths and Ostrogoths like Odoacer and Theoderic, took longer to overthrow: Franks and other Catholic German tribes, replaced them with the support of the Roman church.
Do not think of the Roman church back then as a religious institution: it was the literate brains for the illiterate brawn of their Germanic allies. Priests, Bishops--and Popes--had mistresses and families. Some probably had boyfriends. They did not practice poverty, either, but since they had no military power, safety depended upon controlling the succeeding kings, in order to protect their wealth in turbulent times.
There was considerable overlap between the Senatorial class and the leadership of the church. Sidonius, one of the best-known Senators, known for his elegant writing style, became a Bishop, later sainted, in what is now Provence. He defended his diocese from the Arian Christian Goths, was imprisoned, but later was freed to (supposedly) hear Mary Magdalen's confession (according to the tablet in his crypt, although the Magdalen lived there 300 years earlier).
It's true that what classical learning and literacy survived, as well as any remnant of science and philosophy, was due to the Church. But the moral flexibility of the church was one of the reasons for the failure of the western empire: it transferred its secular support to insure its spiritual monopoly. It's likely that the Church supported the "fall of Rome," when Senators voted to overthrow the boy Emperor, Romulus Augustulus for the Ostrogothic King Odoacer, ceding him the land he coveted in Italy; they refused to tax themselves to pay him off.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Reflections on Ben Hur
I saw it a long time ago: this time, 45 minutes was enough.
As beastly as the Romans were to "the Jews" in Ben Hur, they were no worse than Israelis today to Palestinians.
When Elizabeth Cunningham (my wife) was doing research for The Passion of Mary Magdalen, she went to Israel. Her Jerusalem visit coincided with Ramadan, and she saw Israeli soldiers standing guard over the restive Arab quarter. She easily imagined them as Roman legionnaires, guarding the same streets against Jewish rebels during the Roman Empire.
Yet, Romans didn't push most Jews off their land until 70 AD. They demanded taxes and obeisance--and occasionally massacred them; as they did to people all round the Mediterranean. The Israelis don't massacre on the Roman scale, but they encroach increasingly on Palestinian land in the West Bank, after pushing most Palestinians out of the rest of Palestine when creating Israel. While some Romans recognized that Jews had a long connection to the land, Israelis discount Palestinian claims: they say their right to the land precedes the Palestinians'.
A friend of mine traced his family back to a Polish shtetl, and then found cousins in Israel, survivors of the Holocaust. His immediate family missed the Holocaust; it was in the US. While he's liberal on most things, on Israel, he says things like, "The Palestinians were conquered; the conquerors always set the terms." To him, the experience of the Holocaust justifies Israeli claims: where else would Jews feel safe?
How about the US?
I'd argue it's safer than Israel, which has managed to alienate the whole region, despite the US and Europe continually attempting to bring the two sides together. Meanwhile, the US has collaborated in building up the Israeli military to be a match for all its neighbors combined, reinforcing Israel's sense of conquerors' rights.
The West Bank is still occupied land. Settlers have become a surging political force in Israel, and expansion into additional Palestinian lands is nearly constant. Land is declared vacant, although Palestinian villagers have farmed it for centuries; and sometimes have documented proof of ownership: no matter. Venerable olive groves are bulldozed for new suburban settlements, and highways are built for Jews only: Palestinians are forbidden access--in their own land.
After Masada and the Diaspora, Rome didn't last forever in Palestine. It's unlikely Israel will either, unless: it withdraws behind the 1967 line and recognizes the independence of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, or becomes a secular, bi-national state, incorporating all within its expanded borders, and recognizes full rights to all its inhabitants. Neither seems likely.
Israel cannot expect the US to arm it forever, or forever shield it from its neighbors, especially when Israel continues to arouse them by acting as conqueror: US regional hegemony is already weakening.
Pro-Israeli US policies cannot be guaranteed if the US can no longer afford them.
As beastly as the Romans were to "the Jews" in Ben Hur, they were no worse than Israelis today to Palestinians.
When Elizabeth Cunningham (my wife) was doing research for The Passion of Mary Magdalen, she went to Israel. Her Jerusalem visit coincided with Ramadan, and she saw Israeli soldiers standing guard over the restive Arab quarter. She easily imagined them as Roman legionnaires, guarding the same streets against Jewish rebels during the Roman Empire.
Yet, Romans didn't push most Jews off their land until 70 AD. They demanded taxes and obeisance--and occasionally massacred them; as they did to people all round the Mediterranean. The Israelis don't massacre on the Roman scale, but they encroach increasingly on Palestinian land in the West Bank, after pushing most Palestinians out of the rest of Palestine when creating Israel. While some Romans recognized that Jews had a long connection to the land, Israelis discount Palestinian claims: they say their right to the land precedes the Palestinians'.
A friend of mine traced his family back to a Polish shtetl, and then found cousins in Israel, survivors of the Holocaust. His immediate family missed the Holocaust; it was in the US. While he's liberal on most things, on Israel, he says things like, "The Palestinians were conquered; the conquerors always set the terms." To him, the experience of the Holocaust justifies Israeli claims: where else would Jews feel safe?
How about the US?
I'd argue it's safer than Israel, which has managed to alienate the whole region, despite the US and Europe continually attempting to bring the two sides together. Meanwhile, the US has collaborated in building up the Israeli military to be a match for all its neighbors combined, reinforcing Israel's sense of conquerors' rights.
The West Bank is still occupied land. Settlers have become a surging political force in Israel, and expansion into additional Palestinian lands is nearly constant. Land is declared vacant, although Palestinian villagers have farmed it for centuries; and sometimes have documented proof of ownership: no matter. Venerable olive groves are bulldozed for new suburban settlements, and highways are built for Jews only: Palestinians are forbidden access--in their own land.
After Masada and the Diaspora, Rome didn't last forever in Palestine. It's unlikely Israel will either, unless: it withdraws behind the 1967 line and recognizes the independence of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, or becomes a secular, bi-national state, incorporating all within its expanded borders, and recognizes full rights to all its inhabitants. Neither seems likely.
Israel cannot expect the US to arm it forever, or forever shield it from its neighbors, especially when Israel continues to arouse them by acting as conqueror: US regional hegemony is already weakening.
Pro-Israeli US policies cannot be guaranteed if the US can no longer afford them.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Sequestration
Is a fancy word: it means, in the memorable phrase of Congressman, Sean Maloney, "Congress screwing up the economy for no reason."
It's true that the projected government deficit is over $1.1 trillion, a mind-boggling number, but cutting spending would make that number worse. Why? As the miniscule retreat in GDP last quarter demonstrated, when we cut government spending, the whole economy is negatively affected. We teeter between recovery and renewed recession. Further, the experience of European countries, demonstrates that austerity does not create prosperity; it created renewed recession in the UK (triple dip) and depression in Greece.
The "sequester" has the Republicans worrying about cuts to Defense, complaining that this will cost jobs (it will), but they're not worrying about, and want to increase cuts to domestic programs. The cuts already mandated would not only cost even more jobs (civilian programs create more jobs per dollar than defense), but they would hurt our most vulnerable, and our future prosperity.
Cuts to domestic programs will: cut 70,000 children from Headstart, deny treatment to 373,000 mentally ill (adults and children) and reduce small business loan guarantees by $540 million. In addition, the $85 billion in cuts on Mar 1, could include, according to Congresswoman Nita Lowey, "furloughs of air traffic controllers, food inspectors, border patrol, reduced investment in safe drinking water and medical research, diminished military readiness and embassy security."
Think about this logically: if you reduce expenditures March 1st by $85 billion, how is that going to help us recover from the Great Recession? It will cut that amount of money (US multiplier estimated at 1.29 to 1.73) from flowing into the economy, cutting jobs, cutting purchases--as well as needed services. It won't "grow" the economy; it will shrink it by at least $109 billion--in one month.
Greece, subjected to radical austerity, has seen tax receipts plummet with government cuts: its ability to pay back debts is reduced, not enhanced by austerity.
Austerity proponents speak as if "business confidence" will be restored by cuts, and prosperity and jobs will magically return. Why? If everyone, except for banksters and one-percenters, have less money, who's going to buy what businesses sell? The wealthy are too few to create enough demand, so there's no reason for businesses to hire more workers, or produce more goods, if austerity means everyone--except the wealthy--will buy less than they did before. So where are more jobs to come from?
The Roman Empire was in a centuries long depression before it collapsed; its gold standard prevented expansion of the money supply; further, when Senators hoarded gold, money contracted, deepening the depression. Today, the Federal Reserve can expand the money supply, as can the Federal government. When demand is lacking, Government should build demand, not cut it. Only during a full recovery, should long-term budget deficits be cut, by tax and health care reform and withdrawal from an empire the US can no longer afford.
It's true that the projected government deficit is over $1.1 trillion, a mind-boggling number, but cutting spending would make that number worse. Why? As the miniscule retreat in GDP last quarter demonstrated, when we cut government spending, the whole economy is negatively affected. We teeter between recovery and renewed recession. Further, the experience of European countries, demonstrates that austerity does not create prosperity; it created renewed recession in the UK (triple dip) and depression in Greece.
The "sequester" has the Republicans worrying about cuts to Defense, complaining that this will cost jobs (it will), but they're not worrying about, and want to increase cuts to domestic programs. The cuts already mandated would not only cost even more jobs (civilian programs create more jobs per dollar than defense), but they would hurt our most vulnerable, and our future prosperity.
Cuts to domestic programs will: cut 70,000 children from Headstart, deny treatment to 373,000 mentally ill (adults and children) and reduce small business loan guarantees by $540 million. In addition, the $85 billion in cuts on Mar 1, could include, according to Congresswoman Nita Lowey, "furloughs of air traffic controllers, food inspectors, border patrol, reduced investment in safe drinking water and medical research, diminished military readiness and embassy security."
Think about this logically: if you reduce expenditures March 1st by $85 billion, how is that going to help us recover from the Great Recession? It will cut that amount of money (US multiplier estimated at 1.29 to 1.73) from flowing into the economy, cutting jobs, cutting purchases--as well as needed services. It won't "grow" the economy; it will shrink it by at least $109 billion--in one month.
Greece, subjected to radical austerity, has seen tax receipts plummet with government cuts: its ability to pay back debts is reduced, not enhanced by austerity.
Austerity proponents speak as if "business confidence" will be restored by cuts, and prosperity and jobs will magically return. Why? If everyone, except for banksters and one-percenters, have less money, who's going to buy what businesses sell? The wealthy are too few to create enough demand, so there's no reason for businesses to hire more workers, or produce more goods, if austerity means everyone--except the wealthy--will buy less than they did before. So where are more jobs to come from?
The Roman Empire was in a centuries long depression before it collapsed; its gold standard prevented expansion of the money supply; further, when Senators hoarded gold, money contracted, deepening the depression. Today, the Federal Reserve can expand the money supply, as can the Federal government. When demand is lacking, Government should build demand, not cut it. Only during a full recovery, should long-term budget deficits be cut, by tax and health care reform and withdrawal from an empire the US can no longer afford.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Evil Deeds
People do evil things, but they argue they do them for reasons they believe are justified, or because they believe, they are doing good, not evil.
How about the NRA? Some gun-owners think they do good, because they defend their right (constitutional or delusional) to hunt coyotes with an AK-47; "it's so much fun!"
But do the NRA lobbyists do good, when they try to protect human rights abusers in other countries, by lobbying to block the Arms Trade Treaty now before Congress? NRA lobbyists call it a "UN gun grab," and try to scare Congressmen, claiming it will enable the UN to confiscate weapons from US citizens. It won't; it's an international treaty to prevent weapons sales to rogue groups and countries, not individuals within nations; it's meant to regulate arms traders between countries, especially the ones selling to terrorists, torturers and tyrants. The NRA just wants to sell guns.
What about the oil companies lobbying to complete the Keystone XL pipeline, or to expand drilling operations, or to prevent regulation of fracking? Do they, or their lobbyists really believe that there is no such thing as global warming, no impact from burning more and more oil and no environmental damage? In the film, Promised Land, the Land Manager acted by Matt Damon, sells farmers on the chance they'll make a financial killing by signing on to his gas company's fracking project. Then he has second thoughts: fracking can do permanent damage to the water supply, as well as causing air pollution. The film confronts the issue of consequences, and whether it's ethical for companies to ignore them in pursuit of profit. Matt's co-worker continues selling gas-drilling leases, saying, "It's only a job."
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes selling off scrap metals with low levels of radioactivity, assuring the public it's safe. Yet, the UN has recently concluded: because background radiation has increased world-wide--from weapons tests, nuclear accidents, etc.--no added level of radiation is safe. Yet, the NRC, and its clients, the nuclear power industry, have a problem: millions of tons of waste cost millions to store, but could earn millions to sell. So, NRC regulators say 'it's safe.'
What these, and other possible examples, demonstrate is an inability of corporate or government decision-makers to distinguish between corporate economic interest (profits) and public wellbeing: the latter concept has become almost antique.
Meanwhile, cancer rates skyrocket, storms increase their destructiveness, guns kill thousands, cheap food kills more through obesity, and the US is only exceptional in all of these ills.
No, it's exceptional also for killing more outside its borders than anyone else. World civilization is murderous, especially from corporate obsession with profit.
Repeal of Citizens United is only a first step. Either corporations are tamed, or they and their owners, like the Late Roman Empire's Senators, will drive world civilization to extinction.
How about the NRA? Some gun-owners think they do good, because they defend their right (constitutional or delusional) to hunt coyotes with an AK-47; "it's so much fun!"
But do the NRA lobbyists do good, when they try to protect human rights abusers in other countries, by lobbying to block the Arms Trade Treaty now before Congress? NRA lobbyists call it a "UN gun grab," and try to scare Congressmen, claiming it will enable the UN to confiscate weapons from US citizens. It won't; it's an international treaty to prevent weapons sales to rogue groups and countries, not individuals within nations; it's meant to regulate arms traders between countries, especially the ones selling to terrorists, torturers and tyrants. The NRA just wants to sell guns.
What about the oil companies lobbying to complete the Keystone XL pipeline, or to expand drilling operations, or to prevent regulation of fracking? Do they, or their lobbyists really believe that there is no such thing as global warming, no impact from burning more and more oil and no environmental damage? In the film, Promised Land, the Land Manager acted by Matt Damon, sells farmers on the chance they'll make a financial killing by signing on to his gas company's fracking project. Then he has second thoughts: fracking can do permanent damage to the water supply, as well as causing air pollution. The film confronts the issue of consequences, and whether it's ethical for companies to ignore them in pursuit of profit. Matt's co-worker continues selling gas-drilling leases, saying, "It's only a job."
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes selling off scrap metals with low levels of radioactivity, assuring the public it's safe. Yet, the UN has recently concluded: because background radiation has increased world-wide--from weapons tests, nuclear accidents, etc.--no added level of radiation is safe. Yet, the NRC, and its clients, the nuclear power industry, have a problem: millions of tons of waste cost millions to store, but could earn millions to sell. So, NRC regulators say 'it's safe.'
What these, and other possible examples, demonstrate is an inability of corporate or government decision-makers to distinguish between corporate economic interest (profits) and public wellbeing: the latter concept has become almost antique.
Meanwhile, cancer rates skyrocket, storms increase their destructiveness, guns kill thousands, cheap food kills more through obesity, and the US is only exceptional in all of these ills.
No, it's exceptional also for killing more outside its borders than anyone else. World civilization is murderous, especially from corporate obsession with profit.
Repeal of Citizens United is only a first step. Either corporations are tamed, or they and their owners, like the Late Roman Empire's Senators, will drive world civilization to extinction.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Icelandic Style Revolution
Iceland's revolution should be old news--if our media actually covered important international stories not involving violence and war. Iceland, in 2008-2009 went through the most dramatic financial collapse of the sub-prime induced banking crisis. Its bankers had speculated many times the value of Iceland's GDP, and their ventures crashed, bankrupting the nation.
Maybe, we didn't hear much because of the smallness and remoteness of Iceland, although Mali is as remote and in population almost as small (Iceland's population: 319,000; Mali's 14.5 million).
Furthermore, Iceland is a positive story compared to Mali, where the former colonial power was welcomed enthusiastically because the Malian state is near collapse and vulnerable to Muslim extremists.
Iceland's banks collapsed in 2008-2009 and Icelanders threw out the conservative government through popular outrage and clanging kitchen pots, not gales of machine gun bullets.
Not only did a new, leftist government take office but a popularly elected body of non-politician citizen members, randomly selected, is helping to write a new constitution.
Further, the collapsed banks were nationalized, and although the left-wing government intended to pay back the banks' private, international debts through taxation--as per IMF instructions--the people again rebelled, and defeated the proposal by 93%.
Yet, Iceland is not an international pariah, despite refusing to pay international speculator debts, and despite bringing criminal charges against a whole raft of bankers and speculators.
The IMF noted that Iceland is experiencing positive growth (ca 2.5%), better than the US, much better than the recession-bound EC, yet it chose not to follow IMF policy. It inflated its currency, launched an aggressive home mortgage relief program, and, instead of austerity, has embarked on development-led growth.
Granted, Iceland is small, homogenous and the first democracy (founded 930), but it offers a model for recovery from the debt crisis that is completely the opposite of Europe's failed austerity policies, or Republican/Tea Party proposals. Furthermore, it appears to be successful. The Icelandic model demonstrates just how far the Obama administration has departed from what the US really needs: real homeowner relief, real control (or nationalization?) of the financial sector, criminal indictments, not just slaps on the wrists of banker-speculators and demand-led growth promoted by government.
The instigator of the popular (kitchenware) rebellion in Iceland has authored a Youtube piece with Greek subtitles: his message? Greece would be better off renouncing its debts and going on its own, like Iceland.
Why haven't we heard more of this? The story is complicated (I've oversimplified hugely), and it's counter to the narrative the powers-that-be, our contemporary Roman Senators, want us to hear. They are afraid they won't be paid, or might actually go to jail. Instead, they can flood the airwaves with the Super-bowl, stories of stars, international disasters like Mali and Greece and their own demands for austerity. Why? They'd rather avoid taxes just like their Roman forebears--which is why Rome "fell."
Maybe, we didn't hear much because of the smallness and remoteness of Iceland, although Mali is as remote and in population almost as small (Iceland's population: 319,000; Mali's 14.5 million).
Furthermore, Iceland is a positive story compared to Mali, where the former colonial power was welcomed enthusiastically because the Malian state is near collapse and vulnerable to Muslim extremists.
Iceland's banks collapsed in 2008-2009 and Icelanders threw out the conservative government through popular outrage and clanging kitchen pots, not gales of machine gun bullets.
Not only did a new, leftist government take office but a popularly elected body of non-politician citizen members, randomly selected, is helping to write a new constitution.
Further, the collapsed banks were nationalized, and although the left-wing government intended to pay back the banks' private, international debts through taxation--as per IMF instructions--the people again rebelled, and defeated the proposal by 93%.
Yet, Iceland is not an international pariah, despite refusing to pay international speculator debts, and despite bringing criminal charges against a whole raft of bankers and speculators.
The IMF noted that Iceland is experiencing positive growth (ca 2.5%), better than the US, much better than the recession-bound EC, yet it chose not to follow IMF policy. It inflated its currency, launched an aggressive home mortgage relief program, and, instead of austerity, has embarked on development-led growth.
Granted, Iceland is small, homogenous and the first democracy (founded 930), but it offers a model for recovery from the debt crisis that is completely the opposite of Europe's failed austerity policies, or Republican/Tea Party proposals. Furthermore, it appears to be successful. The Icelandic model demonstrates just how far the Obama administration has departed from what the US really needs: real homeowner relief, real control (or nationalization?) of the financial sector, criminal indictments, not just slaps on the wrists of banker-speculators and demand-led growth promoted by government.
The instigator of the popular (kitchenware) rebellion in Iceland has authored a Youtube piece with Greek subtitles: his message? Greece would be better off renouncing its debts and going on its own, like Iceland.
Why haven't we heard more of this? The story is complicated (I've oversimplified hugely), and it's counter to the narrative the powers-that-be, our contemporary Roman Senators, want us to hear. They are afraid they won't be paid, or might actually go to jail. Instead, they can flood the airwaves with the Super-bowl, stories of stars, international disasters like Mali and Greece and their own demands for austerity. Why? They'd rather avoid taxes just like their Roman forebears--which is why Rome "fell."
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Indian Rapists, Arab Suicide Bombers
Yes, they do go together. In the case of the Indian rapists, like the horrible gang-rapists of Delhi last month, it's hardly about sexual expression or repression. It's about losing control and male domination at the hands of a modernity they can see but can't touch.
It's estimated that there are 200-300 million Indians, almost entirely in the cities, who have entered the global middle class. That's one of the reasons why international corporations will do almost anything to penetrate the growing Indian market: it has almost as many modern consumers as the US. They aren't the rapists.
But, India has a population that's well over a billion: that's at least 800 million who are NOT in the middle class. Rape expresses a barely repressed class war of the huge underclass, just beginning to awaken. What they see is an India they can hardly fathom and never reach, yet they see it daily on TV and in the Bollywood movies.
The traditional caste system repressed everyone, even a too numerous four-part aristocracy, but it was a stable society for almost 3500 years. Castes are still present, now, but the rules that bound them together, are not. Class often subsumes caste in "Modern India," and those left behind in India's scramble to the future are treated the way lower castes used to be. Yet, they are no longer submissive; they're rebellious, rejectionist, unmoored by tradition. Male violence against women is safer than outright revolution.
Sri Lanka's Tamils, to India's south, invented suicide bombing, which has become a signature of al Qaeda and its allies in the Middle East and North Africa. "Islamic militants," ironically, share the anger of (largely Hindu) Indian rapists; they take it out on their own people, especially women--with extreme purdah and stonings, as well as amputations and beheadings to keep the men in line. In both cases, it's the violent rejection of what they want, are terrified of and can't have: participation in modern secular society.
I don't pretend to know whether al Qaeda members are predominantly lower class, but they do have one thing in common: rejection of any trace of secular, i.e. modern, society. The savagery of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Ansar al Dine may not be just a will to destroy what their societies are becoming, but that's certainly a part of it; it's also an inexpensive means to control resisters.
What's happening now, globally, is the incipient rumblings of the left out, against the newly affluent, who are the new entrants to the global middle class. With climate change, the billions of surplus people aren't anchored to the Middle East, India, or China; eventually, they will flood lands with more moderate climates.
The angry masses could become the equivalent of the Germanic and Turkic hordes, barbarians who surged into the late Roman Empire, and finally, brought it down; Classical society fell with it.
It's estimated that there are 200-300 million Indians, almost entirely in the cities, who have entered the global middle class. That's one of the reasons why international corporations will do almost anything to penetrate the growing Indian market: it has almost as many modern consumers as the US. They aren't the rapists.
But, India has a population that's well over a billion: that's at least 800 million who are NOT in the middle class. Rape expresses a barely repressed class war of the huge underclass, just beginning to awaken. What they see is an India they can hardly fathom and never reach, yet they see it daily on TV and in the Bollywood movies.
The traditional caste system repressed everyone, even a too numerous four-part aristocracy, but it was a stable society for almost 3500 years. Castes are still present, now, but the rules that bound them together, are not. Class often subsumes caste in "Modern India," and those left behind in India's scramble to the future are treated the way lower castes used to be. Yet, they are no longer submissive; they're rebellious, rejectionist, unmoored by tradition. Male violence against women is safer than outright revolution.
Sri Lanka's Tamils, to India's south, invented suicide bombing, which has become a signature of al Qaeda and its allies in the Middle East and North Africa. "Islamic militants," ironically, share the anger of (largely Hindu) Indian rapists; they take it out on their own people, especially women--with extreme purdah and stonings, as well as amputations and beheadings to keep the men in line. In both cases, it's the violent rejection of what they want, are terrified of and can't have: participation in modern secular society.
I don't pretend to know whether al Qaeda members are predominantly lower class, but they do have one thing in common: rejection of any trace of secular, i.e. modern, society. The savagery of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Ansar al Dine may not be just a will to destroy what their societies are becoming, but that's certainly a part of it; it's also an inexpensive means to control resisters.
What's happening now, globally, is the incipient rumblings of the left out, against the newly affluent, who are the new entrants to the global middle class. With climate change, the billions of surplus people aren't anchored to the Middle East, India, or China; eventually, they will flood lands with more moderate climates.
The angry masses could become the equivalent of the Germanic and Turkic hordes, barbarians who surged into the late Roman Empire, and finally, brought it down; Classical society fell with it.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Inauguration-Coronation Vision
The Inauguration displayed history and unity: over 200 years worth, represented by 50 states, with an impressive backdrop for Obama's oath, his speech and the tradition he evoked.
Obama didn't present the soaring emotion of his first inaugural. I don't think it was one of his better speeches, except in the implied substance. After all, inaugural speeches are supposed to lay out a President's broad vision, not his legislative agenda. He said: "our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it," but he didn't lay out a tax and spending blueprint for righting this wrong--he couldn't have, unless he spoke for hours. Instead, he said, "But while the means will change, our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American."
The general thrust of this part of his speech was an implicit rejection of the conservative creed of everyone for himself. Americans, he insisted, over and over, have to pull together.
Obama rejected the partisanship of the past four years, but instead of bipartisanship, he implied that it was the responsibility of Republicans, as well as Democrats, conservatives as well as liberals, to make government work for the good of all, rather than blocking its functions, like the previous Republican House and the Senate Republican minority.
He also addressed climate change, and how we had to confront its reality; he plugged for new, alternative forms of energy, urging that America lead rather than follow.
Obama became most emotional over his peroration for civil rights, evoking the dream of "a King," and then championing equal rights for women, and gays.
Instead of specifically naming gun control, he said our "journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm."
Obama was following tradition. Inaugurals aren't the place for laying out an agenda, except in the broadest terms, But his vision: of peace, equal opportunity, caring and openness has potential--if he can translate this into concrete action and get it through Congress.
As the NY Times pointed out, it was a liberal vision.
Obama didn't talk about two important issues: the failed and destructive drug war that's been implicitly rejected outright by two states, and more indirectly by a handful more.
Nor did he mention his drone war, which appears to be expanding, not receding, as implied by his statement, "a decade of war is now ending." It's as if it was unmentionable: the American Empire advancing by covert means--hand in hand with his pledge to "support democracy" and peace, world-wide.
Does Obama's vision offer a chance that the US won't suffer the fate of the Roman Empire in 476? Perhaps: but only if Congress can return to its role as a functioning institution.
Obama didn't present the soaring emotion of his first inaugural. I don't think it was one of his better speeches, except in the implied substance. After all, inaugural speeches are supposed to lay out a President's broad vision, not his legislative agenda. He said: "our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it," but he didn't lay out a tax and spending blueprint for righting this wrong--he couldn't have, unless he spoke for hours. Instead, he said, "But while the means will change, our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American."
The general thrust of this part of his speech was an implicit rejection of the conservative creed of everyone for himself. Americans, he insisted, over and over, have to pull together.
Obama rejected the partisanship of the past four years, but instead of bipartisanship, he implied that it was the responsibility of Republicans, as well as Democrats, conservatives as well as liberals, to make government work for the good of all, rather than blocking its functions, like the previous Republican House and the Senate Republican minority.
He also addressed climate change, and how we had to confront its reality; he plugged for new, alternative forms of energy, urging that America lead rather than follow.
Obama became most emotional over his peroration for civil rights, evoking the dream of "a King," and then championing equal rights for women, and gays.
Instead of specifically naming gun control, he said our "journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm."
Obama was following tradition. Inaugurals aren't the place for laying out an agenda, except in the broadest terms, But his vision: of peace, equal opportunity, caring and openness has potential--if he can translate this into concrete action and get it through Congress.
As the NY Times pointed out, it was a liberal vision.
Obama didn't talk about two important issues: the failed and destructive drug war that's been implicitly rejected outright by two states, and more indirectly by a handful more.
Nor did he mention his drone war, which appears to be expanding, not receding, as implied by his statement, "a decade of war is now ending." It's as if it was unmentionable: the American Empire advancing by covert means--hand in hand with his pledge to "support democracy" and peace, world-wide.
Does Obama's vision offer a chance that the US won't suffer the fate of the Roman Empire in 476? Perhaps: but only if Congress can return to its role as a functioning institution.
Friday, January 18, 2013
Mali, Algeria and HIstory
About 425 years after the fall of Rome, an Islamic group not unlike those involved now in Mali and the siege in Algeria--Ansar al Dine, and AQIM--tore through North Africa as the latter two are doing today. The Islamic fanatics circa 900, were determined, much like our Wahabi-inspired "militants," to set the clock back, to undo civilization.
Driving in Tunisia (long before its revolution), I was struck by the huge Roman ruins; they ran for miles, sometimes paralleling modern highways. They were at least thirty feet high, and, with breaks, went on for miles in long lines; they were the remains of Roman aqueducts. North Africa had been, in some ways, Rome's California.
The economy of Roman North Africa was unlike anything found there today, because of those aqueducts. Instead of arid land, the Roman colonies grew a large portion of the grain the city of Rome depended upon, all irrigated, like California, today. It was like California in another way, too: Roman buildings in North African cities, like the rebuilt Carthage, were on a larger scale than in Rome, itself. It was prosperous--for free Romans.
Even after the Vandals threw out (or enslaved) the Romans, the aqueducts--and slave labor--allowed exporting bumper crops of grain to Rome and Constantinople. The Vandals grew rich and soft, like the Romans before them.
The first Muslim conquest of North Africa didn't change much; the land was still irrigated, still plentiful--unlike the deserts of Arabia. Now, Muslims were getting prosperous.
Tunisians told me what happened next. Ninth century Islamic militants tore down the aqueducts: North Africa reverted to near desert and has remained that way ever since. Tearing down these monumental structures must have been a major undertaking: there were no explosives then; it had to be done by hand. It was done thoroughly though: there were enough large breaks that no one has ever tried to rebuild them.
Driving the region back to desert was the intended result! It would revert to something comparable to the Arabian Desert, from which the Prophet and his Faith emerged.
The militant vision was much like al Qaeda's fantasy now: restoring pure Islam, as the Prophet practiced it. That requires poverty, not prosperity. The universal Caliphate is al Qaeda's grandiose goal, and again, hard times would be better than corrupt modern ones.
Both extremist Muslim movements represent rejections of the modernity of their day. Both set out to destroy civilization as it was or is.
There is a kind of nihilism in any fundamentalist religion: it requires you to destroy, before you can build the pure, envisioned world. The only modernity any of them seem to accept is the technologies of war, and of control. Those technologies are much more fearsome than in the 9th century, but the goals are about the same.
That's what the world faces in Mali and Algeria--and Pakistan, and Yemen, and--
Driving in Tunisia (long before its revolution), I was struck by the huge Roman ruins; they ran for miles, sometimes paralleling modern highways. They were at least thirty feet high, and, with breaks, went on for miles in long lines; they were the remains of Roman aqueducts. North Africa had been, in some ways, Rome's California.
The economy of Roman North Africa was unlike anything found there today, because of those aqueducts. Instead of arid land, the Roman colonies grew a large portion of the grain the city of Rome depended upon, all irrigated, like California, today. It was like California in another way, too: Roman buildings in North African cities, like the rebuilt Carthage, were on a larger scale than in Rome, itself. It was prosperous--for free Romans.
Even after the Vandals threw out (or enslaved) the Romans, the aqueducts--and slave labor--allowed exporting bumper crops of grain to Rome and Constantinople. The Vandals grew rich and soft, like the Romans before them.
The first Muslim conquest of North Africa didn't change much; the land was still irrigated, still plentiful--unlike the deserts of Arabia. Now, Muslims were getting prosperous.
Tunisians told me what happened next. Ninth century Islamic militants tore down the aqueducts: North Africa reverted to near desert and has remained that way ever since. Tearing down these monumental structures must have been a major undertaking: there were no explosives then; it had to be done by hand. It was done thoroughly though: there were enough large breaks that no one has ever tried to rebuild them.
Driving the region back to desert was the intended result! It would revert to something comparable to the Arabian Desert, from which the Prophet and his Faith emerged.
The militant vision was much like al Qaeda's fantasy now: restoring pure Islam, as the Prophet practiced it. That requires poverty, not prosperity. The universal Caliphate is al Qaeda's grandiose goal, and again, hard times would be better than corrupt modern ones.
Both extremist Muslim movements represent rejections of the modernity of their day. Both set out to destroy civilization as it was or is.
There is a kind of nihilism in any fundamentalist religion: it requires you to destroy, before you can build the pure, envisioned world. The only modernity any of them seem to accept is the technologies of war, and of control. Those technologies are much more fearsome than in the 9th century, but the goals are about the same.
That's what the world faces in Mali and Algeria--and Pakistan, and Yemen, and--
Sunday, January 13, 2013
What if a Platinum Coin?
What if the Treasury minted the platinum coin people have talked about, with a denomination of $1Trillion?
What would happen?
There would be much whining within the monopoly media that Obama had become a dictator: he's taken away Congress's power of the purse, the debt ceiling.
Obama could also simply declare, according to the 14th Amendment, that the President has to defend the "full faith and credit of the United States," by continuing to borrow whenever necessary, even if the Congress refused to pass an increased debt ceiling. That's a better alternative.
In either case, the Executive does have the power to maintain the currency. A strong case could be made: a President's first responsibility is to defend the nation, whether it derives from foreign military threats, or domestic economic ones. A default on the US dollar is a much greater threat than any of our last half-century's wars.
A default would probably spell the death knell for the greenback as the world's reserve currency. Interest rates could go sky high, stopping all growth; imports would become prohibitively expensive: a recipe for severe stagflation. Global depression could follow.
Yet, our powerful finance industry isn't leaning on the GOP to quash its debt-ceiling extortion. But then, Wall Street would dearly love to achieve some of the GOP's agenda: especially, privatizing Social Security (which doesn't contribute to the deficit), so maybe it won't press Republicans to stop, unless it looks as if Obama won't blink.
That's one reason why either the platinum coin or Presidential declaration, make sense. Either would stop the hostage taking. Then, if both sides still wanted to talk about deficit/debt reduction, they could have a rational discussion of corporate subsidies, of sensible cuts to the war machine, of reforms to health care and Medicare/Medicaid, by cutting costs without reducing benefits or raising eligibility.
Without the above Presidential action, negotiations would remain irrational: under duress on both sides. Just as in the fiscal cliff negotiation, corrupt deals under the table would pollute the actual bargain ("great" or not), in the rush to meet--or almost meet--the deadline. Reasonable solutions, like restructuring payment mechanisms in Medicare, (as is being tried in New York City hospitals), would be impossible to negotiate.
Wall Street, the GOP, and some Wall Street Democrats, wouldn't like either presidential response, because they'd have a harder time extorting their loopholes, gifts and grants. Conservatives would also bemoan the expansion of Presidential power--not that they opposed it under Bush II.
But maybe the US would finally get a government that governed more or less rationally, for The People.
What are the odds, if our Roman Senators don't get what they want, that the President would even try to get what the nation needs? Where is a backbone when backbone is needed? The selfish class has to be stopped. It would be ironic if a mere coin could do that.
What would happen?
There would be much whining within the monopoly media that Obama had become a dictator: he's taken away Congress's power of the purse, the debt ceiling.
Obama could also simply declare, according to the 14th Amendment, that the President has to defend the "full faith and credit of the United States," by continuing to borrow whenever necessary, even if the Congress refused to pass an increased debt ceiling. That's a better alternative.
In either case, the Executive does have the power to maintain the currency. A strong case could be made: a President's first responsibility is to defend the nation, whether it derives from foreign military threats, or domestic economic ones. A default on the US dollar is a much greater threat than any of our last half-century's wars.
A default would probably spell the death knell for the greenback as the world's reserve currency. Interest rates could go sky high, stopping all growth; imports would become prohibitively expensive: a recipe for severe stagflation. Global depression could follow.
Yet, our powerful finance industry isn't leaning on the GOP to quash its debt-ceiling extortion. But then, Wall Street would dearly love to achieve some of the GOP's agenda: especially, privatizing Social Security (which doesn't contribute to the deficit), so maybe it won't press Republicans to stop, unless it looks as if Obama won't blink.
That's one reason why either the platinum coin or Presidential declaration, make sense. Either would stop the hostage taking. Then, if both sides still wanted to talk about deficit/debt reduction, they could have a rational discussion of corporate subsidies, of sensible cuts to the war machine, of reforms to health care and Medicare/Medicaid, by cutting costs without reducing benefits or raising eligibility.
Without the above Presidential action, negotiations would remain irrational: under duress on both sides. Just as in the fiscal cliff negotiation, corrupt deals under the table would pollute the actual bargain ("great" or not), in the rush to meet--or almost meet--the deadline. Reasonable solutions, like restructuring payment mechanisms in Medicare, (as is being tried in New York City hospitals), would be impossible to negotiate.
Wall Street, the GOP, and some Wall Street Democrats, wouldn't like either presidential response, because they'd have a harder time extorting their loopholes, gifts and grants. Conservatives would also bemoan the expansion of Presidential power--not that they opposed it under Bush II.
But maybe the US would finally get a government that governed more or less rationally, for The People.
What are the odds, if our Roman Senators don't get what they want, that the President would even try to get what the nation needs? Where is a backbone when backbone is needed? The selfish class has to be stopped. It would be ironic if a mere coin could do that.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Classic Catch 22!
"Obama Justice Department have argued individuals and organizations must be able to show they were monitored by the surveillance program to have standing and challenge it in court.
"But the program's target list is secret. The U.S. government won't tell potential targets whether they have been monitored. Therefore, the government contends, no one has standing." http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/01/06/Under-the-US-Supreme-Court-Spying-on-Americans-phase-2/UPI-75011357461000/ - ixzz2HQS7khMr
This is reminiscent of Orwell--1984, Animal Farm--but this is real life! The NDAA gives the Administration the power to monitor any communications between anyone in the US and anyone overseas. If, in some cases, there have to be warrants issued by the FISA Court (a special court set up to oversee covert surveillance), warrants can be highly generalized: they might even permit surveillance on a whole class of potential suspects.
There is a whole lot going on behind closed doors! So far, the people who are supervising it, making use of it, are apparently doing so for what might pass as "the Common Good," as in protecting the US from terror attacks. What is scary: there are so few checks on this surveillance, even in the cantankerous Congress! If no one has a need to know, and it's classified, then no one will know. Except those who take unto themselves the need to know--like the President, the intelligence heads, Defense and Justice at the top levels.
And, there are ominous signs, like the upending of General Petraeus, and before him, Governor Eliot Spitzer, when both were caught in the general surveillance web, apparently by accident.
In the hands of a Stalin, or, arguably, a Nixon, the powers the President has amassed in the realm of National Security would easily lead to the kind of dictatorship Orwell described in 1984.
I wouldn't argue Obama has made the best choices, or that he's egoless in wielding power. But so far, it doesn't look as if he aspires to be the kind of dictator that sweeps opposition aside; or one who's driven to re-make the nation in his own image, through his overpowering personality.
Has no one in power really thought this through? The power they've seized since 9/11--in order to safeguard the nation--is the power to control the nation, but not the world.
US Drones may terrorize Pakistanis, Yemenis, Somalis, but look what all our vaunted power has gotten us there: recruits for al Qaeda. In Afghanistan: a lull before we leave. After we leave, who knows what will happen.
The American Empire is turning inward: the elites--government and corporate--are gaining the power to control us, power much greater than was held by Roman Senators over their serfs and slaves.
If the bipartisan drive towards austerity drives people to revolutionary desperation, then State repression will be necessary--for the survival of our Roman Senators--and the machinery will be ready to use.
"But the program's target list is secret. The U.S. government won't tell potential targets whether they have been monitored. Therefore, the government contends, no one has standing." http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/01/06/Under-the-US-Supreme-Court-Spying-on-Americans-phase-2/UPI-75011357461000/ - ixzz2HQS7khMr
This is reminiscent of Orwell--1984, Animal Farm--but this is real life! The NDAA gives the Administration the power to monitor any communications between anyone in the US and anyone overseas. If, in some cases, there have to be warrants issued by the FISA Court (a special court set up to oversee covert surveillance), warrants can be highly generalized: they might even permit surveillance on a whole class of potential suspects.
There is a whole lot going on behind closed doors! So far, the people who are supervising it, making use of it, are apparently doing so for what might pass as "the Common Good," as in protecting the US from terror attacks. What is scary: there are so few checks on this surveillance, even in the cantankerous Congress! If no one has a need to know, and it's classified, then no one will know. Except those who take unto themselves the need to know--like the President, the intelligence heads, Defense and Justice at the top levels.
And, there are ominous signs, like the upending of General Petraeus, and before him, Governor Eliot Spitzer, when both were caught in the general surveillance web, apparently by accident.
In the hands of a Stalin, or, arguably, a Nixon, the powers the President has amassed in the realm of National Security would easily lead to the kind of dictatorship Orwell described in 1984.
I wouldn't argue Obama has made the best choices, or that he's egoless in wielding power. But so far, it doesn't look as if he aspires to be the kind of dictator that sweeps opposition aside; or one who's driven to re-make the nation in his own image, through his overpowering personality.
Has no one in power really thought this through? The power they've seized since 9/11--in order to safeguard the nation--is the power to control the nation, but not the world.
US Drones may terrorize Pakistanis, Yemenis, Somalis, but look what all our vaunted power has gotten us there: recruits for al Qaeda. In Afghanistan: a lull before we leave. After we leave, who knows what will happen.
The American Empire is turning inward: the elites--government and corporate--are gaining the power to control us, power much greater than was held by Roman Senators over their serfs and slaves.
If the bipartisan drive towards austerity drives people to revolutionary desperation, then State repression will be necessary--for the survival of our Roman Senators--and the machinery will be ready to use.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Are We Trapped?
Republicans support the wealthy, the CEO's, the corporations; the worker is chopped liver. But Democrats are afraid: of the wealthy, the CEO's and the corporations--and enough are bought off, too.
Our two party system has been described as a duopoly, and when you look at the Obama/McConnell/Reid/Boehner compromise over "the fiscal cliff," you see that it is.
Remaining on the right, are the angry Tea Partiers, who distrust government in all its forms, though they're not unwilling to rip it off. Remaining on the left are forlorn progressives, who yearn for a government they can trust: they see one that's only protecting the "One Percent."
Both fringes attempt to push government more to their liking, but the duopoly has other plans: it's owned by the corporations: the banks, oil companies, media and more.
The anger among Tea Partiers is genuine, but the billionaire lobby, from astro-turf roots to media campaigns, to think tank creations, contrives its targets.
Anger on the left is at least as real, but its targets are scattered. Their anger focuses on exploitation, of, by and for the corporations, but also on government and military-style repression: they have little money behind them.
We don't have a Fourth Amendment any longer: unlawful search and seizure has been pushed aside by Terrorism and Drugs. All a local prosecutor, or enforcement officer, need do is to record everyone within electronic reach. Soon, I predict, all they'll have to do is apply to the NSA, or whatever Federal entity has become the repository, to access phone, email and Internet files on anyone "of interest." That's why everyone's online (and cloud) records are being recorded in the massive surveillance program initiated by the NSA. The justification: to intercept any terrorists before they act.
Stalin gained power by controlling information about everyone; people need to wrest that power back. And this is an issue where both fringes could/should collaborate. Tea Partiers hate the idea of government surveillance as much as lefties.
Unless "the fringes" can come together in resistance, there is no escape. Republicans and Democrats are equally implicated in the Surveillance State. Democratic Senator Feinstein and President Obama are as much a part of it as Bush II, Cheney and Senator McCain. The renewal--and strengthening--of the NDAA in December demonstrates this.
In the Fifth Century Empire, Roman Senators and German generals collaborated in controlling and repressing the humiliores.
With powers of surveillance and manipulation of information greater than Stalin ever dreamed of, the modern American state soon will leave no room for real dissent. That could be its downfall, just like the Stalinist state before it.
Like the USSR's failed New Lands wheat projects, the US plunges into fracking, oil sands and nuclear, while the rest of the world pushes ahead with solar, wind and bio-fuel alternatives.
We'll decline, driven by government-corporate induced blindness. Others will rise--if there is any livable environment left.
Our two party system has been described as a duopoly, and when you look at the Obama/McConnell/Reid/Boehner compromise over "the fiscal cliff," you see that it is.
Remaining on the right, are the angry Tea Partiers, who distrust government in all its forms, though they're not unwilling to rip it off. Remaining on the left are forlorn progressives, who yearn for a government they can trust: they see one that's only protecting the "One Percent."
Both fringes attempt to push government more to their liking, but the duopoly has other plans: it's owned by the corporations: the banks, oil companies, media and more.
The anger among Tea Partiers is genuine, but the billionaire lobby, from astro-turf roots to media campaigns, to think tank creations, contrives its targets.
Anger on the left is at least as real, but its targets are scattered. Their anger focuses on exploitation, of, by and for the corporations, but also on government and military-style repression: they have little money behind them.
We don't have a Fourth Amendment any longer: unlawful search and seizure has been pushed aside by Terrorism and Drugs. All a local prosecutor, or enforcement officer, need do is to record everyone within electronic reach. Soon, I predict, all they'll have to do is apply to the NSA, or whatever Federal entity has become the repository, to access phone, email and Internet files on anyone "of interest." That's why everyone's online (and cloud) records are being recorded in the massive surveillance program initiated by the NSA. The justification: to intercept any terrorists before they act.
Stalin gained power by controlling information about everyone; people need to wrest that power back. And this is an issue where both fringes could/should collaborate. Tea Partiers hate the idea of government surveillance as much as lefties.
Unless "the fringes" can come together in resistance, there is no escape. Republicans and Democrats are equally implicated in the Surveillance State. Democratic Senator Feinstein and President Obama are as much a part of it as Bush II, Cheney and Senator McCain. The renewal--and strengthening--of the NDAA in December demonstrates this.
In the Fifth Century Empire, Roman Senators and German generals collaborated in controlling and repressing the humiliores.
With powers of surveillance and manipulation of information greater than Stalin ever dreamed of, the modern American state soon will leave no room for real dissent. That could be its downfall, just like the Stalinist state before it.
Like the USSR's failed New Lands wheat projects, the US plunges into fracking, oil sands and nuclear, while the rest of the world pushes ahead with solar, wind and bio-fuel alternatives.
We'll decline, driven by government-corporate induced blindness. Others will rise--if there is any livable environment left.
Friday, January 4, 2013
Black Panthers = Occupy = Terrorists?
Some of us remember Fred Hampton. He was a Black Panther in Chicago, a rising personality in the Black Panther Party when he was murdered. He was murdered by a tactical unit of the Cook County's Attorney General's office, in an attack planned and initiated by the FBI.
Dangerous, we were told, shooting back when the police raided, at 3 AM. Actually, a Black Panther, who was on watch, fired only one shot. He shot it reflexively, in his death throes. Fred Hampton was shot four times in the head, while he slept, drugged by an informant.
Hoover had it in for the Panthers. He ordered Cointelpro to go after them regardless of any facts: he was sure they were violent revolutionaries who threatened the nation--uppity blacks with their free schools and their breakfast program for hungry youth in the ghettos.
Now, FOIA's provided to the Partnership For Civil Justice Fund have revealed that the FBI was about to do it again, this time to Occupy activists. Only this time, they were going to assassinate leaders--not that there were any--with snipers! The plot was never carried out, but it clearly was in the planning stages. Why?
This was in 2011, when Occupy was just beginning and was primarily 'occupying Wall Street.' In the memos, they treat the protesters as if they were potential terrorists, or revolutionaries. Hoover, remember, was concerned that the Black Panther Party was going to foment a revolution for radical change.
Did FBI agents in the hierarchy see the Occupiers as similarly threatening? The BPP had been armed; it had emerged, at least in part, from violence in the black ghettos, so guns were to be expected. But the OWS was largely white, even middle class, and except for the black bloc, determinedly non-violent.
Yet, the FBI was going to kill the leaders "via suppressed sniper rifles." Later, it seems clear, there was a nationally coordinated effort, probably at least aided by the FBI, to close down the encampments, peacefully or not.
Again, why?
Occupy popularized consciousness of the extreme inequality of wealth growing in the US. It also protested the bailouts that aided Wall Street and few others. Their ideas were potentially revolutionary, but they had no revolutionary program; they had no program, at all.
Still, the FBI saw them as such a threat that they were going to assassinate the leaders!
Some Occupiers spoke of revolution: we had an activist stay with us for four days too long, but their ideas were for the kind of non-violent change that made sense--unless you felt the wealthy must be defended at all costs.
The FBI plotting reveals which people they're really defending: it ain't you and me. It's America's Roman Senators, the wealthy: Occupy identified them as "the One Percent."
Maybe their protectors are pulling Obama's strings, too. That might explain a lot. In fifth century Rome, miscreants were slowly burned alive--as a warning.
Dangerous, we were told, shooting back when the police raided, at 3 AM. Actually, a Black Panther, who was on watch, fired only one shot. He shot it reflexively, in his death throes. Fred Hampton was shot four times in the head, while he slept, drugged by an informant.
Hoover had it in for the Panthers. He ordered Cointelpro to go after them regardless of any facts: he was sure they were violent revolutionaries who threatened the nation--uppity blacks with their free schools and their breakfast program for hungry youth in the ghettos.
Now, FOIA's provided to the Partnership For Civil Justice Fund have revealed that the FBI was about to do it again, this time to Occupy activists. Only this time, they were going to assassinate leaders--not that there were any--with snipers! The plot was never carried out, but it clearly was in the planning stages. Why?
This was in 2011, when Occupy was just beginning and was primarily 'occupying Wall Street.' In the memos, they treat the protesters as if they were potential terrorists, or revolutionaries. Hoover, remember, was concerned that the Black Panther Party was going to foment a revolution for radical change.
Did FBI agents in the hierarchy see the Occupiers as similarly threatening? The BPP had been armed; it had emerged, at least in part, from violence in the black ghettos, so guns were to be expected. But the OWS was largely white, even middle class, and except for the black bloc, determinedly non-violent.
Yet, the FBI was going to kill the leaders "via suppressed sniper rifles." Later, it seems clear, there was a nationally coordinated effort, probably at least aided by the FBI, to close down the encampments, peacefully or not.
Again, why?
Occupy popularized consciousness of the extreme inequality of wealth growing in the US. It also protested the bailouts that aided Wall Street and few others. Their ideas were potentially revolutionary, but they had no revolutionary program; they had no program, at all.
Still, the FBI saw them as such a threat that they were going to assassinate the leaders!
Some Occupiers spoke of revolution: we had an activist stay with us for four days too long, but their ideas were for the kind of non-violent change that made sense--unless you felt the wealthy must be defended at all costs.
The FBI plotting reveals which people they're really defending: it ain't you and me. It's America's Roman Senators, the wealthy: Occupy identified them as "the One Percent."
Maybe their protectors are pulling Obama's strings, too. That might explain a lot. In fifth century Rome, miscreants were slowly burned alive--as a warning.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Falling For The Cliff
The "fiscal cliff" was a contrivance Democrats and Republicans, Obama and Boehner/McConnell, all thought would work for them. It should have worked for Obama and the Democrats.
Obama won reelection convincingly, and his most salient deficit-cutting issue was raising taxes on the wealthy with incomes over $250,000. That was part of his proposal to reduce the deficit with proper balance between expenditure cuts and revenue increases. Polls showed high levels of support. So, why did he give in to Republicans at all?
Sure, the Biden/McConnell tentative agreement is an admission by Republican Senators that they are on the wrong side of the tax issue, unemployment insurance extensions and low-income enhancers like the Earned Income Tax Credit.
On the other hand, for Democrats, trying to avoid the 'fiscal cliff' was bad strategy, because allowing tax increases to go up temporarily would have increased Obama's leverage: the no-tax-hike GOP can be assailed for opposing tax cuts, if the deadline of the fiscal cliff really passes with no agreement. Isn't it more plausible that they'd vote for tax cuts to everyone with incomes below $250,000, instead of raising taxes on the wealthy? They wouldn't even break the Norquist no-tax-hike pledge. And people wouldn't blame them for a stalemate, which growing numbers of people--and financial rating institutions--will do if they don't go along.
But, no, Obama, after months campaigning on the $250,000 figure, opens his latest bid with raising the rate to $400,000, a position Speaker Boehner had taken less than a month before.
Obama has already sounded conciliatory about cutting Social Security benefits--through adjusting the Cost of Living--yet Social Security is self-funding and its surpluses have financed some of the deficits for a long time. He's tried out cuts to Medicare eligibility, but Medicare proponents--Democratic activists--through much pressure, have persuaded him to withdraw the proposal.
Why doesn't he, or other Democrats, propose cuts to oil and coal subsidies? We have no business continuing to promote these polluters in the face of accelerating global warming.
Obama and "moderate" Democrats are either afraid of the money big oil, banks, etc. can wield against them, or they’ve been bought out by it. The same could be said of "defense" expenditures: no one spends anywhere near as much as we do on military and surveillance, yet neither Democrats nor Republicans see the mandated Pentagon cuts as an opportunity.
The US, through its dysfunctional politics and polarization, its obeisance to status quo interests and its fear of crossing capitalists, is leading the world to a violent conflagration brought on by increasingly disruptive climate change. Capitalists, said Lenin, will sell you the rope to hang them.
In fifth-century Rome, Senators even bought the rope, and applied it to their own necks.
Obama won reelection convincingly, and his most salient deficit-cutting issue was raising taxes on the wealthy with incomes over $250,000. That was part of his proposal to reduce the deficit with proper balance between expenditure cuts and revenue increases. Polls showed high levels of support. So, why did he give in to Republicans at all?
Sure, the Biden/McConnell tentative agreement is an admission by Republican Senators that they are on the wrong side of the tax issue, unemployment insurance extensions and low-income enhancers like the Earned Income Tax Credit.
On the other hand, for Democrats, trying to avoid the 'fiscal cliff' was bad strategy, because allowing tax increases to go up temporarily would have increased Obama's leverage: the no-tax-hike GOP can be assailed for opposing tax cuts, if the deadline of the fiscal cliff really passes with no agreement. Isn't it more plausible that they'd vote for tax cuts to everyone with incomes below $250,000, instead of raising taxes on the wealthy? They wouldn't even break the Norquist no-tax-hike pledge. And people wouldn't blame them for a stalemate, which growing numbers of people--and financial rating institutions--will do if they don't go along.
But, no, Obama, after months campaigning on the $250,000 figure, opens his latest bid with raising the rate to $400,000, a position Speaker Boehner had taken less than a month before.
Obama has already sounded conciliatory about cutting Social Security benefits--through adjusting the Cost of Living--yet Social Security is self-funding and its surpluses have financed some of the deficits for a long time. He's tried out cuts to Medicare eligibility, but Medicare proponents--Democratic activists--through much pressure, have persuaded him to withdraw the proposal.
Why doesn't he, or other Democrats, propose cuts to oil and coal subsidies? We have no business continuing to promote these polluters in the face of accelerating global warming.
Obama and "moderate" Democrats are either afraid of the money big oil, banks, etc. can wield against them, or they’ve been bought out by it. The same could be said of "defense" expenditures: no one spends anywhere near as much as we do on military and surveillance, yet neither Democrats nor Republicans see the mandated Pentagon cuts as an opportunity.
The US, through its dysfunctional politics and polarization, its obeisance to status quo interests and its fear of crossing capitalists, is leading the world to a violent conflagration brought on by increasingly disruptive climate change. Capitalists, said Lenin, will sell you the rope to hang them.
In fifth-century Rome, Senators even bought the rope, and applied it to their own necks.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)