The campaign for the Republican nomination for President is heating up. Hardly a day goes by without some bizarre statement by one of the dozen or so contenders and each of them is more bizarre than the last. While each has his or her own special obsession, one thing seems to unite them all, they all venerate Ronald Reagan. Put any two of them on the same stage and before a minute goes by, each will claim to be more worthy of the Reagan mantel than the other.
It's a curious thing, this sanctification of Reagan. Somehow a second-rate actor and TV pitchman parlayed his screen presence into the greatest role in the world. For eight years he played President of the United States. Unfortunately, it wasn't in the movies. It was in the real world where fantasy has real consequences.
To non-believers, this Reaganmania is incomprehensible. His record as President wasn't much better than his record as an actor; average, at best. Other than a few one-liners, he left America little of value. Take a look at how it really was in this Aljazeera piece: Reagan mythology is leading US off a cliff and then try to reconcile the real Reagan with the totem carried by Regan cultists. Where's the reason for the reverence?
11 July 2011
08 July 2011
All Obama Ever Wanted?
Glen Greenwald's column at Salon this morning, Obama pushing for cuts to Social Security, Medicare sums up what a lot of us feared about President Obama.
As Greenwald noted, many of Obama's strongest supporters always have said Obama's frequent capitulation to Republican demands were due to his personal failings. Obama is "weak and inept," they said. Sadly, that's the best thing we can say about Obama.
Greenwald explored a number of recent offerings by Paul Krugman and Frank Rich and came to the conclusion Obama isn't "weak and inept,"or, at least that he's not just weak and inept, but that he actually believes the things he's doing are the right things to do. For some reason, despite the overwhelming weight of evidence and expert advice, Obama has drunk the snake-oil and has come to accept Republican policy ideas such as spending cuts and tax forbearance as solutions to the problems of the American economy.
Why?
No one knows for sure but it's easy to speculate. Maybe Obama is focused on his reelection and believes the money-lenders and independents are the only ones who matter. Giving-up Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in return for trivial tax revenue allows him to say he opposed his own party and moved toward the Republicans. That would make those who matter happy and they, along with those of Obama's shrinking progressive base who haven't given-up on him, might be enough
Or maybe it's something a little more sinister. Obama is the first black to be elected President. He got his name into the record books and as long as he doesn't do anything embarrassingly outrageous, he'll be able to reap the benefits of being a former President for the next 30 or so years. That's not bad for a guy who certainly must have experienced American racism, a guy born into a world which promised much and delivered little. He played a rigged game and came-out the big winner.
Maybe that's all he ever wanted.
As Greenwald noted, many of Obama's strongest supporters always have said Obama's frequent capitulation to Republican demands were due to his personal failings. Obama is "weak and inept," they said. Sadly, that's the best thing we can say about Obama.
Greenwald explored a number of recent offerings by Paul Krugman and Frank Rich and came to the conclusion Obama isn't "weak and inept,"or, at least that he's not just weak and inept, but that he actually believes the things he's doing are the right things to do. For some reason, despite the overwhelming weight of evidence and expert advice, Obama has drunk the snake-oil and has come to accept Republican policy ideas such as spending cuts and tax forbearance as solutions to the problems of the American economy.
Why?
No one knows for sure but it's easy to speculate. Maybe Obama is focused on his reelection and believes the money-lenders and independents are the only ones who matter. Giving-up Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in return for trivial tax revenue allows him to say he opposed his own party and moved toward the Republicans. That would make those who matter happy and they, along with those of Obama's shrinking progressive base who haven't given-up on him, might be enough
Or maybe it's something a little more sinister. Obama is the first black to be elected President. He got his name into the record books and as long as he doesn't do anything embarrassingly outrageous, he'll be able to reap the benefits of being a former President for the next 30 or so years. That's not bad for a guy who certainly must have experienced American racism, a guy born into a world which promised much and delivered little. He played a rigged game and came-out the big winner.
Maybe that's all he ever wanted.
05 July 2011
Paul Krugman Should Be Economic Czar of the USA
Paul Krugman should be the Economic Czar of the USA. His unparalleled understanding of the economy and his ability to explain it are critical to laymen when the information cloud includes so much distortion and misrepresentation shrouding the facts and good faith analysis.
In his latest offering as a New York Times Op-Ed columnist, Corporate Cash Con, he lays out the cause of our continuing economic difficulties the way a wise and celebrated doctor might prescribe treatment for a minor ailment. The symptoms lead him to an easy diagnosis and then to a clear course of treatment.
Our economic troubles, he tells us, are related to our bad habit of believing in trickle-down economics, the idea that money put into the economy at the top will "trickle-down" to those at the bottom. Its been tried before and it failed. It failed so badly, in fact, a better name for it might be drivel-down economics. It's the kind of sophistry medicine show charlatans like Eric Cantor offer to the suckers who need something to cure what they don't understand.
In this latest round, we're being told by drivel-downers that tax free repatriation of foreign profits earned by US corporations will be the basis of a recovery. The huge hoard of cash being held overseas would be brought home and used by American capitalists to invest in the American economy.
Krugman joins others in the exposure of the scheme by reminding us it already has failed us. In 2004, we allowed US corporations to repatriate profits but they didn't use them for job creation. They "used that money to pay dividends, pay down debt, buy up other companies, buy back their own stock -- pretty much everything except increasing investment and creating jobs." We have no reason to believe corporations wouldn't do pretty much the same thing in 2011 as they did in 2004.
The Krugmans goes on to point-out a fundamental truth of economics, economic actors do more of what best serves their interests. A second tax giveaway will give these "companies an incentive to move even more jobs overseas, since they now know that there’s a good chance that they’ll be able to bring overseas profits home nearly tax-free under future amnesties."
The question then arises, does anyone really believe corporations need more money? Krugman reminds us corporations already are swimming in cash. They're hoarding $1.9T because they have no reason to invest it. The lack of consumer demand would make any investment a waste. Consumer don't have the money to buy anything but they would if government created jobs and gave stressed home-owners mortgage relief.
Government created jobs and mortgage relief only part of what we need but they're good enough ideas to make Paul Krugman a candidate for Economic Czar of the USA.
In his latest offering as a New York Times Op-Ed columnist, Corporate Cash Con, he lays out the cause of our continuing economic difficulties the way a wise and celebrated doctor might prescribe treatment for a minor ailment. The symptoms lead him to an easy diagnosis and then to a clear course of treatment.
Our economic troubles, he tells us, are related to our bad habit of believing in trickle-down economics, the idea that money put into the economy at the top will "trickle-down" to those at the bottom. Its been tried before and it failed. It failed so badly, in fact, a better name for it might be drivel-down economics. It's the kind of sophistry medicine show charlatans like Eric Cantor offer to the suckers who need something to cure what they don't understand.
In this latest round, we're being told by drivel-downers that tax free repatriation of foreign profits earned by US corporations will be the basis of a recovery. The huge hoard of cash being held overseas would be brought home and used by American capitalists to invest in the American economy.
Krugman joins others in the exposure of the scheme by reminding us it already has failed us. In 2004, we allowed US corporations to repatriate profits but they didn't use them for job creation. They "used that money to pay dividends, pay down debt, buy up other companies, buy back their own stock -- pretty much everything except increasing investment and creating jobs." We have no reason to believe corporations wouldn't do pretty much the same thing in 2011 as they did in 2004.
The Krugmans goes on to point-out a fundamental truth of economics, economic actors do more of what best serves their interests. A second tax giveaway will give these "companies an incentive to move even more jobs overseas, since they now know that there’s a good chance that they’ll be able to bring overseas profits home nearly tax-free under future amnesties."
The question then arises, does anyone really believe corporations need more money? Krugman reminds us corporations already are swimming in cash. They're hoarding $1.9T because they have no reason to invest it. The lack of consumer demand would make any investment a waste. Consumer don't have the money to buy anything but they would if government created jobs and gave stressed home-owners mortgage relief.
Government created jobs and mortgage relief only part of what we need but they're good enough ideas to make Paul Krugman a candidate for Economic Czar of the USA.
24 June 2011
Bring Back the United States Post Office
On Thursday, Darrell Issa (R-CA,) chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, introduced the POSTAL REFORM ACT which would "implement sweeping, structural reforms of the United States Postal Service (USPS). The legislation represents the most fundamental reform of the postal service that has been proposed since USPS was first created from the old Post Office Department."
Of course, anything Issa does is suspect. Like all Republicans, he’s a sociopath and must be presumed to be acting for the plutocracy and against the interests of the American People. However, this actually could be a good opportunity to serve the country.
Here's how:
First, socialize USPS. Communication is extremely important to a democracy. That’s why the Founders declared an "enumerated power" of Congress to establish post offices and post roads and protected the right of speech and the press with the First Amendment. Clearly, communication is too important to trust to private firms. It's long past time to reestablish the United States Post Office the Founders intended.
Second, outlaw package delivery services like UPS, FedEx and DHL and let USPS handle the traffic. The USPS already serves every address they serve so this is a huge opportunity for savings which can be used to support USPS.
Third, reconceptualize USPS as the federal department of communication. It would not only continue in its traditional role but also would assume a new role as the national internet service provider. This would involve outlawing all private ISPs and providing service under the control of the new Post Office.
Of course, anything Issa does is suspect. Like all Republicans, he’s a sociopath and must be presumed to be acting for the plutocracy and against the interests of the American People. However, this actually could be a good opportunity to serve the country.
Here's how:
First, socialize USPS. Communication is extremely important to a democracy. That’s why the Founders declared an "enumerated power" of Congress to establish post offices and post roads and protected the right of speech and the press with the First Amendment. Clearly, communication is too important to trust to private firms. It's long past time to reestablish the United States Post Office the Founders intended.
Second, outlaw package delivery services like UPS, FedEx and DHL and let USPS handle the traffic. The USPS already serves every address they serve so this is a huge opportunity for savings which can be used to support USPS.
Third, reconceptualize USPS as the federal department of communication. It would not only continue in its traditional role but also would assume a new role as the national internet service provider. This would involve outlawing all private ISPs and providing service under the control of the new Post Office.
09 June 2011
President Obama's Undoing
President Obama's poll numbers are sagging under the weight of our continuing economic difficulties and Obama is being blamed for thirty years of Conservative economic policy bungling. Too bad for Obama but he brought it on himself. If he had a backbone it wouldn’t have happened. From the day he took office, the damage Conservatives have done to the American economy should have been his administration’s overriding message and should have been a part of every comment on any subject. Instead he’s collaborated and colluded with them until he finally capitulates to their demands and then tries to spin his embarrassing behavior as somehow a reasonable thing to do.
President Obama, cooperating with Conservatives never is a reasonable thing to do. They never will act in anyone’s interest except their own. They are sociopaths. They don’t care who get hurts by what they do as long as they get what they want.
You’ve got to learn that lesson and you don’t have much time to do it. Unless you make the American People understand that Conservatives caused our problems and that the only way to save America is by undoing what they’ve done, you’re not going to be reelected and then America’s going to be in real trouble.
President Obama, cooperating with Conservatives never is a reasonable thing to do. They never will act in anyone’s interest except their own. They are sociopaths. They don’t care who get hurts by what they do as long as they get what they want.
You’ve got to learn that lesson and you don’t have much time to do it. Unless you make the American People understand that Conservatives caused our problems and that the only way to save America is by undoing what they’ve done, you’re not going to be reelected and then America’s going to be in real trouble.
06 June 2011
Demagoguery and the National Debt
The American national debt and what to do about it is an issue at the center of public discussion. In a commentary recently published on The Hill, former senator, Judd Gregg, notes:
How do we separate demagoguery on the debt issue from the demagoguery of the debt issue?
America has had a national debt since forever and we've learned to live with it. In fact, we've learned to love it. US Treasury securities are a good basis for a savings program. Now come the Conservatives hoping to use the national debt to advance their flagging political fortunes.
Conservative bungling of public policy created the dire economic straits of America today and they're hoping to divert attention from the consequences, a lack of jobs, to something else. The national debt fills the bill. Never mind that they created a good portion of the national debt, especially that portion accruing in recent years, with their tax cuts for the rich and foreign wars. They're acting as if they were the fiscal saviors of America and they're doing it with simplistic policy proposals and utter nonsense.
Spending and tax cuts sound good to the guy who doesn't understand much about macro economics. He knows he can't spend money he doesn't have and can't borrow. That guy can be scared into believing Conservative schemes to serve the plutocracy serve his interests, too, and that's how demagoguery works. Find something which evokes a deeply emotional response and use the response to serve your interest. Conservatives are good at it. They do it with race, immigration, sexual orientation and a host of other things.
Don't believe it.
The debt is manageable and not with the draconian budget and tax slashing the Conservatives are demanding. Instead of listening to the likes of Judd Gregg, stick to the fundamentals. Let Congress "provide for the general welfare" with good faith debating of the issues which really affect the American People and funding action on them with the best means available, taxing or borrowing, just as the Founders intended. We don't need to focus on the funding method just because the Conservatives think it will get them a few votes.
...Some have tried to step into the waters of responsible action only to be confronted with the demagoguery of those who make a profession of poisoning wells.
How do we separate demagoguery on the debt issue from the demagoguery of the debt issue?
America has had a national debt since forever and we've learned to live with it. In fact, we've learned to love it. US Treasury securities are a good basis for a savings program. Now come the Conservatives hoping to use the national debt to advance their flagging political fortunes.
Conservative bungling of public policy created the dire economic straits of America today and they're hoping to divert attention from the consequences, a lack of jobs, to something else. The national debt fills the bill. Never mind that they created a good portion of the national debt, especially that portion accruing in recent years, with their tax cuts for the rich and foreign wars. They're acting as if they were the fiscal saviors of America and they're doing it with simplistic policy proposals and utter nonsense.
Spending and tax cuts sound good to the guy who doesn't understand much about macro economics. He knows he can't spend money he doesn't have and can't borrow. That guy can be scared into believing Conservative schemes to serve the plutocracy serve his interests, too, and that's how demagoguery works. Find something which evokes a deeply emotional response and use the response to serve your interest. Conservatives are good at it. They do it with race, immigration, sexual orientation and a host of other things.
Don't believe it.
The debt is manageable and not with the draconian budget and tax slashing the Conservatives are demanding. Instead of listening to the likes of Judd Gregg, stick to the fundamentals. Let Congress "provide for the general welfare" with good faith debating of the issues which really affect the American People and funding action on them with the best means available, taxing or borrowing, just as the Founders intended. We don't need to focus on the funding method just because the Conservatives think it will get them a few votes.
04 June 2011
Class Warrior Under Attack
Former candidate for the Presidency John Edwards has been charged with using campaign funds to shield his mistress from public few. The charges seem bogus to me. As Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has written,
That makes wonder why Edwards is being prosecuted.
I don't know if John Edwards would have wanted to be called a "class warrior" when he was running for president. The American media don't use that term as a compliment and it might not have been well-received by a political campaign which, as we're finding-out, must be concerned with the candidate's image. Nevertheless, even though he, himself, is wealthy, I think of John Edwards as a class warrior for the rest of us.
During his campaign, Edwards talked about two Americas and he was right. America is divided by wealth into two Americas, the wealthy and everyone else. Republicans know it and have been waging a class war for years to make sure the wealthy stay in control. Edwards knew it and was ready to fight the battle for the rest of us. Maybe that's what this prosecution is all about. Edwards had the temerity to go to war for the common man.
Whatever his indiscretions, John Edwards was America's best chance to restore American prosperity and the dignity of the American middle-class. It's a shame we lost him to this peripheral and irrelevant issue and the American passion for elevating trivialities to what they think are substantive issues.
The government’s entire case rests on finding that the payments made by Bunny Mellon and Fred Baron to Andrew Young to support Rielle Hunter were in fact campaign contributions. But no court has ever interpreted the definition of campaign contribution this broadly.
That makes wonder why Edwards is being prosecuted.
I don't know if John Edwards would have wanted to be called a "class warrior" when he was running for president. The American media don't use that term as a compliment and it might not have been well-received by a political campaign which, as we're finding-out, must be concerned with the candidate's image. Nevertheless, even though he, himself, is wealthy, I think of John Edwards as a class warrior for the rest of us.
During his campaign, Edwards talked about two Americas and he was right. America is divided by wealth into two Americas, the wealthy and everyone else. Republicans know it and have been waging a class war for years to make sure the wealthy stay in control. Edwards knew it and was ready to fight the battle for the rest of us. Maybe that's what this prosecution is all about. Edwards had the temerity to go to war for the common man.
Whatever his indiscretions, John Edwards was America's best chance to restore American prosperity and the dignity of the American middle-class. It's a shame we lost him to this peripheral and irrelevant issue and the American passion for elevating trivialities to what they think are substantive issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)