Category Archives: Economy

Who Are We Afraid Of? (Part II)

Posted on by

It was recently announced that the U.S. military budget ($692 billion for FY 2010) now exceeds military spending by all other nations combined. That’s right. We now spend more on defense than all 194 of the other countries in the world! And that doesn’t even include the money we spend on Homeland Security, or most of the money we spend on intelligence gathering. (A recent expose’ by the Washington Post reported an estimated 854,000 people work in the secretive information gathering business in the U.S. No one knows how much money is being spent on the endeavor.)

There can be only two conclusions from that data: We are the most powerful nation in the world. And we are the most paranoid; maybe with good reason.

According to Wikipedia, “as of March 31, 2008, U.S. armed forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 135 countries.” Of course, we have large numbers in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. But we still have 52,440 in Germany, 9,660 in Italy and 35,688 in Japan more than 60 years after WWII. We have 28,500 in the Republic of Korea more than 50 years after the Korean Conflict. We have 9,015 in the United Kingdom (are we expecting a repeat of our Revolutionary War?), 47,236 in East Asia, 3,362 in North Africa … the list goes on.

Given the state of our economy, what could possibly justify the expenditures? If they’re not needed, we’re wasting an incredible amount of money. And if they are, we need to change our foreign policy, because we must be the most hated people on Earth.

$3.4 Trillion Reasons To Not Vote Republican In November.

Posted on by

According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), that’s the amount tax cuts being proposed by Republicans will add to the national deficit over 10 years.

The proposed tax cuts include permanently extending the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts which represent $2.3 trillion. Of course that’s just an estimate. But the CBO found that the unfunded Bush tax cuts, which primarily benefit the wealthy, added $539 billion to the deficit in 2005 alone.

On top of that deficit-ballooning idea, Republicans want to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax along with Estate Taxes and Gift Taxes which, according to projections, will add another $1.1 trillion to the deficit over 10 years. Again, these tax cuts are aimed at benefitting the wealthiest part of our society.

Just to be clear, the $3.4 trillion would be added to the annual deficit over the next ten years and the effect on the total national debt would be cumulative. In other words, they would likely add another $3.4 trillion to the national debt each and every decade after their passage!

In case you’ve been living in a vacuum, the people promoting these tax cuts are the very people who claim to be so concerned about adding to the deficit that they’re willing to filibuster the extension of unemployment benefits for people who are out of work.

What’s particularly fascinating about this debate is that the Republican leaders don’t think cutting revenue will have an impact on the deficit.

Senate Minority Dimwit, Mitch McConnell is on record for saying, “There’s no evidence that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue.”

Hmmm…if you believe that, maybe you should try this experiment at home: If your household expenses exceed your income, then look for a job with a lower salary. According to McConnell, fellow Senate Dimwit, Jon Kyl, and other Republicans, that will reduce your debt!

That’s the kind of thinking that took us from an economy that generated 22 million jobs and a budget surplus in the Clinton administration to an economy that almost entirely collapsed under the Bush administration and gave us a huge deficit.

Yeah, who wouldn’t want to put those people in charge again?

What’s The Real Reason There Are More Women In The Workplace?

Posted on by

For the past several years, there has been much publicity over the increase of women in the workplace. The hiring of women has greatly outpaced the hiring of men in certain jobs. Advertising, marketing, healthcare, and many other industries are becoming dominated by women. The statistics would lead you to believe that the U.S. has finally become gender equal.

But before you begin applauding American corporations for their enlightment, you may want to consider another, not quite so flattering, reason for the change. In their never-ending quest to increase profits and pump up stock prices, corporations may simply be hiring more women because they can pay them less.

That’s right. American corporations have cut employee-related costs by increasing productivity, automating production lines, and shipping high-paying jobs overseas where workers are paid less and receive virtually no benefits. Many have hired illegal immigrants to replace workers at the lowest end of the pay scale. They’ve utilized independent contractors to replace full-time office workers in order to avoid paying Social Security, health care benefits, disability insurance and unemployment insurance. They’ve even come up with ways to use the Internet to pare the cost of marketing, advertising and design. So what’s left?

Women have always been able to do most jobs as well as men (and many better). But their salaries have long been suppressed. (A recent study found that female attorneys in elite law firms were paid an average of $66,000/year less than their male counterparts.) So why not take advantage of them once again?

Hiring more women is a sign of progress toward gender equality. But the reason for it is not necessarily one that corporations should be proud of.

Why Do We Allow Republicans To Ignore Election Results?

Posted on by

In 2008, voters repudiated conservative politics by electing Barack Obama as President and voting for overwhelming Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. But, based on the actions of Republicans, it would appear that they have simply chosen to ignore the results. The House has passed bill after bill in order to live up to the campaign promises. The President has repeatedly reached out to Republicans. Yet the Senate Republicans have stonewalled virtually every initiative with parliamentarian tricks. They have placed secret holds on more than 100 Presidential appointees. They have threatened to block many more. And they have used filibusters a record number of times.

This level of obstructionism is unprecedented in U.S. history and voters should make Republican candiates pay for it this November. But according to early polls, it appears that the Republican strategy may work. Voters are angry at incumbents – all incumbents – not just those who have stalled reforms. And voters are angry at President Obama for not doing more about the unrelenting gusher of crude in the Gulf of BP. Never mind that the cozy relationship between Bush/Cheney appointees in the Minerals Management Service allowed BP to apparently cut corners with safety. And never mind that the best minds in science and in the oil industry seem stumped as to how to proceed.

It would seem that many in the public won’t be satisfied until the President dons a diving suit, descends a mile under the surface of the ocean and personally shuts off the wellhead himself.

Seriously, people, there are only four submersibles in the world capable of operating at that depth and none of them are owned by the U.S. Moreover, they are incapable of doing any more than the underwater robots. So the problem has spilled into the ocean and onto Obama’s lap.

Like the financial crisis, the unemployment crisis, the immigration crisis, the national debt and the two on-going wars, the oil gusher is a mess created by the Bush administration. And the Obama administration has been left with the job of cleaning it up. To make matters worse, the Republicans in Congress have done nothing to help.

If there’s any justice in American politics, the Republicans will pay at the polls. But I suspect an uninformed public will reward them for their antics. Republicans will then be able to obstruct even more reforms. And voters will continue to wonder why nothing ever seems to change in Washington.

© LaMaster Propaganda – All rights reserved.

The Other Offshore Disaster.

Posted on by

For more than two months, the nation’s attention has been focused on the gusher in the Gulf. But there’s another offshore disaster that has been going on for at least 50 years. I refer to the large U.S. corporations that have created subsidiaries and “headquarters” off-shore to avoid U.S. taxes.

But I found it difficult to obtain a list of the companies that have taken advantage of the loophole. Now, thanks to Ariana Huffington’s recent article on the Huffington Post, I have a better idea. In her article, she cited a Government Accounting Office (GAO) report from 2008 that showed 83 of the 100 largest publicly–traded companies in the country had operations in tax havens.

The report cited AIG, AT&T, American Express, Boeing, Chevron, and Dow to name a few. Many set up P.O. boxes in the Caymans and Bermuda. And Halliburton chose to move its “headquarters” to Dubai. That’s disturbing enough. Yet, according to the GAO, 74 of those 83 corporations received government contracts. And, of course, taxpayers were asked to rescue two of those companies (AIG and American Express) through billions in government loans.

So these companies are not only avoiding paying their fair share of American taxes. They are filling their coffers with money from taxpayers like you and me!

At a time when our national economy is struggling and when we’re engaged in two protracted wars, closing this gaping loophole would seem one of the top priorities for Congress. But that would mean that our Representatives and Senators would have to vote against some of their largest campaign contributors. Indeed, according to Ariana Huffington’s article, Washington has been trying to address the issue for nearly 50 years. But each time the issue comes before Congress, the corporate lobbyists prevail.

So while Congress debates the impact on the national debt by extending unemployment benefits for working people, they continue to permit corporations to avoid paying billions of dollars in taxes through loopholes. In fact, the latest figures available show that these corporations pay roughly $16 billion in taxes on $700 billion in foreign active earnings – a tax rate of approximately 2.3 percent!

Of course, politicians (especially Republicans) excuse such welfare by saying that corporations create jobs, and that jobs have never been more needed than now. That may be true. But where are those jobs being created? For nearly 40 years, many of these corporations have been creating more jobs offshore than in the U.S.

That being the case, what do we have to lose by forcing them to pay up?

Corporations Fueling Immigration Problem

Posted on by

With all the controversy created by Arizona’s new immigration bill, I think we should consider the role corporations have played in creating this problem. For the past 30+ years, our large corporations have been “outsourcing” manufacturing jobs to places like China, India, Indonesia and Mexico. Our TVs are now made in China, Korea and Japan. Our DVDs are made in China. Our clothes and toys are made in China. Our shoes are made in China, Indonesia and Mexico. Our computer software is created in India. Our appliances are made in China and Korea. Many of our cars are made in Japan and Korea. The list goes on and on.

We’re told the reason our corporations have exported our jobs is that American consumers demand lower and lower prices. Really? Of course, consumers want to pay as little for products as possible. But at what cost? High unemployment? Lower wages? Fewer benefits? No health care? No pensions?

Face it, the real reason corporations export jobs is to maximize profits by avoiding reasonable wages and benefits. Most of all, they want to avoid organized labor, which has forced corporations to treat employees fairly.

Now, let’s look at the industries which hire most of the undocumented workers – fast food outlets, meat-packing plants, roofing companies, landscaping businesses, corporate farms and other labor-intensive businesses. Why do they hire illegals? Because these are industries which, for a variety of reasons, are unable to export jobs to other countries. So, the only way for these industries to cut salaries and benefits is to hire illegals. After all, illegals have no voice. They are so desperate to find a job that they are willing to endure long, dangerous treks arcross the desert or to deal with human traffickers in the hopes of being hired. They can’t organize unions. They can’t pressure the government for higher minimum wages. They can’t sue the corporations. All they can do is work for the salaries and benefits the corporations are willing to offer them.

As long as we allow corporations to continue to hire illegal workers without serious consequences, this problem is unlikely to change. They know that the federal, state and local governments will continue to cut corporate taxes and reduce regulations in an attempt to replace jobs that our corporations have exported. They know that investors won’t care as long as their stock values continue to rise. They know that the majority of consumers will never boycott products made by illegals as long as prices are low. They know governments will provide education, health care and other benefits for their employees and their families at no cost to the corporations. And if their illegal workers are deported, these corporations know that there will be plenty of other illegal immigrants to take their place.

So my question is this: Why are we punishing illegal workers when we should be punishing unethical corporations?

A Brief Summary of Republican Teabagger Values.

Posted on by

In the past few weeks, we’re getting a really good picture of what the Republican teabaggers have in store for America.

First, a Kansas-based wingnut wrote a racist immigration law which he peddled to the Arizona legislature. Of course, they were all too happy to embrace it. Now he’s peddling the same bill to other states. So far, at least 12 states are considering it.

Second, the NRA and its Republican enablers have succeeded in pushing through new conceal and carry laws throughout the country. It is now legal to carry a gun in any national park. In Arizona, you may now carry a concealed weapon without a permit. And thanks to a new law in Louisiana, you may even carry your gun to church – because we all know that to truly worship Jesus, you have to be ready to nail a few Muslims.

Third, the Grand Obstructionist Party threatened, for weeks, to filibuster financial reform. They actually chose to defend Wall Street against Main Street! Who cares if abuses by Wall Street collapsed our economy and cost taxpayers trillions of dollars?

Fourth, BP Oil and its partners blew up 11 employees and unleashed an oil gusher a mile deep in the Gulf. Now, considering the Republican-loaded Supreme Court recently declared that corporations have all the rights of individuals, you might expect that the BP CEO and a few other corporate officers would be facing charges of manslaughter and more (What is the penalty for killing an entire ocean?). But of course, the Supreme Court only awarded corporations individual rights. No doubt, they never intended to hold corporations to the same standards as individuals when it comes to responsibilities.

Fifth, Senate Democrats asked for unanimous consent for a bill that would greatly expand BP Oil’s liability for the Gulf tragedy. The bill was first blocked by an objection from Senator Lisa Murkowski. It seems she was more impressed by the nearly $300,000 in campaign contributions from oil companies than the plight of Gulf Coast fishermen.  Ensuing attempts have been blocked by Tom Coburn, another Senator who relies on contributions from big oil.

Sixth, Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that he refuses to raise taxes in order to balance California’s budget. So, instead, he is cutting welfare benefits for more than one million of California’s unemployed. Of course, California is not alone. Similar measures have been instituted in Arizona and several other states. Indeed, Arizona’s legislature cut funding for health care for poor kids until they found out that the state would lose more in federal funding than it would save. Meanwhile, the Arizona dimwits continue to cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy.

Finally, teabagger darling, Rand Paul, displayed his true colors on The Rachel Maddow Show when he refused to say he would have voted for the 1960s Civil Rights Bill. What he did say is that he thinks private businesses should be able to do what they want, even if that means refusing to serve non-whites.

This is just a brief recap of wingnut values. One can’t help but conclude that if the Republican teabaggers have their way, America’s coasts will be covered in oil, the public schools will be closed, and the streets will be filled with angry, homeless, poor people who are armed to the teeth.

Who are we afraid of?

Posted on by

Following the end of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, we have no military foes.  (At least not in a traditional sense.)  The Soviet Union is gone, replaced by Russia and a host of independent states.  China has gone from being a perceived enemy to our out-sourced manufacturing state holding billions in U.S. bonds.  And Germany and Japan have not been allowed to rebuild significant forces since the end of WWII. 

The only perceived threats are the failing state of North Korea, which has a large infantry and a few nuclear-tipped missles that are incapable of reaching our shores, and Iran, which has a smaller infantry and a nuclear bomb in the making.  In addition, there is nuclear-armed Pakistan with a government under seige by fundamentalist Muslims. 

True, it’s possible that our relationship with Russia could deteriorate enough that we might eventually have to worry about its nuclear aresenal.  But that would seem to be unlikely, and we have far superior technology along with our own enormous nuclear arsenal.

So, I repeat, who are we afraid of? 

What could possibly justify our continuing expenditures on military weaponry?  We spend more on our navy than the next 13 nations combined.   And, in total, our military expenditures exceed the next 11 nations combined! 

We could trim tens of billions of dollars from our weapons procurement budget and still be more than adequately prepared for any potential threat.  Indeed, one could argue that we could use that money more effectively to prevent poverty and other conditions that lead to war.  What if there were good schools for poor Muslim children and respectable jobs waiting for them after they graduate.  What if that helped them achieve the self-respect they are looking for?  Would they still consider blowing themselves up in a suicide attack? 

What if we relegated the neo-cons’ misguided “Plan for A New American Century” to the garbage bin of history where it belongs?  What if, instead, we quit trying to dominate the world?  What if we quit using our lone superpower status to support the imperialist designs of our large corporations?  What if we quit using our political clout and collective wealth to exploit the natural resources of less developed nations?

Or what if we used a portion of our enormous military budget to pay down our national debt?  Yeah, I know.  Why on Earth would we want to do that?

© LaMaster Propaganda – All rights reserved.

Can an entire political party be sociopathic?

Posted on by

A sociopath is defined as one who has no conscience; someone who’s every action is intended to help themselves.  Now, I ask you.  Does that not describe the Republican Party and its media whores?

Consider the following: 

Attorney General Eric Holder and the Obama administration want to close Guantanemo and try those imprisoned there.  Republicans go ballistic that these “illegal combatants” don’t deserve to be treated as criminals.  How naive for President Obama to believe in our justice system!

Or how about the “underpants bomber”?  A confused young man from Nigeria decides to stash explosives in his underpants in order to blow up a plane.  The Republican response is to point fingers at the Obama administration for Mirandizing him.  Despite the fact that the Obama administration acted exactly as the Bush administration did in response to Richard Reed, the shoe bomber, Republicans pretended to be outraged that the young man was read his Miranda rights.  Never mind that the “underpants bomber” cooperated with authorities with torture.

Or how about health care reform?  A bill that regulates health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies and provides health care to 33 million Americans is, according to Republicans, a socialist or communist plot.  The census?  According to Republicans, it’s an Obama plot to round up conservatives and place them in internment camps.  (Of course that’s wrong.  Instead, Obama should use the data to round up Republicans and put them where they belong – in insane asylums.) 

Financial reform?  Despite the fact that Republicans allowed the “free markets” to send our economy into a death spiral while those responsible made millions in bonuses, Republicans would have us believe that reform is a Socialist plot leading to a government takeover of banks.  The worst oil disaster in the history of America (or maybe the world)?  According to Republicans, it was caused by environmental terrorists.  And the government’s response was delayed so the Obama administration can put an end to off-shore drilling. 

A failed terroist bombing of Times Square was, in twisted Republican minds, the result of the Obama administration being soft on terrorists and reaching out to Muslim nations.  Pay no attention to the fact that the suspect was quickly caught and provided information that led to the arrest of at least one Pakistani national without our resorting to torture.

One wonders how Republicans can make these accusations without laughing out loud.  Are they secretly biting their tongues in order to keep a straight face?  Or are they, as I suspect, clinically sociopathic?  You decide.

© LaMaster Propaganda – All rights reserved.

Main Street 57, Wall Street 41.

Posted on by

For two days in a row, a bill for financial reform came up 3 votes short in the Senate. All 41 Republican Senators voted to prevent debate. In other words, they voted to filibuster. Polls show the American public overwhelmingly wants to see financial reform because they understand that it was the high-risk gambling on Wall Street that caused the worst economy since the Great Depression. Yet Republicans voted in unison to block it.

Why?

The answer is simple. Republicans say that they want financial reform, but they don’t want it to interfere with the almighty “free” market. It took them 62 years to undo the Glass-Steagall Act and they don’t want to see a similar bill. They don’t want to limit their wealthy and powerful masters’ ability to make outrageous profits from consumers. They don’t want to allow any form of consumer protection. And they certainly don’t want the voting public to see them taking the side of Wall Street in an open debate.

By keeping the debate behind closed doors, Republicans can make deals with bank lobbyists that will keep the money flowing on Wall Street and, more importantly, keep the money flowing toward Republican candidates.

So, for now, we’re treated to a high stakes game of cat and mouse. Democrats will keep asking for debate on financial reform, and Republicans will keep voting to block it. How long before Main Street reminds Republicans who they’re supposed to be working for?