Going Downhill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buffett's Good Deed

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

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

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

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

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

Does that tell you something?

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

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

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

Rip-off Artists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Empire or Republic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama the Cowardly Lion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Money Trumps Empire

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



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

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

Take that, barely whimpering economy!

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

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

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

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

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

We'll Always Be Rich

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Centuries of Idiocy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selling Out to the Devil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Fatal False Issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Paradox of Thrift

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debt Ceiling Chicken

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cuomo & Obama Both Betray Us

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

Now, why would he do that?

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



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

It's all about money.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Short-term Profits, Long-term Disaster

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

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

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

And what is the impact?

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

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

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

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

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

Nowhere Near Enough

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All Temples Fall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First They Came for the Jews

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our Debt Trap

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's Wrong with GOP's Hensarling?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We Won't Pay!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Controls This "Democracy"?

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

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

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

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

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

Obama is only marginally better.

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

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

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

The World Map: Moral Decline of Empire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Predator Class

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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