Will Obama say 'No!' to Ecuador's generals? A coup is unfolding at this moment. In April last year, Obama said "I am absolutely opposed and condemn any efforts at violent overthrows of democratically elected governments," in the hemisphere. That was at an OAS meeting. However, in June last year, his State Department didn't condemn the coup in Honduras, so it went forward. The ousted elected President could not return, and the subsequent election was carefully controlled by the pro-business coup leaders.
Is this how big business will get rid of the surge of social democracy in Latin America? One coup at a time. My family in Venezuela would be happy at the prospect, but even there, Chavez has significantly reduced inequality; he's still popular.
Simultaneously, corporations are trying to buy US elections: funding groups like Rove's Crossroads, pumping millions into the tea party, or like the Koch brothers, directly funding tea party insurgents and radical conservative Republicans.
There is a common theme to these corporate-friendly actions: corporations and their owners want to eliminate regulations. They want to be able to pollute, without having to pay costs they impose on society. They want to gamble with free taxpayer money; they want to terrorize illegal aliens--and employees, more generally--so workers are desperate enough to work for near-subsistence wages. They also want to be free to ship jobs and processes overseas without having to pay the costs of their leaving. They even want to continue tax subsidies for doing so!
In places like Ecuador and Honduras, they want governments they can buy, not ones that try to serve their peoples' interests. As my Venezuelan uncle enjoyed pointing out: it's much more difficult to buy off a democratic government--the executive, the legislators, the judges--than a dictatorship, where you deal with one guy, or a small group.
Corporate interests, or pro-corporate conservatives have already gained electoral power in Britain, Canada, Germany and France. African and Asian countries are venues for conflict, over resources, not religion. China and India are major players, while Japan stagnates.
What also seems to be emerging is a bent toward authoritarianism. You see it in Russia and China. Developing countries emulate China. It isn't the "Communism" that's imitated: it's the authoritarian politics and the hybrid command/market economics China invented.
You see the same authoritarian leanings even in the US, even with Obama; he's continued Bush's Security State, and has barely held the military at bay on Afghanistan.
What will happen if the radical conservatives win? More severe economic crises yet, and even greater immiseration of most of the people: it makes them docile workers. Dictators would, too.
The few would be on their way to achieving the kind of dominance held by Roman Senators just before Rome's fall in 476.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
This Age of Lunacy
$25.99 x 9,500=$246,905. Pretty good for a book that's just been published: that's the figure the publisher should take in from the Defense Department, which has bought all available copies of the first edition--to destroy them! The book: Operation Dark Heart, by Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer.
As Col. Shaffer remarked: it's "ludicrous"--in this digital age--to think that the Defense Department, by buying 9500 copies, is going to eliminate all copies with questionable, supposedly classified information. The second printing does have many redactions, in some cases whole paragraphs, but meanwhile: at least one seller on eBay, claiming to have a first-edition printing, is asking nearly $2,000 for it. And you know, from Col. Shaffer's remark, that there are probably un-redacted copies flying around the Internet.
Oh, not to worry! DOD has money to burn, even if everyone else has to deal with slashed budgets. After all, after the Republicans get over their snit re Don't Ask Don't Tell, they'll probably want to raise the Defense Budget, and insure that we never withdraw from anywhere.
Of course, they'll complain that the government's deficit is going through the roof. Then, they'll say we've got to cut Social Security benefits--which are paid for through the payroll tax and the trust fund. Defense is paid through general revenue. And they'll say we've got to stop any stimulus spending, and any welfare spending: let the unemployed go jump off bridges! Let the poor (now on Medicaid) get sick and die!
So, we have 9.6% official unemployment, which is probably 17% when "discouraged workers" and involuntary part-time workers are counted. The right-wing seems to be saying: we can do nothing; we should be doing nothing. What's extraordinary is that their candidates still lead in the polls, especially, when Republicans insist that even the millionaires and billionaires should get tax cuts--and declare: everyone's taxes will rise unless the billionaires get tax cuts, too!
The best part is: we'll borrow the money from the Chinese, to make up for the shortfall of $700 billion that millionaires and billionaires will use to invest in--"emerging markets," i.e. countries like China, which is "where the growth is."
Chinese workers are only beginning to organize to demand better wages and working conditions. Americans? We're watching football, or reality shows, or worrying whether Lindsey Lohan will really stop drinking. Whadda we know about what's going on?
In besieged ancient Cirta, the Roman governor feared that closing the coliseum's games would drive citizens to riot. So, they continued, even as the Vandals broke through the city's walls. Vandals killed or enslaved virtually all of Cirta's Roman citizens.
We have our own age of lunacy, but it does have ancient parallels.
As Col. Shaffer remarked: it's "ludicrous"--in this digital age--to think that the Defense Department, by buying 9500 copies, is going to eliminate all copies with questionable, supposedly classified information. The second printing does have many redactions, in some cases whole paragraphs, but meanwhile: at least one seller on eBay, claiming to have a first-edition printing, is asking nearly $2,000 for it. And you know, from Col. Shaffer's remark, that there are probably un-redacted copies flying around the Internet.
Oh, not to worry! DOD has money to burn, even if everyone else has to deal with slashed budgets. After all, after the Republicans get over their snit re Don't Ask Don't Tell, they'll probably want to raise the Defense Budget, and insure that we never withdraw from anywhere.
Of course, they'll complain that the government's deficit is going through the roof. Then, they'll say we've got to cut Social Security benefits--which are paid for through the payroll tax and the trust fund. Defense is paid through general revenue. And they'll say we've got to stop any stimulus spending, and any welfare spending: let the unemployed go jump off bridges! Let the poor (now on Medicaid) get sick and die!
So, we have 9.6% official unemployment, which is probably 17% when "discouraged workers" and involuntary part-time workers are counted. The right-wing seems to be saying: we can do nothing; we should be doing nothing. What's extraordinary is that their candidates still lead in the polls, especially, when Republicans insist that even the millionaires and billionaires should get tax cuts--and declare: everyone's taxes will rise unless the billionaires get tax cuts, too!
The best part is: we'll borrow the money from the Chinese, to make up for the shortfall of $700 billion that millionaires and billionaires will use to invest in--"emerging markets," i.e. countries like China, which is "where the growth is."
Chinese workers are only beginning to organize to demand better wages and working conditions. Americans? We're watching football, or reality shows, or worrying whether Lindsey Lohan will really stop drinking. Whadda we know about what's going on?
In besieged ancient Cirta, the Roman governor feared that closing the coliseum's games would drive citizens to riot. So, they continued, even as the Vandals broke through the city's walls. Vandals killed or enslaved virtually all of Cirta's Roman citizens.
We have our own age of lunacy, but it does have ancient parallels.
Monday, September 20, 2010
A Global Disease?
It's not just the US that's going crazy. We have Tea Party extremists and anti-immigrant nastiness, but now even Sweden, moderate, neutral, social democratic, has elected an anti-immigrant party to parliament. There are strong anti-immigrant parties in Holland, Denmark and Norway, and similar parties in Central and Eastern Europe. France not only has the National Front, but President Sarkozy's Roma removals pander to anti-immigrant anger.
The Middle East is in turmoil, driven by extremist actions of fewer than 5000 militants leveraging millions.
China's phenomenal growth drives changes globally. Mexicans and Central Americans stream northward, not an invasion, but a flood of desperate people, choosing between privation--exacerbated by American trade policy--and a better life that can be won with hard work. They generate anger in America.
The tea party movement expresses anger, frustration and fear. It taps into the zeitgeist. Our lives are changing, and for ordinary Americans they are not getting better. The Tea Party movement exhibits the extremism of a majority fearful of losing dominance: "We want our country back!" they scream. The KKK was a response to similar changes in the Civil War's aftermath. Then and now, elites used white anxiety to blame victims and ignore the perp--the elites. It isn't just the imminent specter of a majority of minorities; that's only what drives tea party fury. The movement expresses the economic frustrations of the non-elite: it shouldn't be ignored or dismissed.
Progressives should harness that anger. The economic takeover engineered by corporate elites, rationalized by "conservative" think tanks, its funders now funding tea party extremism, is the real reason why wages have stagnated, not just this year, but since the 1970's. Productivity since has increased almost exponentially, but through the Reagan counter-revolution and after, the tiny, wealthy elite at the top has captured its rewards.
That's why unions have been savaged; that's why "free" trade has exported our manufacturing base and jobs; that's why the "recovery" isn't creating jobs now; it's cheaper and safer to drive your fearful workers harder--or export operations to China or Poland.
No wonder people are angry!
Don't sneer at Sharron Angle or Christine O'Donnell. Democrats need to counter with emotional content of their own. Rational argument may support the Democrats' case, but doesn't convince angry people. What could: emotional appeals. Against the greedy, who demand an extension of high income tax cuts: block them and demand taxing Wall Street's rip-offs; unveil a big jobs program, a 21st century WPA; campaign against unfair employers for workers' rights; and promote fair trade that protects America and its workers.
Economic issues can cut close to peoples' jugulars.
Are progressives so afraid of feelings?
In the 1930's, nations went two ways: following Nazi rant, or FDR's democratic alternative. Both made emotional appeals.
Which will it be?
The Middle East is in turmoil, driven by extremist actions of fewer than 5000 militants leveraging millions.
China's phenomenal growth drives changes globally. Mexicans and Central Americans stream northward, not an invasion, but a flood of desperate people, choosing between privation--exacerbated by American trade policy--and a better life that can be won with hard work. They generate anger in America.
The tea party movement expresses anger, frustration and fear. It taps into the zeitgeist. Our lives are changing, and for ordinary Americans they are not getting better. The Tea Party movement exhibits the extremism of a majority fearful of losing dominance: "We want our country back!" they scream. The KKK was a response to similar changes in the Civil War's aftermath. Then and now, elites used white anxiety to blame victims and ignore the perp--the elites. It isn't just the imminent specter of a majority of minorities; that's only what drives tea party fury. The movement expresses the economic frustrations of the non-elite: it shouldn't be ignored or dismissed.
Progressives should harness that anger. The economic takeover engineered by corporate elites, rationalized by "conservative" think tanks, its funders now funding tea party extremism, is the real reason why wages have stagnated, not just this year, but since the 1970's. Productivity since has increased almost exponentially, but through the Reagan counter-revolution and after, the tiny, wealthy elite at the top has captured its rewards.
That's why unions have been savaged; that's why "free" trade has exported our manufacturing base and jobs; that's why the "recovery" isn't creating jobs now; it's cheaper and safer to drive your fearful workers harder--or export operations to China or Poland.
No wonder people are angry!
Don't sneer at Sharron Angle or Christine O'Donnell. Democrats need to counter with emotional content of their own. Rational argument may support the Democrats' case, but doesn't convince angry people. What could: emotional appeals. Against the greedy, who demand an extension of high income tax cuts: block them and demand taxing Wall Street's rip-offs; unveil a big jobs program, a 21st century WPA; campaign against unfair employers for workers' rights; and promote fair trade that protects America and its workers.
Economic issues can cut close to peoples' jugulars.
Are progressives so afraid of feelings?
In the 1930's, nations went two ways: following Nazi rant, or FDR's democratic alternative. Both made emotional appeals.
Which will it be?
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Small Business's #1 Worry?
A survey of small businessmen by the National Federation of Independent Business found: it's not taxes, and it's not credit. It's no customers.
So, the political dialogue about taxes or credit is less relevant to them than anything that would increase demand, like accelerating job creation. So, here are Democrats saying middle income tax cuts ought to be preserved, and Republicans insisting tax cuts for the wealthy not only must be maintained, but made permanent--at a cost of $700-800 billion to the debt--because, they insist some are small business proprietors--though few are). In addition, Democrats (with one Republican) have just passed similar bills in House and Senate, providing tax cuts and extended loans to small businesses: to spur hiring. But they probably won't have much effect.
What no one, either in the administration, or in either party, or either chamber, seems to get is this: people need jobs; business needs employed people; but businesses aren't employing them. So, what's the problem? Has government never acted as temporary employer of last resort before?
There are many areas where government could meet huge needs. The unemployed don't have to have jobs digging holes and filling them. We no longer allow heavy manual labor--we have machines for that, which costs more money and skills--but we could use clean up crews, teachers assistants, parking meter attendants, construction workers to repair and rebuild, and so on. Local governments could manage local projects.
If people are so concerned about illegal immigration, then they should go to work bringing in harvests, following crops northward; maybe the Feds could subsidize citizen workers.
The point is: what's holding up the recovery is a lack of jobs. Apparently, tinkering with loans, credits and taxes is not enough. Of course it isn't. Why would a business invest in higher output, by hiring more workers, or buying more machinery, when demand for the good or service they're trying to sell is so feeble and uncertain?
What are people thinking? The best and the brightest are pretty stupid.
When no one else creates jobs, government should be the employer of last resort. It can be. There are many things of lasting value that were built by the WPA, like the mural scenes in Post Offices, and the forest windbreaks planted by the CCC in the Great Plains; they stopped the dustbowl storms.
Yes, there would be a temporary hike to the deficit, but if there are no jobs, deficits will march off into the future--no jobs mean no taxes paid, and welfare or basic survival costs to pay for--or the costs of a repressive police state to keep down the growing, angry underclass, for whom there are no jobs.
The latter sounds a bit like the late Roman Empire: the wealthy got wealthier and enslaved everyone else, until the whole system collapsed in the face of the barbarians.
So, the political dialogue about taxes or credit is less relevant to them than anything that would increase demand, like accelerating job creation. So, here are Democrats saying middle income tax cuts ought to be preserved, and Republicans insisting tax cuts for the wealthy not only must be maintained, but made permanent--at a cost of $700-800 billion to the debt--because, they insist some are small business proprietors--though few are). In addition, Democrats (with one Republican) have just passed similar bills in House and Senate, providing tax cuts and extended loans to small businesses: to spur hiring. But they probably won't have much effect.
What no one, either in the administration, or in either party, or either chamber, seems to get is this: people need jobs; business needs employed people; but businesses aren't employing them. So, what's the problem? Has government never acted as temporary employer of last resort before?
There are many areas where government could meet huge needs. The unemployed don't have to have jobs digging holes and filling them. We no longer allow heavy manual labor--we have machines for that, which costs more money and skills--but we could use clean up crews, teachers assistants, parking meter attendants, construction workers to repair and rebuild, and so on. Local governments could manage local projects.
If people are so concerned about illegal immigration, then they should go to work bringing in harvests, following crops northward; maybe the Feds could subsidize citizen workers.
The point is: what's holding up the recovery is a lack of jobs. Apparently, tinkering with loans, credits and taxes is not enough. Of course it isn't. Why would a business invest in higher output, by hiring more workers, or buying more machinery, when demand for the good or service they're trying to sell is so feeble and uncertain?
What are people thinking? The best and the brightest are pretty stupid.
When no one else creates jobs, government should be the employer of last resort. It can be. There are many things of lasting value that were built by the WPA, like the mural scenes in Post Offices, and the forest windbreaks planted by the CCC in the Great Plains; they stopped the dustbowl storms.
Yes, there would be a temporary hike to the deficit, but if there are no jobs, deficits will march off into the future--no jobs mean no taxes paid, and welfare or basic survival costs to pay for--or the costs of a repressive police state to keep down the growing, angry underclass, for whom there are no jobs.
The latter sounds a bit like the late Roman Empire: the wealthy got wealthier and enslaved everyone else, until the whole system collapsed in the face of the barbarians.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Man Threatens to Blow Up NY
When Paladino, endorsed by the Tea Party, and Sarah Palin, wins the Republican gubernatorial nomination in liberal New York State, this is definitely a national trend.
What's Carl Paladino for? He'd cut Medicaid by $20 billion, cut taxes by 10%, and state government spending by 20%. To deal with the looming deficits Governor Paterson has been warning against? He also calls for giving the new governor (if it's him) authoritarian powers to carry out his program.
Good luck on that. The State legislature, regardless of party control, will not give up its powers, especially since Paladino will have to run against almost all elected legislators. Not surprisingly, as a multimillionaire businessman, Paladino also calls for slashing regulations on business. Real revolutionary! Let the frackers drill, and ruin our water supply forever!
Paladino's signature slogan is "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" The issue upon which he gained most traction up to the primary was his opposition to the so-called "Ground-zero Mosque." More strident than Lazio, his Republican opponent, he also pointed an accusing finger at Democrat Cuomo's support for the right of Muslims to build there. He'd use eminent domain to seize the site (two long blocks from "ground zero") to prevent Muslim developers from building their community center--in respect for our warriors fighting for our freedom overseas, etc.
He's been caught sending racist jokes and porn to colleagues via email, but his defenders say that it's "political correctness" that has to go. On his website he points out that the last NY governor from Buffalo (Grover Cleveland) became US President: he has "higher" ambitions.
What is it about Carl Paladino that energizes conservative voters? He's willing to say almost anything; he's been running for office for several cycles, but has been unbesmirched by the far-reaching scandals of the NY legislature: he's never held public office. He was opposed by most Republican leaders, and got only 8% of the vote in the party convention, so he's the ultimate outsider. But he brandished striking rhetoric, like promising to “take a baseball bat to Albany,” to break up entrenched politicos. Further, he does have some valid points: New Yorkers pay almost the highest taxes in the nation--especially property taxes--its legislature is dysfunctional and its government is one of the most bureaucratized.
But it's also got Wall Street: neither Paladino, nor Cuomo are willing to talk about taxing its huge profits, nor about taxing multimillionaires like him more fairly.
Paladino is the ultimate Roman Senator: he owes his appeal to his own money (he outspent Lazio 3 to 2), his "white-hot rhetoric" and perhaps to his class arrogance: he wrote of turning prisons into dormitories where welfare recipients would be taught hygiene!
If New Yorkers elect him (anything's possible), State politics will be even more strident, confrontational and disastrous.
What's Carl Paladino for? He'd cut Medicaid by $20 billion, cut taxes by 10%, and state government spending by 20%. To deal with the looming deficits Governor Paterson has been warning against? He also calls for giving the new governor (if it's him) authoritarian powers to carry out his program.
Good luck on that. The State legislature, regardless of party control, will not give up its powers, especially since Paladino will have to run against almost all elected legislators. Not surprisingly, as a multimillionaire businessman, Paladino also calls for slashing regulations on business. Real revolutionary! Let the frackers drill, and ruin our water supply forever!
Paladino's signature slogan is "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" The issue upon which he gained most traction up to the primary was his opposition to the so-called "Ground-zero Mosque." More strident than Lazio, his Republican opponent, he also pointed an accusing finger at Democrat Cuomo's support for the right of Muslims to build there. He'd use eminent domain to seize the site (two long blocks from "ground zero") to prevent Muslim developers from building their community center--in respect for our warriors fighting for our freedom overseas, etc.
He's been caught sending racist jokes and porn to colleagues via email, but his defenders say that it's "political correctness" that has to go. On his website he points out that the last NY governor from Buffalo (Grover Cleveland) became US President: he has "higher" ambitions.
What is it about Carl Paladino that energizes conservative voters? He's willing to say almost anything; he's been running for office for several cycles, but has been unbesmirched by the far-reaching scandals of the NY legislature: he's never held public office. He was opposed by most Republican leaders, and got only 8% of the vote in the party convention, so he's the ultimate outsider. But he brandished striking rhetoric, like promising to “take a baseball bat to Albany,” to break up entrenched politicos. Further, he does have some valid points: New Yorkers pay almost the highest taxes in the nation--especially property taxes--its legislature is dysfunctional and its government is one of the most bureaucratized.
But it's also got Wall Street: neither Paladino, nor Cuomo are willing to talk about taxing its huge profits, nor about taxing multimillionaires like him more fairly.
Paladino is the ultimate Roman Senator: he owes his appeal to his own money (he outspent Lazio 3 to 2), his "white-hot rhetoric" and perhaps to his class arrogance: he wrote of turning prisons into dormitories where welfare recipients would be taught hygiene!
If New Yorkers elect him (anything's possible), State politics will be even more strident, confrontational and disastrous.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Man Threatens to Blow Up World
Man threatens to blow up the world, but backs down because he's wangled a stint on TV--that's all he wanted, anyway: attention.
That's a bit like "Doctor" Terry Jones agreeing not to burn those qur'ans, after: General Petraeus and the President mouthed off about it; Gates, Secretary of Defense, called him; a local Imam spoke to him about interceding with the "Ground Zero Mosque" organizer and all the channels were covering him as hot news.
So, this Terry Jones is a Doctor (presumably of Divinity), from an unaccredited school where he bought his degree online, preaches in a run-down church to about 50 parishioners and sells used furniture on ebay. He apparently doesn't hear what he doesn't want to: that the Imam had arranged an appointment with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is central to the disputed Muslim community center in lower Manhattan (it's not at Ground Zero), but had agreed to nothing, apparently not even the meeting.
This is how you gain notoriety. This nonentity is suddenly known round the world. And you know what, there will be more Terry Jones's. It's a way to become famous, almost instantaneously. We used to have famous outlaws--bank robbers, murderers--and now?
Note: outlaws would now be called criminals: notice the difference a word makes.
How do you get a book noticed? The same way: by doing or saying or writing something outrageous, or perhaps revealing state secrets--but just a little, like Anthony Shaffer. Shaffer's Afghan memoir, Operation Dark Heart, threatens security, some claim: Army reviewers didn't, but Defense Intelligence Agency reviewers did. Shaffer worked with DIA.
So how is Shaffer's book being noticed? He's in the news, because the Defense Department is going to buy up all 10,000 copies of his first edition, so that objectionable passages can be deleted. A good use for Pentagon money!
However, some review copies have--escaped!
Will Shaffer have a bestseller on his hands? The next printing will be considerably more than 10,000, I'm sure. And maybe, once the revised edition arrives, some reviewer will release the redacted passages to Wikileaks.
Some people achieve fame through luck and talent, others through stupidity, incompetence, or sheer nastiness.
Do you know the old-fashioned way to become famous? Come from a lofty family, think well of yourself, and play by the rules. A more modern variation is: get a good education, meet the right people, and work deals.
Fifth Century Rome was old-fashioned--until it collapsed. Senators' sons followed Senators; the right people knew the right people and spent a lot of money; new ideas were distrusted and literary style was most important. Meanwhile, the western Empire slipped out of their hands, and into the control of the Germanic tribes.
Some of their leaders were a bit like Sarah Palin!
That's a bit like "Doctor" Terry Jones agreeing not to burn those qur'ans, after: General Petraeus and the President mouthed off about it; Gates, Secretary of Defense, called him; a local Imam spoke to him about interceding with the "Ground Zero Mosque" organizer and all the channels were covering him as hot news.
So, this Terry Jones is a Doctor (presumably of Divinity), from an unaccredited school where he bought his degree online, preaches in a run-down church to about 50 parishioners and sells used furniture on ebay. He apparently doesn't hear what he doesn't want to: that the Imam had arranged an appointment with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is central to the disputed Muslim community center in lower Manhattan (it's not at Ground Zero), but had agreed to nothing, apparently not even the meeting.
This is how you gain notoriety. This nonentity is suddenly known round the world. And you know what, there will be more Terry Jones's. It's a way to become famous, almost instantaneously. We used to have famous outlaws--bank robbers, murderers--and now?
Note: outlaws would now be called criminals: notice the difference a word makes.
How do you get a book noticed? The same way: by doing or saying or writing something outrageous, or perhaps revealing state secrets--but just a little, like Anthony Shaffer. Shaffer's Afghan memoir, Operation Dark Heart, threatens security, some claim: Army reviewers didn't, but Defense Intelligence Agency reviewers did. Shaffer worked with DIA.
So how is Shaffer's book being noticed? He's in the news, because the Defense Department is going to buy up all 10,000 copies of his first edition, so that objectionable passages can be deleted. A good use for Pentagon money!
However, some review copies have--escaped!
Will Shaffer have a bestseller on his hands? The next printing will be considerably more than 10,000, I'm sure. And maybe, once the revised edition arrives, some reviewer will release the redacted passages to Wikileaks.
Some people achieve fame through luck and talent, others through stupidity, incompetence, or sheer nastiness.
Do you know the old-fashioned way to become famous? Come from a lofty family, think well of yourself, and play by the rules. A more modern variation is: get a good education, meet the right people, and work deals.
Fifth Century Rome was old-fashioned--until it collapsed. Senators' sons followed Senators; the right people knew the right people and spent a lot of money; new ideas were distrusted and literary style was most important. Meanwhile, the western Empire slipped out of their hands, and into the control of the Germanic tribes.
Some of their leaders were a bit like Sarah Palin!
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Playing Cynical Politics
Politicians play politics as naturally as the Pope says Mass, but there is a difference between above-board and cynical politics. Now, both sides are playing both.
In above-board politics, a politician will push for what he's really for, whether it's tax-cuts or new taxes, more oil-drilling in the Gulf, or stopping it cold.
The dialog on tax cuts is fairly straightforward: the Republicans are for making the Bush tax cuts permanent, since they have enriched their primary constituency (and campaign funders), the very wealthy. The increase in holdings of the top 1% of income classes, and even the top 0.1% since Bush cut taxes is phenomenal.
Obama is also straightforward when he opposes the extension of tax-cuts for the wealthy: an extension would cost $700 billion in the next ten years; he needs those funds to bring down the deficits; extending tax cuts would raise them. The wealthy are sitting on their riches, not investing in jobs, so losing those tax cuts shouldn't hurt job growth.
But Republicans are also against anything Obama proposes, including tax breaks they have championed for years for corporations. Why? Cynical politics. They are against any policy proposed by Obama, or Congressional Democrats. It doesn't matter if they were for precisely that policy beforehand: if he's for it, they're against it. This is true of Obama's healthcare, too. Most of the elements of the new law are similar to Massachusetts' health care law, signed by Republican Governor Mitt Romney--who now advocates repealing the national legislation!
Up until now, it looked as if Obama was trying to promote compromise, by incorporating Republican elements (as in the health care bill) to gain bipartisan support, but now he's playing cynical politics, too. His economic proposals are not really short-term stimulus programs: they are dares. Making the R&D tax credit permanent, would not generate many new jobs, although Obama claims it would, but it does call the Republicans' bluff.
Obama is about to call for a two-year corporate investment tax credit allowing 100% write offs on investments in plant and equipment. The R&D proposal would cost over $100 billion, the write offs could cost $300 billion.
But why would corporations invest in plant and equipment, when there is lagging demand for goods and services? So, they can lay off more workers, perhaps. Neither proposal would generate many jobs, but Republicans have advocated for both, yet will block both; they don't want Democrats to get the credit: (cynical politics).
Then, Obama could highlight their obstructionism and say; Republicans even block their own proposals to stimulate the economy. This is cynical politics: would Obama propose tax credits, if he thought they would pass?
Meanwhile, businesses squeeze profits from fewer workers and don't hire, while nearly 20% of the workforce isn't working.
Which cynical politics will work best?
In above-board politics, a politician will push for what he's really for, whether it's tax-cuts or new taxes, more oil-drilling in the Gulf, or stopping it cold.
The dialog on tax cuts is fairly straightforward: the Republicans are for making the Bush tax cuts permanent, since they have enriched their primary constituency (and campaign funders), the very wealthy. The increase in holdings of the top 1% of income classes, and even the top 0.1% since Bush cut taxes is phenomenal.
Obama is also straightforward when he opposes the extension of tax-cuts for the wealthy: an extension would cost $700 billion in the next ten years; he needs those funds to bring down the deficits; extending tax cuts would raise them. The wealthy are sitting on their riches, not investing in jobs, so losing those tax cuts shouldn't hurt job growth.
But Republicans are also against anything Obama proposes, including tax breaks they have championed for years for corporations. Why? Cynical politics. They are against any policy proposed by Obama, or Congressional Democrats. It doesn't matter if they were for precisely that policy beforehand: if he's for it, they're against it. This is true of Obama's healthcare, too. Most of the elements of the new law are similar to Massachusetts' health care law, signed by Republican Governor Mitt Romney--who now advocates repealing the national legislation!
Up until now, it looked as if Obama was trying to promote compromise, by incorporating Republican elements (as in the health care bill) to gain bipartisan support, but now he's playing cynical politics, too. His economic proposals are not really short-term stimulus programs: they are dares. Making the R&D tax credit permanent, would not generate many new jobs, although Obama claims it would, but it does call the Republicans' bluff.
Obama is about to call for a two-year corporate investment tax credit allowing 100% write offs on investments in plant and equipment. The R&D proposal would cost over $100 billion, the write offs could cost $300 billion.
But why would corporations invest in plant and equipment, when there is lagging demand for goods and services? So, they can lay off more workers, perhaps. Neither proposal would generate many jobs, but Republicans have advocated for both, yet will block both; they don't want Democrats to get the credit: (cynical politics).
Then, Obama could highlight their obstructionism and say; Republicans even block their own proposals to stimulate the economy. This is cynical politics: would Obama propose tax credits, if he thought they would pass?
Meanwhile, businesses squeeze profits from fewer workers and don't hire, while nearly 20% of the workforce isn't working.
Which cynical politics will work best?
Monday, September 6, 2010
Labor Day!
Back to work tomorrow, the summer officially over, the political campaign to begin in earnest. You mean, all those Tea Party protests weren't a political campaign?
Labor Day is supposed to celebrate workers. As Garrison Keiler remarked, everywhere else workers are celebrated on May Day. Everywhere else they must be Commies! Everywhere else in developed countries labor unions account for more than 7% of the private workforce, and corporations would love to gain the kind of rights they have here. Union-busting firms probably began here; they'll probably spread elsewhere.
And then, there's the unemployed: near 10% makes those with jobs afraid to ask for anything.
The American model is no longer the well-paid middle class worker belonging to a union. Time and a half for overtime or weekends is a distant memory for most of us. Forty-hour weeks are something that seems to have disappeared, too, for the majority. Either the boss demands that you work extra hours or weekends for the same pay, or if you're salaried, for no extra pay at all.
Unions created the weekend, and that still exists, although for millions it doesn't. A friend of mine lost his $60,000 a year programming job and after the maximum unemployment all he's been able to get is an $8.50/hour job in which he works a rotating schedule, off sometimes on the weekend, sometimes Friday and Saturday, sometimes Sunday and Monday, etc..
My son goes to work daily at about 9, but doesn't get off work until 7 or 8 . His partner works even longer hours. Both are salaried, so, they earn no extra for long hours.
This seems to be the new American model. It may also be why employers aren't hiring much; they can squeeze more and more work out of their current employees with little additional cost. It's also, why they enthusiastically fight unions, and why there are fewer and fewer unionized workers. Employers call it worker "flexibility."
Capital has won; Labor has lost. With the Citizens United court decision, the preponderance of capital over labor can only increase, because corporations can buy Congress, the Executive and the courts: their funds are almost unlimited, anyone else's are extremely limited. Democracy and the shiny worker model first enunciated by Henry Ford--workers paid well enough to buy his cars--is dying fast.
Americans already work longer hours, get less vacation, and fewer benefits than virtually any other developed country. Are we on course to become like Third World countries? American workers aren't competing with Germans and Japanese, but with the Chinese! We'll be competing against India and Brazil, too.
Empire? Yeah. We'll pay for that, but not to hire American workers, and not to pay them decently, either.
The future America will be corporate imperial fascism--until the corporations bankrupt us, or take over the world.
Labor Day is supposed to celebrate workers. As Garrison Keiler remarked, everywhere else workers are celebrated on May Day. Everywhere else they must be Commies! Everywhere else in developed countries labor unions account for more than 7% of the private workforce, and corporations would love to gain the kind of rights they have here. Union-busting firms probably began here; they'll probably spread elsewhere.
And then, there's the unemployed: near 10% makes those with jobs afraid to ask for anything.
The American model is no longer the well-paid middle class worker belonging to a union. Time and a half for overtime or weekends is a distant memory for most of us. Forty-hour weeks are something that seems to have disappeared, too, for the majority. Either the boss demands that you work extra hours or weekends for the same pay, or if you're salaried, for no extra pay at all.
Unions created the weekend, and that still exists, although for millions it doesn't. A friend of mine lost his $60,000 a year programming job and after the maximum unemployment all he's been able to get is an $8.50/hour job in which he works a rotating schedule, off sometimes on the weekend, sometimes Friday and Saturday, sometimes Sunday and Monday, etc..
My son goes to work daily at about 9, but doesn't get off work until 7 or 8 . His partner works even longer hours. Both are salaried, so, they earn no extra for long hours.
This seems to be the new American model. It may also be why employers aren't hiring much; they can squeeze more and more work out of their current employees with little additional cost. It's also, why they enthusiastically fight unions, and why there are fewer and fewer unionized workers. Employers call it worker "flexibility."
Capital has won; Labor has lost. With the Citizens United court decision, the preponderance of capital over labor can only increase, because corporations can buy Congress, the Executive and the courts: their funds are almost unlimited, anyone else's are extremely limited. Democracy and the shiny worker model first enunciated by Henry Ford--workers paid well enough to buy his cars--is dying fast.
Americans already work longer hours, get less vacation, and fewer benefits than virtually any other developed country. Are we on course to become like Third World countries? American workers aren't competing with Germans and Japanese, but with the Chinese! We'll be competing against India and Brazil, too.
Empire? Yeah. We'll pay for that, but not to hire American workers, and not to pay them decently, either.
The future America will be corporate imperial fascism--until the corporations bankrupt us, or take over the world.
Friday, September 3, 2010
The Rich and 'Other People'
"The rich are better off with a smaller percentage of a fast-growing economy than a larger share of an economy that’s barely moving." So wrote Robert Reich on Thursday (NYT: 09/02/10).
In economic terms, this might be true, if the rich actually earn more money, but even if they do, more money might not be what motivates them. Consider David Koch, who is worth $17.5 billion. What's a few more billion, especially since his billions continue to grow, even if the unemployment rate remains at almost 10%, and the economy is mired in a stall?
Koch is funding Tea party candidates to drive the Republican Party far to the right, and the amount of money he's spending is astonishing. He isn't motivated to earn even more in a more egalitarian society. He's driven by a non-economic motive: power. He and his brother, Charles, have been funding right-wing "think-tanks" for almost a generation, but now they see their political chance: they've got boots on the ground.
What do the Koch's and other right-wingers want? They want to be able to push everyone else around; they want to control the government, rather than pay the multi-million dollar fines (for pollution) that the EPA has levied on the Koch's; they want to undo unionization; they want to reduce even seniors to servitude, by abolishing Social Security and Medicare.
It's a class thing. David went to Deerfield Academy and MIT. He knows that 'other people' just aren't of his high quality. After all, he started rich and has gotten much richer. Being part of a growing, vital economy, growing with it, that's not part of his persona; that would include all those (shudder) 'other people.'
The Roman Senators did something similar in the Fifth Century. They cornered all the gold and land, refusing to pay taxes that would have maintained the Roman roads, or funded defense against the Barbarians. They also reduced everyone else to serfdom. The only escape for peasants and the middle class from having everything taken from them by the impoverished state was for someone to protect them. Senators only protected them if they became their serfs or slaves.
Roman Senators would have been wealthier--and safer from the Barbarians--if they had paid taxes, and contributed towards other peoples' prosperity. But to do so, they would have lost their privileges and power.
They did lose them anyway, when the Barbarians took over in 476.
So, it's not economic rationalism that drives the money behind the right-wing movement, just as it isn't rational for its followers; for the latter it's emotional, even cathartic. For people like the Koch's, it's restoring their class to the driver's seat--where it belongs, you see.
Then, they can rip off the whole country, and no one will say boo. Hell, as our imperial adventures demonstrate, they can rip off the whole world!
In economic terms, this might be true, if the rich actually earn more money, but even if they do, more money might not be what motivates them. Consider David Koch, who is worth $17.5 billion. What's a few more billion, especially since his billions continue to grow, even if the unemployment rate remains at almost 10%, and the economy is mired in a stall?
Koch is funding Tea party candidates to drive the Republican Party far to the right, and the amount of money he's spending is astonishing. He isn't motivated to earn even more in a more egalitarian society. He's driven by a non-economic motive: power. He and his brother, Charles, have been funding right-wing "think-tanks" for almost a generation, but now they see their political chance: they've got boots on the ground.
What do the Koch's and other right-wingers want? They want to be able to push everyone else around; they want to control the government, rather than pay the multi-million dollar fines (for pollution) that the EPA has levied on the Koch's; they want to undo unionization; they want to reduce even seniors to servitude, by abolishing Social Security and Medicare.
It's a class thing. David went to Deerfield Academy and MIT. He knows that 'other people' just aren't of his high quality. After all, he started rich and has gotten much richer. Being part of a growing, vital economy, growing with it, that's not part of his persona; that would include all those (shudder) 'other people.'
The Roman Senators did something similar in the Fifth Century. They cornered all the gold and land, refusing to pay taxes that would have maintained the Roman roads, or funded defense against the Barbarians. They also reduced everyone else to serfdom. The only escape for peasants and the middle class from having everything taken from them by the impoverished state was for someone to protect them. Senators only protected them if they became their serfs or slaves.
Roman Senators would have been wealthier--and safer from the Barbarians--if they had paid taxes, and contributed towards other peoples' prosperity. But to do so, they would have lost their privileges and power.
They did lose them anyway, when the Barbarians took over in 476.
So, it's not economic rationalism that drives the money behind the right-wing movement, just as it isn't rational for its followers; for the latter it's emotional, even cathartic. For people like the Koch's, it's restoring their class to the driver's seat--where it belongs, you see.
Then, they can rip off the whole country, and no one will say boo. Hell, as our imperial adventures demonstrate, they can rip off the whole world!
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
America's Legacy in Iraq
So, we've removed all but 50,000 of our troops from Iraq. That's the good news. The bad news: it's not over. The American legacy in Iraq is a shaky Shiite government. Nothing is resolved.
About the only improvement over Saddam Hussein, is that there is no dictator enforcing arbitrary power. Instead, there are warring factions, a caretaker government because of the dissension, bombings--more Iraqis are being killed now, than were killed by, or under Saddam Hussein--corruption and war-profiteering, and still less than half the services, like electricity and water, available during Saddam's despotic rule. The US destroyed Iraq's utilities in the first phase of the war but it never adequately rebuilt them.
American servicemen and women served extraordinarily well, given the awful conditions. But we should also remember: Americans were ordered to kill civilians, encouraged to humiliate and torture Iraqi prisoners, and did both.
I was struck by the TV commentariat's treatment of President Obama's speech, either deriding his remarks on the economic effects of the war, or completely ignoring them. Yet we have squandered almost a trillion dollars, lost 4,400 American lives, ruined the lives of 100,000's more through injuries, especially psychological ones, killed 100,000's of Iraqis, displaced millions--and what have we bought for all this?
The American oil companies are in a minority among the firms who won contracts to "service" Iraqi oil fields, so Americans didn't even get the oil. We didn't create a functioning democracy; we didn't create a prosperous, safe Iraq. There is also no guarantee that the Iraqi government will be our friend. The political consequence of America's temporary dominance is the empowerment of the Shiite majority, but its leaders are very closely tied to our greatest competitor in the Mideast: Iran.
Further, in Iraq, majority rule does not mean democracy: it could mean majority tyranny. Iraq's leaders don't seem to understand that a minority should participate, and have rights. They didn't learn politics from Americans; they learned from the Baath Party, which dominated on behalf of the Sunnis, the minority favored by Saddam and Iraqi governments before him. The US invasion enabled a revolution favoring Iran's mullahs.
Obama restated his commitment to the Afghan war, but our effect upon Afghanistan, may be even worse than in Iraq. Afghanistan's government is more corrupt and dysfunctional; we can't avoid civilian casualties and resulting anger. We drive Afghans into the arms of the Taliban and strengthen al Qaeda--no matter how many leaders we kill with drones. Al Qaeda has already spread to Pakistan, a nuclear state, as well as Somalia and Yemen. US popular anger at all Muslims (expressed in the "ground zero mosque" controversy) will simply strengthen both even further.
Perhaps, Muslim extremists are comparable to Rome's barbarians, but we will bankrupt ourselves before they could ever take over--as the barbarians did in 476.
About the only improvement over Saddam Hussein, is that there is no dictator enforcing arbitrary power. Instead, there are warring factions, a caretaker government because of the dissension, bombings--more Iraqis are being killed now, than were killed by, or under Saddam Hussein--corruption and war-profiteering, and still less than half the services, like electricity and water, available during Saddam's despotic rule. The US destroyed Iraq's utilities in the first phase of the war but it never adequately rebuilt them.
American servicemen and women served extraordinarily well, given the awful conditions. But we should also remember: Americans were ordered to kill civilians, encouraged to humiliate and torture Iraqi prisoners, and did both.
I was struck by the TV commentariat's treatment of President Obama's speech, either deriding his remarks on the economic effects of the war, or completely ignoring them. Yet we have squandered almost a trillion dollars, lost 4,400 American lives, ruined the lives of 100,000's more through injuries, especially psychological ones, killed 100,000's of Iraqis, displaced millions--and what have we bought for all this?
The American oil companies are in a minority among the firms who won contracts to "service" Iraqi oil fields, so Americans didn't even get the oil. We didn't create a functioning democracy; we didn't create a prosperous, safe Iraq. There is also no guarantee that the Iraqi government will be our friend. The political consequence of America's temporary dominance is the empowerment of the Shiite majority, but its leaders are very closely tied to our greatest competitor in the Mideast: Iran.
Further, in Iraq, majority rule does not mean democracy: it could mean majority tyranny. Iraq's leaders don't seem to understand that a minority should participate, and have rights. They didn't learn politics from Americans; they learned from the Baath Party, which dominated on behalf of the Sunnis, the minority favored by Saddam and Iraqi governments before him. The US invasion enabled a revolution favoring Iran's mullahs.
Obama restated his commitment to the Afghan war, but our effect upon Afghanistan, may be even worse than in Iraq. Afghanistan's government is more corrupt and dysfunctional; we can't avoid civilian casualties and resulting anger. We drive Afghans into the arms of the Taliban and strengthen al Qaeda--no matter how many leaders we kill with drones. Al Qaeda has already spread to Pakistan, a nuclear state, as well as Somalia and Yemen. US popular anger at all Muslims (expressed in the "ground zero mosque" controversy) will simply strengthen both even further.
Perhaps, Muslim extremists are comparable to Rome's barbarians, but we will bankrupt ourselves before they could ever take over--as the barbarians did in 476.
Friday, August 27, 2010
The Fall of The Republic
The US is beginning to lose the ability to govern itself. States are going close to bankrupt, because politicians can't raise taxes. The Federal government has passed some reforms, but it's too early to say whether the major compromises purchased by "producer" interests, render those reforms nugatory. Most real action appears stymied, because the opposition is no longer "loyal," it is obstructionist.
The Federal government can borrow, but it's borrowing even more than it's spending on the Empire (wars, bases all over the world, fancy and over-priced materiel), but it's not borrowing from its own people. It's borrowing from foreigners (China, oil exporters, Germany).
If, as seems likely, the huge influx of corporate cash into the mid-term elections elects "free market" fundamentalists into a legislative majority in at least one house, or a stronger blocking minority, then the current Congress will actually seem functional in comparison to what we'll face in 2011.
In order for government to work, a majority ought to be able to govern. When a small minority can block (the power to put a "hold" on any piece of legislation empowers a minority of one), and 41% can effectively control the Senate, you don't have a democracy, and you don't have an effective government.
In a previous post, I mentioned a Canadian who was unable to explain to his son why the American government didn't work. In most "representative democracies," there is accountability, because the majority creates policy. In parliamentary systems, that majority also forms the government. In the US, no one is accountable. The Democrats aren't accountable, because they can't form policy if the minority objects. The President isn't accountable, because he can't overpower the minority. The minority isn't accountable, because it isn't the government.
The only accountability appears to be to the large-scale funders of campaigns and lobbies. Since they are large-scale because they have lots of money (now completely unleashed by the Citizens United Supreme Court decision), their interests heavily tilt towards: favoring wealth, favoring already powerful institutions, and favoring the status quo from which they have profited so lavishly.
That leaves out the people, especially those who need help and protection. It also leaves out meaningful responses to real problems: climate change, military expenditures, unsustainable wars and unemployment; it opposes the interests and welfare of the majority.
One example: cut Social Security and Medicare, and/or privatize both, in order to sustain our imperial expenditures--and to enable "Finance" to prey on the elderly, too.
Something like this happened with the Roman Empire: the majority was relegated to the dole; a tiny minority cornered all the wealth. If this happens now, it won't take 400 years for the system to collapse.
The Federal government can borrow, but it's borrowing even more than it's spending on the Empire (wars, bases all over the world, fancy and over-priced materiel), but it's not borrowing from its own people. It's borrowing from foreigners (China, oil exporters, Germany).
If, as seems likely, the huge influx of corporate cash into the mid-term elections elects "free market" fundamentalists into a legislative majority in at least one house, or a stronger blocking minority, then the current Congress will actually seem functional in comparison to what we'll face in 2011.
In order for government to work, a majority ought to be able to govern. When a small minority can block (the power to put a "hold" on any piece of legislation empowers a minority of one), and 41% can effectively control the Senate, you don't have a democracy, and you don't have an effective government.
In a previous post, I mentioned a Canadian who was unable to explain to his son why the American government didn't work. In most "representative democracies," there is accountability, because the majority creates policy. In parliamentary systems, that majority also forms the government. In the US, no one is accountable. The Democrats aren't accountable, because they can't form policy if the minority objects. The President isn't accountable, because he can't overpower the minority. The minority isn't accountable, because it isn't the government.
The only accountability appears to be to the large-scale funders of campaigns and lobbies. Since they are large-scale because they have lots of money (now completely unleashed by the Citizens United Supreme Court decision), their interests heavily tilt towards: favoring wealth, favoring already powerful institutions, and favoring the status quo from which they have profited so lavishly.
That leaves out the people, especially those who need help and protection. It also leaves out meaningful responses to real problems: climate change, military expenditures, unsustainable wars and unemployment; it opposes the interests and welfare of the majority.
One example: cut Social Security and Medicare, and/or privatize both, in order to sustain our imperial expenditures--and to enable "Finance" to prey on the elderly, too.
Something like this happened with the Roman Empire: the majority was relegated to the dole; a tiny minority cornered all the wealth. If this happens now, it won't take 400 years for the system to collapse.
Monday, August 23, 2010
The Politics of Diversion
What's amazing is how well it works, especially when people are desperate and angry for completely different reasons. Diversion means, that you, as political opinion-maker, invent something to rile the boobs, so that they don't blame you when you steal them blind.
It worked in the segregated South: just keep those N--s down and we'll be all right--me on my plantation, you in your shack. It worked with Commies; it worked with gays; it worked with Latinos. And now it works with Muslims. Diversion is like three-card Monte, where the player hides the high card in plain sight, and draws the bettor with his diversionary hand.
Don't pay any attention to losing your unemployment: scream and shout about those Mooslim terrorists. Don't even think that my vote against extending unemployment insurance had anything to do with you: just gotta stop those Mooslims. Lost your house? Rail at those Mooslims, not at me, although I voted to protect the banks--against you.
This uproar about the Muslim-sponsored community center, two blocks away and invisible from the still-unfinished "Ground Zero" site, jostling a strip club on the same block, this is diversionary politics at its most pernicious. Republicans like Newt Gingrich, and blowhards like Rush Limbaugh, blat vicious idiocy about Muslims, while these same "patriots" urge American troops to "win the hearts and minds" of--Muslims!--in Afghanistan, Iraq and the whole Middle East.
Do these people have a brain in their heads? What they have is an extraordinary amount of short-sighted political opportunism. Do they not think about consequences? What happens if they win the elections and want to promote their dirty little wars? They'll find they've made them inordinately worse and more dangerous for Americans.
Of course, Osama bin Laden is going to take advantage. He gets well-publicized "proof" that the US is conducting a crusade against Islam. All Muslims, even Muslim-Americans, he'll helpfully point out, should join al Qaeda and strike a blow against the anti-Muslim American Empire. Even American leaders, like Minority Leader Boehner, bray full-throated against Islam. And those who claimed they are Islam's friends, stand silent, or writhe in ambiguous retreat.
The most disturbing aspect of this whole manufactured controversy is the spinelessness of people who know better, especially Obama. After an eloquent defense of freedom of worship, before Muslims celebrating Eid at the White House, Obama backed away from defending the Muslim community center. Senate leader, Reid, whimpered that maybe it should be built someplace else.
The only way to combat this political fraud is to hammer real issues: jobs and the economy, and reveal what these gangsters voted for: greater misery, and inaction--and keeping taxes low for the wealthy.
Except for Mayor Bloomberg, "the best lack all conviction and the worst are filled with passionate intensity--What rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"
It worked in the segregated South: just keep those N--s down and we'll be all right--me on my plantation, you in your shack. It worked with Commies; it worked with gays; it worked with Latinos. And now it works with Muslims. Diversion is like three-card Monte, where the player hides the high card in plain sight, and draws the bettor with his diversionary hand.
Don't pay any attention to losing your unemployment: scream and shout about those Mooslim terrorists. Don't even think that my vote against extending unemployment insurance had anything to do with you: just gotta stop those Mooslims. Lost your house? Rail at those Mooslims, not at me, although I voted to protect the banks--against you.
This uproar about the Muslim-sponsored community center, two blocks away and invisible from the still-unfinished "Ground Zero" site, jostling a strip club on the same block, this is diversionary politics at its most pernicious. Republicans like Newt Gingrich, and blowhards like Rush Limbaugh, blat vicious idiocy about Muslims, while these same "patriots" urge American troops to "win the hearts and minds" of--Muslims!--in Afghanistan, Iraq and the whole Middle East.
Do these people have a brain in their heads? What they have is an extraordinary amount of short-sighted political opportunism. Do they not think about consequences? What happens if they win the elections and want to promote their dirty little wars? They'll find they've made them inordinately worse and more dangerous for Americans.
Of course, Osama bin Laden is going to take advantage. He gets well-publicized "proof" that the US is conducting a crusade against Islam. All Muslims, even Muslim-Americans, he'll helpfully point out, should join al Qaeda and strike a blow against the anti-Muslim American Empire. Even American leaders, like Minority Leader Boehner, bray full-throated against Islam. And those who claimed they are Islam's friends, stand silent, or writhe in ambiguous retreat.
The most disturbing aspect of this whole manufactured controversy is the spinelessness of people who know better, especially Obama. After an eloquent defense of freedom of worship, before Muslims celebrating Eid at the White House, Obama backed away from defending the Muslim community center. Senate leader, Reid, whimpered that maybe it should be built someplace else.
The only way to combat this political fraud is to hammer real issues: jobs and the economy, and reveal what these gangsters voted for: greater misery, and inaction--and keeping taxes low for the wealthy.
Except for Mayor Bloomberg, "the best lack all conviction and the worst are filled with passionate intensity--What rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"
Friday, August 20, 2010
People Don't Matter
That appears to be the predominant political economy of our day. Our unemployment rate remains high, and in fact may be much higher than the 9.5% cited by our government, but still, the movers and shakers (M's&S's) are debating how to cut the deficit.
First of all, now is not the time to cut deficits through austerity, because deficits can actually rise if unemployment, bankruptcies and foreclosures continue to rise. Austerity could contribute to higher unemployment, etc. and therefore not only lower tax revenues but also raise costs (more people looking for help).
The only way to cut government expenditures without a negative impact on jobs, housing and small business, would be to bring troops home from foreign parts, closing down foreign operations, like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and some of the bases in 140 plus countries.
The M's&S's don't consider cutting our imperial adventures, however. What they are doing is: being niggardly about unemployment extensions, food stamps (Congress just cut next year's appropriation, despite a surge in applicants), and even tax credits for small business. What they are talking about are cuts to Social Security and Medicare, while Republicans are nearly unanimous about extending the Bush tax cuts, including those that have made the wealthy so much wealthier.
The argument they make about the latter: lower taxes will stimulate investment, is belied by lagging investment now, with those same low tax rates. Elites are sitting on their money, or paying $100+ million for Picassos, not investing in jobs. Investors will also invest in Brazil, or Russia, places where they'll get more of a return, until growth is restored here. Here, they'll park it in Treasuries, or gold.
Our unemployment rate may be twice as high as the 9.5% rate, when those without jobs for more than a year are included. Yet, all the (supposedly) liberal administration and Democratic Congress can do is add a little money here and there to keep things from getting dramatically worse. The Republicans' push for deficit cutting would make things worse, not better, but since Americans are unhappy with Democrats' half-measures, it looks increasingly likely that we'll go that route.
People don't matter, but corporate profits do. Big banks are now doing very well, and big corporations have found ways to squeeze profits out of job-cutting and foreign operations, so, they will resist taxes on the wealthy and government stimulus programs, and spend 100's of millions on campaigns to promote their positions.
The only hope would be if people see through the corporate agenda. Instead, millions worry about a Muslim community center two blocks from "Ground Zero!"
The global takeover by the extremely wealthy is proceeding. They are much like the Senators of Fifth Century Rome. Only an aroused populace can stop this.
First of all, now is not the time to cut deficits through austerity, because deficits can actually rise if unemployment, bankruptcies and foreclosures continue to rise. Austerity could contribute to higher unemployment, etc. and therefore not only lower tax revenues but also raise costs (more people looking for help).
The only way to cut government expenditures without a negative impact on jobs, housing and small business, would be to bring troops home from foreign parts, closing down foreign operations, like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and some of the bases in 140 plus countries.
The M's&S's don't consider cutting our imperial adventures, however. What they are doing is: being niggardly about unemployment extensions, food stamps (Congress just cut next year's appropriation, despite a surge in applicants), and even tax credits for small business. What they are talking about are cuts to Social Security and Medicare, while Republicans are nearly unanimous about extending the Bush tax cuts, including those that have made the wealthy so much wealthier.
The argument they make about the latter: lower taxes will stimulate investment, is belied by lagging investment now, with those same low tax rates. Elites are sitting on their money, or paying $100+ million for Picassos, not investing in jobs. Investors will also invest in Brazil, or Russia, places where they'll get more of a return, until growth is restored here. Here, they'll park it in Treasuries, or gold.
Our unemployment rate may be twice as high as the 9.5% rate, when those without jobs for more than a year are included. Yet, all the (supposedly) liberal administration and Democratic Congress can do is add a little money here and there to keep things from getting dramatically worse. The Republicans' push for deficit cutting would make things worse, not better, but since Americans are unhappy with Democrats' half-measures, it looks increasingly likely that we'll go that route.
People don't matter, but corporate profits do. Big banks are now doing very well, and big corporations have found ways to squeeze profits out of job-cutting and foreign operations, so, they will resist taxes on the wealthy and government stimulus programs, and spend 100's of millions on campaigns to promote their positions.
The only hope would be if people see through the corporate agenda. Instead, millions worry about a Muslim community center two blocks from "Ground Zero!"
The global takeover by the extremely wealthy is proceeding. They are much like the Senators of Fifth Century Rome. Only an aroused populace can stop this.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
A Democratic Protest: Three Die
I own land in a remote part of the country, and make my living by farming it. I produce wheat and sometimes opium poppy. I've lived on the land all my life; it's been in the family for generations, just like our neighbors on both sides: they have lived on their land for generations.
Foreign soldiers come. They have lots of guns. They camp out on our land, our neighbors', too; we're too afraid to say anything. We don't want to go to the rebels, because we've thought the new talk about 'democracy' and 'freedom' sounds good. When the rebels controlled, they didn't talk about things like that. They terrified us.
These foreign soldiers say they are protecting us from the rebels. But in a few days, they bring in more soldiers, and then big machines that tear up our precious soil to make big buildings they bring in pieces; they begin to put these together.
But they never asked if they could buy our land! We would have told them we don't want to sell; it is our mother. We have lived on it for generations; she has fed us all that time. They didn't even offer money.
We talk to our neighbors, and they talk to theirs, and pretty soon, someone says: "Let's protest; you can do that in democracies. These foreigners say they are bringing democracy, so we can do this."
We march to what used to be our land, and there are a lot of people, maybe several hundred, marching with us. We surround the people putting up the buildings and torturing our earth. Our neighbor, who speaks some of their language, says to them, "We protest! You are taking our land! We did not give it to you! We want it back!"
We close in on the builders and soldiers. I can't see much of the soldiers' faces because of their helmets. They look very large, and then one of them points his big weapon at us.
But they are for democracy! We are peacefully demonstrating, the way we should in a democracy! I tell our people this, and everyone agrees. So, we don't back away.
Suddenly, bullets and fire explode from one and then another of the soldiers' weapons. My friend falls down. Then the neighbor who speaks some of their language! We turn to run and my son, ahead of me, a fine, strong boy of twelve, he falls, too! I pick him up, but he's dead!
These foreigners are as bad as the rebels! Maybe worse. Maybe the rebels are right: keep the foreigners out. The rebels say they have learned their lesson; they will not govern as they did before.
I am not sure about this, but maybe I'll help them, anyway: to avenge my son.
A re-creation of a recent event in Afghanistan: three people died, one a 12-year old boy.
Foreign soldiers come. They have lots of guns. They camp out on our land, our neighbors', too; we're too afraid to say anything. We don't want to go to the rebels, because we've thought the new talk about 'democracy' and 'freedom' sounds good. When the rebels controlled, they didn't talk about things like that. They terrified us.
These foreign soldiers say they are protecting us from the rebels. But in a few days, they bring in more soldiers, and then big machines that tear up our precious soil to make big buildings they bring in pieces; they begin to put these together.
But they never asked if they could buy our land! We would have told them we don't want to sell; it is our mother. We have lived on it for generations; she has fed us all that time. They didn't even offer money.
We talk to our neighbors, and they talk to theirs, and pretty soon, someone says: "Let's protest; you can do that in democracies. These foreigners say they are bringing democracy, so we can do this."
We march to what used to be our land, and there are a lot of people, maybe several hundred, marching with us. We surround the people putting up the buildings and torturing our earth. Our neighbor, who speaks some of their language, says to them, "We protest! You are taking our land! We did not give it to you! We want it back!"
We close in on the builders and soldiers. I can't see much of the soldiers' faces because of their helmets. They look very large, and then one of them points his big weapon at us.
But they are for democracy! We are peacefully demonstrating, the way we should in a democracy! I tell our people this, and everyone agrees. So, we don't back away.
Suddenly, bullets and fire explode from one and then another of the soldiers' weapons. My friend falls down. Then the neighbor who speaks some of their language! We turn to run and my son, ahead of me, a fine, strong boy of twelve, he falls, too! I pick him up, but he's dead!
These foreigners are as bad as the rebels! Maybe worse. Maybe the rebels are right: keep the foreigners out. The rebels say they have learned their lesson; they will not govern as they did before.
I am not sure about this, but maybe I'll help them, anyway: to avenge my son.
A re-creation of a recent event in Afghanistan: three people died, one a 12-year old boy.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
The G-20 and the Secret Police
I'm writing from Kitchener, Ontario. I was talking to a Canadian about how our government system (doesn't) work: he was amazed.
Ontario, was where the G-10 met. People are disturbed by what happened. The Liberal provincial government instituted secret police powers during the meeting, enabling the police to round up anyone they thought might make trouble--pre-emptive detention. Hundreds were imprisoned, simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Apparently, almost anyone with a Quebec license plate was suspect.
There is much feeling here, especially in Montreal, that the G-20 has usurped the functions of the UN, and is little more than a conspiracy of the Great Powers to control the world, economically, militarily and politically. Montrealers have a point. As they see it, the powers were meeting to agree to cut services everywhere, in the face of the "Great Recession," and to protect the wealthy and large corporations, which have rebounded from the 2007-2008 debacle, while leaving most people behind (with large and rising unemployment). Obama was virtually alone in arguing for the need for more stimulus so that the largest economies could generate the employment needed to escape from the recession. He didn't come away with much.
So, back to the G-20 meeting: remember the clips of burning police cruisers? The provincial police abandoned scores of police vehicles on the streets. Another Ontarian remarked: they never abandon police cruisers. This was a set up, so the crazies could come and trash them, the media could get pictures of the destruction, and people could be persuaded that the police crack-down was necessary. Some are convinced that the crazies were either police saboteurs, or were encouraged by them.
Increasingly, it does look like a general consensus among world elites: let unemployment stay high; work your workers harder, don't hire, invest in laborsaving technology, instead. In addition, cut taxes on the wealthy, or, in the case of the US: keep them low, with the Bush tax-cuts.
There is one fly in their ointment, in the US, which brings us back to the crazy American system of government. Even if Tea Party Republicans gain seats, they won't be able to extend the Bush tax cuts: that would take 60 votes in the Senate--unless we let the Democrats sign on.
If the tax cuts expire, there will be a revenue bonanza. What progressives need to do is use that as leverage--for stimulus programs.
In the US, we have the makings of a true class struggle: the very rich against everyone else; tax cuts for people who already have enough--and refuse to invest in jobs--or money for jobs and a true greening of America. But in order for this to happen, a majority of Democratic Senators needs to realize: they could be popular heroes, if they only took a chance.
Otherwise, the Selfish Class has won: worldwide.
Ontario, was where the G-10 met. People are disturbed by what happened. The Liberal provincial government instituted secret police powers during the meeting, enabling the police to round up anyone they thought might make trouble--pre-emptive detention. Hundreds were imprisoned, simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Apparently, almost anyone with a Quebec license plate was suspect.
There is much feeling here, especially in Montreal, that the G-20 has usurped the functions of the UN, and is little more than a conspiracy of the Great Powers to control the world, economically, militarily and politically. Montrealers have a point. As they see it, the powers were meeting to agree to cut services everywhere, in the face of the "Great Recession," and to protect the wealthy and large corporations, which have rebounded from the 2007-2008 debacle, while leaving most people behind (with large and rising unemployment). Obama was virtually alone in arguing for the need for more stimulus so that the largest economies could generate the employment needed to escape from the recession. He didn't come away with much.
So, back to the G-20 meeting: remember the clips of burning police cruisers? The provincial police abandoned scores of police vehicles on the streets. Another Ontarian remarked: they never abandon police cruisers. This was a set up, so the crazies could come and trash them, the media could get pictures of the destruction, and people could be persuaded that the police crack-down was necessary. Some are convinced that the crazies were either police saboteurs, or were encouraged by them.
Increasingly, it does look like a general consensus among world elites: let unemployment stay high; work your workers harder, don't hire, invest in laborsaving technology, instead. In addition, cut taxes on the wealthy, or, in the case of the US: keep them low, with the Bush tax-cuts.
There is one fly in their ointment, in the US, which brings us back to the crazy American system of government. Even if Tea Party Republicans gain seats, they won't be able to extend the Bush tax cuts: that would take 60 votes in the Senate--unless we let the Democrats sign on.
If the tax cuts expire, there will be a revenue bonanza. What progressives need to do is use that as leverage--for stimulus programs.
In the US, we have the makings of a true class struggle: the very rich against everyone else; tax cuts for people who already have enough--and refuse to invest in jobs--or money for jobs and a true greening of America. But in order for this to happen, a majority of Democratic Senators needs to realize: they could be popular heroes, if they only took a chance.
Otherwise, the Selfish Class has won: worldwide.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
The Budget War and the War War
Paul Krugman decries the deficit hysteria, but even he doesn't make much of the connection between our turning off the streetlights (literally) and the Wars, and/or "Defense."
How much do we spend on Defense every week? Between $26-27 billion. What do we get for it? Two horrendous wars that are going nowhere, and over eight hundred bases abroad in nearly 140 countries. Probably half that money is going out of the country, and most of the rest supports industries that are working on what are effectively cost-plus contracts to produce things that will kill, or enable people to kill, many people.
Employment in civilian sectors costs half as much per worker as defense industries. If the same money were spent on infrastructure, or on human services like teaching, twice as many could be employed. So, a good part of the unemployment problem could be solved if defense spending were radically cut and the savings spent on domestic needs. Further, more of the money would stay in the US.
When we have to turn off streetlights, cut back on police, gut local school staffs, we are, as Krugman points out, screeching in reverse. Our nation will be the poorer for all these austerities.
Growing debt could conceivably become a problem at some point, although right now, US government bonds still sell easily at extremely low interest rates. So, as Krugman--and I in my earlier blog--have pointed out, now is not the time to be worrying about high deficits; we need to really stimulate the economy, not just stabilize it and say the job is done.
But, the huge amount of money going to defense could finance real domestic needs. If the world needs a policeman, let the world community step up; why should the US alone? Further, our world policeman role has had few positive effects in the last 50 years. We caused the Middle East and East Asian conflagrations by our interventions to install the Shah in Iran, to create Islamist opponents to leftist Afghans, and to buttress a corrupt regime in Vietnam.
Everyone (except a few large corporations) would have been a lot better off if we had kept our hands to ourselves. We meddle virtually everywhere, and create enemies even in Europe because of it.
So, the best way to stimulate the economy and answer the howls of the deficit hawks at the same time is to withdraw, not just from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from most of those 850 odd bases all over the world, and to stop equipping our military with high-priced toys that make them think they can overawe the world.
Looking at history, however, the above seems unlikely. It certainly didn't happen in Rome--until it was forced on her by defeats. That will happen to us, unless we withdraw on our own terms. Now.
How much do we spend on Defense every week? Between $26-27 billion. What do we get for it? Two horrendous wars that are going nowhere, and over eight hundred bases abroad in nearly 140 countries. Probably half that money is going out of the country, and most of the rest supports industries that are working on what are effectively cost-plus contracts to produce things that will kill, or enable people to kill, many people.
Employment in civilian sectors costs half as much per worker as defense industries. If the same money were spent on infrastructure, or on human services like teaching, twice as many could be employed. So, a good part of the unemployment problem could be solved if defense spending were radically cut and the savings spent on domestic needs. Further, more of the money would stay in the US.
When we have to turn off streetlights, cut back on police, gut local school staffs, we are, as Krugman points out, screeching in reverse. Our nation will be the poorer for all these austerities.
Growing debt could conceivably become a problem at some point, although right now, US government bonds still sell easily at extremely low interest rates. So, as Krugman--and I in my earlier blog--have pointed out, now is not the time to be worrying about high deficits; we need to really stimulate the economy, not just stabilize it and say the job is done.
But, the huge amount of money going to defense could finance real domestic needs. If the world needs a policeman, let the world community step up; why should the US alone? Further, our world policeman role has had few positive effects in the last 50 years. We caused the Middle East and East Asian conflagrations by our interventions to install the Shah in Iran, to create Islamist opponents to leftist Afghans, and to buttress a corrupt regime in Vietnam.
Everyone (except a few large corporations) would have been a lot better off if we had kept our hands to ourselves. We meddle virtually everywhere, and create enemies even in Europe because of it.
So, the best way to stimulate the economy and answer the howls of the deficit hawks at the same time is to withdraw, not just from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from most of those 850 odd bases all over the world, and to stop equipping our military with high-priced toys that make them think they can overawe the world.
Looking at history, however, the above seems unlikely. It certainly didn't happen in Rome--until it was forced on her by defeats. That will happen to us, unless we withdraw on our own terms. Now.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Who is Barry Soetaro?
Birthers may sound crazy, when they rant about "Barry Soetaro," but it isn't just crazy; their rants have a deep political purpose.
The name was supposedly used by Barack Obama to claim a scholarship for foreign students at Occidental College. The claim is a fake, the story a fake and the only thing true about it is that Obama's Indonesian step-father had the surname Soetaro. Obama attended Occidental, not as a foreign student, but under his real name. He didn't receive (or apply for) a scholarship for foreign students. Furthermore, no Indonesian students received scholarships there during the time in question.
Yet, on conservative websites, posters refer to Barry Soetaro as if the story were accomplished fact. Both conservatives and liberals believe crank stories about their opponents. There was much paranoia among liberals about Bush setting up "concentration camps," to round up opponents, and recently, conservatives have come up with the same paranoid story--except it's Obama not Bush and conservatives not liberals who would be targets.
But birthers go beyond this. Facts don't matter: their main task is to deny any legitimacy Obama's administration has as an elected government. If they can persuade enough people that Obama is an alien, born in Kenya (or Indonesia), or that he acquired Indonesian citizenship, then to all these people he is no longer the legitimate, elected President of the United States, since only "natural born" American citizens are eligible to hold the office.
What is at stake is the legitimacy of the US Government.
So, what is legitimacy, and why is it important? Legitimacy is the right to rule. Ordinarily, elected officials gain legitimacy through legal election. Bush gained his through a decision of the US Supreme Court, since he won fewer votes than Gore, and might not have carried Florida's deciding electoral votes without the court's intervention. Because of that, the opposition questioned his legitimacy, but Gore's acceptance of Bush's election made the question moot.
Many wars have been fought over legitimacy. The Wars of the Roses in Britain were over that issue, and many of the civil wars fought in the Roman Empire were battles for legitimacy. The importance of the Queen in the UK is that she ensures legitimacy for the British government.
So, what birthers are really trying to do is to persuade Americans that their government is illegitimate. Given past history, this could be particularly dangerous. Since the courts have thrown out birther suits as without merit, dedicated birthers can conclude that the court system is against them, too.
So, if they can't win power through elections, the only recourse for them might be what Tea Partier Sharron Angle calls "second amendment solutions," in other words, armed rebellion. One of the political factors that destroyed the Roman Empire was more than a century of civil war--over legitimacy.
It could happen here.
The name was supposedly used by Barack Obama to claim a scholarship for foreign students at Occidental College. The claim is a fake, the story a fake and the only thing true about it is that Obama's Indonesian step-father had the surname Soetaro. Obama attended Occidental, not as a foreign student, but under his real name. He didn't receive (or apply for) a scholarship for foreign students. Furthermore, no Indonesian students received scholarships there during the time in question.
Yet, on conservative websites, posters refer to Barry Soetaro as if the story were accomplished fact. Both conservatives and liberals believe crank stories about their opponents. There was much paranoia among liberals about Bush setting up "concentration camps," to round up opponents, and recently, conservatives have come up with the same paranoid story--except it's Obama not Bush and conservatives not liberals who would be targets.
But birthers go beyond this. Facts don't matter: their main task is to deny any legitimacy Obama's administration has as an elected government. If they can persuade enough people that Obama is an alien, born in Kenya (or Indonesia), or that he acquired Indonesian citizenship, then to all these people he is no longer the legitimate, elected President of the United States, since only "natural born" American citizens are eligible to hold the office.
What is at stake is the legitimacy of the US Government.
So, what is legitimacy, and why is it important? Legitimacy is the right to rule. Ordinarily, elected officials gain legitimacy through legal election. Bush gained his through a decision of the US Supreme Court, since he won fewer votes than Gore, and might not have carried Florida's deciding electoral votes without the court's intervention. Because of that, the opposition questioned his legitimacy, but Gore's acceptance of Bush's election made the question moot.
Many wars have been fought over legitimacy. The Wars of the Roses in Britain were over that issue, and many of the civil wars fought in the Roman Empire were battles for legitimacy. The importance of the Queen in the UK is that she ensures legitimacy for the British government.
So, what birthers are really trying to do is to persuade Americans that their government is illegitimate. Given past history, this could be particularly dangerous. Since the courts have thrown out birther suits as without merit, dedicated birthers can conclude that the court system is against them, too.
So, if they can't win power through elections, the only recourse for them might be what Tea Partier Sharron Angle calls "second amendment solutions," in other words, armed rebellion. One of the political factors that destroyed the Roman Empire was more than a century of civil war--over legitimacy.
It could happen here.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
To the Barricades!
Unemployment is painfully high, huge numbers are unemployed long-term, and Congress struggles mightily just to pass an extension of unemployment benefits? "Conservative" Democrats (heartless perhaps) and almost all Republicans voted against. Why? Fear of the deficit.
It's large, but mostly because of the recession, two wars and the hungry military. So-called conservatives say they can't help the unemployed, because it will increase the deficit. But they say Congress should pass tax cut extensions for the wealthy--even though that would increase the debt many billions more than minimal unemployment aid.
Aid to the unemployed, means that people can stay in their homes or apartments, can eat regular meals, can minimally get by, and can look for jobs. That money is nearly all spent in the economy, just on survival. It not only keeps people surviving, it also keeps businesses alive, those providing the necessary goods and services for them.
To get the economy out of its demand trap--too little demand, too much supply--you need to pump up demand by the buyer of last resort: the government can either spend directly, or put money in people's pockets.
However, if taxes for the wealthy are cut, not only does that radically increase the deficit, it has only a weak effect on demand, and little on investment. Here's why: the wealthy spend only some of their money, and less in the United States, since they consume more imports, and travel more. They don't need to spend all the money; they can save it. But does that spark investment? Businesses invest when they foresee demand for their product or service, not because rich people have idle cash. Idle cash fuels speculation, as it did until 2007, and would if the economy continues in the doldrums with high unemployment.
The fear of growing deficits and rising interest on the debt and inflation are misplaced. Lowered interest rates boost growth, but they can go no lower; there is real danger of deflation, not inflation. Further, money spent to put people back to work is the best investment this nation could make.
In addition, there is a push to cut entitlements in order to balance the budget, even though the same "deficit hawks" are promoting lower taxes for the wealthy, and continuation of the war effort--or even escalation. They can all make money on a war with Iran. But doesn't entitlement mean you earned it?
The unemployed and long-term jobless, they don't matter. Just write them off. The stock market's doing fine, profits are up.
Just as in fifth century Rome, the political elite (represented by a 41% controlling minority of the Senate), control the empire with their money. Who said the US was a democracy?
We need a real, (hopefully bloodless) revolution in which the people reclaim their power. Everything will get worse, unless that happens.
It's large, but mostly because of the recession, two wars and the hungry military. So-called conservatives say they can't help the unemployed, because it will increase the deficit. But they say Congress should pass tax cut extensions for the wealthy--even though that would increase the debt many billions more than minimal unemployment aid.
Aid to the unemployed, means that people can stay in their homes or apartments, can eat regular meals, can minimally get by, and can look for jobs. That money is nearly all spent in the economy, just on survival. It not only keeps people surviving, it also keeps businesses alive, those providing the necessary goods and services for them.
To get the economy out of its demand trap--too little demand, too much supply--you need to pump up demand by the buyer of last resort: the government can either spend directly, or put money in people's pockets.
However, if taxes for the wealthy are cut, not only does that radically increase the deficit, it has only a weak effect on demand, and little on investment. Here's why: the wealthy spend only some of their money, and less in the United States, since they consume more imports, and travel more. They don't need to spend all the money; they can save it. But does that spark investment? Businesses invest when they foresee demand for their product or service, not because rich people have idle cash. Idle cash fuels speculation, as it did until 2007, and would if the economy continues in the doldrums with high unemployment.
The fear of growing deficits and rising interest on the debt and inflation are misplaced. Lowered interest rates boost growth, but they can go no lower; there is real danger of deflation, not inflation. Further, money spent to put people back to work is the best investment this nation could make.
In addition, there is a push to cut entitlements in order to balance the budget, even though the same "deficit hawks" are promoting lower taxes for the wealthy, and continuation of the war effort--or even escalation. They can all make money on a war with Iran. But doesn't entitlement mean you earned it?
The unemployed and long-term jobless, they don't matter. Just write them off. The stock market's doing fine, profits are up.
Just as in fifth century Rome, the political elite (represented by a 41% controlling minority of the Senate), control the empire with their money. Who said the US was a democracy?
We need a real, (hopefully bloodless) revolution in which the people reclaim their power. Everything will get worse, unless that happens.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Deflation Looms
My realtor tells me my mother's house is losing 1% of its value every month. That's not because it's falling down; we've spent almost $200,000 to renovate it. It's not because the neighborhood is going downhill, either. The land around it is held by people whose deeds, or zoning, restrict them to one house only, and across the road land is preserved through a conservation easement, allowing no additional houses.
No, the price is going down because there are too many houses and too little money--in the local housing market. And what's happening here is happening elsewhere even more dramatically. That's why so many homeowners are "underwater," and walking away from their homes. Many of them can't find jobs, so, foreclosures are increasing and a record number of people have been forced from their homes.
Foreclosures build downward pressure on house prices: banks try to unload the houses they're stuck with.
There are short-term fixes, such as renegotiating mortgages, or allowing defaulting owners to rent in the interim: both would reduce the number of under-priced houses flooding the market, but the first isn't working--many don't have jobs, or have declining earnings--and the second has hardly been tried.
Falling prices might be a good thing for someone with money, but the reason for it is: most people have too little: it's called price deflation.
Price deflation can be self-reinforcing, i.e. can trigger a downward spiral. Lower prices mean businesses make less in profits. A home-builder, for example, will have to lay off his workers, because he can't sell the houses he builds, or has to sell them at cost, or less. He's losing money, so he lays off workers, or goes out of business, which increases unemployment, so fewer, still, have money. That drives prices even lower.
Even some inflation hawks on the Fed Board of Governors are warning of deflation danger. The Fed sets a goal of moderate inflation (2-3%), which keeps the economy moving, but deflation could stop the economy dead in its tracks. It happened in Japan in their "lost decade," it happened in the Great Depression and it could happen now.
It happened in the last two centuries of the Roman Empire, too, and was a major contributor to its fall. There it happened because the wealthy, accumulated almost all the wealth, hoarded gold and evaded taxes. Here, sharp traders threaten speculation against government borrowing, borrowing needed to stimulate world economies.
The financial industry is like those Roman Senators hoarding gold. Since more demand is needed, and since interest rates are basically zero, the Fed could create more money, buying up treasuries, to curb deflation. More focused would be a government stimulus targeted on creating jobs in the public investments we need.
The latter isn't likely in this corrosive political climate, but the former could be rendered worse than useless if big banks still prefer gambling to loans.
No, the price is going down because there are too many houses and too little money--in the local housing market. And what's happening here is happening elsewhere even more dramatically. That's why so many homeowners are "underwater," and walking away from their homes. Many of them can't find jobs, so, foreclosures are increasing and a record number of people have been forced from their homes.
Foreclosures build downward pressure on house prices: banks try to unload the houses they're stuck with.
There are short-term fixes, such as renegotiating mortgages, or allowing defaulting owners to rent in the interim: both would reduce the number of under-priced houses flooding the market, but the first isn't working--many don't have jobs, or have declining earnings--and the second has hardly been tried.
Falling prices might be a good thing for someone with money, but the reason for it is: most people have too little: it's called price deflation.
Price deflation can be self-reinforcing, i.e. can trigger a downward spiral. Lower prices mean businesses make less in profits. A home-builder, for example, will have to lay off his workers, because he can't sell the houses he builds, or has to sell them at cost, or less. He's losing money, so he lays off workers, or goes out of business, which increases unemployment, so fewer, still, have money. That drives prices even lower.
Even some inflation hawks on the Fed Board of Governors are warning of deflation danger. The Fed sets a goal of moderate inflation (2-3%), which keeps the economy moving, but deflation could stop the economy dead in its tracks. It happened in Japan in their "lost decade," it happened in the Great Depression and it could happen now.
It happened in the last two centuries of the Roman Empire, too, and was a major contributor to its fall. There it happened because the wealthy, accumulated almost all the wealth, hoarded gold and evaded taxes. Here, sharp traders threaten speculation against government borrowing, borrowing needed to stimulate world economies.
The financial industry is like those Roman Senators hoarding gold. Since more demand is needed, and since interest rates are basically zero, the Fed could create more money, buying up treasuries, to curb deflation. More focused would be a government stimulus targeted on creating jobs in the public investments we need.
The latter isn't likely in this corrosive political climate, but the former could be rendered worse than useless if big banks still prefer gambling to loans.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
War Absurdity
What would happen if Obama said, 'Okay, I get it,' and insists on winding down the Afghan war as quickly as possible? The right wing would be predictably outraged. However, the large majority of the electorate, according to polls, feels the war wasn't justified, or worth fighting. Could the right-wing media machine whip up enough rage to convert majority anti-war sentiment to pro war?
Almost everyone, after slogging through Wikileaks' released war documents, has already pointed out the absurdity of the Afghan war. It's the hopelessness of the enterprise that comes through, the sheer complicated, mindless destruction on all sides. The Taliban is horrible, the Afghan government is corrupt, incompetent and almost as brutal; the US and NATO are efficient killing-machines, even when policy dictates restraint to protect civilians.
And then, there is Pakistan and its ISI, often labeled "Pakistan's CIA." The ISI is Pakistan's CIA, FBI and military Intel units all rolled into one: it's closely linked to Pakistan's army. The ISI, in these released documents, has been openly implicated in supporting elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Neither a revelation, nor a confirmation, it just makes public what the US military thinks: that its ally, Pakistan, is playing both sides. Many experts on the Af-Pak war have said so for a long time.
This may be changing, because now Pakistanis realize: the Afghan Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban, and its allies work together. Both of the latter have attacked the Pakistani Army and the government as its enemy. The army has waged all out war against parts of the Taliban in the Northwest Frontier--but it has not attacked others. Why?
Elements within the ISI have been Taliban patrons ever since the US abandoned Afghanistan in the 1980's. They see factions within it as useful tools in their contest with vastly larger and wealthier India. A friendly Afghanistan would protect Pakistan's rear. They may be right: their strategy may pay off, when the US leaves.
It's not a question of 'if' the US will leave, but whether it will begin to leave in 2011 as Obama promises, and whether this 'beginning' will amount to really getting out, or not. The sheer, numbing reality of this stupid, awful war, as illustrated in the Wikileaks documents, argues that any sane person would begin leaving now, not a year from now.
What will be illuminating is Obama's response, and of those on the fence in Congress (more or less pro-war Democrats). Excepting Ron Paul, all Republicans are dead-set against withdrawal, but then few of them seem rational, anyway.
My bet? The military will say withdrawal isn't practical, and Obama will be afraid to oppose them, leading us towards the kind of bankruptcy that ended in the fall of the Roman Empire in 476.
Almost everyone, after slogging through Wikileaks' released war documents, has already pointed out the absurdity of the Afghan war. It's the hopelessness of the enterprise that comes through, the sheer complicated, mindless destruction on all sides. The Taliban is horrible, the Afghan government is corrupt, incompetent and almost as brutal; the US and NATO are efficient killing-machines, even when policy dictates restraint to protect civilians.
And then, there is Pakistan and its ISI, often labeled "Pakistan's CIA." The ISI is Pakistan's CIA, FBI and military Intel units all rolled into one: it's closely linked to Pakistan's army. The ISI, in these released documents, has been openly implicated in supporting elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Neither a revelation, nor a confirmation, it just makes public what the US military thinks: that its ally, Pakistan, is playing both sides. Many experts on the Af-Pak war have said so for a long time.
This may be changing, because now Pakistanis realize: the Afghan Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban, and its allies work together. Both of the latter have attacked the Pakistani Army and the government as its enemy. The army has waged all out war against parts of the Taliban in the Northwest Frontier--but it has not attacked others. Why?
Elements within the ISI have been Taliban patrons ever since the US abandoned Afghanistan in the 1980's. They see factions within it as useful tools in their contest with vastly larger and wealthier India. A friendly Afghanistan would protect Pakistan's rear. They may be right: their strategy may pay off, when the US leaves.
It's not a question of 'if' the US will leave, but whether it will begin to leave in 2011 as Obama promises, and whether this 'beginning' will amount to really getting out, or not. The sheer, numbing reality of this stupid, awful war, as illustrated in the Wikileaks documents, argues that any sane person would begin leaving now, not a year from now.
What will be illuminating is Obama's response, and of those on the fence in Congress (more or less pro-war Democrats). Excepting Ron Paul, all Republicans are dead-set against withdrawal, but then few of them seem rational, anyway.
My bet? The military will say withdrawal isn't practical, and Obama will be afraid to oppose them, leading us towards the kind of bankruptcy that ended in the fall of the Roman Empire in 476.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Tax Cuts For the Wealthy
That seems to be the refrain of conservatives, Republicans and Tea Party activists: they advocate making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Yet, at the same time, they rail about the admittedly huge government debt. Making the tax cuts permanent, would, it's estimated, increase government debt in the next ten years by well over $2 trillion. And Boehner, the House Republican leader, actually said the tax cuts don't have to be paid for!
Republicans are attempting to gain political traction with the "all debt is bad" crowd, while also currying favor with wealthy fundraisers, and indulging in the you-can-get-it-for-nothing thinking that created the disastrous 2007-8 collapse.
Cutting taxes has stimulated the economy, and increased revenue in some limited situations. It worked with JFK's tax-cuts, because tax rates were very high then (they are very low now), and their reduction made money available for consumption and therefore created incentives for investment (from the added spending boosting demand). They didn't work so well from Reagan through Bush II, because wages did not keep pace, increased consumption was based on adding to private debt; foregone taxes benefited the wealthy, who saw "investment" opportunities in financial speculation, or foreign production. So, the famous Bush tax cuts doubled the US debt, and led to speculative excess that caused the collapse.
Obama's stimulus spending has almost doubled the debt again, but without the stimulus we'd be calling this a Great Depression, not a Great Recession. Maintaining tax-cuts for the wealthy would create greater deficits, but would not stimulate the economy. Why? Banks and individuals are sitting on hoards of cash already, rather than investing, because there is little demand for new production: investment in the face of low or shrinking demand is usually considered foolhardy.
Conservatives have an ideological rationale for high-end tax-cuts: encouraging investment and cutting down the size of government. The former works in limited instances, but won't work now. As for the latter, when in power conservatives have increased government size, while still cutting taxes--hence creating structural deficits, i.e. deficits in good times.
A deficit in bad times is a natural outgrowth of need--people need support and can't pay taxes when unemployed--and partially counters the decline in demand: it is an investment for better times. A deficit during a boom is like living high on your credit card.
Tax cuts to the wealthy, now, would inflate speculation, but would not increase consumption enough to stimulate growth. They would balloon the deficit even further. They might also, finally, drive the world away from the dollar as world reserve currency: Americans would have demonstrated their financial recklessness once again. (The US caused the global downturn by encouraging out of control speculation).
Flight from the Dollar could end the American Empire as we know it.
Republicans are attempting to gain political traction with the "all debt is bad" crowd, while also currying favor with wealthy fundraisers, and indulging in the you-can-get-it-for-nothing thinking that created the disastrous 2007-8 collapse.
Cutting taxes has stimulated the economy, and increased revenue in some limited situations. It worked with JFK's tax-cuts, because tax rates were very high then (they are very low now), and their reduction made money available for consumption and therefore created incentives for investment (from the added spending boosting demand). They didn't work so well from Reagan through Bush II, because wages did not keep pace, increased consumption was based on adding to private debt; foregone taxes benefited the wealthy, who saw "investment" opportunities in financial speculation, or foreign production. So, the famous Bush tax cuts doubled the US debt, and led to speculative excess that caused the collapse.
Obama's stimulus spending has almost doubled the debt again, but without the stimulus we'd be calling this a Great Depression, not a Great Recession. Maintaining tax-cuts for the wealthy would create greater deficits, but would not stimulate the economy. Why? Banks and individuals are sitting on hoards of cash already, rather than investing, because there is little demand for new production: investment in the face of low or shrinking demand is usually considered foolhardy.
Conservatives have an ideological rationale for high-end tax-cuts: encouraging investment and cutting down the size of government. The former works in limited instances, but won't work now. As for the latter, when in power conservatives have increased government size, while still cutting taxes--hence creating structural deficits, i.e. deficits in good times.
A deficit in bad times is a natural outgrowth of need--people need support and can't pay taxes when unemployed--and partially counters the decline in demand: it is an investment for better times. A deficit during a boom is like living high on your credit card.
Tax cuts to the wealthy, now, would inflate speculation, but would not increase consumption enough to stimulate growth. They would balloon the deficit even further. They might also, finally, drive the world away from the dollar as world reserve currency: Americans would have demonstrated their financial recklessness once again. (The US caused the global downturn by encouraging out of control speculation).
Flight from the Dollar could end the American Empire as we know it.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
US Empire Pushes String
How do you push a string? How do you make a nation govern itself effectively, when its history of governance up until now has been tribal, feudal and by self-selected warlords?
Tomes cram libraries on development, development finance, development economics, and political development. Most should be pulped. What we don't know about development could fill many more libraries.
There are many success stories, nations like China, Japan, India, Singapore, Malaysia, South Africa and many more, but there are no notable formulas. China has used government directed markets and state promoted industrialization, but it had a very strong, effective political system before its recent successes. India has a lively, if sometimes chaotic, political system: its economic development has been more a mixture of political direction and foreign investment.
Nations like Afghanistan or Somalia or, most egregiously, the Congo, don't have the luxury of established, effective political systems.
Well-meaning Americans and Europeans try to help these nations learn to govern themselves. In the case of Afghanistan, they are doing so while also fighting a persistent insurrection/revolution on behalf of its largely dysfunctional government.
Some of the development success stories, including Vietnam, tell how revolutionary movements, anti-western, or anti-American, created the necessary political foundation for development in their countries: imposed governments did not.
From the era of colonialism until now, western, or "developed" nations have attempted to impose their kinds of governance on "less-developed" nations, sometimes for their own national interest, sometimes for more altruistic reasons. Western-style "democracies" flourished in Europe and Japan after WWII, because there had been long-established and effective governments before the war.
But consider the case of China: the allies supported a weak, corrupt authoritarian government (Chiang-kai Shek), and attempted to counter a revolutionary movement; our attempts failed. The Communist government lurched from famine, to war, to succession crises, but it also established a political system so strong that it could mobilize nearly a billion Chinese to kill off the flies in their nation--mostly by hand! That government still governs, and by adopting western-style economics, has become wildly successful.
Ours is really a post-imperial world waiting to happen: the US can only maintain its world-straddling military by borrowing from China. Yet, it can't create civil societies in places like Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia no matter how many troops it stations in those nations. All it can do is exacerbate tensions, which favors forces of destruction, like al Qaeda.
Yet, the military has gained enough control of American policy that it continues to expand, regardless of economic distress faced at home, or lack of success abroad.
Our foreign policy goals are wildly unrealistic: you can't push a string. Continuing our military-foreign policy abroad will not create international stability; it will only impoverish and bankrupt us.
We have a choice: a vibrant nation without an empire, or a broken nation still attempting to hold onto one.
Tomes cram libraries on development, development finance, development economics, and political development. Most should be pulped. What we don't know about development could fill many more libraries.
There are many success stories, nations like China, Japan, India, Singapore, Malaysia, South Africa and many more, but there are no notable formulas. China has used government directed markets and state promoted industrialization, but it had a very strong, effective political system before its recent successes. India has a lively, if sometimes chaotic, political system: its economic development has been more a mixture of political direction and foreign investment.
Nations like Afghanistan or Somalia or, most egregiously, the Congo, don't have the luxury of established, effective political systems.
Well-meaning Americans and Europeans try to help these nations learn to govern themselves. In the case of Afghanistan, they are doing so while also fighting a persistent insurrection/revolution on behalf of its largely dysfunctional government.
Some of the development success stories, including Vietnam, tell how revolutionary movements, anti-western, or anti-American, created the necessary political foundation for development in their countries: imposed governments did not.
From the era of colonialism until now, western, or "developed" nations have attempted to impose their kinds of governance on "less-developed" nations, sometimes for their own national interest, sometimes for more altruistic reasons. Western-style "democracies" flourished in Europe and Japan after WWII, because there had been long-established and effective governments before the war.
But consider the case of China: the allies supported a weak, corrupt authoritarian government (Chiang-kai Shek), and attempted to counter a revolutionary movement; our attempts failed. The Communist government lurched from famine, to war, to succession crises, but it also established a political system so strong that it could mobilize nearly a billion Chinese to kill off the flies in their nation--mostly by hand! That government still governs, and by adopting western-style economics, has become wildly successful.
Ours is really a post-imperial world waiting to happen: the US can only maintain its world-straddling military by borrowing from China. Yet, it can't create civil societies in places like Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia no matter how many troops it stations in those nations. All it can do is exacerbate tensions, which favors forces of destruction, like al Qaeda.
Yet, the military has gained enough control of American policy that it continues to expand, regardless of economic distress faced at home, or lack of success abroad.
Our foreign policy goals are wildly unrealistic: you can't push a string. Continuing our military-foreign policy abroad will not create international stability; it will only impoverish and bankrupt us.
We have a choice: a vibrant nation without an empire, or a broken nation still attempting to hold onto one.
Friday, July 16, 2010
The Politics of Resentment
The Right does resentment really well. They teach their constituents, and fence-sitters, too, that the other side is treacherous, or under-handed, unfair and taking advantage of them, in essence, taking away their American Way of Life. But they don't target the people who are doing this; they target: illegal aliens, unions, big government, regulation. While most people resent bankers and Wall Street, the Right protects them, yet attacks Democrats in Congress for supporting them. It certainly doesn't talk about inequality, or the extravagant salaries and bonuses of the financial elite. Now, it advocates tax-cuts for them!
The left doesn't do resentment well. Yet, a true left-wing populist could use the politics of resentment to good effect. Obama is no populist, nor a true lefty, but he has the potential for populism--in the run-up to the 2012 election--if he sees the electoral potential.
At this point in Roosevelt's first term, his major jobs creation program was the National Recovery Administration (NRA), which looked like Fascist central control of the private economy; it was a failure, and unanimously ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Come the election in 1936, and Roosevelt found his populist calling, campaigning against "the economic royalists of our time."
Can you imagine Obama reaching that point?
But even FDR couldn't persuade Congress to allocate enough money to truly finance a recovery. Only patriotic fervor for war did that.
I wonder what is different now, than it was in 1935. The media was less concentrated, but there were many right-wing media outlets condemning Roosevelt as a Socialist or a Communist at every turn. People of means referred to FDR as "that man in the White House." Obama is that man from Kenya, and--the epithets are legion.
Could a left-wing populist shove Obama aside? If Obama were challenged from the left, he might respond--much the way Roosevelt did, in 1936.
Someone on the left needs to exploit the politics of resentment: resentment of those Wall Street "fat-cats," first of all. They were bailed out, but help themselves to more; resentment of the subsidies oil and coal companies receive, while Americans can't get jobs or unemployment insurance; resentment of huge disparities in salaries between top executives and workers; resentment of the way they are taxed: class resentment.
While people may disagree on abortion or gay marriage, immigration, or the financial overhaul, almost all of them hate Wall Street. For good reason: Wall Street siphons off an increasing share of US wealth for no discernible benefit--except to itself.
Resentment is a negative word, a negative focus, but it has a visceral appeal, and one that could lead to a positive outcome: a more egalitarian and prosperous society.
But to get there, the Left needs to be as cynical as the Right. Is that possible?
The best lack all conviction,
While the worst are full of passionate intensity.
The left doesn't do resentment well. Yet, a true left-wing populist could use the politics of resentment to good effect. Obama is no populist, nor a true lefty, but he has the potential for populism--in the run-up to the 2012 election--if he sees the electoral potential.
At this point in Roosevelt's first term, his major jobs creation program was the National Recovery Administration (NRA), which looked like Fascist central control of the private economy; it was a failure, and unanimously ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Come the election in 1936, and Roosevelt found his populist calling, campaigning against "the economic royalists of our time."
Can you imagine Obama reaching that point?
But even FDR couldn't persuade Congress to allocate enough money to truly finance a recovery. Only patriotic fervor for war did that.
I wonder what is different now, than it was in 1935. The media was less concentrated, but there were many right-wing media outlets condemning Roosevelt as a Socialist or a Communist at every turn. People of means referred to FDR as "that man in the White House." Obama is that man from Kenya, and--the epithets are legion.
Could a left-wing populist shove Obama aside? If Obama were challenged from the left, he might respond--much the way Roosevelt did, in 1936.
Someone on the left needs to exploit the politics of resentment: resentment of those Wall Street "fat-cats," first of all. They were bailed out, but help themselves to more; resentment of the subsidies oil and coal companies receive, while Americans can't get jobs or unemployment insurance; resentment of huge disparities in salaries between top executives and workers; resentment of the way they are taxed: class resentment.
While people may disagree on abortion or gay marriage, immigration, or the financial overhaul, almost all of them hate Wall Street. For good reason: Wall Street siphons off an increasing share of US wealth for no discernible benefit--except to itself.
Resentment is a negative word, a negative focus, but it has a visceral appeal, and one that could lead to a positive outcome: a more egalitarian and prosperous society.
But to get there, the Left needs to be as cynical as the Right. Is that possible?
The best lack all conviction,
While the worst are full of passionate intensity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)