Category Archives: Government

Why the recession is our own damn fault.

Posted on by

Sure, it was the greed of mortgage-lenders and Wall Street that led to our recession.  But it’s consumers that are perpetuating it.  Most economists will tell you that recessions are mostly in the consumers’ minds.  If consumers are worried and reduce spending, our economy drops.  When consumers start spending, our economy rises.

Now, I understand that there are several overriding issues that led to this particular recession, not the least of which is the redistribution of wealth upward (10 percent of Americans now control nearly 71 percent of all U.S. assets).  Nevertheless, we have the power to fix it.

For one, we can vote for political candidates who are more concerned about ordinary citizens than the wealthy and the corporations that finance their political campaigns.

When possible, we can purchase American-made products.  Not just products with American brands, but products that actually say “made in America” on the product or the packaging.  I understand that it’s increasingly difficult to find American-made products, and that they sometimes cost more than those made elsewhere, but there is no better way to create or ensure American jobs.  For example, a Chevrolet or Ford is not only assembled in the U.S. by American workers, many of the parts are made in the U.S. and the profits go to American-based companies that pay taxes in the U.S.   This isn’t protectionism.  It’s simply common sense.

Finally, we can individually and collectively boycott corporations that don’t operate in our best interests.  Given their recent behavior, why would anyone continue to patronize the too-big-to-fail banks when there are so many other alternatives?  So even if you feel that voting for political candidates doesn’t change anything.  Voting with your purchases most definitely can.

Corporate loan sharking.

Posted on by

Having read that credit card companies are increasing interest rates, I began to wonder: What separates our financial institutions from the Sicilian Mafia, the Chinese Tongs or anyone else imprisoned for loan-sharking? They all charge outrageous interest rates on loans. They all have aggressive collection tactics. And many of them have politicians in their pockets.

The main difference, of course, is that the banks have incorporated as financial institutions. This allows the banks and credit card companies to borrow money from the Federal Reserve at a discount rate that’s currently .05 percent. Then they lend it at interest rates ranging from 20 to more than 45 percent! Not even casinos enjoy that kind of return. But, then, casinos are regulated.

For those of you under age of 50, you might be interested to learn that all financial institutions used to be governed by usury laws designed to prevent the lending of money at unreasonably high interest rates. State banks still are. Unfortunately, usury laws no longer apply to banks that label themselves “national”. The result is that large banks such as Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Chase can charge pretty much any interest rate they want.

And they want a lot.

Of course, they justify their rates by claiming that consumer default is on the rise.

There are several problems with that claim. One, the managers of these companies pay themselves 6- or 7-figure bonuses. Two, it was their greed that led to an economy that has forced consumer defaults. And three, it was the government, financed by you and I, that kept these companies from going bankrupt.

If our Congress ever decides to put the interests of taxpayers above corporations, the corporate officers that run national banks might have even more in common with the Mafia and the Tongs – a prison cell.

The no-it-all party.

Posted on by

As Republicans continue to attack President Obama over the lousy economy they, themselves, created, it becomes painfully obvious that they have no compassion, no ideas, no shame and no clue.  They keep serving up the same failed theories and rhetoric that got us into this mess. 

In their minds, the economy would recover if only the Democrats would provide more tax cuts for the wealthy.  At the same time, Republicans are attempting to stonewall any attempts at regulating Wall Street or reforming the runaway health insurance industry.  In their view, the “free” market and deregulation are cure-alls for anything that ails our economy.

But before anyone wants to sign onto their Reagan-inspired trickle-down economic theories, let’s look at what this kind of thinking has brought us over the last 30 years of Republican leadership:

1 – More than 14 million Americans are currently unemployed, and Federal Reserve Chairmen Ben Bernanke blames the continuing high level of unemployment on the too-big-to-fail banks for failing to make loans to small businesses, the engine that drives our economy. 

2 – 49 million Americans, including 17 million children, currently lack adequate, consistent access to food. 

3 – The VA estimates that 131,000 veterans are homeless on any given night and 18 veterans commit suicide every single day. 

4 – Nearly 47 million Americans lack health insurance.  Of those, nearly 45,000, including 2,266 veterans, die each year for lack of access to health care. 

5 – In what used to be a sight seen only in third world nations, thousands of American citizens have stood in line for free health care because they lack insurance.  More than 8,000 stood in line to receive health care in Los Angeles alone.  Many were turned away.  1,000 recently stood in line for free health care in New Orleans and there are similar free clinics scheduled in Little Rock, Kansas City and other U.S. cities.

These are not the kind of problems that will be solved by more tax cuts for the wealthy or further deregulation of our greedy, ship-the-jobs-off-shore industries.  They require substantial commitments of tax dollars, along with fresh ideas and political will, neither of which are currently available from the Republican Party.

Who’s really at fault for our nation’s predicament?

Posted on by

Who is more at fault for the problems that face our nation?  Republican candidates?  Or the voters who are deceived into voting for them?  During campaigns, Republican candidates take a populist tone.  They talk about the issues that are important to ordinary Americans such as opportunity and personal freedom.  But when they are elected, they tend to focus almost exclusively on issues designed to benefit the elite. 

Despite promises of fiscal responsibility, Reagan and George W. Bush dramatically increase the deficit and national debt.  Despite promises of small government, Bush created the huge bureaucracy that is Homeland Defense.  And the Republican mantra of lower taxes has really proven to be nonsense.  They may occasionally offer a token tax cut for the middle and lower class, but the real cuts are reserved for the wealthy.   Republicans talk about creating jobs then make it easier for corporations to eliminate collective bargaining and ship jobs oversees.  They talk about getting government regulations out of the way then watch corporations create new scams to abscond with more of their consumers’ money. 

Why, then, do voters fall for these false promises over and over?  Often it’s because they aren’t curious enough to really examine the party’s platform and hold the candidates accountable.  And all too often it’s because they focus on a variety of wedge issues such as abortion, terrorism and same-sex marriage.  They fall victim to a sort of 3 card monte.  They’re mesmorized by the Republican distractions of fear, anger and religion.

How many lower and middle class voters actually benefited from Reaganomics?  How many benefited from George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism?”  I submit that instead of jobs, increased salaries and tax cuts, they were rewarded for their votes with war, massive deficits and decreased prosperity.  But the real Republican constituency consisting of CEOs, bankers, investors, oil executives and defense contractors is doing just fine, thank you.

The Bush Legacy: America in Decline

Posted on by

A few weeks ago, economists Martin Wolf and Robert Shiller appeared on Fareed Zakaria’s GPS on CNN.  They said, “It is now clear that the Obama team has helped avert a complete meltdown of our financial markets.  But they warned that one of the greatest dangers facing our nation is the growing economic disparity between the rich and the poor.”  They went on to say, “This could create a country in which not even those with a great deal of money will want to live.”

There are other troubling effects of Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation and the Republican Party’s stubborn adherence to trickle-down economics. 

Although he draws no conclusions relative to party politics, Rick Newman talks about warning signs of American decline in a story published by U.S. News & World Report.  In the story he states, “…real household income in America has flat-lined, which means many middle-class families are barely keeping up with inflation. The exploding federal deficit hamstrings the government’s ability to help. Healthcare is too expensive, America’s manufacturing base is eroding, and two open-ended foreign wars are draining the national treasury.”

Newman goes on to point out that the annual “prosperity index“ published by Legatum Institute, a London-based research firm, now ranks the U.S. as the ninth most prosperous country in the world.  The same study ranks the United States 27th for the health of its citizens, a statistic that is all the more disturbing given the fact that we spend far more on healthcare per person than any other nation.

According to Newman’s article, the U.S. poverty rate of 17 percent ranks third worst among advanced nations above only Turkey and Mexico.  And since our future depends on the education of our youth, there is more disturbing news.  American 15-year-olds score below average among advanced nations on math and science.

There is one glimmer of positive news:  Newman points out that, according to a GfK Roper survey of how nations are viewed by others, “America rocketed from No. 7 in 2008 to No. 1 in 2009, largely because the world cheered the election of Barack Obama as U.S. president.”

“Starve the Beast”, Part II

Posted on by

I previously wrote about the Republican Party’s plan to “Starve the Beast” which they believe to be big government.  They hope to cut taxes and the federal budget in order to reduce the size of government and bankrupt the so-called “entitlements” of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. 

But this conservative nonsense goes farther.

They also want to significantly cut funding for education.  If you aren’t already familiar with the notion, here’s the Republican line of “thinking” (I use the word loosely):  By cutting funds for public schools, the schools will be forced to increase class sizes.  With larger class sizes, the performance numbers of public schools will be worse.  The lower performance numbers will make government-funded school vouchers for private schools, parochial schools and home-schooling more attractive.  We will then be raising generations as dumb or dumber than the current pack of Republicans. 

If that fails to frighten you, imagine a whole generation of children being home-schooled by the likes of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, or their followers. 

Of course, this “Starve the Beast” mentality extends to other areas as well, most especially social services.  The Republican “thinking” is based on the belief that those unfortunates who are poor or sick are in those predicaments as a result of their own actions.  They didn’t follow the Republican philosophies of independence and personal responsibility.  If they had only worked harder and prayed more, the “thinking” goes, they wouldn’t require help.  Don’t concern yourselves with them.  When these downtrodden finally discover religion and Republican values, God will take care of them.

Now, I ask you, what is the real beast?  Big government?  Or the Republican Party?

The return of Dick Vader?

Posted on by

Liz Cheney has stated that she hopes her father will run for President in 2012.  Even allowing for the admiration that a daughter naturally feels toward her father, I have to respond, “Are you out of your @%#^ing mind?! “

This week’s most popular movie at the box office is a disaster epic entitled “2012” which portrays the end of the Earth.  If Dick Cheney were to be elected President, reality could well be more awful than fiction. 

Just imagine, in a Cheney presidency, there would no namby-pamby diplomacy with other nations.  No dithering with our enemies.  Indeed, we’d likely attack every nation that wouldn’t kowtow to Cheney.  We’d treat all Americans as suspected terrorists and spy on their phone calls and emails.  We’d jail our political enemies and hold them for years without trial.  We’d cut taxes on the rich.  We’d virtually eliminate taxes on large corporations.  We’d transfer even more wealth to our overlords.  We’d conduct all government business with no-bid contracts.  We’d privatize our military.  We’d politicize everything.  And we’d centralize all power in the executive branch. 

Wait!   Isn’t that what happened when Cheney was running the country with Bush as a figurehead?

“An electronic Pearl Harbor”

Posted on by

Last Sunday, a report by Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes discussed the threat of cyber terrorism.

At the center of his report, Kroft interviewed Jim Lewis who directs the Center for Strategic and International Studies. According to Lewis, the United States has already experienced “an electronic Pearl Harbor.” Lewis continued, “Some unknown foreign power, and honestly, we don’t know who it is, broke into the Department of Defense, to the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, probably the Department of Energy, probably NASA. They broke into all of the high-tech agencies, all of the military agencies, and downloaded terabytes of information. Someone was able to get past the firewall and encryption devices of one of the most sensitive U.S. military computer systems and stay inside for several days,” he stated. The system he referred to is the CENTCOM network, which is our military’s control center for fighting wars. Lewis said that the hackers sat inside the network, tracking information and documents “like they were part of military command.” According to Lewis, this is the “most significant” breach of security ever “acknowledged by the Pentagon.”

Proof that the Obama administration is weak militarily and soft on terrorism? No, wait!

Are you feeling “entitled?”

Posted on by

For many years, the Republican Party has been determined to change or end the so-called “entitlement” programs of Social Security and Medicare.  As early as 1984, I recall reading the Republican National Party’s platform which called for “starving the beast” that is big government by reducing taxes and cutting the federal budget to force the elimination of these so-called “wasteful” programs.   In the place of these social safety nets, Republicans proposed an emphasis on personal responsibility and faith-based initiatives. 

In other words, big business and the wealthy have no responsibility for those who are not as fortunate as they.  If someone loses a job, gets sick, or suffers some other personal tragedy, it’s his or hers own fault.  These people should have never allowed themselves to be in that position anyway.  And there are always church missions to make these people see the error of their ways, convince them of their own failings and set them on the road to success.

Of course, Republicans are also against any form of government regulation and collective bargaining.  There must be nothing to interfere with the forces of the “free” market. 

Given this backdrop, is it any wonder that Republicans have been having such a snit over health care reform, let alone a public option? 

And, in one of the most cynical and hypocritical tactics of all time, the Republican Party and its allies are actually using Medicare to scare the oldest (and most likely to vote) segment of our population into speaking out against health care reform.  They claim that the reform bill proposed by Democrats would drastically cut Medicare benefits.  Never mind that the cuts that are in the proposed bill only cut waste and duplication.  And never mind that the Republican Party would prefer to completely eliminate Medicare as part of its war on “entitlements.“

All Americans would be wise to remember which party legislated Social Security and Medicare in the first place.  Here’s a hint:  It wasn’t the GOP.

The cost of war.

Posted on by

Our war in Afghanistan has now dragged on longer than the failed Soviet Union occupation.  And President Obama is faced with a decision to expand the war by adding up to 40 thousand new troops, engineering a withdrawal, or committing to something between those extremes. 

By all accounts, this was a war that could have ended several years ago if we hadn’t become preoccupied with Iraq.  But as the Iraq “liberation” dragged on, our real enemies in Afghanistan regrouped and gained in strength.  Now it seems that no option in Afghanistan is a “good” option – especially given our economic woes at home.

It was recently reported that the Afghan war has already cost nearly $230 billion.  It was also estimated that the war costs $500,000 (Pentagon estimate) to $1 million (Congressional estimate) to maintain one U.S. soldier in Afghanistan for one year.  That cost includes transportation, equipment, support facilities and all incidentals.  If those figures are correct, adding 40 thousand more troops to the conflict will cost the U.S. an additional $20-40 billion over the next year.   And given that we still have combat troops stationed in Germany and Japan more than 60 years after the end of WW II, the cost will likely continue for many years to come. 

Not included in that estimate is the cost of VA to treat lasting injuries and psychological damage.  There are also the sums paid to veterans for disabilities.   And, of course, it’s impossible to place a price on the lives lost in action.   

Add to these costs the price of the war in Iraq which some estimate to total more than $2 trillion.

All of this is background to the debate over health care reform and economic stimulus.  The economic stimulus package that was signed by President Obama included $787 billion to create or save jobs by rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure.  And the cost of health care reform bills being considered are estimated to  cost more than $800 billion over 10 years.  Of course, the conservatives are horrified by these numbers.

So they must be apoplectic over the cost of Bush’s wars?  Not exactly.   The conservatives can’t wait to send more troops to Afghanistan and spend more money (and more lives) on open-ended, no-bid contracts for the likes of Halliburton and Xe.  They even trotted out the dark one (former V.P., and former Halliburton CEO, Dick Cheney) to attack Obama for “dithering” over the decision to commit more troops. 

Conservative logic goes something like this:  It’s un-American and un-patriotic to spend our own money on our own citizens for jobs and health care.  But it’s absolutely necessary to spend trillions to kill a few knuckleheads on the other side of the globe. 

Does this make any sense?  I think you know the answer.