The Governor Throws a Curve
Happy Independence Day!
In that spirit, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska has announced her resignation. The media, of course, went predictably agoggle, not surprising, since the 24/7 Michael Jackson coverage was beginning to get repetitive [Will his mother be able to take care of the kids? No, dummy, the nanny will continue to take care of the kids and will be paid by Granny, or if Granny declines, by Diana Ross, out of the trust fund. Now shut up and let the family mourn.] Allegedly Palin neglected to give any reason for the abrupt move. The theories boiled down to four:
- Avoiding prosecution
- A desire to focus on running for President in 2012, without the bothersome timewaster of governing Alaska
- [According to Rick Sanchez] Pregnancy
- “I want to be with my family,” the explanation given by her friends.
Taking them in reverse order:
When was she ever not with her family. At public expense?
Pregnancy: been there, done that, while in office. 12-hour flight from Dallas while in labor. Nice display of your sexist street cred, Rick.
Running for president in 2012: Well, duh. More on that later.
Avoiding prosecution: Well, duh, and exactly how does this not connect to motive #2?
By quitting now, before any more of her and her family’s shenanigans hit the front page, she preserves what’s left of her credibility as a governor. Perhaps she’s hoping that, since punishment in the form of removal from office would no longer be an option, that everyone will stop digging.
I’m not betting on it, particularly in light of her intention to continue in politics.
“Part of her decision is she wants to spend more time campaigning for candidates,” Nick Ayers, the executive director of the RGA, told Fox News.
“She felt like she needed to make her colleagues around the country aware, so she had given us a brief heads up,” Ayers said of getting the emails. “We have known for a couple of days she was considering not running for re-election but it was news today that she had gone ahead and made the decision to fully step down and resign.”
So far, so good. Whistlestop campaigning is what she does best. She flashes that thousand-watt news anchor smile, lobs red meat at the crowd, and they eat it up. The question, however, is on whose behalf will she campaign?
From her resignation speech [emphasis added]:
And I’ll work hard for others who still believe in free enterprise and smaller government; strong national security for our country and support for our troops; energy independence; and for those who will protect freedom and equality and life… I’ll work for and campaign for those proud to be American, and those who are inspired by our ideals and won’t deride them.
I will support others who seek to serve, in or out of office, for the right reasons, and I don’t care what party they’re in or no party at all. Inside Alaska – or Outside Alaska.
Sophie Nelson kindly offered the governor advice in a Huffington Post article, sensible advice that boils down to “become a moderate Republican like me” and “become educated on world affairs.” Somehow, I don’t think La Palin will comply. Her schtick has served her well, so far. Why research when you can just lay your hand on a pile of paper and imply that all the answers are in there? Why bother learning the name of the top general in the Middle East when you can get it wrong and no one calls you on it? Take a look at the Salon article that inspired the recently revealed email exchange between Palin and Steve Schmitt during the ‘08 campaign for more information on the AIP and their agenda.
No, she’s not going to run for president by building a Big Tent coalition. She’ll do what she’s always done, advocate for a theocractic nation in which the Federal Government is too weak to maintain order. It’s still a long way to the 2012 nominations, and so many things could change (such as the rumored potential corruption charges involving her free house and the coincidental awarding of the Wasilla Sports Palace contract to Todd’s housebuildin’ buddies becoming actual charges) but right now, look for a Palin/Romney cage match, and don’t be surprised if she, at the very least, threatens to take the Right Wing of the GOP off to Bull Moose land if she doesn’t get her way. She has consistently conflated her personal ambitions with God’s Will in the past, and so far, it’s worked out just fine.
Going South in Carolina
According to South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, God wants him to continue drawing a government paycheck. God apparently also wanted him to–how do you put it? Oh, yeah–”Cleave to his wife,” but apparently some commandments are optional. Not, like, engraved in stone, or anything. This is another example of the standard Republican rulebook:
Rule #1: It’s only bad when they do it. Followed quickly by
Rule #2: They must be punished for their transgression, and
Rule #3: But not us.
God notwithstanding, Governor Sanford will not resign for one simple reason. If he does, the next question will be, why not Senator Ensign? I mean if Clinton can get impeached over a bimbo, what’s Diaper Dan Vitter doing in Congress? Why are people still listening to potifications of thrice-married philanderers Rudi Giuliani and Newt “Impeach Clinton for his disgusting immoral behavior” Gingrich?
The Republicans have put themselves in an interesting predicament. They built a power base by cozying up to the holier-than-thou crowd. If they do the right thing by taking their lumps when they violate the principles they supposedly stand for, they lose votes in the Senate in the short term, but might redeem themselves with their Base in time. If they claim that their behavior should not be measured by the same standards they apply to everyone else, they keep their votes in Congress but risk losing voters who cling to those values.
But when’s the last time they thought long-term?
Yeah, I know, Carl Rove thought he was building a “permanent Republican majority.” The Neoconservatives thought they were initiating an era of permanent US world dominance. However, if you look at the means they used to try to achieve these goals, you’ll see that it was one short-term trick after another. Telling lies: about WMD, about 9/11, about Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, about the parentage of John McCain’s adopted daughter, Al Gore and the Internet,the list goes on. They demanded that lobbyists contribute to only their candidates, utterly failed to enforce laws that would rein in business behavior that profited their contributors, another list that grows with every headline.
No. They’ll stick with the short term strategy, and trust that their most fervent supporters will continue to be blind to their actions. They’ll count on our collective memory not extending all the way to November 2010.
Census Shenanigans and This Ghastly Week.
“…you’ve got to hope for a decent mail-back response rate, because the workload goes way up and the costs go way up if you don’t have a good mail-back response rate. And we simply do not yet know what the response rate is because we haven’t done it yet. But if it’s not in the mid-60s (%), it’s going to be both budgetarily and operationally very difficult for the Census Bureau….it’s up to the American people to do it. What can the Census Bureau do, other than put it in their mailboxes on schedule? And if they [the American people] don’t send it back in, they have to start knocking on the door. So there is the mail-back response rate and then there’s the willingness to cooperate in nonresponse follow-up[.]
Former US Census director Kenneth Prewitt
http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2009/06/census-uncensored
So, basically, what the cost-conscious Rep. Bachmann is advocating will raise the cost of the census and, if followed by her right-wing sympathizers, will result in their being undercounted for congressional representation and Federal benefits.
Look at the bright side: they don’t want the money anyway, and maybe, if enough of the people in her district follow her lead, her district will be eliminated.
Yeah, I know, all the stuff that had happened this week and this is what I’m writing about? I find much of it overwhelming. A civil rights struggle in Iran, (triggered by a questionable election, but fueled by decades of struggle and organization for women’s rights) yet another sanctimonious politician revealed to revere morality only as a blunt weapon to use on his opponents, and a celebrity death every other day or so: Ed McMahon, Farrah Faucett, Billy Mays, and the haunting end to the brilliant, tragic life of Michael Jackson.
He was a child star, and in many ways a child his entire life, surrounded by those who saw him as a never-ending font of money. As the details come out, it’s less a standard Ziggy Stardust tale of meteoric rise and fall, but the story of a man who from childhood was controlled by others to achieve their own personally profitable ends. There was a place in there, between leaving his father’s domination and before his health issues began to surface, destroying his face, his body, and the enormous promise of his talent, when jackson shone, releasing albums that dominated pop music.
The best writing on his death comes from the reporter who wrote his biography, writing in the British paper, The Daily Mail. Read it. It outlines the cadre of leeches who attached themselves to him and watched him die, while plotting to suck the last drop of lifeblood from him.
My condolences to his family, friends, and fans.
Rush to the Bottom
I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: every time you think the Right can go no lower, they get out the backhoe.
Today Rush Limbaugh, he who doubts Obama’s citizenship, who thinks Obama is worse than Al Qaeda, who wants him to fail, who introduced “Barack the Magic Negro” to the nation, has announced that the racist anti-semite who shot up the Holocaust Museum is a left-winger.
Keith Olbermann thinks Rush is crazy. BS, Keith. Rush is covering his vast expanse of ass. Sorry to use Anglo-Saxon language, but there it is. There’s a fairly good case to be made that Rush represents the mainstream edge of the extreme Right. Rush knows that he’s dancing on the edge of charges of inciting violence–not quite enough to get him an accessory before the fact charge, but enough to bring the wrath of every decent human being in this nation and beyond down on his head.
His reaction? To tell his followers that this sort of action is beyond the pale? Who? Rush? The guy who sent his cleaning lady out to score hillbilly heroin? The guy who thinks his thirty years of militaristic bluster is a fair exchange for having opted out of actual military service? The moral crusader who needed 60 hits of Viagra to get him through a Carribean vacation while unmarried?
Nope. All you have to do is blame the problem on your opponents. Is there any factual basis to the accusation? Nah. Logic, even? Not a shred. But that’s never stopped his horde of minions from swallowing everything he says whole.
So the question is, will they swallow this one, too? Will they decide that random murder is justified to protect the nation from Socialism, or Communism, or today’s dangerous -ism du jour? Or will they rise up en mass screaming, “How dare you call us Aryans ‘Commies?’” (Not holding my breath for that one, but it would be fun.) or will they, at last, see him for the manipulative, lying coward that he is?
Republican Strategery 2.0
I just read a Huffington Post article wondering why the Right has pretty much abandoned abortion as its flagship issue in favor of the sinking ship of man-on-woman-only marriage.
A couple of points occurred to me:
First, the question is raised in the article as to why the Rightward side of the Christian spectrum is so obsessed with controlling other people’s morality. It’s the same reason that allowed Pat Robertson to blame Katrina on Pagans with a straight face. I noticed some time ago that the most vociferously Christian are prone to throwing Jesus overboard anytime His teachings conflict with the Old Testament.
14 But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments; 15 And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant: 16 I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. 17 And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you. 18 And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins. 19 And I will break the pride of your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass: 20 And your strength shall be spent in vain: for your land shall not yield her increase, neither shall the trees of the land yield their fruits.
–Leviticus 26
So to these literal-minded people, any violation of Old Testament rules, by anyone, means they will be subject to Divine Retribution. In that context, you can understand how see how same-sex marriage would utterly terrify them. Their heaven will be as iron and their earth as brass because of what some guys are doing in their San Francisco apartment. Burning ague!!
Okay, with that as a given, I would love to look at the results of their direct marketing efforts lately. I’m betting that line of research would prove fruitful. My thesis is that abortion direct mail campaigns have shown diminishing returns. After all, Obama’s very logical position that taking steps to reduce the number of abortions seems to be making inroads: that access to birth control, sex ed that actually educates, support for those women who want to keep their babies, and support for adoptive parents, will do more to reduce the abortion rate than treating children as God’s punishment for having sex. And then there’s the burnout factor. The issue has been flogged for so long, and to such small effect in changing abortion laws, that one would suspect that, well, the money is not rolling in the way it used to.
Am I saying that the pro-life movement are nothing more than a bunch of money-grubbers? No. Of course not. These people are sincerely concerned about saving the lives of babies. However, if you’ll read Thomas Frank’s The Wrecking Crew: How Republicans Rule, you’ll find that there’s a whole cottage industry behind the ideology of the Right, and that frequently the organizations whose names are on the letterheads of the begging letters end up in debt to the mail order houses. (And then essentially blackmailed into additional mailings in order to get out of debt. This time for sure!) So, in light of the $80 million raised by California’s Prop 8 opposition alone, and the fact that legal same-sex marriage is popping up across the country like dandelions in a suburban lawn, it would make sense that this issue would launch a thousand email campaigns. Ditto the Sotomayor nomination, pitched in the most derogatory terms to an audience with a documented dislike of people with non-English-sounding names. The Right is playing to the basest, most ignorant instincts on these issues, and by trying to raise funds with these arguments is displaying the low opinion it has of its base.
In keeping with the devotion to short-term profit displayed by the Republicans when recently in power, it would seem that this money-grubbing bottomfeeder strategy is what currently drives the Party, and is currently driving anyone with a timeline greater than three months and a concern for anything beyond their personal bottom line out of it.
I, Pencil, Too
I’m a day late with my continuation, with apologies. Got caught up in the Barry ‘n Dickie duelling national security banjos. Interesting stuff. Rachel Maddow was ahead of the pack, as usual, in picking out the fact that, while Obama eleoquently explained what’s wrong with the Bush/Cheney national security strategy, he’s proposing one that is even more illegal: indefinite preventive detention.
It’s an interesting conundrum. Cheney’s willingness to use extralegal means of getting information (apparently in his quest to prove things that weren’t true, but that he desperately wanted to be) have now created a situation in which the evidence, accurate or not, is inadmissable under law. Heck of a job, Dickie. Of course, seeing as the very thought of incarcerating terrorists in Super Max prisons [cue scary music] scares the beejeesus out of nine-tenths of the Senate, one can only imagine how popular letting them out on a technicality (a la Ted Stevens) would be. Obama’s got a real flaming bag of dog mess on his front porch. Neither stomping out the flames nor letting it burn is an option.
Bush/Cheney, the gift that keeps on giving. Evil geniuses who planned this out in advance in order to further totalitarian control of the increasingly restive populace or paranoid opportunists lurching from one crisis to the next? We report, you decide.
The other “best of” coverage was CNN’s word cloud, demonstrating visually that Obama spoke of Americans, detainees, and people, while Dick Cheney’s vocabulary is remarkably similar to Rudi Guiliani’s–a noun, a verb, terrorists, and 9/11. Without the dress. But I digress…
So, back to the issue of wealth distribution. I mean, what’s fair? I just read a NYT article about Vietnamese hot sauce. The guy started making the stuff decades ago in Vietnam, ground the peppers by hand, sold it in hand- packed baby food jars, saved his money, moved to America and is now selling $10 million a year worth of hot sauce, you know, the stuff with the green cap and the rooster on the bottle that is starting to show up everywhere. This is great! I have no problem with a good product making it’s inventor wealthy.
But down the road, here’s where a problem can develop. The issue is power. And face it, in our “money talks, bullshit walks” culture, Money = Power.
For example, when Ben & Jerry developed a dee-licious array of ice cream flavors and started to expand beyond their parlor and into supermarkets, Pillsbury, maker of Haagen Daz, bribed supermarkets to keep B&J off the shelves. The Vermont boys, being geniuses, triumphed, by making an end run around the massive Pillsbury legal department and taking it directly to the press and public with their “What’s the Doughboy afraid of?” campaign.
Not everyone is that clever. Or lucky. Watch Matewan, if you’d like a pretty accurate look at early union organizing. If you’re in a hurry, you can skip to the last 10 minutes or so.
The Boston Tea party is another example. No, they were not protesting “government” or even taxation per se. They were protesting Big Business abusing the British taxation system. Nobody died that night, but it set off a series of events that included numerous fatalties, AKA “The American Revolution.”
You could also look at Central and South America in the Eighties, where thousands of people “disappeared,” if you’d like to see what happens when 1% of the population controls 90% of the wealth.
The issue, as I see it, is not the size of Government, but who controls it and whose interests it serves. (That’s where that “eternal vigilance” part comes in.) You can read McMafia, if you’d like to see how a small, weak government is no defense of Liberty, unless you define “Liberty” as the right of gangsters to take over your country and run its economy. (As the late Gary Webb wrote, “Unlike many legitimate industries that merely pay lip service to the concept, the cocaine industry is a fervent believer in the get-government-off-our-backs philosophy of commerce.”)
This problem is not new. It is, in fact the problem that the Founders addressed.
“’Great wealth has never made a man happy. Rather than fill a vacuum, it creates one.”
–Ben Franklin
Or, if Ben’s not good enough for you, here is Justice Louis Brandeis’ take:
We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.
At some point, the amassing of wealth turns into the defense of wealth. I suppose that some would say that the two are concurrent, at least for some people. What happens then is that the Haves see any attempt by the Have Nots to share in prosperity as a frontal attack. There have been a few extremely wealthy individuals who understand that this is not a logical position. Henry Ford paid his workers well, understanding that every employee who could afford to buy a car was a potential customer. Warren Buffett resists the British East India Company-like demands of his peers that capital gains be untaxed. But there’s more here. As Anna Chenault said, ”Power overpowers all reason.” (I’m sure she was talking about Communists, not powerful people like herself, but I think it applies to the Right as well.)
I’m going back to my favorite Founder, Ben:
All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.
Let’s look at an example of how this works. Would Microsoft or Apple be where they are today if the military hadn’t funded the development of the Turing Machine? If the military hadn’t developed the Internet, and Al Gore pushed through the legislation that made it more than a toy for the universities and military? Would they have access to as many skilled programmers if the State University system had not evolved? Yeah, taxpayer loot financed that, too.
Would Walmart, whose founder’s children have occupied the bottom half of the Forbes Top Ten Wealthiest individuals for as long as I’ve been paying attention, be able to function without the Interstate Highway System, another one of those ”pork barrel projects” that Conservatives and Libertarians love to rail against? Oh, they’d put their stuff on trains. Um, the railroads were kickstarted by the Civil War-era Railroad Act that gave free land to the railroad companies, who then mortgaged it to provide capital for the actual construction. And then there’s Walmart’s outsourcing their employee benefits program to the Feds by keeping their employees’ hours and pay so low that they can get on Medicaid. Sweet. See what Franklin meant about those who benefit most from the common changepurse being obliged to kick more back in? It’s not, as Grover Norquist would have it, “theft.” It’s paying your club dues, or, in the case of Walmart, paying for services rendered.
Okay, so what’s the fairest way to do this? Set limits on how much a person can own or earn? Nah, That would just drive high-achievers nuts, although I can see where executive compensation has gotten way out of line lately. Hand out a bunch of money so every one is “equal?” Nah. As long as there’s booze, bad health, and stupidity, we’d still have rich people and poor people.
Here’s a thought: following Franklin’s principles, why not tax higher incomes more steeply? There’s a certain amount of empirical data showing that it works: the 1950’s, when the top tax rate was 90%, the nation was remarkably prosperous. Keep in mind how a progressive tax system works: the first $8000 or so of every person’s income is tax-free. The next $20K or so gets hit at 10%, and it goes up from there. No, the top tax rate does not mean that that percentage of that person’s entire income goes to the gummint, just the amount over a specified amount, or “Bracket.” (If you already understand this, my apologies for being so basic, but a lot of people talk like they don’t. If you don’t believe my numbers, click here and remember that you start counting after all your deductions and exemptions are subtracted from your income.)
Some interesting math evolves when you raise the tax rates. First off, people have more incentive to give to charity, since that way they can control what the money is spent on, as opposed to just throwing it into the Federal pot. Second, businesses have more incentive to keep the money in the business, investing it in ways that improve the business’ functioning, or even benefit workers, as opposed to pulling it out and throwing it at fancy restaurants and thousand dollar shoes, not to mention abominations like Ken Lay’s infamous $6,000 shower curtain. (Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.)
When the progressive income tax was a steep slope, the nation prospered. When it flattened, there was a burst of economic activity as the nation’s wealth shifted to the top, and stagnation since. Wealth moves from the bottom to the top. It’s source lies in the earth, in the form of raw materials and food. Human labor, often ill-paid, harvests it, and each step of the way to the consumer, it’s value roughly doubles. There needs to be a way to complete the cycle, returning liquidity to the bottom of the economic system, or the well runs dry. One way to do this is Charity, but Charity is voluntary and, since Ayn Rand, looked down upon. A progressive tax system, managed honestly, with the funds going to public entities: schools, libraries, hospitals, sewer systems, parks, transit, infrastructure, that benefit all is a highly effective means of doing this.
Sorry, Libbers and Conservatives, if you object to this notion. Go live among savages, and if the bridge to your island needs repairs, pass the hat.
A note: If you read carefully, you’ll note that I have no bone to pick with Read so far as the production end of things goes. My issue is with the distribution of the spoils, as it were, and lest you think I am against all things Republican, I’d like to say that one of the most brilliant government policies ever enacted came from Richard Nixon (bet you weren’t expecting that.) Revenue sharing. A portion of all income tax collected was divvied up and channelled to communities (with those with a lower tax base getting larger amounts) to be spent on community projects according to priorities set at the local level. I think it neatly got around the problem of low-income communities having little or nothing to spend on public works and its sister problem of some guy in an office a thousand or so miles away telling you what to spend the money on.
I, Pencil
My son (who just graduated with his BS in Electronic Engineering Technology last weekend, Go, Jake! You rock!!) Okay, enough embarrassing my kid. Anyway, he brought this essay to my attention. Apparently, Michelle Malkin really likes it, as does Milton Friedman. You can read the whole thing here. For those of you in a hurry, it celebrates the miraculous nature of the humble pencil. (Leonard E. Read’s term, not mine.) It’s a sweet and enthusiastic essay on how millions of people must co-operate to create something as simple as a pencil: Sri Lankan graphite miners, Oregon loggers, the sailors who haul graphite from Sri Lanka, the campesinos who pick the coffee beans that keep the miners, sailors, and loggers functional, etc, etc. The part that struck me was this:
Here is an astounding fact: Neither the worker in the oil field nor the chemist nor the digger of graphite or clay nor any who mans or makes the ships or trains or trucks nor the one who runs the machine that does the knurling on my bit of metal nor the president of the company performs his singular task because he wants me. Each one wants me less, perhaps, than does a child in the first grade. Indeed, there are some among this vast multitude who never saw a pencil nor would they know how to use one. Their motivation is other than me. Perhaps it is something like this: Each of these millions sees that he can thus exchange his tiny know-how for the goods and services he needs or wants.
Okay, so far so good. People cooperating to create a product because somebody needs that product. It gets better, however:
I, Pencil, am a complex combination of miracles: a tree, zinc, copper, graphite, and so on. But to these miracles which manifest themselves in Nature an even more extraordinary miracle has been added: the configuration of creative human energies—millions of tiny know-hows configurating naturally and spontaneously in response to human necessity and desire and in the absence of any human master-minding! Since only God can make a tree, I insist that only God could make me. Man can no more direct these millions of know-hows to bring me into being than he can put molecules together to create a tree.
In the absence of “human masterminding?” Like nobody’s managing inventory at the pencil plant and ordering cedar slabs and graphite? Has this man ever run a business?
So my question for Read (alas, he no longer available to answer it) Malkin, Friedman, et al, is this:
If, as he says, that the miner, logger, and pencil company president each only contribute a tiny bit to the production of this amazing object*, then why is it that the Sri Lankan graphite miner lives in a hovel with his hungry children, the Oregon logger lives in a trailer, and the pencil president is a millionaire?
I think people can pretty much figure out how to create goods and services and buy them and sell them to/from each other. No problem with that. The Soviet master planners pretty much showed that their way of doing things didn’t work a-tall. But why is it that the rewards of all these miniscule contributions to the humble pencil are so wildly skewed?
Oooh, the Conservatives and Libertarians are going to scream over that line. I think it’s about balance, though. I keep coming back to Ben Franklin’s observation that not only is the accumulation of wealth addictive, it, like any other uncontrolled addiction, is ultimately harmful to society.
If I could get every person on the fact of the earth to give me a dime, I’d have $650 million dollars, but that’s not likely to happen. Half the world’s people live on less than $2 a day. They flat out can’t afford it. So, you see, that whole poverty problem, you could say, is a distribution problem.
It’s getting late. I’ll have more thoughts on distribution tomorrow.
Just asking.
* Read Hyemeyohsts Storm’s Seven Arrows for a passage relating to “the amazing object,” particularly the sentence “The amazing object died.” Then reflect on Read’s elevation of the pencil to semi-divine status.
Quick Robin! The Backhoe!
Wow, just yesterday I mentioned my long-time belief that whenever you think the Republicans can go no lower, the rent a backhoe.
Their latest backhoe is Rick Scott. (Excellent article. Read it!)
This gentleman, a former Bush business partner at the Texas Rangers and financier of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is now spearheading the fight against affordable healthcare.
As Rachel Maddow and her excellent research staff have discovered, Mr. Scott, as CEO of Columbia Healthcare, led an organization that defrauded the Medicaid and Medicare programs of enough money to justfy being forced to pay the biggest fine in the history of our nation: $1.7 billion.
He was forced out over it, of course, clutching his pitiful $10 million golden parachute. He’s since founded another business, Solantic, a chain of free-standing ER facilities in Florida, that he hopes to nurture into a national chain. While he claims he fears that government -sponsored healthcare will stifle competition and eventually raise prices, the fact remains that Medicare/aide is still the most cost-effective medical program out there. If you’d like to read more supporting that point of view, click here.
Also, while that first link leads you to an article that speaks well of Mr. Scott’s cost-cutting tactics, there are other opinions on the subject. And of course, there is a pretty obvious downside to employer-sponsored health insurance in a shrinking economy, as noted here. And here’s Danile Gross’ take on the subject from Slate.
Am I better off than I was 8 years ago?
Well, yes, I am. Did George Bush or government fiscal policy have anything to do with it?
Probably not.
Eight years ago, I was supporting 3 kids. Now they’re grown and supporting themselves.
Eight years ago, my mortgage was around $70K. Now it’s about $13K. Turns out my employer shut down my workplace in 2005. I had to choose: move with my job or stay where I was and find a new one. As it turned out, my job moved to Oregon, a place I’d visited 25 years before and loved. I sold my house, the timing controlled by my workplace closing and my daughter’s graduation. As it turned out, June 2005 was the top of the real estate bubble.
The criteria for the new place were (1) no more than a $25K mortgage and (2) no more than 5 miles from work. We downsized into a smaller house on a smaller lot in a cheaper neighborhood 3.3 miles from my job and 3.5 from my husband’s. (Our previous commute was 40 miles a day each, in opposite directions. )
We always gardened, but now we are more interested in maximizing yields and putting up produce. The new place has an apple and a plum tree, and we’ve planted two dwarf pears. Our next major investment will be $200 for a small chest freezer, and in the spring, about twice that for a lean-to greenhouse for the south side of the house. Our first major investment, which we paid off this month, was upgrading the windows to state of the art. We use about half the firewood of other households in our neighborhood.
Yes, firewood. We couldn’t heat with wood in the old house, but this one has a fireplace with a fairly efficient insert, definitely a selling point from our perspective. Since my husband works in landscaping, wood follows him home (in the back of his pickup truck) on a fairly regular basis. As in the previous house, we have a timer on the thermostat. The furnace kicks on just before I get up, and kicks off an hour later, when my husband waltzes out the door to walk the dog. Whoever gets home first starts the fire.
The rest of the time, the thermostat is set at 60 degrees. During cold weather we bank the fire at night. Daytime, we open the shades on the south side in the winter; we close them in the summer. When it’s hot, we use fans rather than air conditioning. The windows keep the temp consistently 19 degrees cooler than the outside temp. In cold weather, the furnace, outside of that one hour in the morning, comes on infrequently. Our worst natural gas bill so far? $62, in February ‘06, the month that natural gas prices mysteriously doubled. (Just for comparison, the monthly bill in the summer, when only the pilot light runs, is $16. There’s a minimum fee and some taxes and whatnot that account for much of it.)
Eight years ago, in a house heated with oil–the price of which has nearly quadrupled since–we ran about $300 a year. Our oil company would sell contracts. We would estimate how many gallons we needed, pay our heating bill in July and then settle up for the difference the following spring. The company stopped offering contracts in 2004. Oil prices had gotten too volatile and they could no longer guarantee the price.
Am I doing better? Yes, I think I am, but I’ve been lucky. Without that fortuitous job-related move, I’d be looking at making mortgage payments until I was 82. My husband and I would be burning about 3 gallons of gas a day between us, instead of 3-4 a week total. My home heating bill would be at the mercy of Big Oil, speculators and Arabs.
I’m lucky. My kids are a blessing. Every day at work I hear co-workers talking about their kids’ problems with school, drugs, the law, and whether they’re on the right meds. Mine, knock wood, are doing ok. Luck has a lot to do with my being better off, as does making every effort possible to conserve energy and become self-sufficient in food and energy.
Some people wouldn’t see me as being better off. I’m in a smaller house in a more modest neighborhood, driving a used compact car. I get my hands dirty in the garden and slice and dice and pickle and stew. I sweat and watch my hair frizz as I put quarts of dills and bread and butter pickles in the hot water bath. I stack firewood while my husband swings an axe. To some people, this is a giant step backward, a fearsome reversal of the eternally upward trend of the American economy.
To me, it’s just that the lifestyle I’d aspired to, so demonized as “Hippy” in the Sixties and Seventies, happens to be working out just fine.
Mo’ Betta Bailout
Latest news from our running economic soap opera, As The Street Churns.
Hank Paulson told the Senate Banking Committee today that no mention of oversight was made in his back-of-the-napkin plan to Save the Economy because he “wouldn’t presume” to dictate terms to Congress… except for those 32 inconvenient words where he specifies that there will be no oversight. Tony Fratto, over at the White House, claims that Paulson’s cocktail napkin had been sitting there for several months, but somehow, (seeing as Everything Is Fine and Nobody Saw This Coming) they only saw fit to share it with Congress after the largest players in the economy started tumbling like bowling pins. Oh, and this is so important that Congress had better pass it RIGHT NOW, or else We Are All Doooomed and it will be all your fault! You know, sort of like how you better buy that house RIGHT NOW before you get priced out of the market.
And don’t bother reading the fine print. It will only confuse you.
So, if this was not a long-planned event, why was the plan written ahead of time? If they didn’t think they could force a gigantic liar’s loan on taxpayers by presenting it as the only, desperate, last resort during a crisis that could Take Down the World, why hold off until the crisis occurred? I’ll say it again. This is an attempted takeover of the US, and perhaps the global, economy. It’s a scam.
And there’s something else that’s set off my crap detector: Fox News is acting like nothing’s happening on this topic. Every time I surf past O’Reilly, Hannity, et al, they’re having trivia contests and chit chat. Why would it be in the interest of an alleged news organization to miss the biggest story of the year, maybe the decade?
Any thoughts?
Here’s a little something my son showed me over at Cracked:
So if somebody wants to bypass your critical thinking circuitry, all they need to do is make you scared or anxious, often with a time limit or urgent threat (”We need to act now, or lose our way of life!”).
Instead of pondering the situation with the analytical neocortex, you’re using the primitive limbic system, scanning the landscape for the “Right” and “Wrong” move. You’ll have no patience for wishy-washy talk about “a spectrum of options.”
http://www.cracked.com/article_16656_6-brainwashing-techniques-theyre-using-on-you-right-now.html
Deja Vu, All Over Again
My parents were old enough to remember The Great Depression. Unlike the other kids in my neighborhood, whose parents had been born a decade or more later, I grew up at the dinner table hearing tales of the Stock Market Crash and how my grandfather, a stone setter in a jewelry factory, lost his job shortly thereafter. My mother went to work at age 15, as a legal secretary in the Essex County Court House in the neighboring city of Newark, NJ. She got to keep $5 of her pay each week to cover trolley fare and other necessities. The remaining $10 went to her parents to keep things going. A couple of years later, at age 9, my uncle got a job, too. He set pins in the local bowling alley for a few hours each evening, and lost some of his hearing in the process.
Oh, look! It’s happening again.
I can’t remember who said that “those who ignore History are doomed to repeat it,” but it seems like a sensible thought, so let’s look at History.
In the Roaring Twenties, the Free Market ruled. You could buy stock on margin, meaning that once you owned some stock, you could buy more by borrowing against the value of your existing stock. Buy 100 shares, borrow against them, and buy 90 more. The system worked, like all good pyramid schemes, so long as everyone was confident that it would work. In September 1929, the biggest of the big boys started pulling their money out of stocks. It didn’t affect prices. Everyone else was in a frenzy to buy up whatever they could before they got priced out. The market continued to rise.
Then, in October, there was a “liquidity crisis.” Banks stopped lending. With margin no longer available to fund buying, and the major investors sitting on their cash, the market began to deflate. If you’ve borrowed against the value of your stock and that value goes below the amount you owe, you have to make up the difference by either adding more money (which many didn’t have as it was all invested) or by selling enough stock to make up the difference. All sellers, no buyers? You get a spiral to the bottom as the whole house of cards collapses.
President Herbert Hoover was shocked. Had not a book come out just the year before, written by a respected economist, saying that the stock market could not possibly go down? He turned to his advisors, notably Henry Morgan, grandson of the legendary investor J.P. Morgan, (and co-founder of Morgan Stanley) for advice and was told that this was a necessary market correction and he should let it run its course. In due time, capital would return from “those who don’t know how to use capital productively” to those who did, i.e. Morgan and his friends.
We all know how that turned out. The Depression worsened. 25% of the American workforce was on the street. The Republicans were routed at the next election and Franklin Roosevelt and the Dems in Congress laid down a set of rules that protected ordinary investors and prevented the sort of meltdown we are seeing now.
Until Reagan, who stood everything on its head. You see, we’d be that much more prosperous, if only those pesky New Deal rules could be dispensed with. You’d think he’d have known better. After all, he was old enough to remember the Depression. Of course, for him, the Depression wasn’t quite the argosy it was for my family. His dad had a steady government job with one of FDR’s alphabet soup of bureaus. He got a football scholarship and went to college.
At the time, it reminded me of my high school English teacher, Edward Peter Fitzsimmons, with his handlebar mustache, three piece suit draped with a gold watch chain, and ponderous pronouncement, “When someone says ‘Freedom’ to you, ask them, ‘Freedom from what and freedom to do what?’”
Ah, Freedom.
In the case of Reagan’s supporters, it meant freedom from the pesky regulations that kept them from reinacting the Roaring Twenties and Crash of ‘29, complete with a respected economist predicting that the Dow would reach 36,000. But they were a dedicated bunch. They began with the Savings and Loan industry, took it down in the late ’80s, and sucked massive amounts of taxpayer loot to cover the bad loans they had written for each other and defaulted on. (Google Neil Bush and Silverado for a notable example).
Then the wall between Main Street Banking and Wall Street Banking came tumbling down, weakening one of the protections against another Great Crash set up during the Depression. But hey, we’ve got the FDIC, remember? So if it all turns sour, we’ll be insured.
Let me enlighten you. FDIC is an insurance fund, paid into by the banks. It runs on the assumption that all the banks will not fail, and certainly not at the same time, just like auto insurance companies run on the assumption that every car will not be totalled on the same day. Think about it. Do you really think that the FDIC has funds equal to all deposits in all American banks on its books? It’s a fallback mechanism designed to cover worst case scenarios in a generally well-regulated environment. If you weaken the regulations, you get more worst-case scenarios, and those worst cases get a lot worse, if you catch my drift.
Perhaps you remember a few years back, how investment bankers were relentlessly promoting stocks that they privately referred to as “dogs.” Ah, freedom! Actually, it sort of built into the system. Several years ago, I began studying for my Series 7 (stockbroker’s license) I stopped when I got to the following. If an IPO is not selling out, there is only one way to promote sales: you can’t drop the price; that’s locked in by contract. You can’t give away toasters. The only legal thing you can do is increase the commission to the brokers selling the shares to their clients. So buyer beware. The more your broker is hyping something, the more likely it’s a dog.
And then there’s the Enron Exception. Phil Gramm, having single-handedly destroyed the S&L industry with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (okay, he had help) now turned his sights to the commodities market. In 262 densely-packed pages that he literally had an aide drop into the text of a larger piece of legislation the night before it came to a vote, he repealed all regulation on energy trading, leading bright young traders to chortle that they were ’sticking it to California Grannies up the a**,” or words to that effect. Coincidentally, [irony here] his wife was named to the Enron Board of Directors 5 weeks after the bill passed. Senator Gramm now advises both the Swiss bank, UBS, and John McCain’s presidential campaign. (They did have to put him in the closet after that “mental recession/whiners” gaffe, but he’s still apparently in the running for Treasury Secretary, should Mc Cain prevail at the polls.)
Ok, where were we? Yes, watching Paulson and Bernanke doing their Burt and Ernie show in front of the Senate Banking Committee. Watching the smartest guys on Wall Street plead the case that everyone else should pay for their arrogance and greed, simultaneously insisting that they were too stupid to see it coming and the only guys smart enough to fix it. Watching them demand $700B in ransom money for the economy they are holding hostage. Fix Wall Street, they say, and everything will be fine.
For them. Keep in mind that the real crisis is foreclosures. Wall Street’s crisis is based upon the fact that they bought up a bunch of loans to people who couldn’t afford to repay them. Handing off cash will solve the current “liquidity crisis” (at least until they figure out a way to snort $700B up their noses) but leave the underlying problem untouched.
Here’s an alternative proposal: Work out a temporary deal to restore liquidity (a fancy name for trusting someone enough to loan them money). Then start from the bottom up. Comb through those stinky, mucky mortgages. Do what can be done to keep people in their homes and prevent an even worse crisis as waves of foreclosures crater the housing market. Perhaps that means freezing adjustable rate mortgages. Put people who only own their residence at the head of that line and let those who drove up the market by playing Monopoly with real houses cool their heels. Go after the brokers who wrote the liars loans and fine them, using the proceeds to fund the process of fixing the mess. Work deals so that those who are hopelessly over their heads can, perhaps, get out of their mortgages and become renters, staying in the same home. (I don’t know how that would work in practice, but it’s a thought.) Unravel those massive CDOs and CMOs and figure out just which mortgages are in which bundle, then let Mr. Market figure out what they are actually worth. More work than writing all those zeros on a check, but probably worth it.
Whatever you do, don’t get fooled again.
Of Spinal Regeneration and Chickens
Whew! There’s a mixed metaphor. Let me ’splain. It appears that the Dems are showing sign of a spine, triggered largely by the Bush Administration’s chickens coming home to roost. Despite the best efforts of Bush, Cheney, McCain, Palin, Paulson and Bernanke to panic the American people into a run on every bank in the country with their use of the words “panic,” “depression,” “rescue,” “crisis,” et al, the majority response seems to be, “Gee, this feels a lot like the run-up to the Iraq War.” The members of the House and Senate, Repubs and Dems alike, are standing firm, as well they must.
Here’s an item from Mother Jones, written by Naomi Prins, formerly a managing director at Goldman Sachs:
But even as Capitol Hill debates TARP [Troubled Asset Relief Program], few seem to have noticed the proposal item that puts taxpayers on the hook for future bailouts. It’s in Section 6, and the key phrase is this: “The Secretary’s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time.”
What does “at any one time” actually mean to economists? It means that if everything we American taxpayers buy re-evaluates down to zero, we get to buy more. That’s hardly taxpayer “protection.” With several hundred billion dollars of write-downs already announced this year by the part of the industry compelled to post their losses, it’s a safe bet that $700 billion worth of the junkiest assets in existence will be heading to zero the second they are purchased.
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2008/09/the-bailout-plans-fine-print.html
Yes, you heard that right. At any one time. Call your Senator, quick!
{note: on Chris Matthews’ show today, Jim Kramer was virtually salivating over the notion that this $700B investment could possibly turn a $200B profit, once everything stabilizes. Or lose $200B of taxpayer geldt. Cheap in his estimation. They won’t all go to zero, he maintained.]
And here’s another minor technicality: Under Paulson’s plan the job of sorting out who owns what and what it’s worth will be subcontracted out to [drum roll please] Goldman Sachs and others of the firms that created them.
Government contracts. Where have we heard that before?
Seriously, call your Rep and Senators. Make sure they read all the fine print.
Straight Talk Express Makes Hard Right, Runs into Waffle House
Hoo, boy! John McCain appears to be running a parody of a political campaign. Here’s my prediction: within two years there will be a comedy film about it. It will consist of actual campaign footage intercut with dramatized scenes of the backstage workings of the campaign. Tina Fey will, of course, play Governor Palin. Richard Dreyfus would be my pick for the top of the ticket, with Morgan Fairchild as his lovely wife. The campaign advisors will be played by Cheech and Chong.
You read it here first, and I want royalties.
Another Day, Another Crisis
We have an agreement on the bailout! We’re saved!
No, we don’t. We’re dooooomed, well maybe not so much.
What’s up with that?
I’m sticking by my original intuition: it’s a scam. Amazingly, I am not alone in this opinion:
Paulson Bailout a Historic Swindle http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081006/greider
Stop the music, so to speak, instead of allowing individual financiers and traders to take opportunistic moves to save themselves at the expense of the system.
And here’s an article by James K. Galbraith, who doesn’t state things as baldly but offers a more reasoned analysis of the plan. Cliff notes: The bailout is badly thought out and largely unnecessary.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/24/AR2008092403033.html?nav=slate
Galbraith points out that the basic problem is that the mortgage market became totally corrupted and the problem lies within the mortgages themselves. The notion that these “vehicles” are “too complicated” to unravel is nonsense. People make their mortgage payments and somehow those payments make their way to the correct investors. The notion that the whole thing can’t be unwound and the soundness of each mortgage determined is just not going to fly.
No, the solution lies, like the solution to so many other scandals these past eight years, in old-fashioned law enforcement. Were there abuses? You betcha! From the liar’s loans on the wrong sides of so many tracks to the speculators leveraged up the wazoo, playing Monopoly with real houses, right up to the boardroom, with plenty of retirees looking for safe investments getting schnookered in the process. The notion that the problem can be solved by bailing out the top of the food chain and sweeping the rest of the mess under the carpet is pure gobbledygook. For a more technical analysis, see Martin Wolf’s article in the Financial Times.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a09b317e-898d-11dd-8371-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1
But let’s look into the political fallout. In the face of this economic disaster, John McCain’s response began with denial, then partial acceptance, then a desire to jump into the middle of it coincidental to finding an excuse for a bailout of his own, bailing out of Friday’s debate. I tend not to go for economic or political analysis on these things, but look for the underlying psychological logic.
The whole basis of NeoCon thought lies in the concept of short-term gain. At Harvard, back in the 50s, when the concept of the Masters of Business Administration was first hatched, one early research finding was that steering by short-term considerations (such as measuring your success by each quarter’s earnings report) would be more profitable than employing a long-term strategy. Basically, your profits would compound faster. Another tenet of the MBA religion is that you need to privatize your profit and externalize your risk.
This is the thinking that led to Paulson’s plan. Profit is retained for the giant brokerage houses and the risk offloaded to the taxpayers. This is also McCain’s logic. Campaign’s in the doldrums. Hey! Let’s nominate that hot babe from Alaska! Ooops! She doesn’t just look like a Barbie doll…Quick, Robin! The Batmobile to Washington! Then he plots to seize the high moral ground by “suspending his campaign” without actually stopping anyone from campaigning on his behalf. I can imagine the debate, if he does actually show up. “Oh, look Barack! A bird just buzzed your head!” McCain specializes in short-term strategies to leapfrog himself from crisis to crisis. As the editor of The Nation said on Countdown tonight, “McCain’s gone all in, betting on the stupidity of the American people.”
Don’t laugh. Rupert Murdoch’s been betting on that for years and winning billions.
There’s a traditional name for short-term thinking. It’s called “cleverness.” Remember that the next time you hear the phrase “the smartest guys in the room.”
There’s a traditional name for long-term thinking, as well. It’s called “wisdom.” We could use a few wise men and women. I’ve had it with the wise guys.
The First Debate
Well, if you’ve read my previous posts, you’ve probably figured out that I’m rooting for Obama, but contrary to my hopes, and John McCain’s pre-debate victory announcement (released even before he agreed to show up, can you believe it?) I’d have to call it a draw. Obama looked relaxed and in control, as always. McCain flashed that shark-toothed grin on more than one occasion, and refused to look at his opponent. They both scored points.
I think Obama could have scored more.
- He could have pointed out more forcefully that McCain’s call for regulation on Wall Street comes only after the deregulation he championed for decades has nearly destroyed the banking system.
- When McCain went on about how well he would care for veterans, Obama could have mentioned McCain’s rating from the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), as compared to his own. McCain voted against bills favored by the DAV 16 times, with 11 votes in favor and 5 unrated. Obama voted against their positions once, in favor 17 times, with one vote unrated. However, veterans organizations are picking up that dropped stitch.
- When asked by Lehrer about spending cuts that would be forced by the bailout, Obama could have made a stronger case that the areas he wants to increase spending on are investments that will strengthen the economy and that the dangerous mismanagement of the past 8 years has jeopardised our ability to create a better future. He could also have mentioned that no one really knows if the bailout will actually cost $700B or $100B or even $1.8T, or, after all the shouting is over actually turn a profit, and whether that profit will go to the taxpayers or into the pockets of a few corporations, as the details have not been hammered out. The end result, “too soon to tell” may have been the same, but it would have looked more reasoned and less evasive. McCain, of course, has no problem with cutting anything, ever, regardless of the consequenses.
- I think Obama tried to call foul on McCain’s support of nukes, given the senator’s consistent record of supporting nuclear power and waste disposal so long as it stays outside of Arizona, but McCain talked over him, a tried and true tactic of the Right.
The early polls, meanwhile, are showing a boost for Obama. Maybe I’m just too picky, (McCain neither lapsed into a bleepable tirade nor ran from the podium in tears) maybe the Republican psy-ops strategy of the “victory ad” hasn’t taken effect yet.
Or maybe you really can’t fool all the people all the time.
Stay tuned.
Bailout Reboot
Despite John McCain’s heroic use of the Batphone, the Bailout bill failed. A substantial minority of Dems voted against it on principle. A substantial majority of Republicans voted against it, some on principles that may have been similar to or the polar opposite of the Dems, and a round dozen we are told, because their feelings were hurt by a girl.
Although I work in the banking industry, at the bottom end of one of those institutions that are in danger of becoming extinct if something isn’t done, I was relieved. Let’s forget about the original fox-in-the-henhouse Paulson version of the bill. Let’s forget about making cosmetic changes to something designed to save the butts of hedge fund managers by tossing in a few crumbs for the rest of us. Let’s start over. Oddly, we don’t have to start from scratch.
I can’t claim credit for this. I found it posted in a comment by Christian to a Mother Jones article:
If the current credit crisis stems from the collapsing housing market, it makes sense to stabilize the housing market. Fortunately, we already have a historical model to accomplish this. Among his many New Deal reforms, FDR created the Home Owners Loan Corporation. The government can purchase all foreclosed properties and mortgages approaching foreclosure and reset the mortgages at a more reasonable rate. Properties which are already foreclosed can be refurbished to ensure better long-term value, including such energy efficient upgrades as solar water heating panels and improved insulation. Properties beyond redemption can be destroyed, and the property used for newer, better housing or other appropriate use at market prices.
The cost? With the current foreclosure rate at around 2.03 million houses, and a median house price of 200K, the taxpayers will have to pony up about 421 billion dollars. Throw in another four billion to cover administrative costs and property ugrades, and it’s still a bargain at 425 billion. This plan has the advantage of allowing people to remain in their homes and pay their mortages, creating additional jobs through improvement of housing stock, and ensuring that the money spent by the taxpayer is used in a manner that is well-observed and grounded in real values, not hazy market derivatives. Historically speaking, the HOLC of the New Deal even turned a small profit.
There will be some who argue that allowing “irresponsible” homeowners to keep houses they could not afford risks creating a moral hazard. To help avoid this possibility, the program could be restricted to primary residence to ensure it is a homeowner’s program, not a tool for speculators flipping properties. But in any case, don’t we risk a moral hazard on a much greater scale by bailing out Wall Street speculators and billionaires with little to no oversight?
Main Street needs a fair deal. Wall Street has had things more than fair for the past three decades, and they blew it. Enough of that failed model already.
I’ve already copied and pasted this into an email to the Obama campaign, where it is no doubt sitting in their capacious inbox waiting to be read by a volunteer while negotiations proceed apace on Capitol Hill. Stronger measures are needed. This plan makes sense, and needs to be added to the debate. Want to help?
Here’s why I think Obama and the Dems need to take up this proposal and desist from anymore of this “bipartisan” schtick.
- This plan is a proven entity, having provided major relief during the last depression and actually paid for itself and then some.
- This plan addresses the root of the problem: the crumbling housing market, while allowing the guys who made fortunes off the return side of the risk/return equation to accept that good old free-market risk. (There should also be investigations and accountability for the scammers. The problems of small investors having bought into these atrocities should also be addressed, but in a separate bill.)
- This plan fits in well with Barack’s alt energy and green jobs planks and could actually kick start the retrofitting of America. My friend Steve Hegedus from the University of Delaware’s Solar Research Center has long maintained that the only thing holding back solar is lack of enough demand to introduce economies of scale that would bring prices down.
- In addition, the reference to FDR would allow Barack to address that “elitism” thing, perhaps with the Gumpish phrase, “Elite is as elite does.” The Right has long pulled votes via a phony populism based on the fantasy that you, too, the hard-partying, slidin’ by C-student could become president, even if your daddy were not a politically connected millionaire, so why not elect someone like you, not that nerd who actually learned stuff in school. FDR was a card carrying member of the Elite, scion of a family already wealthy by the time of the American Revolution, Yale grad, former Secretary of the Navy, cousin of a legendary former president, governor of a certifiably Eastern Establishment state, New York. Then tragedy struck. He went to bed one night and woke up unable to move his legs. Polio, then a common scourge, had laid him low. His efforts to recover sent him to a sanatorium in Warm Springs, GA, where 99% of the patients were, well, from the other 99% of America. Unlike his social classmates, he got to know and befriend ordinary people, and this connection sustained him when his peers demonized him for the New Deal. I’m sure a researcher could come up with any number of Depression-era quotes that sound remarkably similar to recent Republican pronouncements.
- Obama could also make parallels between the Republican economic policies in the Twenties and their reinstitution since Reagan.
- He could point out that Lassez Faire capitalism has historically led to and endless cycle of booms and busts, and that as much as Conservatives hate regulation, wise regulation actually functioned to establish trust in the financial system and keep the economy on an even keel for the better part of a century. He could point out that the current crisis is living proof of this.
- It would answer John McCain’s dare, that Obama has nothing to offer, unlike McCain, who offered more tax cuts for the rich, protection for exorbitant executive pay for incompetence, and federal insurance for the junk paper, which would bring its nominal value back up to 100% (Hey, it’s insured. It’s safe! ) This last would essentially reboot the scam.
- Continued attempts to bring Republicans on board give them enourmous power, and they already have a proven track record of abusing that to feather their own beds.
The alternative is a continued attempt by Dems to entice the Republicans to cover their butts by voting with them by including their poison in the eventual bill. There are enough Dems to pass a good bill along partisan lines, and probably enough Main Street-oriented Republicans to provide a cushion, but we’ll have to act fast. Other proposals are already in play. We’ll need a groundswell of support to get this to the table.
Call your Representative. Tell them about this proposal. Do it now. If the line is busy, keep trying.
Nancy Pelosi (202) 225-0100 Barney Frank (202) 225-5931 Rahm Emmanuel (202) 225-4061
Barack Obama (202) 224-2854 Joe Biden (202) 224-5042
Capitol Hill Switchboard (202) 224-3121
House member links http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/index.html
Senate member links http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
What Mortgage Meltdown? The End of Smoke and Mirror Economics
Let’s start with a comment from Polixian to a previous post:
This should give responsible media outlets a greater opportunity to point out the history of how it is our economy got to where we are…beginning with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (President Jimmy Carter); the push by the Clinton Administration to force sub-prime mortgage lenders to expand their offerings into under-qualified, high-risk groups; the money trail of industry lobbyists (esp. Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae) and their political allies (esp. Frank, Dodd, Obama, and other republicans as well); and, the efforts by the aforementioned, as well as Maxine Waters and Pelosi, to protect such industry practices via outspoken congressional opposition to reform measures.
Ok, I admit I started it, by thinking that the Bushies had pushed this to bring the maximum amount of sheep in to be fleeced by predatory lenders. It was the Liberals that started this. However, here are a couple of details that have come to my attention:
Polixian echoes the Right Wing charge that Liberal policies have forced banks to make loans to people who could not afford the payments. It is soundly rebutted here:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/loans.asp
The landmark case, Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank was about the bank’s refusal to make a loan to a Black woman while granting loans to whites with similar income profiles. The lawsuit sought to end redlining, the practice of refusing credit to individuals based upon their neighborhood, regardless of their ability to repay.
I spoke with Michael, my go-to-guy at work, a second-generation bank consultant, who told me he ran the math and figured out that the $700 billion figure for the bailout was based upon 7% of the $10 trillion mortgage market going south, of which $0.5 billion represents those nasty, evil, ACORN-inspired subprime loans. Po’ folks taking down the global economic system? Not hardly.
Then I ran across this, at http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/its_the_derivatives.php
What had to be saved at all costs was not housing or the dollar but the financial derivatives industry; and the precipice from which it had to be saved was an “event of default” that could have collapsed a quadrillion dollar derivatives bubble, a collapse that could take the entire global banking system down with it.
Michael puts the total US derivatives market at $180 trillion, or about 18% of the global total, and notes that the entire GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the entire world is a measly $70 trillion. Yeah, you read that right: the derivatives market is about 14 times the entire annual income of the entire world. OK, so what’s a derivative?
Essentially, it’s a bet. Again, from Ellen Brown, who explains this stuff so clearly:
Derivatives are financial instruments that have no intrinsic value but derive their value from something else. Basically, they are just bets. You can “hedge your bet” that something you own will go up by placing a side bet that it will go down. “Hedge funds” hedge bets in the derivatives market. Bets can be placed on anything, from the price of tea in China to the movements of specific markets.
“The point everyone misses,” wrote economist Robert Chapman a decade ago, “is that buying derivatives is not investing. It is gambling, insurance, and high stakes bookmaking. Derivatives create nothing.”1 They not only create nothing, but they serve to enrich non-producers at the expense of the people who do create real goods and services. In congressional hearings in the early 1990s, derivatives trading was challenged as being an illegal form of gambling. But the practice was legitimized by Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, who not only lent legal and regulatory support to the trade but actively promoted derivatives as a way to improve “risk management.” Partly, this was to boost the flagging profits of the banks; and at the larger banks and dealers, it worked. But the cost was an increase in risk to the financial system as a whole….2
Credit default swaps (CDS) are the most widely traded form of credit derivative. CDS are bets between two parties on whether or not a company will default on its bonds. In a typical default swap, the “protection buyer” gets a large payoff from the “protection seller” if the company defaults within a certain period of time, while the “protection seller” collects periodic payments from the “protection buyer” for assuming the risk of default. CDS thus resemble insurance policies, but there is no requirement to actually hold any asset or suffer any loss, so CDS are widely used just to increase profits by gambling on market changes. In one blogger’s example, a hedge fund could sit back and collect $320,000 a year in premiums just for selling “protection” on a risky BBB junk bond. The premiums are “free” money – free until the bond actually goes into default, when the hedge fund could be on the hook for $100 million in claims.
And there’s the catch: what if the hedge fund doesn’t have the $100 million? The fund’s corporate shell or limited partnership is put into bankruptcy; but both parties are claiming the derivative as an asset on their books, which they now have to write down. Players who have “hedged their bets” by betting both ways cannot collect on their winning bets; and that means they cannot afford to pay their losing bets, causing other players to also default on their bets.
The dominos go down in a cascade of cross-defaults that infects the whole banking industry and jeopardizes the global pyramid scheme. The potential for this sort of nuclear reaction was what prompted billionaire investor Warren Buffett to call derivatives “weapons of financial mass destruction.”
[This might be the time to mention that W's brother Marvin runs a hedge fund, Winston Capital Management, but I digress.]
So, what did that $700 billion buy us? Damned if I know. The credit market is still seized up, since the dominoes are still a-tumblin’ and $700 billion, as impressive as that string of zeros is after the 7 looks, is only .00000004 of the value of the total derivatives market.
And the most interesting part, as Brown points out, is that “Derivatives create nothing. They not only create nothing, but they serve to enrich non-producers at the expense of the people who do create real goods and services.”
So essentially, derivatives are fluff, wispy critters of air, the foam on the economic beer, so to speak. with as much intrinsic value as the average casino chip. And yes, there are people who have profited most handsomely from them. What to do? Soak the Rich? That would be nice, but the problem is that down the line the real money underlying the cotton candy is your IRA, my 401-K, and Mrs. McGillicutty’s annuity.
Exactly how do we untangle this? How do we blow the foam off without spilling the beer? Nothing jumps off the top of my head, but I’m putting on my thinking cap, and I hope you will, too.
The Whited Sepulcher
A few years ago, when I lived in Elkton, MD, I got to chatting with a fellow on the road crew fixing my street (after years of potholes, busted water mains, cheap patches, and neighborhood complaints). He asked me what I thought of the Bush Administration. That can be a loaded question in Cecil County, MD, a finger of Appalachia poking into the eye of the Eastern Seaboard, so I answered carefully. “I think the country’s being run by a bunch of whited sepulchers,” I said.
He nodded. “Yep,” he said.
Now for any of you not inclined to Biblical reference, that’s a term Jesus used to describe the Pharisees, then the dominant sect of Judaism. Jesus may have loved everybody, but the Pharisees annoyed the bejazus out of Jesus, and he returned the favor. A sepulcher, you see, is a tomb. People liked their family crypts to look nice, showing respect for the dead and all, so they would whitewash them. The paint, as Jesus pointed out, did not change the fact that there were rotting corpses inside, “filth,” I think he termed it. White sepulchers, all shiny outside and gross within.
I remembered that term when I saw Governor Palin on the news today, claiming that the recent investigation in Alaska had cleared her of any wrongdoing, “legal or ethical.” When the reporter pushed back, pointing out that Finding #1 was that she had violated the state ethics code, Palin again cheerfully asserted that yes, the report had cleared her.
This was the same code of ethics that she used to discredit the head of the Alaska Oil & Natural Gas Commission, on which she served, which is the linchpin of her reputation as a maverick. Let’s add in a few other emerging facts:
- Palin was associated with Wasilla residents Mark Chryson and Steve Stoll, members of the Alaska Independence Party, which has connections to theocratic movements and other secessionist parties, particularly neo-confederates in the South. When preparing to run for governor, they advised her to register as a Republican. Since then AIP vice chairman Dexter Clark has bragged about his success in “infiltrating” the Republican Party and urged his fellow theocrats and secessionists to do the same with both Republican and Democratic local organizations. Source: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/10/palin_chryson/ Although her campaign is careful to point out that she was never a member and that her husband Todd, a member of 7 years, did not take part in formulating party policy, (he switched to Republican right before her first mayoral campaign) she has remained supportive of them and their agenda, including praising them in her welcoming speech at their 2008 convention. Who is being played here? The AIP wingnuts who hate taxes in all forms and want to secede from the Union (bye-bye Federal funding)? Palin, their Manchurian Candidate? The GOP base? McCain? Voters? All of the above?
- Tonight’s blockbuster news is that their lovely Wasilla home, which Todd, “built himself with the help of some contractor buddies,” was, in fact built for free with the labor and materials contributed by the “contractor buddies” who would go on to build the palacial Wasilla Sports Complex. When looking at the pictures, keep in mind that this facility is in a rural town of approximately 6,000 people and was paid for by a combination of Federal earmarks and raising the city sales tax to a whopping 25%. By comparison, the combined state and city sales tax for New York City, that hotbed of tax ‘n spending, is 8.375%, and far-left pinko Massachusetts, 5%.
- Go listen to the question at the end of the Biden/Palin debate, the one about “if, God forbid, you would have to succeed your running mate” and compare Biden and Palin’s replies.
By their fruits shall ye know them.
The Sheriff of Nottingham…Not!
God bless Thomas J. Dart, Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois (aka Chicago). He noticed that evictions had doubled in the past year. Then he noticed that he was evicting people who had paid their rent in a timely and consistent fashion. The landlords were getting their money, just not passing it along to their lenders.
According to DSnews.com, “Just two years ago, there were less than 19,000 foreclosure cases filed [in Cook County]. This year’s total is expected to exceed 43,000.” On top of all the other problems involving people playing monopoly with real houses, the banks were not doing their due diligence, leaving it up to the Sheriff’s Office to determine if the owner inhabited the house. Tom Dart had the courage to cry foul, and not for the first time. Last year he tried to get a bill passed that would at least identify children and elderly residents of properties in foreclosure so that social service agencies could contact them in advance and ease their transitions to other housing. The bill failed.
There’s historic precedent for Dart’s action, as covered by Ann Keating at http://www.examiner.com/x-781-Chicago-History-Examiner~y2008m10d12-The-Trouble-with-Evicting-People-from-Their-Homes-Even-if-they-dont-Own-them
Tom’s not the first to show compassion. The banks haven’t changed a whole lot, either. Accredited Home Lenders filed, then dropped, a lawsuit in a case where Tom refused to evict. And Chicago is not alone:
http://www.boston.com/realestate/news/articles/2007/10/21/default_crisis_is_evicting_renters/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18renters.html
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jul/27/when-renter-pays-owner-doesnt-youre-out-tenant/
What can you do if you are in this situation? The following site has some useful information:
http://www.caltenantlaw.com/Eviction.htm [Scroll down to "Foreclosures."]
It suggests that by fighting back, you can delay the whole process by 6 months or so, and this might be the most important sentence in the whole article: “You should also know that if you cannot afford the filing fees, you can get the fee waiver application forms from the Court Clerk, and submit them in lieu of actual payment. When in doubt, do that, because it may be granted, it gives you more time, and it protects your case file from others viewing it.” It also warns against “Cash for Keys” agreements, in which you agree to give up your security deposit and residence in exchange for promises they generally don’t intend to keep.
Important disclosure here: this website,http://www.caltenantlaw.com/, is specific to California Tenant Law. Seek legal advice relevant to your home state.
In the meantime, it would seem that there could be some sort of legal arrangement worked out to get the property shifted from the non-paying owner’s clutches while not disposessing the paying customers. After all, wouldn’t an income-producing property be a more attractive buy than a vacant one? Whether the solution is governmental or private sector, the key would appear to be changing the law that requires a rental property to be vacated before foreclosure. Any thoughts?
After sleeping on it, I’ve come up with one:
- Make the lender’s due diligence include finding out if the owner occupies the property. If not, rather than sending eviction notices to the renters, then would be sent a letter requesting that they show receipts proving they were current on their rents, with a two week deadline. The letter would explain that if they can prove they’re current, they will not be evicted. (Provision should be made that someone who is getting free rent in return for managing the place doesn’t get wrongfully evicted.) Once they have documented their payment status, they would receive instructions to pay their rent to an escrow account. To avoid confusion, the lender could send a couple or three postpaid envelopes to cover the transition period.
- Those who were not current on their rent would be evicted. And yes, Sheriff Dart’s proposal, that those renters be checked for disabilities and age should be included in the proposed legislation.
- The property would be auctioned off at a sheriff’s sale. The funds in the escrow account, less the cost of hiring someone to manage the building, would go to the lender.
Why do I think this would work, even though it gives the lender an extra hoop to jump through? Because an income-producing property would sell for a higher price than a vacant building, thus bringing a greater return to the lender. The escrowed funds would cover the cost of the added research and the cost of managing the property during the transition period.
Be Like Ben!
I came across this discussion of Joe the Plumber economics at OEN:
If Joe takes a salary out of the business of more than $250,000, then he’ll pay more [tax]….Now, let’s say there is a higher tax and it makes Joe reconsider crossing that $250,000 threshold. What else can Joe do with the money? Invest in the business in new services? Expand marketing? Hire more employees? The other side of the decision helps the economy. Oooh, that sound so un-American, so socialist, as Joe accused.
source: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Joe-the-Plumber–the-Para-by-Rob-Kall-081016-366.html
Rob Kall’s on to something, in fact, something that goes back to the Founding Fathers, Ben Franklin, in particular. In Ben’s humble opinion,
All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.
So much for the notion that paying taxes is some kind of Socialist innovation. The following comment on the current banking crisis, from Ellen Brown, also posted on OEN, shows how Franklin put his beliefs into practice, while governor of Pennsylvania:
If banks went bankrupt, they could be put into FDIC receivership and nationalized. The government would then own a string of banks, which could be used to service the depository and credit needs of the community. There would be no need to change the personnel or procedures of these newly-nationalized banks. They could engage in “fractional reserve” lending just as they do now. The only difference would be that the interest on loans would return to the government, helping to defray the tax burden on the populace; and the banks would start out with a clean set of books, so their $700 billion in startup capital could be fanned into $7 trillion in new loans. This was the sort of banking scheme used in Benjamin Franklin’s colony of Pennsylvania, where it worked brilliantly well. The spiraling-interest problem was avoided by printing some extra money and spending it into the economy for public purposes. During the decades the provincial bank operated, the Pennsylvania colonists paid no taxes, there was no government debt, and inflation did not result.
Source: http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/THE-REAL-DEBATE-CRONY-SOC-by-Ellen-Brown-081016-471.html
How far we have come from Franklin’s thinking. In fact, Conservatism, the dominant political philosophy in this country for the last 30 years, seeks to support an economic system that goes back to the Closing of the Commons, the never-ending quest of individuals to enrich themselves by aggregating to themselves that which initially belongs to all. As John Kenneth Galbraith put it,
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
Franklin, who began his career in Philadelphia with 3 cents in his pocket and grew to be one of the wealthiest American colonists, understood that material acquisition by itself was an empty, endless pursuit.
Money never made a man happy yet, nor will it. . . . The more a man has, the more he wants. Instead of filling a vacuum, it makes one.
Further, according to Franklin,
An enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals is dangerous to the rights, and destructive of the common happiness of mankind, and, therefore, every free state hath a right by its laws to discourage the possession of such property.
At a time when a member of Congress, Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) has called for an investigation into “the people of Congress [to] find out if they are pro-America or anti-America” it’s important to ask, just how do you define “pro-American?”
Reversion to Type
A few posts ago, I mentioned Bush’s facial expression as he tried to sell us on his bailout package, you know, “the bird flew in the window and ate all the cookies” look, and how people, when under extreme stress, tend to revert to earlier successful behavior.
Being one who periodically trips over her own feet, I’ve been reading a book called, Self-Defeating Behaviors: Free Yourself from the Habits, Compulsions, Feelings, and Attitudes That Hold You Back. The central insight is that these self-defeating behaviors (example, overeating) were once useful (provided solace after an emotionally painful experience) and are therefore continued even when they are no longer productive.
Hence, Obama is now a Commie. Walk it backwards: He’s black. Didn’t work. He’s a Muslim. Didn’t work. He’s a terrorist. Didn’t work either. Now we’re going all the way back to the Fifties and throwing around terms like Socialist, Communist, (as in “the Communist parts of Virginia”) and anti-America(n).
We’ve still got a couple of weeks to go. Will the $1million donated to Michele Bachmann’s opponent alert Republican’s to the fact that they are making fools of themselves?
Any thoughts as to what their next campaign strategy will be? There are wingnuts around the edges with their “Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate is not genuine” lawsuit, the “cocaine-fueled gay sex in the limo,” and, of course, the voter fraud charges (while they do everything in their power to engage in voter intimidation).
Speaking of intimidation, go on over to www.Consortiumnews.com and check out what’s up in Alaska. Palin’s people had agreed to testify in Troopergate in July. After her vice-presidential nomination, they began refusing to honor their subpoenas, apparently on the advice of the McCain campaign. A member of the Alaska legislature has called them on it, noting that it appears to be what is known as “witness intimidation,” a federal crime.
Stay tuned.
Priceless in Omaha
Just read this on the Mother Jones website and had to share it:
“…a syndicated morning zoo show on the local classic-rock station was making fun of celebrities, offering up jokes about Jenna McCarthy’s “big cans.” Then the host read a news story about illegal immigrants returning to Mexico because of the economic situation here. The whole crew was apoplectic. “Was that the Bush administration’s immigration policy,” the host shouted, “to make our country suck so bad that everyone will want to leave?’”
Source: http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/10/10409_omaha-dispatch.html
Let me count the ways…
- Cost of paying Sarah Palin per diem to stay home while governor, $17,000, paid by the State of Alaska
- Cost of ferrying her children around on oficial business, $21,000, paid by the State of Alaska
- Makeup artist for one month, $13,200, paid by RNC
- New clothes for the whole family, $150,000, paid by RNC
Just think what she will be able to do once she has access to the US Treasury, especially since she thinks that the VP’s job is to run Congress and tell them what bills to pass.
Can you say, “Dick Cheney wears Prada?”
Atlas F*@#ed Up
In my senior year of high school, a friend pressed a copy of Atlas Shrugged into my hands, enthusing that I had to read it. I did, and failed to see the reason for her enthusiasm. Rand’s characters struck me as flat; her worship of geniuses and contempt for the rest of humanity failed to move me. I asked my friend if she thought that Leonardo da Vinci would have accomplished half as much if he had to cook his own food, much less grow it; wash his own clothes, much less spin, weave, and sew; or empty his own chamberpot. I’m afraid that terminated our friendship.
In the intervening decades, having run into the odd Libertarian or two (and you can take this sentence any way you like) I developed my Theory of Ayn Rand. In order to explain it, I have to make a side trip to Lake Woebegone, so bear with me.
In one of his LW stories, Garrison Keillor tells of an angst-ridden young man who nails 95 theses to the door of the Lutheran Church. They’re all a stitch, but the one that pertains to this rant goes something like this:
You taught me that South is East and North is West, and even when I turned it around backwards, it still didn’t work!
Keeping that philosophical insight in mind, lets take the Nickel Tour of Russian History. The tsars ruled Russia for about a thousand years. They largely treated their people like shit, and enlisted the Church in support of the throne, a strategy that has been employed since the dawn of either churches or thrones. Kommes der revolution, everything, being totally wrong, gets turned on its head.
Royalty? Evil. Wealth? Evil. Religion? Evil. What’s good? Working class chuds.
Into this new social order is born Miss Rand, a bright child, daughter of a pharmacist who lost all in the effort to purify the nation of any semblance of economic inequality. Please keep in mind that the middle class was the face and hands of the wealthy. The Count didn’t come around and evict you if you didn’t pay your rent. He hired someone to do that, someone who had a steady paycheck and a nice house to live in for doing the Count’s dirty work. Or, maybe, told someone that no, they couldn’t have the medicine their child desperately needed unless they could pay for it. So, middle class? Evil, too. In short, this was not a society in which someone like Miss Rand could get any respect.
South being East and North being West, she corrected the error by turning it upside down. Oddly enough, it wasn’t the Holy Little Father the Tsar that came out on top of her new world order. No, it was the geniuses like herself. (Ms Rand was not noted for her humility.) You see, if people like herself were just left to their own devices, the world would improve at an exponential rate. Complete freedom. Rules being unnecessary, as the law of cause and effect would trump everything.
Ms. Rand had notable followers and fellow travelers: Alan Greenspan, Milton Friedman, Leo Strauss and his acolytes come to mind. She had no children, but many intellectual offspring, worshiping at the altar of Communism’s polar opposite, the Free Market.
Fast forward half a century, and Miss Rand’s philosophy of selfishness is summed up by the renowned philosopher, Gordon Gekko: “Greed is good.” Freed of silly regulations, the Market will function with the perfect balance of Mother Nature herself. The weak will fail, the strong thrive and prosper, to the benefit of all. Fast forward another thirty years, give or take, and Reality says, “Not so much.” Mother Nature, as bountiful as she is, has been known to serve up the occasional hurricane, drought, or flood. It turns out that those stupid chuds are necessary to the greater well being of the genius types after all, if only to keep paying the mortgage interest that flows through the derivatives labrynth, emerging at the top as new Beemers and mansions in the Hamptons.
Miss Rand’s ideal dog-eat-dog world is maybe not such a great place to live after all.
So can we get it right this time? Can we strike a balance between Freedom and Responsibility? Can we thread the narrow path that allows the individual to express his or her abilities to the fullest without damaging others who are less gifted, or less ambitious? Can we view the world clearly, and make our decisions based upon fact and not ideology?
Can we set our compass to True North?
The New New Republican Strategy
In a post a few days ago, I asked what tactic the McCain campaign would embrace next, and wondered if McCain’s repeated use of the word “fight” was a code. How blind I was.
Feldman notes the “complete repackaging of the McCain campaign” in “violent populism.” He notes a Time report about McCain staff in Virginia training volunteers to tie Obama to Pentagon bombings and says that the McCain campaign has “a ground operation actually training its volunteers to elicit violent responses in voters–specifically by making false claims about Barack Obama.” This raises questions, he says, of whether “John McCain is using campaign rhetoric that not only depart from recognized moral boundaries, but risk igniting actual violence.”
Some pundits have been reluctant to believe that John McCain would want to launch these baseless and wrongheaded attacks. They lament, where has the real John McCain gone?
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dawn-teo/mccain-palin-and-the-luci_b_136572.html
The real John McCain, whoever he may have been, is no more. One has only to look at the recent McCain/Palin interview to see who the dominant person is in that relationship. McCain is not in charge of his campaign. Hasn’t been for months. Remember when his own campaign advisor stated that “John McCain does not speak for the McCain campaign?” At the time it seemed merely weird. Now McCain knows he’s lost the election, and will join Barry Goldwater on the list of all time biggest losers. He’s given up trying to win and has set his sights on revenge. I don’t think he even cares whether Republican policies continue, just that Obama and his supporters suffer. Those behind him are looking for ways to nullify the electoral results, by violent means, if necessary. Here are some of the attacks from the past ten days, from the above article:
Sunday, October 12
In one case, an Obama supporter was shopping with his infant son when an angry McCain-Palin supporter rammed his shopping cart. Luckily, the police were able to identify the man from video of his license plate, and he was charged with assault.
Wednesday, October 15
In Greensboro, North Carolina, a reporter Joe Killian was kicked to the ground at a Palin rally just for doing his job. He was interviewing Obama supporters who were protesting the Palin rally after a group of angry McCain-Palin supporters warned him that Palin was the story – not the protesters. One McCain-Palin supporter was so angry at Killian for interviewing the Obama supporters that he kicked him to the ground – from behind.
Friday, October 17
Even Barack Obama’s home state is not immune. Two separate homeowners in Villa Park, Illinois found death threats in their mailboxes that read,
Get the Obama signs off your property – now. Failure to obey this order will result in the immediate death of all family members.
Although both families vow to keep the signs in their yards, one of the families is now afraid to let their 7 year old son play outside in the yard.
Saturday, October 18
In Wisconsin, McCain-Palin supporter Ronald Goetsch physically attacked 58 year old Nancy Takehara, grabbing her by the hair and striking her in the face, while she was canvassing for Obama. According to Takehara, “[Goetsch] was telling us we’re not his people, we’re probably with ACORN, and he started screaming and raving. He grabbed me by the back of the neck. I thought he was going to rip my hair out of my head. He was pounding on my head and screaming. The man terrified me.”
By the time Takehara returned to her home in Chicago, she had a message from Barack Obama on her answering machine. She called the number that had been left on her machine and talked directly to Obama. He reassured her and said that this is an isolated and extremely rare occurrence, but many Obama canvassers have begun to voice fear or nervousness about canvassing both because of a rash of incidents reported in the news and because of a notable change in atmosphere on the streets. Some who were previously comfortable canvassing along are now opting to canvass in pairs.
Saturday, October 18
Incidents have even occurred at Obama events. In Fayetteville, North Carolina, someone slashed the tires on more than 30 cars during an Obama rally, leaving women and children stranded. Lynne Steenstra, whose tires were slashed, believes it was meant to intimidate Obama supporters, to prevent them from casting their votes.
Sunday, October 19
The car of an Obama volunteer was trashed (rear windshield smashed, spray painted, stolen Obama signs shoved into the backseat) while he was out to dinner with friends.
Sunday, October 19
In Princeton, West Virginia, a crowd of McCain-Palin supporters gathered to heckle and intimidate mostly black voters as they arrive to vote at an early voting location. When journalist Christina Bellantoni asked the sheriff if the protesters were allowed at the early voting location, the sheriff showed no concern of voter intimidation and merely answered, “They’re fine.”
October 19, 2008
In Fairfield, Ohio, Mike Lunsford hung an Obama effigy from a noose in a tree in his front yard. He attached a campaign sign to a ghost figure, wrote “Hussain” (yes, it was misspelled), put a noose around its neck, and strung it up in a tree.
I have found no reports of Obama supporters retaliating or otherwise engaging in violence in this campaign. [Note: I read of a small-town McCain office being vandalized, but have seen no follow-up reports.]
Tuesday, October 20
A bear carcass was dumped with Obama signs strung around its neck at the base of the statue at the entrance to the Western Carolina University campus in Cullowhee, North Carolina, where tensions have recently been heating up between conservative locals and liberal college students.
October 21, 2008
Someone took an Obama yard sign and replaced it with a large Confederate flag in the yard of an elderly African American minister. That night, after the flag had been replaced with a new Obama sign, a car drove by several times, honking and yelling at the family. The next day, the car returned again, honking and yelling in broad daylight, “No Change!” while a reporter interviewed the family in the yard. The minister told a local reporter that he had a simple message to pass on to the culprit, “I love you, and God does too.” The Baptist minister also told the reporter, “I feel like this is somebody with a lot of hatred in their heart. It’s our job to help the guy try to do better in life.”
…and of course today’s headline, “McCain Campaign Worker Mutilation Hoax,” which was quickly debunked.
There’s more, of course. Republicans intend to place 3,600 paid recruits inside Ohio polling places on Election Day to challenge the qualifications of certain voters.
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-tucker/dems-mobilize-against-ohi_b_137528.html
The thing that most concerns me is that after the election, Obama supporters will think, “The long night is over. We won!” and go back to their own concerns, just like we did after Watergate and Iran/Contra. At this point, it appears that the Republican strategy is to poison the national debate to the extent that rural areas of the country will consider some form of Civil War. (You know, the “Real America” defending its “values.”) Keep in mind that Sarah Palin, with her ties to the secessionist Alaska Independence Party and theocratic Christianity, is very obviously positioning herself to run in 2012.
Will we go back to sleep and let this happen? Will we be able to maintain our center, our emotional equilibrium, and not stoop to their level, returning hatred for hatred and blow for blow? Again, Ben Franklin said it best, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
The 5 Stages of McCain/Palin
Republican Strategy, oy…
After taking his pasting by Rachel Maddow, American Enterprise Institute think-tanker David Frum contributed the following article to the Washington Post:
Sorry Senator, Let’s Salvage What We Can.
If you’ve been reading my posts, you can probably figure out that I have a few problems with it. I do agree with his points that the McCain campaign, despite their rosy predictions, is most likely dooooooomed, and that the Palin choice bears much of the blame, and I suppose that loyal Republican that he is, he feels honor bound to offer a strategy for salvaging at least something out of the rubble, i.e. shifting funding from the presidential race to Congressional races, but first, I don’t think they’ll take his advice, and second, I find his reasons for supporting Republican candidates ludicrous.
Why they won’t
The President in and of himself, has, according to the Constitution, 1/3 of the power of the Federal Government, the remaining 2/3 being split between the 9-member of the Supreme Court and the the 535 squabbling members of Congress. Under Bush and Cheney, that Executive Branch share has grown exponentially. The Republicans have hidden so much dirt under the White House rug that it’s turned into a compost heap. (Just how many signing statements are there? Which laws do they affect? What really is the law of the land, anyway? How many prisoner are scattered in which dungeons in what countries? What does Corporal Jones calls his wife when he phones home after six months in Iraq? And just what is our National Energy Policy, anyway? to name just a few.) The Republicans cannot afford to let go of the office. Despite the fact that Frum’s advice makes sense from a tactical standpoint, it simply will not happen.
Now for the fun part…
Here are a few of the points he raises, at least the ones that irked me:
“Divided government is the best precaution you can have.”
I don’t recall him holding this position when Karl Rove was advocating a permanent Republican majority.
“You need oversight and accountability.”
Which is an interesting concept, coming from a member of the party that abandoned oversight for 6 years and locked Democrats out of the hearing room when they tried to hold investigations.
“The United States needs Republicans and conservatives to monitor the way Democrats wield this extraordinary and dangerous new power — and to pressure them to surrender it as rapidly as feasible.“
This refers to the $700 billion bailout package, currently being used by FOR (friends of Republicans, such as JP Morgan & Co.) to buy up tottering banks at bargain prices, rather than improve liquidity and clean up the mortgage mess, the alleged purpose of the bailout. There is nothing new in Republicans pressuring others to surrender power, (for their own good, of course, but the notion that giving Republicans power (or reducing the power of alternate parties vis a vis Republican power) is good for the country has been demonstrated false over the last 8 years. Oddly, when Republican control the government, the economy grows more slowly than when the Dems have their hands on the throttle, and such growth as there is is skewed toward the top 1% of the economic system. As John Kenneth Galbraith put it, “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
“There’s a fierce new anger among many liberal Democrats, a more militant style and an angry intolerance of dissent and criticism.”
Actually, the anger is over the lies, not dissent or criticism. Thousands of Americans have been injured or killed; millions of Iraqis have lost homes and loved ones, all due to a pack of lies in service of imperial ambition camoflaged as “spreading Democracy.” You bet there’s anger, and it’s not just Democrats. It’s mothers whose children have come home in a box. It’s reservists and National Guard members who have lost their businesses, jobs, and spouses under the pressure of repeated tours in Iraq. It’s the parents of sick children, who can’t afford treatment for them. It’s families facing foreclosure because the Bush Administration refused to enforce fraud laws against its contributors at Countrywide and pushed to tighten bankruptcy laws. It’s every worker who watched his job be shipped overseas to get his CEO a bigger bonus. Your ideology and policies have hurt so many, David, and earned you their scorn. (Oh, and ps—when the government is saying it, it’s not dissent., it’s “official policy” and those who support it are not dissenters.)
“Some will want to silence conservative talk radio by tightening regulation of the airwaves via the misleadingly named “fairness doctrine”; others may seek to police the activities of right-leaning think tanks by a stricter interpretation of what is tax-deductible and what is not.”
Compare this to the Reagan Office of Public Diplomacy, that harangued editors, threatened reporters, and stifled reporting on the Contra/Cocaine connection and other right wing malfeasance. (Otto Reich, John McCain’s Latin American foreign policy adviser, was the lead Rottweiler in that endeavor.) Consider that both the Washington Times and Weekly Standard were financed by Sun Myung Moon, a man whose stated goal is to overthrow American democracy and replace it with a theocracy that worships himself. What cause are you serving, David?
Once upon a time, the Republican Party made much of personal responsibility. It’s time for you to man up, examine your conscience, and start working for the good of the country, not just those in the executive suite. As Ann Coulter would say, “Quit whining.” You have richly earned everything you are now experiencing.
There Really is a Better Way to Run an Election
It’s 9:20 pm here, and I just watched the coverage of midnight voting in Dixville Notch, NH. 21 votes cast: 6 McCain, 0 Nader, 15 Obama. A good omen.
They filed past, dropped their ballots in the box, and in less than 10 minutes it was all over. As you may have noticed, things won’t go this smoothly in most of the country.
I have a suggestion to pass along to you. Out here in Oregon, we vote by mail.
Yup. a month before the election, they send out booklets with all the info: candidates, propositions, zoning changes, bond issues, you name it. A week later, a second booklet arrives, chock full of position papers by the supporters and opponents of the various propositions. One week after that? Your Paper Ballot. Once you’ve finished your decision-making process, you MAIL IT IN, or, if you prefer, run by the local election board office or public library. You’ve got until election day.
That’s it. No muss, no fuss, no lines, no time off from work, no BS about Democrats voting on Wednesday, or getting arrested at the polling place for a traffic ticket. No high-pressure snap decisions in the little booth. NO DIEBOLD.
Here are some links:
http://www.sos.state.or.us/executive/votebymail/
http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dbcs/elections/election_information/voting_in_oregon.shtml
Consider starting a petition, writing your Congressman, making some changes that would make Democracy work so much better.
psst…tell your friends.
The First Week
Sometimes, reading political commentary, I think back to an early review of the Harry Potter movie, in which the writer chortled that it would be very weird to watch “an 18-year-old Daniel Radcliffe play Harry Potter in the seventh movie,” apparently not having done the basic homework of finding out that the characters age a year in each book as they progress through the Hogwarts curriculum. Today’s gem was the notion that by choosing Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff, Obama was going with a Left-wing Clintonite Washington-insider agenda. Basic homework again. Rahmbo has represented Chicago in the House of Representatives since 2002 and their families (yes, that includes wives and kids) are friends.
So, like, if even that guy can make predictions, why not me? Here they are:
- John McCain will position himself as the go-to guy for the moderate wing of the Republican Party. Lindsay Graham has already positioned himself as wingman, and I suspect that Lieberman will offer himself as Third Musketeer.
- If Ted Stevens is dumped (and they don’t find the missing ballots in Anchorage that might conceivably go to Mark Begich) Sarah Palin will run for the Senate. The fact that she said she wouldn’t is proof enough for me.
- The rightward edge of the Republican Party will become a dogfight between the Social Conservatives and the NeoCons. If Palin makes it to the Senate, the SDs will coalesce behind her, if not, Huckabee. The NeoCons, not having realized that the rest of the country thinks they are criminally insane, will try at least one highly dramatic legislative stunt, which will backfire. It is also possible that the SDs will also try at least one highly dramatic legislative stunt, to similar effect.
- The moderates will stay out of the dogfight, cut deals with Obama, and wait until things sort themselves out before aligning with the winning faction.
- We will make more progress toward developing alt energy and solving global warming in the next 8 years than in the last 30.
- Someone will notice that Sarah Palin talks more than Joe Biden and call her on it publicly.
The Republican Conundrum
Much ink is being spilled these days over the current disarray in Republican political circles. Was Palin helpful, or not? Should McCain have gone more negative, or less? John Boehner recently called for a return to “First Principles.” I have a philosophical problem with that. If the ideals you have been pursuing for the past three decades have left the nation in the dumpster, why bother clinging to them? There’s a deeper problem with those First Principles, as well, which the Republican Party will discover as it churns through its debate. Significant numbers of those First Principles contradict each other.
-
Republicans want small government.
-
Republicans want American global domination.
-
Republicans want Freedom.
-
Republicans believe that anyone who disagrees with their politics is a danger to the nation and should be carefully watched, lest they do harm.
-
Republicans want a responsible, self-sufficient population.
-
Republicans want no restriction on the accumulation of wealth, no regulation of the means by which it is attained, and no means of recourse for those who may be harmed in the process.
-
Republicans want a nation ruled by Christian morality.
-
Republicans believe government has no business poking it’s long nose into one’s life.
-
Republicans want low taxes.
- Republicans want no limit to the amount of money spent on maintaining American Dominance.
- Republicans are against abortion.
- Republicans are against helping impoverished families support their children.
I believe these are the most significant contradictions. Any astute political observer will be able to identify which Republican sub-group supports which position, and as long as they persist in stalwartly clinging to these principles, the GOP will be more catfight than party. There are two ways out of this conundrum. The first, and more likely outcome, is that the catfight will continue until the last man standing wraps himself in the party mantle. If that is the case, expect to see either new parties forming, or existing minor-league parties gaining new recruits. The second, less likely outcome, is that the party will recognize that their principles did not achieve the expected results and develop new principles. Given the current reliance on ideology as a defining characteristic of Republicanism (or Conservatism, as many of their commentators tend to use those terms interchangeably) anyone suggesting a new set of principles will likely be spit out. Given the Evangelical wing’s insistence that their personal salvation is based upon adherence to certain of those principles, expect them to either bolt or be that last man standing. Or woman…Palin’s fortunes within the party may well be the litmus test for this. (I’m not writing off Huckabee, but she seems to have the more dominant personality.)
I have a theory about how political identity is formed. Around about age 3, one realizes that life is not fair. Those who feel it should be made more fair head leftward. Those who gravitate toward the right do so under the logic, “If life is not fair, how can I make the system work in my favor?” This can take the form of, “What are the rules, so I can follow them and succeed?” or “How can I stack the deck in my favor?” or some combination of both.
If you look at the list of contradictions above, you’ll see that the common thread can be boiled down to, “Government should control other people’s behavior, but not mine,” which is a pretty good compromise between following the rules and stacking the deck. If Ghandi’s statement is true, that the arc of the Universe bends toward justice, then the Republican Party, as currently constituted, is on the wrong side of history.
But there is still a need for a strong opposition party. History is littered with examples of well-intentioned programs leading to unintended consequences. New proposals need to be vetted, thought through, and debated vigorously. But if the opposition’s paramount value (cloaked in whatever high-flown rhetoric) boils down to, “What’s in it for me?” then the debate will be twisted and come to rely on lies and character assassination rather than the merits of the actual proposals. (See campaigns 2000, 2004, & 2008.)
Perhaps, rather than “First Principles,” the Republicans should develop a vision of what their perfect America would look like, then a set of programs that would get it there.
I mean, other than, “Us on top, forever.”
After I’d written the above essay, just before I was about to hit send, another thought struck me. Code talkers. Republicans talk in code. No one realized this until the Religious Right freighted in and W. made entire speeches whose true meaning flew over the heads of the unsaved. Code talking existed unrecognized in American politics long before that. I think it was back in the Sixties that I noticed that “Democracy,” when uttered by an American politician, really meant, “allied with US interests or under American control.”
So what are “First Principles?” Taking out my secret decoder ring (as I am not a native speaker) I’m thinking that it could mean the following:
-
Republicans want small government.
-
Republicans want low taxes.
-
Republicans want a responsible, self-sufficient population.
-
Republicans believe government has no business poking it’s long nose into one’s life.
-
Republicans want freedom.
Prediction: This definition of “Return to “First Principles” means abandoning the anti-abortion stance, which opened the country club doors to the Holy Rollers, and tossing the empire-building Neo-cons out on their ears. It would represent an alliance between the moderates and the Libertarians. [Keep in mind that Margaret Sanger's early support came from conservative Republicans, not so much that they had witnessed women trapped in abusive marriages by endless pregnancy, nor because they believed, as she did, that every child should be a wanted child, but for eugenic reasons. They saw the world being overwhelmed by impoverished, brown-skinned hordes.]
However, to certain Republicans, “First Principles” would mean:
- Republicans are against abortion.
- Republicans want a nation ruled by Christian morality.
- Republicans want a responsible, self-sufficient population.
Prediction: This faction claims no more than 25% of the electorate. If they dominate, they will draw the racist elements, for whom terms like “responsible” and ”self-sufficient” are code for “white.” They will also ally with the anti-gun control and law ‘n order crowds. These factions are the most likely to take the government in a draconian direction or, failing that, to rebel. (See: Palin, Todd, Alaska Independence Party.) The other possibility (remote at this point) is that they will revert to their original non-political roots, waiting for Jesus to sort things out and hand them Dominion on a silver platter.
The there’s the corporate wing, whose interests can be summarized as follows:
- Republicans want American global dominance.
- Republicans want no restriction on the accumulation of wealth, no regulation of the means by which it is attained, and no means of recourse for those who may be harmed in the process.
-
Republicans want low taxes (for the top 1%).
- Republicans want no limit to the amount of money spent on maintaining American Dominance.
- Republicans believe that anyone who disagrees with their politics is a danger to the nation and should be carefully watched, lest they do harm.
- Republicans want Freedom. (Defined as freedom from regulation of the business sector.)
Prediction: In case you haven’t been paying attention, this is George W. Bush’s wing of the Party, despite the Neo-con varnish and all the lip service to the Religious Right. At the moment, the invisible hand of the market has pointed to their invisible clothing, but this wing is largely composed of those who control the economy, and their wealth, and therefore power, is substantial. Will they learn the lesson, that the golden goose is mortal after all, back off, and accept a reasonable balance between freedom and legal restrictions? Will they acknowledge that the economy does not work in a trickle-down fashion, and that when the bottom of the well runs dry the entire system grinds to a halt? If so, they will most likely come to an accomodation with the first, limited-government group, returning to the traditional, pragmatic, Eisenhower Republican philosophy.
If that happens, the Libertarians, Neo-cons, and Religious Right will spin off leaving the rest of the part without enough votes to govern. In any event, the Republican Party will be in the minority until enough time passes that a/ the Dems succumb to the temptations of power and screw up, b/ a new, charismatic, Reaganesque figure emerges, or c/ we all forget what happens each time they come to power.
More Predictions
One:
Obama will have effective control of the government by the end of the year, possibly sooner. I’m not meaning this in a bad “he’s staged a coup” way, but in response to two facts: first, there happens to be a many-faceted diamond of a crisis going on right now, and second, the Bush Administration and it’s many minions aren’t doing anything about it. One might excuse this as evidence of their belief in the Libertarian throw-the-baby-in-the-creek-and-see-how-fast-he-can-learn-to-swim theory of economics, but I can’t help but notice that our current leadership is obsessed with wringing as much out of the situation for their own interests as possible (their own interests being that of the American corporate world.) While Wall Street burns through trillions of OPM, Bush focuses on executive orders that will gut the Endangered Species Act, give Big Oil more virgin acres to ravish, and put nukes next to the Grand Canyon….oh, and implant their Regent University grads in the federal bureaucracy so as to continue their obstruction of the work of numerous agencies. (Prediction 1-a: Look for lots of lateral transfers to basement offices after January 20 and the return of experienced hands who quit during the Bush years.) Oh, yeah, and Bush agreed to a truly bizarre treaty with Iraq so he could declare victory, which the grateful Iraqis celebrated by burning him in effigy. Priceless. Bush was always better at the “destruction” part of “Creative Destruction,” anyway.
I’ve got lefty friends wringing their hands over the notion that Gates will continue at Defense, but I see a strategy here. For example, Obama just picked Geithner to head Treasury. Not only is Geithner the person who publicly called foul on CDOs back in 2006, when everyone, including the sainted Alan Greenspan, were saying they were just peachy, he is also the President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, which, in case you don’t spend your time boning up on the banking system, is the 800-pound gorilla on the Federal Reserve Board. He’s already in place, doesn’t need to take more than 5 minutes to dictate his letter of resignation, doesn’t need to finish grading term papers before starting his new job. He’s already doing it. He’s been working with Paulson for years, but in a subordinate position, 800-pound gorilla to Bernanke and Paulson’s half-tonners. Now he’s an equal.
I was in the cafeteria when Paulson gave his latest speech. I couldn’t hear what he was saying over the conversational hum, but I could see that every time his lips moved, the stock market ticker next to him on the screen trended downward. Later I found out that the summary of his speech was, “I don’t have a clue, so I’m handing it off to the new guy.” Within 24 hours, there was the new guy, already standing at his elbow. So the question is: Will Paulson obstruct, or will he work constructively with his successor? Assuming that Paulson’s calculus revolves around the equation, “What’s in it for me?” I’m thinking that he will listen and act. One, standing by clueless while the economy tanks doesn’t look good on your resume. Two, the political winds have shifted and he will set his sails accordingly. Prediction 1-b: Those toward the Left will squawk: “They call this change!? Where’s the new blood?”
In a similar fashion, I think that if Gates remains, and Bush continues to focus on the vital business of deciding how to write a pardon that will absolve everybody from everything back to the Beginning of Time, Gates may be amenable to proactively chatting with the incoming administration. (Maybe Bush should just take the entire White House staff and Cabinet down to the Potomac and dunk ‘em. Hallelujia!) With this paradigm in mind, It will be interesting to watch the unfolding saga of Obama’s picks.
Two:
The Republican Party is pretty much sorting itself out as I predicted in my previous post. Thanks, guys! The Rightosphere is planning to flex their muscles, now that they can point to the Obama campaign’s successful use of the internet. It won’t work, at least until they grapple with their underlying problems: a philosphical mindset that is opposed to what most people in this country want, a history of winning elections by misrepresenting their true goals (Compassionate Conservatives, anyone? How about a slice of humble foreign policy pie?) I lurk on several right-wing sites, and they are still focused on strategy, not on a deep examination of conscience, or even demographics. Right now, Huckabee seems to be the only one who is taking that tack. A second problem with the notion that the Internet will save the Conservative cause is that Conservatives tend to be reluctant to adopt the new, just by their nature. While the blogger I read used conservative leadership’s rejection of the Internet as a campaign tool as his example, it brought to mind a conversation I once had with a fellow who wouldn’t have a computer in his house because he didn’t want the government spying on him. Lots of luck reaching him with your enhance graphic capabilities and sophisticated database management, Sparky. Read an excellent analysis of the issue here.
Three:
Tina Fey willing, Saturday Night Live will feature a “Palin” interview in front of an outhouse, with sound effects. Or maybe in front of a mugging. Or a couple of guys field dressing a moose. Or World War III. Or a lumberjack pissing on a tree. Or all of the above. Prediction 3-a: She will never hold national office, but either she or a family member will eventually have their own reality show.
Blowing the Foam off the Beer
A few posts back, I ended with the question of how to blow the foam of CDOs off the financial stein without spilling the beer. Recently I read this article, which pretty much sums up the bad pour that generated the foam in the first place. Here’s the central insight:
The typical mortgage bond was still structured in much the same way it had been when I worked at Salomon Brothers. The loans went into a trust that was designed to pay off its investors not all at once but according to their rankings. The investors in the top tranche, rated AAA, received the first payment from the trust and, because their investment was the least risky, received the lowest interest rate on their money. The investors who held the trusts’ BBB tranche got the last payments—and bore the brunt of the first defaults. Because they were taking the most risk, they received the highest return. Eisman wanted to bet that some subprime borrowers would default, causing the trust to suffer losses. The way to express this view was to short the BBB tranche. The trouble was that the BBB tranche was only a tiny slice of the deal.
Ok, Investing 101 so far. The investors willing to take the greatest risk get the biggest reward. However, demand grew, and there are only so many impoverished people willing to get suckered into high interest mortgages. Enter the magic of the market, via double-entry bookkeeping:
But the scarcity of truly crappy subprime-mortgage bonds no longer mattered. The big Wall Street firms had just made it possible to short even the tiniest and most obscure subprime-mortgage-backed bond by creating, in effect, a market of side bets. Instead of shorting the actual BBB bond, you could now enter into an agreement for a credit-default swap with Deutsche Bank or Goldman Sachs. It cost money to make this side bet, but nothing like what it cost to short the stocks, and the upside was far greater.
The arrangement bore the same relation to actual finance as fantasy football bears to the N.F.L….
But wait, there’s more!
Eisman knew subprime lenders could be scumbags. What he underestimated was the total unabashed complicity of the upper class of American capitalism. For instance, he knew that the big Wall Street investment banks took huge piles of loans that in and of themselves might be rated BBB, threw them into a trust, carved the trust into tranches, and wound up with 60 percent of the new total being rated AAA.
Ruh-roah.
“You have to understand this,” he says. “This was the engine of doom.” Then he draws a picture of several towers of debt. The first tower is made of the original subprime loans that had been piled together. At the top of this tower is the AAA tranche, just below it the AA tranche, and so on down to the riskiest, the BBB tranche—the bonds Eisman had shorted. But Wall Street had used these BBB tranches—the worst of the worst—to build yet another tower of bonds: a “particularly egregious” C.D.O. The reason they did this was that the rating agencies, presented with the pile of bonds backed by dubious loans, would pronounce most of them AAA. These bonds could then be sold to investors—pension funds, insurance companies—who were allowed to invest only in highly rated securities.
Take three deep breaths and keep reading:
That’s when Eisman finally got it. Here he’d been making these side bets with Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank on the fate of the BBB tranche without fully understanding why those firms were so eager to make the bets. Now he saw. There weren’t enough Americans with shitty credit taking out loans to satisfy investors’ appetite for the end product. The firms used Eisman’s bet to synthesize more of them. Here, then, was the difference between fantasy finance and fantasy football: When a fantasy player drafts Peyton Manning, he doesn’t create a second Peyton Manning to inflate the league’s stats. But when Eisman bought a credit-default swap, he enabled Deutsche Bank to create another bond identical in every respect but one to the original. The only difference was that there was no actual homebuyer or borrower. The only assets backing the bonds were the side bets Eisman and others made with firms like Goldman Sachs. Eisman, in effect, was paying to Goldman the interest on a subprime mortgage. In fact, there was no mortgage at all. “They weren’t satisfied getting lots of unqualified borrowers to borrow money to buy a house they couldn’t afford,” Eisman says. “They were creating them out of whole cloth. One hundred times over! That’s why the losses are so much greater than the loans. But that’s when I realized they needed us to keep the machine running. I was like, This is allowed?”
Apparently the answer was “Yes,” and the allegedly free-market consequence is that the government will race in with billions of taxpayer dollars to allow the executives that set up this Rube Goldberg device to keep their bonuses.
This still doesn’t address the question of how to disentangle the finances of those who made good-faith investments in AAA bonds from those who created and ran a system that allowed garbage to be marketed as gold, but understanding how it was done is a start. The problem, we are told, is that “those crappy sub-prime ACORN mortgages the banks were forced to make defaulted and tanked the system.” No so much. The problem, we are told, is that “nobody understands these CDOs.” Well, now you do. If it wouldn’t be too much trouble, could you forward this post to your elected official?
The Beck Secession
Well, there you have it, Glen “I am not a racist” Beck is calling for the Republican areas of the country to secede. I don’t know that it’s necessarily racist to want to leave the US after Obama’s election. It could be simple paranoia. I can think of a few folks on the Left who contemplated moving to Canada when Reagan was elected, and then again in 2000. That’s the difference between the Right and the Left. The Right wants to keep their real estate.
Still, what would happen if the um, Rightward States seceded? Well, first off, which states are rightward, and how many of them are rightward enough to waltz on out the door? I suppose Glen is envisioning that broad swath of red on the electoral college map, but I suspect the most likely would be the more limited area where Republicans actually picked up vote share a couple of Tuesdays ago: southern Appalachia, the Ozarks, and Oklahoma. Oh, and Alaska, where Governor Palin would presumably be crowned Queen Sarah.
What are we looking at? Well, we’d lose the Kentucky Derby, Jack Daniels, and a couple of Saturn and Toyota plants. We’d lose a bunch of coal and Alaska’s twenty, no, fourteen, no three percent of our energy supply. We’d lose the ability to protect ANWAR from drilling and to enforce safety and environmental standards on a lot of coal mines, and that all-important back porch view of the former Soviet. They, as traitors, would presumably lose their Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, ag subsidies to farmers, Head Start, and various pork barrel projects, like roads, schools, and dams. They’d lose a bunch of military bases, too, along with the businesses supported by all those G.I. paychecks. I think Glen would be over-optimistic to think that all of the soldiers sworn to defend the Constitution would go over to the anti- side, even though Robert E. Lee did. And those who did would, of course, lose their paychecks anyway. Still, the Rightward side is generally agin’ all those things, except for the military, so they probably wouldn’t miss them. They’d still have Walmart. They could plant gardens. And if they genuinely are racist, maybe they’re thinking they can get the black folks to tend their gardens for them, maybe they’re thinking that said folks wouldn’t either leave town or fight back.
I suppose they could get pissy and try to blockade the Mississippi or some such, but that’s what a Navy’s for. Gunboats on the river blasting away, protecting the barges full of grain on their way to blue-tinged New Orleans.
But look at the upside. Without Alaska’s oil and Appalachia’s coal, we’d be forced to develop alt energy sooner. Without Alaska, which sucks up far more government funding than it provides in taxes, we’d have a little more money to do all kinds of things with. In fact, a quick trip to www.taxfoundation.org reveals that those states with increasing redness are all doing quite well under our current pointy-headed liberal tax and spend system. Here’s how much each of those states gets back for every dollar of Federal tax paid by its citizens:
Alaska $1.87
West Virginia $1.83
Mississippi $1.77
Alabama $1.71
Oklahoma $1.48
Arkansas $1.47
Louisiana $1.45
I don’t know. It’s hard to tell what’s really going on when TV talking heads come up with these notions. Does Beck even halfway believe what he’s saying, or is this just a way to catch a media buzz? Or is Fox, Beck’s new home, now the face of Treason?
But maybe he’s on to something…maybe we do need to cut loose of those parasites sucking on the government titty. If you look at the Tax Foundation’s map, you’ll see that all red states, with the exception of Texas ($.94) and Georgia ($.96) get more from the Feds than they pay in federal taxes. A smart response to secession would be to close all the military bases, removing all personnel and ordnance, cut off all Federal funding to rebel areas, and wait. I’m thinking the rebellion would be over two days after the Social Security payments failed to show up in old folk’s checking accounts. In fact, reducing Federal spending to an amount equal to Federal revenues collected might just be a good bargaining point for readmission.
Be careful what you wish for, Glen.
Hank Paulson: Underpants Gnome?
Well, it’s just come out that bank lending really hadn’t frozen up the way they said it had. And that $700 billion, at least the half that’s been distributed, hasn’t increased bank lending. And that the little sentence in the Bailout Bill that prohibited any of that taxpayer largess going to executive bonuses was revised to say it only applied to funds disbursed via auctions of toxic securities. And there were no auctions. And the executives get their bonuses. And it’s all perfectly legal.
Go ahead, go back to my first post on the bailout. I will quote from it:
It’s a scam.
Actually, go back and read up on how the first Great Depression came into being:
- Overextension of credit, leading to an investment bubble.
- Major investors quietly pull out their capital.
- Credit is curtailed to ordinary folks.
- Major deflation, unemployment, etc.
- Asset prices decline while those with capital sit on the sidelines.
- When asset prices have cratered, big money buys them up for 10 cents on the dollar.
- Massive government economic stimulus (on the order of WWII) reboots the system.
Or, you could just watch South Park. Months ago, when I first blogged on this subject, my son told me it was an Underpants Gnome scheme. I just got around to googling the term. Wikipedia features a deadpan recounting of the infamous underpants gnome episode of South Park. For the uninitiated, I will sum up:’
Underpants gnomes are small, humanoid creatures that steal underwear. They are businessmen, however, and can prove it by showing you their business plan:
- Steal underpants
- ???
- Profit!
The first paragraph, above, outlines at least one of the ?s. Except it’s $700 billion worth of underpants we’re talking, here, which, if logic serves, would make Hank Paulson the world’s tallest underpants gnome.
Seven Fat Cows
Pharaoh had a dream, a vivid, recurring dream of seven fat and seven skinny cows. Only Joseph could interpret it.
“There will be seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine,” he said, and further advised that the surplus be conserved and stored to sustain the nation through the lean times. Pharaoh took his advice and Egypt prospered.
Fast forward a few millennia, and we had our seven fat years, also known as the Clinton presidency. The budget was balanced, we lived, as a nation (although not necessarily as individuals) within our means, we saved for the future, and prosperity abounded.
Then we got a new pharaoh. Despite his affinity for the Bible, he ignored the wisdom of Joseph and gave the national treasure away. Everybody got some, but those closest to him, the “Got Mines” and the “Got Mores” got most of it. He started a war and ran it badly, squandering borrowed money to pursue his dreams. He repealed or refused to enforce laws that protected investors, saying that thieves would lose and honest investors gain, simply by the natural functioning of the marketplace, apparently in the same way that closing all police precincts will protect us from crime.
In eight short years, his rule transformed us from the world’s wealthiest creditor nation to the world’s greatest debtor. Policies begun under Ronald Reagan and pushed even further by George W. Bush, caused wages for working people to stagnate. The percentage of income going to the top 1% of the US population now stands at 20%. The last time US income distribution reached that degree of concentration was 1928, and the greatest herd of Lean Cows in our history stampeded across the landscape.
The greatest herd until now.
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome. The conservative economics of the 1920’s returned with a vengeance under “Supply Side” Republican rule, beginning in the 1980s, and despite a respite under Clinton, ground inexorably toward the same result. In a rational economy, under a rational government, the cyclical nature of reality is acknowledged and, like Pharaoh, or any wise householder, the fat years’ surplus is retained and disbursed during the lean years as a way of maintaining social stability. (Economists, especially the Neo-conservative economists whose principles ruled until recently, just love the work rational. Here I will cite the computer programmer’s rule: GIGO Garbage In, Garbage Out. The most perfect logical process is only as good as the data fed into it.) Where a rational person would look to savings to get them through the lean times, just as Pharaoh did under Joseph’s wise guidance, we find that they and their theories have squandered our sustenence. We’re like the woman who lost her job and discovered that her husband had gambled all their savings away, and run up massive credit card debt, as well. She has to buy groceries. Is it wise to use her credit card? No. Does she have a choice?
Getting back to Holy Writ, it’s interesting to see that the Communist Chinese are better at following it than we are. When times were good, and we bought everything they could manufacture, they saved, both as individuals and as a nation. Now that trade has fallen off, their government, using the surplus they conserved, has launched massive infrastructure spending to keep employment up. They did it right. We, with our emphasis on forgetting that the government is the collective arm of the people, not some free-floating entity, allowed our government and ourselves to become wastrels, and are now discovering the results of that policy.
There’s another biblical concept I’d like to bring up: Charity. People often think of it as an unpleasant thing you do for the moral brownie points, like eating spinach or flossing. Others point out that givers get at least as much of an emotional boost as recipients. I’d like to propose a third possibility. Just as the Ten Commandments provide a behavior code that reduces interpersonal conflict in society, Charity, the cycling of resources from the top of the heap to the bottom, keeps the economy revving. I will go further and suggest that the effect is the same, whether the mechanism is personal choice, minimum wage laws, or progressive taxation.
It’s no coincidence that financial jargon uses terms related to water: liquidity, frozen assets. When the well of consumer spending runs dry, when the rain of charity doesn’t fall from above, the crops fail, and the cows get skinny.
Casey Jones, CEO
Conservatives, clinging to their principles, still maintain that if everyone simply were to look after his or her own interests, the world would function perfectly; that regulations and rules are unnecessary. For those of you who haven’t been paying attention, let me explain why this hasn’t worked.
CEO example #1, let’s call him Angelo Mozillo, makes his fortune by selling mortgages. While banks lend money and patiently wait for it to trickle back to them in the form of principal and interest, drop by monthly drop, Angelo figured out that he could make his profit on closing costs and fees and sell the mortgages to those desiring a steady income, freeing up his capital immediately to loan out for new mortgages. Brilliant!
The low hanging fruit is picked, and his employees, to meet their quotas, are forced to reach higher and higher up the tree, or deeper and deeper into the bottom of the barrel, pick whichever metaphor appeals to you. But hey, everybody wins: buyers get mortgages, employees get their bonuses, investors get their perfectly safe mortgage-backed securities, and Angelo gets rich.
Which brings us to CEO #2, let’s call him, um, Mitt Romney. He makes his fortune by buying failing companies and restoring them to profitability. The biggest tool in his drawer is reducing labor costs. Obviously, it works. He’s worth (before presidential campaign expenses and possible recent stock market losses) about half a billion dollars, or approximately $10,000 for each of the 50,000 American workers he has downsized.
But hey, his remaining employees are happy to have jobs. That has to count for something.
The lure of low mortgage rates generated record sales, and the consequent demand pushed housing prices up. Meanwhile outsourcing and layoffs increased the supply of available workers, keeping wages low.
Now, you have two formidable wealth-generating engines hurtling down the tracks. The only problem is that the tracks are not parallel. At some point the Making Mortgage Payments track will intersect with the Laying Off Workers track. That point being approximately Here, and Now.
Who could have seen this train wreck coming?
Someone, it seems, was asleep at the switch. Oh, wait. There was no switchman. What do switchmen produce? Nothing! Eliminate that money-eating, profit-destroying job, the fatty-assed bureaucrat! Switchmen just get in the way of the locomotives, telling this one to wait, while the other blazes past. No fair!
I’m not pretending that the above is some kind of brilliant insight. If I’d written it 5 years ago, maybe, but now the results are all to obvious for me to take credit for anything other than expressing it in cute metaphors. There is still a sizable group of Republicans, however, who cling to the notion that switchmen are unnecessary to the safe and continued functioning of railroads, metaphorically speaking, and I have to ask, what are they thinking? CEOs, by nature and job description, focus on the profitability of their own enterprises, and like locomotive engineers whose job is to focus on the track in front of them, they may well be unaware of the rest of their surroundings and where their train is in relation to other trains. Unlike the switchman, sitting high in his tower overlooking the train yard, they are not positioned to see the Big Picture. Few even try, although those who do, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, tend to be the most successful of all.
Or as the Grateful Dead so brilliantly put it,
Drivin’ that train, high on cocaine.
Casey Jones, you better watch your speed.
What Are Republicans Thinking?
I’ve asked that question a few times in my posts recently, and thought I’d spend this one at deductive reasoning, as in “who benefits from the policies Republicans favor?” I mean, these people occupy influential positions. They can’t be stupid. Or crazy.
Then Alan Keyes gave a truly gob-smacking interview in which he asserted that “Obama must be stopped by any means,” normally short-hand for assassination. And The New York Post printed the infamous dead chimp cartoon. Rush Limbaugh compared liberals to murderers and rapists. (Remember the fellow who shot up his ex-wife’s church children’s pageant? He said he did it because he couldn’t get to the real Evil Liberals.) And, in a lighter vein, Mr. Clean Airwaves, Rep. Eric Cantor, posted not just the obscenity-laden AFSCME remix, but a YouTube vid celebrating his party’s impotence against the stimulus to the tune of an Aerosmith oldie about having sex with a hooker.
Oh, yeah, back in the saddle again.
Okay, I am still going to write this piece, even though my premise, that recent Republican antics are not the product of dopieness, delusion, or, well, dope, may not be accurate.
Cui bono? Who benefits? This question has been used in criminal investigations since the Romans. Let’s look at a few Republican policies one by one, and remember the Underpants Gnome business plan:
- Steal underpants.
- ????
- Profit!
- Savaging clean water standards = a rise in sales of bottled water and water filters. Profit!!
- Reduction in mine safety standards = digging more coal out of depleted mines, workers lives be damned. Profit!!
- “Deficits don’t matter” when they result from massive government spending to defense contractors and massive waste and mismanagement of said funds. Profit!!
- “Deficits will be the death of America!!” when funds go to average people in the form of food stamps or unemployment benefits. It’s instructive to note that the Republican governors who quibble over taking Stimulus money seem willing to take all but those funds dedicated to extending unemployment benefits. Who benefits? Employers who can watch desperate people line up for the chance to get substandard wages and non-existent benefits. It’s also interesting to note how many of those governors are already well above average when it comes to Federal funds entering their states pre-stim. You’ll note that the spokesman for those governors is Tim Pawlenty, who along with Texas Governor Rick Perry (who just bailed on his resistance) is, the only one on the list who’s below average on that score. Louisiana, Alaska, Mississippi, and South Carolina all get more from the Feds than their citizens pay out. In addition, people without a safety net will be more inclined to deplete their resources (cash in their IRAs and 401Ks, sell or be foreclosed out of their homes, sell their jewelry, etc.) this would allow prices to fall further and Rich Dad, Poor Dad practitioners to sweep up assets at pennies on the dollar. In other words, Profit!!
- Opposition to healthcare: Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP. Okay. I will grant that this results logically from the belief that no one should get anything they can’t afford to pay for, but here’s the problem. If your goal is to cut wages and benefits to the bone to maximize profit, then, the more you succeed, the less your employees will be able to afford health care. (See previous post, Casey Jones, CEO.) And in what way does having more sick people benefit American business? I’d like to hear the other side of that argument.
- Allowing infrastructure to decay = pressure to sell public roadways to cash-heavy consortiums who can afford to make the needed repairs, and then install tollbooths. Profit!!
- Oppostion to renewable energy, global warming remediation, and environmental concerns in general = continued reliance on oil and maintenance of the global power elite, plus cost-savings on environmental controls, with the costs pushed off the corporate books in the form of increased illness in downwind and downstream populations and remediation costs, such as Superfund sites and the horrendous clean-up of the recent fly ash disasters in Tennessee pushed off on the general public. Profit!!
I’m seeing a pattern here. It’s called creating economic pressure to put public resources into private hands, where they can create profit for those wealthy enough to own them, in tandem with shunting all costs away from the corporations and their owners to the general public.
The Republican Party serves the interests of the economic elite. They may make occasional noises about the Right to Life, (until you’re born) National Defense, (as long as it’s profitable) and Public Decency, (as long as you don’t listen to the lyrics of their YouTube postings or pay attention to Rush Limbaugh’s substaance abuse) in order to get votes from those who don’t belong to their country club, but their primary, eternal, platform is, “What’s in it for me?”
Their Pork, Your Pig Farm, My Porkchop
Ok, let’s take on the steaming issue of the day, at least according to Congressional Republicans.
Pig odor.
Don’t know if you’ve ever lived on or near a pig farm, but it’s not something that will make you rave about fresh country air. Used to be that people lived in cities and towns and pigs lived on farms. The people who lived on the farms with the pigs were sort of looked down upon by the city folk, but now they’re called “neighbors.” We had this post-war suburb boom, and a real estate boom, and well, the cities melted into puddles of suburbia and the puddles began to lap up against the pig farms. Somewhere over the course of this, the US population doubled (1945-72, to be precise) creating the need for all that new housing.
And the city folk who had moved into the suburbs, thrilled to get all that space at such a great price when they signed the agreement in, oh, December, turned to each other in April and asked, “What’s that smell?”
As a Georgia farmer once said to me, “Smells like bread and butter to me.” To the suburbanites, thinking What will this do to my property values? Well, not so much.
Voila! The birth of pig odor research, a perfectly reasonable strategy to balance the comfort and real estate values of non-farmers, the economic interests of farmers, and the food budgets of all of us who eat pork.
Congressional Republicans who, other than Tom Harkin, apparently do not live downwind of pig farms, are enraged and have singled it out as the poster child of all of the 9,000+ earmarks available for public scorn. The fact that they are ranting, in many cases, against their own earmarks, inserted into the budget before Obama’s election, much less his inauguration, bothers them not one whit.
It’s a game of Gotcha, which, of course, Republicans abjure. (See Sarah Palin’s comments re the gotcha nature of that most softball of questions, “What magazines do you read?”) Now, with three days to the shutdown of several Federal Agencies if the bill is not passed and signed, They Who Write Earmarks cry, “Obama must not sign this, or he as bad person! A hypocrite! Hah! We Told You So!” This will be embroidered by the Four Horsemen of the Conservative Apocalypse: Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity, and Coulter, into a full fledged Tapestry of Doom.
Just remember their concept of morality, “It’s only okay when we do it.” And then ask, WWRD? What Would Republicans Do? Hmmmm….government is not the solution. Government is the problem. Science is poopadoodle. What does that leave, exactly?
The Suburbanites sue the Pig Farmer for creating a public nuisance. The Pig Farmer points out that his family has been raising pigs there for four generations, that there was no problem until the developer built the neighborhood, and sues the Suburbanites for, I dunno, restraint of trade. Its hard to see this coming out any way other than a/ making millionaires of a bunch of trial lawyers (Trial Lawyers! Sacriledge!) or reciprocal mobs armed with torches and pitchforks. Pig odor research sounds positively civilized, nay, sensible, by comparison.
The Conservative Logic Loop
According to Rush Limbaugh, speaking at CPAC, the basic Conservative principles are “Life, Liberty, Freedom, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” He mis-attributed it to the Constitution, which opted for “Life, Liberty, and Property” and stuck that redundant “Freedom” in there, but I’m not here to quibble.
According to Jonathan Krohn, the 13-year-old actor, Bill Bennett fan, and CPAC wunderkind, the four pillars of Conservatism are respect for the Constitution, respect for life, less government, and personal responsibility. I mean, what’s not to like? We will all be law-abiding citizens, having sex only when we desire to bring an additional child into the world, paying our bills on time, and with perfect honesty and self-control. Who can argue with that, other than a depraved pervert?
Well, me, apparently, hard-working, bill-paying middle-aged, middle class housewife and mother that I am. I don’t have a problem with any of those principles, per se. I’d just like to look a little deeper and see just how the implications of those principles shake out, because there, I think lies the problem confronting the Conservative movement.
Back when I was in high school, during the Dreaded Sixties, “Freedom” was not a Conservative principle. The Civil Rights Movement and the Hippies had laid full claim to that turf, and Conservatives aligned themselves firmly behind the phrase “Law and Order.” (And if Law and Order does not imply a strong government, just what does that phrase mean?)
How short and fleeting is Memory! I can’t fault Jonathan for that, pre-embryo that he was in those days, but Rush really is old enough to know better. (I suppose it would be appropriate to contrast his terror of “Democrats choosing our candidates” in open primaries to his gleeful endorsement of “Operation Chaos” in which he encouraged his minions to vote Hillary in open Democratic primaries, as proof of his obviously short memory. Or something.) The mill of the gods grinds slowly, Rush, but it grinds exceedingly fine.
Anyway. Edward Peter Fitzsimmons was my English teacher in my junior year at Northern Valley. A tall, imposing sort, resplendent in his handlebar mustache and 3-piece suits, heavy gold watch chain draped across the brocaded expanse of his tummy, he devoted his life to out-Britishing the British. “Freedom,” he intoned one day in class. “Whenever someone says ‘Freedom’ to you, ask them ‘Freedom from what and Freedom to do what?’”
Just asking, Rush.
I suppose Rush would respond “Freedom from excessive government regulation,” but then there was that unfortunate other applause line in his speech, the one about Conservatism “protecting the people.” Okay, from what? And more importantly, how, if not by Government and Law? I find it interesting that Obama’s taking hits from the Left regarding his reluctance to reverse Bush’s draconian, unconstitutional, and tyrannical Unitary Executive policies, while the allegedly anti-governmental-power Right remains mum on the topic. They’re all in a lather over economics, bringing us back to that Life, Liberty, and Property thing that the Constitution actually states and Rush sort of tap-danced around. Freudian slip? Code-talking? Bone-headed ignorance? Who knows?
One has only to look at the Food and Drug Administration for an example of the Conservative contradiction. Initiated by that Republican icon, Teddy Roosevelt, it protected the people against profit-oriented food processors’ inclination to cut corners and include bits of rats, feces, or missing employees in their products. Ronald Reagan, in his “government is the problem” monomania, cut FDA inspection funding, Bush cut it further, plus handed the keys to the office to a cattle industry lobbyist, and essentially killed nine people and sickened tens of thousands with just the resulting peanut fiasco alone. The Market will handle the problem, you see. If people die from eating your product, they won’t buy it any more. If their friends and relatives figure out just what it was that killed thm, they might not buy it either. God forbid some government scientist should figure out just what sickened people and who was responsible for its production.
Let’s continue to employment practices. If the bottom line is all that matters, then labor unions are obviously a bad thing. They’ll stand together for good wages and working conditions. If you mistreat one employee, the rest of them might gang up on you. Looks to me like a system that would allow Management and Labor to work out their differences without the need for the government to become involved, but apparently not to Conservative Logic. Okay, so you have a powerful corporation with a cash flow equal to or greater than any number of small nations on one side, and you have the fifty-two individuals whose plant just got shut down packing up the machinery for a trip to one of those smaller nations on the other. This is the Conservative ideal of fair and balanced. Fortunately, Conservatives also believe in widespread gun ownership. Okay, I can’t fault their logic on that one. They don’t call guns “The Great Equalizer” for nothing. It’s the implications that I don’t like. The possibility that a plant manager might get shot for carrying out orders that he might not be jazzed about himself, or that the displaced worker might take that personal responsibility thing literally and do away with himself and/or those mouths he can no longer afford to feed. A creepy thought, but it happens, especially if your governor believes it’s wrong for people who don’t work to get anything to tide them over until they find work again.
Then there’s that notion that we’ll have plenty of willing buyers keeping up on their payments while their paychecks shrink or disappear entirely.
And immigration. On the one hand, we don’t want hordes of “them” taking our jobs, on the other, we’re not williing to live three families to an apartment in order to be able to live on what “they” are willing to work for. God forbid workers should band together for decent pay. That would be Class Warfare. Downsizing workers and replacing them with underpaid illegal immigrants, however, is not. It’s Business as Usual.
And then there are those god-awful environmental regulations, you know, snail darters, owls, whatnot. Why protect them? Leaving aside the concept of the canary in the coal mine, in which the animal provides a status report on the health of the environment (which we rely upon for our existence, as well) or the notion that certain pieces of land, although of little intrinsic commercial value, provide unpaid service to us (example, wetlands protecting New Orleans from storm surge, exchanging carbon dioxide for oxygen, and providing breeding grounds for shrimp) we still come up against that right to life thing. So only humans have a right to life? And if the life forms—plants, animals, microbes—that support human life are degraded to the point that they can no longer do so, then what happens to everybody’s right to life?
While we’re there, lets look at the more narrowly defined right to life. Oddly, some of those who are most vehement on the subject of abortion, the underlying logic being that only unmarried people who hate children would ever get one, are also against contraception. The logic is that contraception increases the incidence of out-of wedlock sex. I have a secret to share. Married people have sex, too. Last I checked, it was a major reason for getting married in the first place. And a marriage license is no guarantee of a job, and what is more responsible than loving your spouse while planning to have children only when you know you can provide for them? So now Conservative principles, or at least the most extreme adherents of them, are in essence asserting that only people with money get to have sex. Or perhaps that children are God’s punishment for having sex. That should get them a lot of votes.
And there’s the other end of life. Terry Schiavo became a cause celebrè when her life support was terminated, but she’s not alone. It happens to people who don’t have million-dollar settlements to fund their hospital stays. Without a single protest, without a single Congressional eyebrow being raised, without the self-appointed guardians of sacred life giving a tinker’s dam, hospital boards vote to terminate life support to patients who can’t pay their bills. Meanwhile, Conservatives assert that people who can’t afford to pay for health care shouldn’t get any. Oh, and that the evil trial lawyer who got Schiavo that malpractice settlement should not have been allowed to do so. Okay, please explain to me how that “right to life” thing works again?
The strange being that Conservatism has become is currently self-destructing under the weight of its own contradictions. Their “leadership crisis” springs from the underlying reality that those who most proudly flaunt the conservative banner are blind to those contradictions. The ones with sense have abandoned the cause.
Pig Addenda
Just a note pertaining to a previous post, Their Pork, Your Pig Farm, My Porkchop:
Pig odor is not just about aesthetics. Eau de Hogfarm is linked to a host of ailments including depression and asthma. You can read about the scary details here. Kudos to Salon.com.
Like other environmental issues, it’s a public health issue. Why do Republicans think that’s so funny?
Where Do I Sign Up?
Poltico just outed the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy known as Journolist. OMG!OMG! Liberals talk to each other!!!! How evil!!! Where do I sign up?
Apparently the fact that some reporters and bloggers get story ideas from other reporters and bloggers, as opposed to, say, reading about them in the newspaper or seeing them on TV, or hearing them on the radio, or–god forbid–in person is evidence of Nefarious Doings.
Apparently, this is also proof that the Bush White House memo-fueled Right Wing Echo chamber never existed. (I’ts apparently falling apart without those daily faxes. Within the last week or so Bill O’Reilly announced victory in the War on Terror while Sean Hannity announced surrender in the same alleged war.) Or that Sun Moon never funded the Washington Post, or that Reagan’s White House Office of Public Diplomacy never threatened journalists and editors who strayed beyond the Spin Zone.
This is the classic Right Wing excuse for everything. They’re doing it! They did it first! When they do it, it’s evil, but when we do it, it’s good! Because we’re the Good Guys! And they’re the Bad Guys, so everything they do is Bad! Go ahead, substitute any word you want for ‘Journolist”… How about “torture”…”suppression of human rights”…”teenage pregnancy”…
Just because they are morally and politically bankrupt, don’t expect them to go away. Hell, AIG’s still in business.
ps–if you google “journolist” you will find this excellent site on internet skills for journalists (and anyone else interested in research.) This is a great resource and worth bookmarking.
Smackdown on the Right!
I heart Megan McCain. She’s the Athena of the Republican Party, doing long-overdue battle with the Harpies. So far, so good. Maybe the Party can be pried loose from the death grip of the extreme Right.
But still, the fact that the biggest thing in the Republican Party right now is, essentially, a trash-talking match in the girls locker room (”She’s fat!” “Kiss my ass!”) doesn’t bode well for the Party of Ideas.
And what about the Rushbo? Over in Limboland he’s sticking up for the outsized payouts to the guys who trashed the economy. Apparently his philosophy is that destroying global capitalism is a tough job, but somebody had to do it. I’m wondering if his legions of working class dittoheads are going to parrot that one, particularly those employed in the automotive industry, or if he just self-destructed. The concept of Rush Limbaugh jumping the shark brings up amusing, but highly disturbing, mental imagery.
Cool Tools!
I’m adding a few links to my sidebar. Up at the top right, by clicking the orange doohickey, you can be automatically notified each time I publish a new post.
I’m belatedly adding Journolist to my sidebar. No, not the infamous Journo-listserv where Liberals allegedly plot to take over the world, but an excellent site that will give you a full set of internet tools to do your own research, and handy how-tos on how to use them.
My son sent me this link, modestly titled “The Most IMPORTANT Video You’ll Ever See.” The real title is “Arithmetic, Population, and Energy,” and it gives the clearest and simplest explanation of the intertwined problems of energy use, population growth, and resource depletion I’ve ever seen. There’s an address at the end of Part 8 if you’d like your own copy, but no price info. If you have a way to get your favorite conservatives to sit down and watch it, it might be worth it at any price, if only to watch their heads explode.
The Sunlight Foundation website will give you the ability to see what Congress is up to, using a variety of links that enable you to slice and dice data relating to federal legislation. It also links to a slew of other sites busily slicing and dicing Federal information. For example: Who sponsored that bill? Who contributed to their campaign? Who made a profit on the project that bill funded? Expect to see connections.
And finally, Firedoglake’s Jane Hamsher has been looking into the above connections regarding Senator Evan Bayh’s Conservadem quest against Obama’s policies. It appears that, among other things, he has a problem with the notion that owners of properties bought at inflated prices should have their mortages reduced to avoid default, which would give mortgage companies a haircut as well. She discovered that the good Senator has accepted a million dollars in campaign contributions from the Finance industry. Wonder if she used the Sunlight Foundation website?
What’s Happening?
It’s been a fascinating few weeks. Mexico is pretty close to a Feds vs. Heads civil war, armed by us, Iraq continues to be a dangerous neighborhood, Afghanistan gets worse, and prepares to add us to the list of empires that ended their existence by invading them, screwy things continues to go on on Wall Street, with the screwers being paid handsomely by the screwees via the magic of the Bailout.
The Right has lit a major firestorm over Obama’s use of the teleprompter, which is sort of like criticizing him for being able to read. Michael Steele has declared that his feud with Limbaugh, and subsequqent groveling was a deliberate strategy to “discover who the enemy is and who’s inside the tent.” I’m not sure whether he ascertained that Limbaugh is the enemy or “inside the tent,” but I sure wish that the interviewer had asked. Michelle Bachmann is determined to protect us against our dollars not being the world’s default currency, by writing a bill that prevents us from doing something that has nothing to do with creating a worrld currency. House and Senate Republicans unveil their budget outline template, or, in the words of Captain Barbossa, “More like guidelines, actually.” I really like the part about how we will get out of debt by reducing taxes by 30% on the taxpayers who allegedly pay 87% of all income tax. Palin’s high schoolish V.P. debate performance was due to her not being able to get anyone to pray with her beforehand, not due to any lack on her part. Glen Beck wrapped a dead fish on his show [I could not, for the life of me understand the point., but he seemed to think he was pretty funny naming it Larry and talking to it.] Oh, and Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurtzelbacher is horny.
It’s sad to watch a once, or at least occasionally, great party (Lincoln, Eisenhower) fall into babbling incoherence. It’s even sadder to realize how much power they still wield. It’s frightening to think that there are 16 nationally elected Democrats who are willing to stand with them against President Obama’s budget.
The Other Side of the Story
Go here to read essays by AIG employees:
There are 3 links to other stories at the bottom of this one. Their perspective can be summed up in the lyrics of a Bone Poets Song (Great pacific NW band, BTW.)
Deep in the dark, in the boiler room of plenty, we stoke the banker’s fire.
These are the people who work in the boiler room, talking about how those fat bonuses were a substitute for 15 years of not getting raises, of how those who relocated to London saw their rents multiply five times over while their pre-bonus paychecks remained the same. How they had their jobs put on the line by bosses who demanded they make trades they felt were unwise–and with that loss of bonus, which would put them into an economic hole if they quit hanging over their heads, they went along–and how the boss who pushed them into those unwise business practices is walking around with his more than quarter billion dollar net worth intact.
Okay, we”re talking about very well-paid wage slaves, but still, it’s interesting to see that the pattern that exists at the bottom of the socioeconomic heap permeates the entire system. As individuals, they are as subject to the “You can be replaced” threat as any busboy, and there are thousands of well-trained mathematicians and traders standing in line to take their places.
Employee Free Choice Act, anyone? What would our economic system look like if, say, the AIG Financial Products (AIGFP) employees had gone to their union rep complaining of their boss’s abusive behavior? According to them, his giant profits (built on sand) earned him carte blanche with his superiors, and life or death power over his subordinates. Were they just chicken, or was this a situation in which having the sort of countervailing force that comes from being a member of a large organization, devoted to employee interests, could have created both better working conditions, more equitable pay, and more honesty and transparency in the business itself?
When will we learn that the power of the elite Few can–and must, in a Democracy–be balanced by concerted action on the part of the Many? That it’s okay, wise, and perfectly normal to join with others in the pursuit of common dreams. That the Cult of the Individual is a sham, foisted upon us by those who would use the oldest techinique in the imperial arsenal to their advantage: Divide and Conquer.
Thanks, Joe!
Joe Conason, writing at Salon, brings up an interesting point. Okay, don’t be put off by the title, “Dick Cheney Was Right.”
Remember, back in the day, when Republicans insisted that “Deficits don’t matter?” I mean before they lost their shirts in the last election and decided that Deficits Will Destroy Us?
Joe makes a good point. Deficit spending got us out of the Great Depression. The humungous deficit spending package known as WWII not only stopped Fascism, (”The unification of State and Corporate power,” per Benito Mussolini) but also created the industrial base for three decades of unparalleled, widespread prosperity. To use the household metaphor that Republicans are so fond of these days, there’s a difference between borrowing to, say, build a house and borrowing to, say, go on a foreign adventure. There’s a difference between spending that hard-borrowed cash frugally on projects that will bear fruit later on, like, say, planting fruit trees or putting your kid through college, and blowing it at the casino.
It’s not the size of the deficit, it’s how you use it.
Of Pirates, and a Cup of Tea
I suspected that the Navy Seals would have something to do with the release of Captain Phillips. The news is full of it, and rightly so. But what I find interesting is that all the experts talking about what to do about the situation ignore its source.
Somalis turned to piracy when foreign fishing trawlers depleted their fisheries and industrialized nations began dumping toxic and radioactive waste in their waters. What passes for a Somalian government is not able to fund a Navy or Coast Guard to keep the giant factory ships and garbage barges out. As desperate people tend to do desperate things, the result was piracy.
But wait! There’s more! For an excellent article, click here.
Yes, it’s a business. Lassiez-faire incarnate. I can hardly wait for Grover Norquist to start praising them. A government small enough to be drowned in a bathtub, indeed.
An on another rightward note, if you are over 18, and were not aware of the term “Teabagging” prior to the Fox News flogging of the tax day protest, click here. I’ll wait.
I must admit, this is not my father’s Republicn Party. Actually, you might want to watch David Schuster pinch hitting for Keith Olberman last night (story #4 on Countdown.) before you google. Then watch it again afterwards and count all the jaw-dropping double entendres. (Sorry, bad image.)
If you’re wondering how these dots connect, please read Thomas Frank’s The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule a book my wonderful kids gave me for Christmas, and which I’m finally getting around to reading. Written in impassioned, well-researched, and occasionally wickedly funny prose, Frank deconstructs the recent swelling tide of Republican corruption, blows the cover off their justifications for same, (”Freedom!”) and makes the connection between what the nation has recently experienced and the historical motives for our first Revolution.
Go on, click the link. It’s got that cool “Look Inside” feature. You’ll want to read more.
Oi! Oi! Blagojevich!
Now he’s been offered a reality show, at $80K per episode, yet.
It got me thinking.
How can I f&#k up badly enough to get offered that kind of money? I mean, this has become the American road to success. I always thought my problem was that I was weird. I mean, there are so many extraordinarily popular things that leave me baffled: NASCAR, American Idol, George Bush (well for a while, anyway). Now I find out that the problem is that I’m not weird enough.
Texas Tea Bags
As members of his audience chanted “Secede! Secede!” Texas governor Rick Perry announce that he agreed with them.
Well sort of, not really, um, he did take the $17 billion, after all.
But still, there were American flags all over the place and constant references to the Founding Fathers. So why is it that real patriots want to destroy the United States?
Republican Pirates
Well, I wondered when this would come along, and didn’t have to wait long. Rush Limbaugh wept crocodile tears for the deaths of ”black, Muslim, teenagers” on the order of President Obama. And referred to the pirates as “Merchant marine organizers.”
Scroll down to yesterday’s post, to the link to the Foreign Policy magazine article, “The Pirate Economy.” Oh, heck, I’ll save you the trouble of scrolling.
Where to start?
Words fail me, so I will turn the blog over to my evil right-wing twin, Rhonda Rayguns, to explain.
“Pirates are the coolest example of pure lassez fair capitalism out there! No rules! What could be better? You see, it’s the way of nature that the strong should suceed and the weak get eaten, right? I mean, it’s a business. You’ve got wealthy Somalis without jack shit to invest in, I mean Somalia’s practically a desert. So they look at this great profit opportunity, all those big freighters and oil tankers cruising past and they see an opportunity. They finance starving fishermen , buy them guns so they can attack the ships and hold them for ransom. This is called “job creation.” How could anyone in their right mind be against creating jobs for poor fishermen? I suppose we’re just supposed to send them free food? And it gives further stimulus to the global economy by all that money moving through insurance companies, and then, of course, there will be future job creation as the merchant ships arm thenselves and hire mercenaries. See, it’s a win-win situation!”
If you don’t believe me, read Frank’s book, particularly the chapter, “The Bantustan that Roared” about Saipan, a beautiful tropical island that has become one of the sweatshop hellholes of the world. (Part sweatshop hellhole, part horny tourist mecca, actually.) Well, Somalia’s not quite up to Saipan’s level. You see, Saipan actually has a government. One controlled by the businessmen running the sweatshops, and it has a police force, which it really needs. Otherwise, who would go out and beat the snot out of those uppity guest workers when they ask for decent working conditions?
When you look at the rhetoric coming from the Right, about secession, about protesting Obama’s tax cuts, about the general hatred and loathing of all things Government, right down to public schools, you really have to wonder what their goal is.
So long as you are looking at the guys out in the street, nothing makes much sense, unless you figure that just by getting pissed off you can bring back a job for hubby that will let wifey stay home and homeschool the kids. Okay, maybe you have to click your heels together three times, or something.
Never mind that American corporations massively increased their profits by outsourcing better-paying manufacturing jobs. Never mind that $100 billion tax dollars each year sit tidily in off-shore bank accounts, running up tax bills for all those guys with tea bags decorting thier hats. Never mind that American post-WWII prosperity rested upon the bedrock of cheap oil prices and abundant domestic supplies, which increased drillling will not restore.
“We’re running out! “
“I know how to fix it! We’ll use it up faster!!”
Obviously, at least according to these guys, the reason they’re feeling the squeeze is: Taxes!
However there’s another way to look at all this. it’s a concerted effort by the biggest of businesses and their owners to eternally and infinitely increase profit at the expense of everyone else. And the consequences of that, which history has shown over and over, (including the society contemporary to our original Revolution) is tyranny, the rule of the many by the few.
In this brave new world we live in, all this talk of destroying the rights and the very livelihoods of Americans is now called Freedom, and ripping the country into a collection of sovereign states, Patriotism. Let’s hope the dittoheads wake up to how they are beig manipulated soon, before they get what they ask for.
Tea
I’ll let the essay speak for itself. Thomas Hartman, writing over at Commondreams.org, began his education on hte Boston Tea Party after he came across a copy of Retrospect of the Boston Tea Party with a Memoir of George R.T. Hewes, a Survivor of the Little Band of Patriots Who Drowned the Tea in Boston Harbor in 1773 in a used book store.
The Real Boston Tea Party was an Anti-Corporate Revolt
For those of you who don’t have the patience to read a whole essay, I’ll pull a few of my favorite quotes:
Unemployment was exploding and the economic crisis was deepening; corporate crime, governmental corruption spawned by corporate cash, and an ethos of greed were blamed.
and
The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the BEIC pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.
By comparison, the tea parties of 2009 were organized by FreedomWorks, Dick Armey’s organization, which organizes on behalf of the interests of giant corporations, including several who received the TARP money that so offfends the sensibilities of the teabag crew. Again, from Hartmann:
A pamphlet was circulated through the colonies called The Alarm and signed by an enigmatic “Rusticus.” One issue made clear the feelings of colonial Americans about England’s largest transnational corporation and its behavior around the world: “Their Conduct in Asia, for some Years past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties, or Lives of Men. They have levied War, excited Rebellions, dethroned lawful Princes, and sacrificed Millions for the Sake of Gain. The Revenues of Mighty Kingdoms have entered their Coffers. And these not being sufficient to glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities, Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of their Property, and reduced whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin. Fifteen hundred Thousands, it is said, perished by Famine in one Year, not because the Earth denied its Fruits; but [because] this Company and their Servants engulfed all the Necessaries of Life, and set them at so high a Price that the poor could not purchase them.”
As Harmann points out, who does this sound like, the teabag crowd or the anti-globalisation demonstrators?
Anyone out there want to help me write a screenplay about the Boston Tea Party…I mean the one in 1773?
Defining Conservatism
After watching a TV clip re Obama’s little gift from Chavez, learning that the book is now #2 on Amazon.com, and that #1 is Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, I went and checked out Mark’s book. I already have decades worth of reading under my belt re El Norte’s not too shining historical relationship with our fellow American nations.
Levin begins, of course, with the ringing words of the Declaration–well, actually, that comes a page or so later, after he defines Conservatism as “…a way of understanding life, society, and governance.” He then goes on to cite a number of Enlightenment figures as having given birth to Conservative thought. Locke, Montiesque, Adam Smith.
I looked at that, and it occurred to me that those men were the radicals of their day. They proposed ideas that were utterly opposed to the European hierarchical world view and allegedly “divine” right of kings to rule. They bolstered their argument against a divinely-sanctioned rule of the masses by the nobility with the assertion that God, indeed, was on their side. In fact, the “Conservatives” of that day, those who wished to “conserve” the existing social order, were staunchly on the side of the King, “For God and King,” as they proudly put it.
Maybe the problem is that the Conservatives need a new name, at least those who wish to parade under the banner of Enlightenment philosophers. Was it not American Conservatives who instigated Jim Crow laws and resisted the dismantling of segregation? Was it not American Conservatives who opposed Roosevelt’s opposition to the rise of Nazi Germany and his support of Britain under the Lend Lease program? Was it not Conservatives who opposed–violently–the right of American workers to peaceably assemble and freely associate in unions?
Maybe this is the real dogfight in the Republican tent. The intellectual heirs of those noble Liberal philosophers (which is what they called themselves) are somehow trapped in bed with the intellectual descendants of those who burned witches and homosexuals at the stake. They are in bed with those who never found a war they weren’t willing to send someone else’s kids to fight. With those whose allegiance to their right to property transcends any other consideration, such as other people’s lives, liberties, and property. Those who voted to deregulate interest rates and restrict debtors’ access to bankruptcy. To dismantle environmental protections. To grant no-bid contracts to war profiteers.
You can go to the above link to the book and read the first few pages. He segues pretty quickly from his noble definition of Conservatism to equate Liberal philosophy with”Statism,” or a blind belief that the bigger the government, the better, by which definition that Conservative darling, Mr. Bush, must be the biggest Liberal of all. I also could not help but notice that he did not quote a single liberal or cite a single source to back up his claim on that topic. Liberals, he maintains, are just gung-ho to destroy the individual in their quest for the perfect state. We are imperfect human beings, he asserts, but Conservatives understand that, and don’t get too bothered by it. Which somehow explains why prison populations ballooned under the Bush Administration and Republicans were able to win elections by such tactics as calling triple amputee Max Cleland a coward and that whole thing about John McCain’s alleged “black baby.”
After eight years of warrantless wiretapping and torture under Bush, it’s the Liberals who are trying to destroy our Constitutional underpinnings. (Okay, I’ll admit Obama has me nervous on that point these days.)
But still, yikes!
Although I give him credit for his historical references to Locke, et al, I find him engaging in the usual Right Wing game of attributing every evil to The Other, and all virtue to one’s co-believers.
Here’s my definition of Conservative, “One who wishes to hold onto current structures, because one finds an advantage in the existing structure.” For example, Jim Crow kept Blacks from obtaining decent wages and equal treatment under the law. While I grant that abortion opponents sincerely believe in the sanctity of unborn life, lack of choice regarding the number and spacing of one’s children does put women at a disadvantage in the work force, giving men an advantage when it comes to hiring, promotions, and raises. Discrimination against gays likewise diminishes their earning potential. Environmental regulations, their opponents freely admit, gunk up the profit machine by insisting that they clean up after themselves and leave at least a couple of stones unturned now and again.
If the vision of the Founders was truly enacted, there would be no discrimination against anyone. Period. The notion that the Founders were religious men has been disproven over and over. They were Deists, Freemasons, for god’s sake, believers in God as Reason, not as a spiritual being. The notion that the Bible is the source of all morality is likewise ignorant nonsense. While Social Conservatives do sincerely believe that they have cornered the market of Moral High Ground, the agenda of the Republican Party has long been the protection of a wealthy minority by means of an appeal to anyone who will turn a blind eye to their own self-interest in order to further their own hobbyhorse: ending the right of a woman to choose; diminishing the right of blacks, gays, or anyone defined as “other” to compete freely in the workplace; ending those pesky laws protecting air and water; secession from the United States.
High-flown rhetoric aside, this is the working definition of the current Conservative movement, and its near total dominance under Bush has sown the seeds of its destruction. As people are forced by economic events to notice that their own interests have been damaged by Republican policies, they leave. Of course, a parallel trend will take place, as the number of those who feel that they cannot compete in the workplace unless the deck is stacked in their favor will rise, as well. Not a good trend, that one.
Today’s prediction:
What passes for the Republican Party will become increasingly shrill, as those with any degree of moderation will become alienated from it. If the pronouncements of Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, Malkin, Bachmann, et al signify a trend, the Party is looking to the militant fringe to bolster its numbers, pulling them in from the smaller parties to the Right, including the secessionist movement. (You’ll notice they’ve been making a full-court press for that constituency the past few months.) If you’ll read my earlier posts on Authoritarianism, you’ll find that such control freaks generally despise their followers as easily-manpulated idiots, and assume that they can, with a combination of smoke, mirrors, appeals to traditional belief systems, and cold hard cash, extend their control indefinitely.
Just like the Saudis fund the Jihadists, thinking to channel their religious beliefs to turn their aggressive instincts outward, toward the Other, in order to protect their own status and wealth.
Ask anybody. The Saudis are very Conservative.
The Triumph of Democracy
I read an article recently that said that sales of Ayn Rand’s books were off the charts, particularly Atlas Shrugged, 50-page infodump of Objectivist philosphy and all. Then I read this article:
Thoroughly Modern Marx by Leo Panich. Foreign Policy Magazine, May/June 2009
And you know what? Sale of Karl Marx’s doorstop, Das Kapital, are likewise soaring.
I suppose it makes sense. Capitalism is in an existential crisis, and people are looking to source material to make sense of it. (Bible sales up, likewise.) Do take a few minutes to read the linked article. I’d read Rand, but not Marx (being more of a Groucho fan, myself) and found a few jawdropping thoughts in Leo’s article. A few choice quotes:
Such a system [capitalism], he wrote, “leaves no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash payment.’” Indeed, capitalism leaves societies mired “in the icy water of egotistical calculation.”
In other words, Marx refuted Rand a century before she wrote her magnum opus. Interesting. But my favorite is this one:
The resulting social isolation creates passivity in the face of personal crises, from factory layoffs to home foreclosures. So, too, does this isolation impede communities of active, informed citizens from coming together to take up radical alternatives to capitalism.
Marx would ask first and foremost how to overcome this all-consuming social passivity. He thought that unions and workers’ parties developing in his time were a step forward. Thus in Das Kapital he wrote that the “immediate aim” was “the organization of the proletarians into a class” whose “first task” would be “to win the battle for democracy.”
Yes, you read that right. Win the Battle for Democracy. Marx, Carl, founder of Communism. Interesting. But didn”t the original NeoCons start out as Marxists?
It’s even more interesting that those who today are most eager to establish Democracy worldwide just happen to be those who are dead-set against labor unions. This brings me to a point that I first noticed decades ago:
Democracy has become a code word for subservience to American business interests. That’s where the real battle is now, and in fact has been for the past forty or so years.
There are games being played with language, ones that George Orwell noted over half a century ago. So the question is, will we start paying attention?
New Ideas
The Republican Party is on the hunt, or at least part of it is. If you’ll scroll back a bit, you can read my prediction that the Party would split in to the Country Club, Social Conservative, and Libertarian factions, which we’re starting to see. The Libs and the Socials (I really love being able to apply those abbreviations to the Rightward side of the spectrum) have their philosophies pretty well hammered out and, despite repeated evidence that the majority of Americans do not share them, are convinced that eventually the rest of us will smarten up and see things their way. The Country Club set, however, is looking for new ideas. As John Stewart notes here, they pretty much rule out wide swaths of ideas before opening up the floor for questions, thus freeing themselves to just say no to everything that won Obama and the Dems the last election.
Although this is billed as a listening tour, the clips that I saw mostly featured the three official “listeners” giving opinions and those whose ideas they sought asking questions that sort of boiled down to “What’s in it for me?” (Example: “What are you going to do for small business?”)
I will allow that news organizations are more interested in quoting famous people than ordinary ones and that maybe the group wants to keep those new ideas to itself until they can polish them up a bit, but still. I’d like to ask some questions. Maybe someday they’ll make it out to a pizza place in my neck of the woods (I would highly recommend Wallery’s over in West Salem, OR.) But in the meantime, in the interest of letting them prepare, here are some questions I have. After all, they say they’ll listen to anybody.
Oops! Well, I just found out that the “Listening Tour” has been canceled by executive order of Rush Limbaugh. Still, I don’t want to tell them anything, just ask questions, so my offer stands. Here are the questions:
- America is a place where people can work hard and get rich. But what if some of the strategies used to get rich harm other people? For example: A company can save millions by not installing pollution controls. This can create a health care crisis, with millions of people suffering from things like asthma and cancer. Given that the Republican Party is against universal health care and has been against environmental regulation for the past 3 decades, how do you propose to deal with this problem?
- The Republican Party places a high value on individual effort and feels that government should have as little input into the private sector as possible. Often the pioneers are cited as role models, people who heroically tamed the wilderness, turning it into productive farmland. However, this view of history ignores the Homestead Act, by which the government gave away millions of acres of land for free or a small filing charge, and it ignores the role of the US Army and the US Bureau of Indian Affairs (both taxpayer-supported government agencies) in wresting that land from its original owners. It ignores the fact that the railroads were given rights of way, which they then leveraged via bank loans to construct the railways. (Both of these programs were signed into law by Abraham Lincoln.) What is the modern Republican equivalent of the Homestead Act? What are the industries of the future and how would a Republican-led government create an environment favorable to their establishment?
- Governor Romney, you are a highly successful businessman. You made your fortune buying up failing businesses and restoring them to profitability, which is a good thing. You’ve discovered a business model that works and have been busy replicating it. At the same time, banks make a tidy living making loans. They too, have found a successful model and use it over and over : lather, rinse, repeat. So we have a situation in which American businesses reduce their domestic labor force, sending jobs overseas, and people who previously could make their payments no longer can, and the whole economy falls apart. Can you see how this is like two freight trains, each intent upon its own journey toward riches, racing toward a place where the tracks intersect? Is there a role for regulation? If it’s not the government that regulates, who or what would? Given that business executives are trained to seek short-term profit, who looks out for the long-term interest of the nation?
- Republicans frequently cite the Founding Fathers and the original principles of our nation. Benjamin Franklin once said, “All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.”
Walmart is an example of an organization that has successfully used government programs (the Interstate highway system to move goods, Medicaid to provide its employees with medical benefits). Why does the Republican Party oppose asking those who have benefited the most from the system to contribute a higher percentage toward its support? - Who does menial tasks (harvesting, cleaning, food prep, etc.) if the wages for such work are too low and the working conditions too dismal to attract American workers? How do you balance the need to get those jobs done without mandating higher wages and decent working conditions or bringing in impoverished people from other parts of the world to do those jobs?
- Given that everyone understands the importance of Education in individual and national success, why do Republicans favor policies that divert funding from the public school system, weakening it?
It seems to me that until the Republican Party addresses these issues in terms other than the boilerplate terms “freedom,” “traditional values,” and “low taxes,” they will doom themselves to increasing irrelevance.
Get email updates here!
