If we can eliminate the rail alternatives, we will create a new market for our cars.

I have ignored this blog for some time for reasons described earlier. I'll summarize by indicating that maintaining a blog that is rant-based is antithetical to my nature. This stuff motivates me, but the work of creating a meaningful blog was bringing me down. I considered posting this to my regular blog (eyeDance) but it seemed too heavy for that venue. So here it is, where it rightfully belongs, on Pitchforks and Torches.

I will reiterate that anyone who feels moved to contribute to this blog so that its presence is less sporadic, please contact me and I will grant you the status to contribute directly. So, onward...

-----

On Saturday I attended a pro-train rally here in Madison, WI. There is a push to (re)introduce higher-speed passenger rail to the state. Our Governor-Elect, Scott Walker(R) has clearly stated his intent to kill the rail project and return the federal funds already allocated to WI to improve rail beds and establish new track and a station in Madison.



The rally was small, and poorly announced. The spots I heard on the radio indicated day and time, but not location (duh!). Several speakers presented good information, including one Republican who is a Walker supporter.



Generally the information was fact-based rather than emotional and I couldn't help but to feel cognitive dissonance: This rail option is so clearly a conservative approach to infrastructure growth. What was I missing? I wasn't alone.



There's lots of room for conspiracy about Walker being beholden to road building and other transportation (read: Truck and Auto) based organizations, but it really can't be that simple. I don't believe he's that short-sighted. Or is he caught up in the paradigm that says cars=freedom and poor people travel by train or bus? Has he ever been to the East Coast? Interestingly, a friend who was also at the rally mentioned in passing GM and other corporations buying up and destroying urban rail. That rang a bell deep in my memory, so I came home to do some research.

in the 1920s automaker General Motors (GM) began a covert campaign to undermine the popular rail-based public transit systems that were ubiquitous in and around the country’s bustling urban areas. At the time, only one in 10 Americans owned cars and most people traveled by trolley and streetcar.

It sort of reminds me of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit". It turns out GM wasn't alone in their efforts, and they were hugely successful. They were joined by Standard Oil, Firestone Tire, Mack Truck and Phillips Petroleum.

GM began by funding a company called National City Lines (NCL), which by 1946 controlled streetcar operations in 80 American cities.

“Despite public opinion polls that showed 88 percent of the public favoring expansion of the rail lines after World War II, NCL systematically closed its streetcars down until, by 1955, only a few remained,”

Over the course of three decades, this group of corporations worked to almost entirely decimate rail options in cities. I'm no fan of trolleys and think buses are a fine alternative. My wife has relied on Madison Metro buses for commuting for more than two decades. But they didn't stop there.

Alfred P. Sloan, GM’s president at the time, said, “We’ve got 90 percent of the market out there that we can…turn into automobile users. If we can eliminate the rail alternatives, we will create a new market for our cars.”

Getting inside the government was a logical step, and GM wasted no effort to do so.

GM was later instrumental in the creation of the National Highway Users Conference, which became the most powerful lobby in Washington. Highway lobbyists worked directly with lawmakers to craft highway-friendly legislation”

When GM President Charles Wilson became Secretary of Defense in 1953 [emphasis mine], he worked with Congress to craft the $25 billion Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. Referred to at the time as the “greatest public works project in the history of the world,” the federally funded race to build roads from coast-to-coast was on.

Fortunately, GM is not in the same position it was in then, and there is more interest in rational mass transit. Road building is costly, and traffic is getting significantly worse even here in WI. A rail option reduces some of that load - but leaves drivers free to choose to drive - and eliminates a couple of key headaches such as fender-benders and the traffic jams they create, rush-hour crawl, tolls, and most weather related snarls like snow, fog, and heavy rain.



Currently the Amtrak passes about 30 miles from Madison and there is no way to get to the station except by car. The Empire Builder line runs from Seattle-Chicago via Minneapolis and Milwaukee, making it a logical option for a Mnpls-Madison-Chicago connection if it only ran closer or there was a rail line that served the station from here. The trip from Chicago to Columbus, WI, takes 2:45, so a route through Madison instead would not significantly alter that. Driving time to downtown Chicago from here is about the same if all goes well. While riding that train I could read, have a beer, talk with my companions or work mates without the hassle of driving. A weekend getaway becomes a breeze and I don't have to spend upwards of $20/day to park my car. The trip from here to Minneapolis is 5:30, a bit longer than the typical drive time if all goes well.

The government's reimbursement rate for auto travel is $0.50/mile for 2010. Minneapolis is 270 miles. At $0.50, that's a transportation cost, excluding parking, of $135. Let's for the sake of argument assume there are two travelers, so the minimum cost per traveler is $67.50. An Amtrak ticket from Madison (Columbus) to Minneapolis is $56.00. Intracity mass transit will get me around pretty well for that extra $11.50 per person. Chicago is 148 miles, or, using the same rates as above, $37.00 per person for two to drive. Amtrak from Madison to Chicago is $32.00 per person. (Aside: It's interesting to note that my computer's dictionary doesn't even recognize the word intracity. Telling, no? Talk about paradigms.)

Make no mistake: This is still a corporations versus people issue. Substantial corporate dollars are being invested to quash intercity passenger rail in favor of roads and personal transit such as cars. Are you really a fiscal conservative? Then rail makes sense both as a stand alone choice on a dollars to dollars basis, but also as simply an alternative to the private automobile.

And before you jump up and down and yell about Amtrak subsidies, you had better have your ducks in a row and be prepared to talk about the subsidies to road building, GM (hello?), the petroleum industry ($50 Billion/year) and ethanol (which is a rant unto itself). I leave you with this:

Much is made of the $30 billion spent on Amtrak over the last 30 years, but in that same period the federal government spent $1.89 TRILLION on air and highway modes, according to the New York Times and Washington Post.

Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

Rent-A-Front: New Group Wages Stealth Battle Against Wall Street Reform. TPM has an article posted today indicating a supposedly grass roots advocacy group, Stop Too Big To Fail, supposedly seeking sane finance reform is actually a front for corporate interests seeking to kill the proposed reform legislation.

But as TPMmuckraker has looked into the group, every indication is that Stop Too Big To Fail is an astroturf operation funded by corporate interests to give the appearance of grassroots opposition to reform.

The group's leader has a long history running a rent-a-front operation: offering up his services to large corporations who are willing to pay top dollar for a "consumers group" that will engage in stealth advocacy on behalf of industry. The group refuses to divulge its funding sources. The respected economist whose support the group touts now says he was deceived.

Referring to itself as a movement, the group has launched a campaign on typically left-leaning websites and blogs. They are, quite literally, trying to fake out readers and sow disinformation in an effort to kill reform. Disgusting.

Here is a little history of the group's past "grass roots" operations:

- Consumers for Cable Choice. That group was funded by big telecoms like Verizon and fought to deregulate the cable industry.
- Consumers Voice, founded in the late 1990s, was "a self-described watchdog fighting against broadband legislation" that was funded by AT&T.
- www.simplecoverage.org, a website funded by mega-insurer Assurant, that says it helps people navigate the individual insurance market.

Do not be fooled.

Mea Culpa

I have noticed that feeding this blog creates an energy-state in me that I find unpleasant. That by itself is not too surprising, but I have to acknowledge it. Raking through the muck in our political system is draining. So, while I apologize for not posting more here, I do not expect the infrequency to change.

If YOU, dear reader, wish to be a contributor at this blog, please drop me a note and I'll hand you the opportunity. I don't care if you are politically left or right, as long as you are interested in honestly pointing out the inherent lies, obfuscations, cover-ups, and treachery in our system.

Not THAT Foreign Aid!

Andrew Sullivan posted a graphic a few days ago that has been bouncing around in my head for a few days. He re-posted it today, with a barb that clarified my thoughts. Here's the graph:



Foreign aid tops that list. Before I go any further with this thought exercise, let's have a pop quiz: How much of the U.S. budget goes to foreign aid? Anyone? Buehler? The answer is about 1%, or $23.5 billion in 2008. Private philanthropy contributes more, at around $35 billion. (I think there is a reason for philanthropic donations, and I'll get to that in a moment.) So which destitute, impoverished nations receive that aid? Anyone? Those of you who followed that link above will have been led to think that poor African nations receive that money for food. [insert buzzer noise here] The top recipients (I could only find 2007 data) are Iraq ($8.1 billion) and Afghanistan ($5.8 billion). That is on top of the costs of our misbegotten wars in those countries. Next in order are Israel ($2.5 billion) and Egypt ($1.97 billion). Even Russia is getting $1.6 billion, and that excludes all the -istan countries, Georgia, and other former members of the U.S.S.R. Clearly this is not charitable donations for feeding the poor. It's military aid primarily.

Here's a proposal: Cut foreign aid by lopping off that $4.5 billion (likely more now) in aid to Israel and Egypt. Any "conservative" takers? Based on my reading of the news, I'll get none. They mean, cut aid to starving African nations.

There are good reasons to provide foreign aid, and that is likely why there is so much corporate and other philanthropic aid money. It helps stabilize unstable countries. War is a lousy tool of statecraft, and using it as a first tool is insane (unless you make bombs or bombers). I propose we immediately strip $50 billion out of the Defense budget ($515 billion, excluding the not budgeted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) and shunt it in place of the approximately $50 billion spent on foreign aid.

So, without that $50 billion per year as separate foreign aid, we can fund health care with a subsidized Medicare buy-in for five years.

*insert cricket sounds*

One last thought on that first graph. Something like 40% of conservatives want to cut welfare, but only about 12% want to cut "aid to the poor". What am I missing? Purely conjecture, but is it that "welfare recipients" are typically portrayed as unmarried black women with lots of kids, while "poor people" are your white neighbors who are down on their luck? Anyone? Buehler?

For I was hungry and you gave me no food

At what point does our supposedly free market fail to provide reasonable solutions? At what point does it become clear that corporate interests outweigh the interests of We The People? One possible way to answer that question is to say it occurs when monopolies (or corporate oligarchies) dominate a market so thoroughly that they can do whatever they want because there is no option to provide an alternative to their service. A case in point:

Anthem Blue Cross, the largest for-profit health insurer in California, announced huge rate increases for people who buy their own insurance: an average increase of 25 percent, and a 35 percent to 39 percent rise for a quarter of the purchasers.

Just what are the options in California, or nationwide, for those who reject such a rate increase? They are either limited, or seriously unpalatable. The can:
- Switch to another provider. Since there are seven main players in the health insurance industry, that does not really provide any meaningful option. Where Anthem goes on this, the others will surely follow simply because they can.
- Switch to a lesser policy for less money. A poor choice, but certainly possible, and one that free-market aficionados would surely champion (until it is their family forced into that situation, then they become Tea Partiers). This option will typically result in one illness causing bankruptcy and economic ruin to the family. If the goal is to exacerbate the trend of the rich getting richer and the poor poorer, this is a great solution.
- Go without. Ultimately, this is a death sentence. Easily preventable or treatable illness will be more traumatic because treatment will be out of pocket, and therefore avoided. Ask any doctor or dentist who treat those who pay as they go.

Free market lovers maximize corporate options while damning government options. In this situation, why not simply make Medicare an option for any American to buy in to? Note that I said both buy, and option. If any American is unhappy with the offerings of the major insurance providers, let them have an option to buy into Medicare at any age. The huge pool of insured should keep rates affordable, and the not-for-profit option helps as well. Further, those over 65 who currently get Medicare for free should be means-tested: If their income/savings allows for it, they should be required to pay for some or all of their premiums (including Senators and Congresspersons). For those who think government-offered health insurance would stink, they are free to continue to pay whatever the Big Guys want to charge for their coverage.

In other words, let competition re-enter the marketplace. If the government offered plan draws people in, the corporate offerings will adjust down to compete, right? And if the government option is awful, then no one will buy into it. As long as there are the likes of William McGuire around, those corporate rates will continue to skyrocket.

On a final note, I will add that America seems to always find money aplenty for dubious wars, but not a sou for taking care of her least brothers (Matthew 25:34-46 for those who profess to be Christian).

So That Security and Liberty May Prosper Together

Americans like to bitch about how "The Government" spends the tax money of We The People. In our arguments we prop up straw men to shout about: Funding the National Endowment for the Arts, Tobacco or Ethanol subsidies, studies about trivialities like global climate change, etc. Yet we very rarely get around to taking on the Number One problem, the bottomless pit into which we throw trillions of dollars and insist on thinking of it as a tool of statecraft.

Yes, I refer to the military.

Every decade or so some pol steps up and makes a stand against this bomber or tank or ship, declaring it wasteful and unnecessary. Good for that vox clamantis in deserto, but until Feb. 1, 2010, I am fundamentally unaware of anyone who has the moxie to claim, as Andrew J. Bacevich does in "The American Conservative", that,

Since 1945, the United States military has devoted itself to the proposition that, Hiroshima notwithstanding, war still works—that, despite the advent of nuclear weapons, organized violence directed by a professional military elite remains politically purposeful. From the time U.S. forces entered Korea in 1950 to the time they entered Iraq in 2003, the officer corps attempted repeatedly to demonstrate the validity of this hypothesis.

He's referring to war working as statecraft, a tool to end some conflict or another. As in our current efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite all evidence to the contrary. Bacevich goes on:

Three times in the last 60 years, U.S. forces have achieved an approximation of unambiguous victory—operational success translating more or less directly into political success. The first such episode, long since forgotten, occurred in 1965 when Lyndon Johnson intervened in the Dominican Republic. The second occurred in 1983, when American troops, making short work of a battalion of Cuban construction workers, liberated Granada. The third occurred in 1989 when G.I.’s stormed the former American protectorate of Panama, toppling the government of long-time CIA asset Manuel Noriega.

He's not talking trash about "the troops". He's talking about results. The efficacy of the theoretical strategy of deploying troops to "win" something as nebulous as a "War On Terror". In plain speech, such a plan is analogous to nailing Jell-o to a tree.

Yet the current crop of "conservative" voices routinely demand that We "support the troops" by not uttering a single negative word about the deeply flawed mission. They castigate the president for being soft and spineless. The current darling of the GOP, Sarah Palin, is openly criticizing the president for not invading Iran. In what twisted world view are those things conservative? How is endless occupational military engagement with no clear victory to achieve a conservative virtue?

Imagine for one minute that We The People had resoundingly said No! to the proposed invasion of Iraq for specious, trumped up reasons. Imagine that we had thought rather than reacted in the wake of 9/11. (Imagine that my coworker had not called me a traitor for disagreeing with such a fallacious rush to war.) We would still have:

- $1.05 trillion dollars (which over 10 years could have provided funding for 1,490,431 elementary school teachers, or 30,839,695 people with Health Care, or 108,327,139 Homes with Renewable Electricity)
- 3,469 living US soldiers
- 27,790 unwounded US soldiers

Ponder that. Those lives are irreplaceable. For the cost of 7 years of war with no discernible goal ("Ending terror"? Please...) We The People could have outfitted pretty much every single U.S. home with the means of generating its own electricity. Just how much dead dinosaur juice consumption or coal burning does that avoid? Which one gets us out of conflict with the Middle East? Which of those solutions is conservative? Which one provides a return on invested capital?

Please note that the cost of the current wars is not analogous to the cost of having a military. It is above and beyond the cost of maintaining and effective military. Using said military for dubious results is expensive and not in the slightest conservative.

Eisenhower was right:

We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

and right about this, too:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

and once more:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Read the entire speech and recall what conservatism used to sound like. Remember what war looked like to a warrior rather than a glory-addled chicken-hawk. Remember that we were warned, and we ignored that warning. Remember that our leaders, both elected and corporate, prefer that we remain afraid of bogeymen so that the military machine remains showered with money, our money, and that the exchange for that false sense of security is money not spent on making America better.

Tax and Spend

'Nuff said. This is where the money comes from, and where it goes. Draw your own conclusions.

Why I Read Andrew Sullivan's Blog

It is the drumbeat of accountability that Sullivan pounds out so frequently that makes me read him and follow his links. Stuff like this:

In my view, every single Republican who appears on cable or radio and who complains about the debt and rules out any tax hikes should be directly and specifically asked every single time what they propose to cut. Specifically. Every single time. Equally, every single Democrat who says they want to tackle the debt needs to be asked every single time which taxes they propose raising. Specifically. Every single time. If the journalist looks like an asshole, get over it. It is our job to look like assholes. We are professional assholes. We get paid to be rude. In order to expose the truth.

And just in case that wasn't to the point enough:

And by relentlessly, I mean - if they fail to answer, or offer vague generalizations, ask again. And again. And again. And again. On air. Refuse to move on. Put them on the spot. Both parties. Every time.

Go get 'em, Andrew.

Pay As You Go? Not The GOP!

Have a look at this. This is the roll call for the US Senate amendments to a House bill that would reinstate pay-as-you-go fiscal responsibility. In other words, if you want 'X' in the budget, you have to provide some means of funding it, either throu cuts elsewhere or raising taxes.

Look at how the GOP senators voted, and see "fiscal responsibility" as it's voted upon rather than how it's shouted on FOX "news" programs.

Not one single Republican voted for the amendments. Not one. Some of you are going to read this and say, "But the bill didn't go far enough." or some such thing. I would buy that except that there was not one bit of deviance from the obstructionist GOP response we have seen since Obama became president. It also is a strikingly clear of the fiscal behavior of Republicans in power since before Reagan (George H. W. Bush gets due props for attempting fiscal restraint and raising taxes to pay for what he wanted, but he also got hung out to dry by his party for exactly that behavior.)

The simple fact is that Democrats have become the party of fiscal responsibility. You may not like what they want to spend money on, but they are generally serious about funding their plans. The GOP has forsaken all claim to being the party that spends wisely. The GOP has become the party that Borrows-and-Spends, passing the burden on to subsequent generations or having faith that later boom year will refill the coffers. Exhibits number One and Two for my case: The unfunded, not even budgeted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Exhibit Three is the unfunded Medicare expansion, the single largest entitlement expansion since FDR.

The Democrat's tax-and-spend mindset is at least sane.

With Liberty and Justice For WMC

As if the recent SCOTUS ruling declaring corporate person-hood as far as direct campaign contributions and spending is concerned wasn't bad enough, we have some equally sickening news right here in Wisconsin:

The state’s highest court last week voted to adopt rules that would allow court judges and justices to remain on cases that involve their direct or indirect campaign contributors. In other words, if a judge in Wisconsin wants to, they can remain on a case even if it involves one of their influential campaign donors – they won’t have to recuse themselves if they have a direct conflict of interest.

Readers from Wisconsin may recall that our two most recent supreme court elections were contentious. The problem, especially apparent in the most recent election of justice Michael Gableman, was the obvious influence in the process by Wisconsin Manufacturing and Commerce, a business organization that seeks to create a pro-business environment in the state. And just who do you supposed authored the bill that the court passed in a 4-2 decision?

The rules were written by the Wisconsin Realtors Association and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, a business lobbying group that spent millions to elect Justices Annette K. Ziegler and Michael Gableman.

Voting for the rules were "justices" Gableman, Zeigler, Prosser and Roggensack. Voting against were Crooks, Bradley and Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.

The new rules come as defense attorneys are trying to force Gableman off eight cases because they believe he has expressed a bias against criminal defendants and defense attorneys. Gableman has said he is not biased and refused to step aside in six cases. He has not said what he will do in the other two.

My, what a surprise.

Clearly, what we have here as a fantastic ROIC (Return On Invested Capital) for WMC. They work diligently and spend lavishly on two supreme court justice positions and things really start to happen in their favor. Now Gableman, who may not have been elected without the substantial assistance of WMC, can be a perfect lap dog for the organization, and the new rules say he doesn't even have to pretend to be concerned with conflict of interest.

Workers in Wisconsin, it is about to get very ugly.

We the Corporations, of the Fascist States of America...

Are you alarmed by the recent supreme court ruling allowing unrestricted donations to campaigns and spending on political ads? Are you sickened by the marginalizing of the political power of We The People? Are you dismayed as you ponder just how bad the next election cycle is going to be as corporations spend millions to spread disinformation?

I am.

Other than calling your Senator and Representative, here is one more thing you can do. Sign a petition to amend the Constitution to reverse the supreme court's decision. Declare that only people, not corporations, have constitutional rights. Remind corporations that they are nothing more than legal constructs designed to protect individuals from liability. Here is the petition:

http://movetoamend.org/we-corporations

Imagine your next president elected based on the corporate advertising "information" of Haliburton, Blackwater, Diebolt, Exxon-Mobil, and Walmart. Now take action!

Fascism in America

Not yet, but after reading this article, can you state with conviction that none of these things are happening?

To varying degrees I could cite examples of each and every one of the 14 key points. Where does your mind balk?

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism
5. Rampant sexism (solid examples are extremely rare)
6. A controlled mass media (the article explores this with subtlety)
7. Obsession with national security
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together
9. Power of corporations protected (the very basis for this blog!)
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts (Sarah Palin, anyone?)
12. Obsession with crime and punishment (I think this one is actually easing...)
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption
14. Fraudulent elections (rare at the federal level...but notable)

I urge you to read this article and ponder the thoughts behind each of these topics. Then turn off your preferred news source and look at those that are "other". What do you see when you change your filters? Where does this list stack up? I had a coworker forward me an email in the months after 9/11 touting the evils of some "fascist" college professor. The email was a rant agains this professor, calling him a fascist, yet the arguments used against him (for questioning our involvement in Iraq) ticked off about 9-10 of the 14 items on the above list. I copied the definition of fascism and sent it back to my cowerker with the question, "Which one of these two is the real fascist?" Please note in the linked definition that fascism can emerge from either the political Left or Right, or some combination of them both.

To those who think I am crazy, please read THIS article and also the comments. Then tell me I'm crazy, bearing in mind #4, 7, 8,9, and 11.

No One Trusts You Anymore

Some straight talk to members of the Banking industry. Three cheers!

The Dismal Decade

The GOP likes to talk, a lot, about personal responsibility and the value of hard work. At the close of the first decade of the twenty-first century, it is difficult to ignore the facts that give lie to these concepts. We The People did work hard and productivity soared between 1999 and 2009, just like every other decade since WWII. But what else happened during that same time frame? Neil Irwin's article at The Washington Post explores.

Middle-income households made less in 2008, when adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999 -- and the number is sure to have declined further during a difficult 2009. The Aughts were the first decade of falling median incomes since figures were first compiled in the 1960s.

The graphs at the linked article provide a stark illustration of things gone wrong. There was net zero job creation during the decade, again a first. Reagan's trickle down economics sold us an empty promise that cutting taxes on the wealthy, and on Corporations, would result in those same noble industrial giants investing that wealth in America, creating a flood of jobs and a rising tide that floats all boats. A great concept except that it ignored the rapacious greed of those at the top. And in a fit of stupidity that has almost no equal, We The People thought we should keep up with the McGuire's and build our own McMansions and drive constantly-new vehicles (which were also consistently less efficient and ostentatious), which leveraged our idling incomes to the hilt. It was a heady decade that introduced the greed-based concept of interest-only mortgages which appealed to people who wanted more house and ignored the substantial risks.

The end result is that we were fleeced from the top by greed and avarice. To compound the problem, We turned the clippers on our selves to finish the fleecing by trying to outspend the one's who really had money. That was, of course, Reagan's grand plan for the Cold War which worked admirably. America spent and spent and the USSR tried to keep up and eventually collapsed into bankruptcy. We The People played the role of the USSR in the past decade. Imagine how much more pliable We are now that we feel grateful to simply have a job? We know that we're losing, but we still have our noses above water right? Too bad about your former neighbor who apparently went under and moved out as his house was foreclosed, and your brother-in-law whose successful start-up went bust because he couldn't get loans to expand when he needed to. At least it wasn't you.

"A big part of what happened this decade was that people engaged in excessively risky behavior without realizing the risks associated," said Karen Dynan, co-director of economic studies at the Brookings Institution. "It's true not just among consumers but among regulators, financial institutions, lenders, everyone."

I'm going to use my soapbox here for a moment and point out that I exclude myself from the above. My modest (tiny even) house is paid for, as are my vehicles. I have no debt. I did not try to spend what I did not have to live high off the hog. I have savings (considerably less than a few years ago to be sure). Some of you may be in the same situation, having chosen wisely and responsibly, and to you I offer my congratulations and my admiration, as well as my shared sympathy for the woes we suffer for having been responsible, and yet face similar consequences as those who created the mess. In Aesop's Fables, the grasshopper eventually understood the error of his ways and, presumably, suffered the consequences. I wonder if We The People understand our part in our failure?

They're Both Right

In the ongoing cleanup of our financial meltdown, it is wise to keep attention on who is blaming whom, and why. Any sort of common sense reading of the shenanigans within the banks leads one to feel Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke has this right:

Regulatory failure, not low interest rates, was responsible for the housing bubble and subsequent financial crisis of the last decade, Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, said in a speech on Sunday. [snip] Mr. Bernanke, in his talk, echoed his previous calls for Congress to grant the Fed greater oversight powers over the financial system, like the ability to help monitor and regulate against “systemic risk.” [snip] Mr. Bernanke has pointed to the Fed’s extraordinary efforts to stem the crisis, including the creation of new lending vehicles to banks and a reduction of bank-to-bank interest rates to virtually zero, as evidence that the Fed has a firm grasp of what the economy needs. The Fed’s handling of the crisis has been widely praised by economists.

And yet, is the Fed itself regulating itself with the best interests of We The People at heart? Some, from both the Right and the Left, think otherwise:

“I strongly disapprove of some of the past deeds of the Federal Reserve while Ben Bernanke was a member and its chairman, and I lack confidence in what little planning for the future he has articulated,” Richard Shelby of Alabama, the Senate Banking Committee’s top-ranking Republican

And Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) adds this:

“The American people want a new direction on Wall Street and at the Fed. They do not want as chairman someone who has been part of the problem and who has been responsible for many of the enormous difficulties that we are now experiencing,” Sanders said. “It’s time for a change at the Fed.”

It probably matters that We understand just what the Federal Reserve is. This transcript from the Thom Hartmann radio show on Air America states it in a pretty clear way:

“The Federal Reserve System is not “owned” by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

As the nation’s central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as “independent within the government.”

This again from Senator Bernie Sanders:

The Federal Reserve has four main responsibilities: to conduct monetary policy in a way that leads to maximum employment and stable prices; to maintain the safety and soundness of financial institutions; to contain systemic risk in financial markets; and to protect consumers against deceptive and unfair financial products.

Since 2006, the Fed has poured literally trillions of dollars into Wall Street corporations and banks at nearly zero percent interest Did We The People get what we need from that sweetheart deal? I think not. During that same time unemployment doubled, more than 120 banks have failed on Bernanke's watch, the value of risky derivative investments nearly tripled from $110 trillion to $290 trillion and that risk became concentrated in just five institutions, predatory lending practices flourished despite the FBI warning of an epidemic of mortgage fraud, and, as a final slap in the face, the Fed could have acted transparently during the TARP bailout but instead chose to not reveal which banks got money nor how much and under what terms. (refer to Sander's link, above)

Both of the sentiments listed at the top of this post are correct. The Fed needs monitoring and needs to be held accountable for its actions. That may mean that the Fed needs more authority to do that job. Those are not mutually exclusive concepts. It means that we have someone whose job it is to watch out for We The People provides oversight of the Federal Reserve. And that ultimately means an elected official and a Fourth Estate that actually does its job (for a change). In the olden days they had pitchforks and torches. We need a press that functions in much the same way.

Goldman Sachs bonuses vrs. Worst Decade in Modern Times

I ran across these to references back-to-back, and they annoyed me so much I felt the need to share:

"Goldman Sachs bonuses: $23 billion"
"The Worst Decade in Modern Times"

Goldman, the beneficiary of taxpayer dollars as part of TARP, is paying out the largest bonuses in its history. And,

Because most employee compensation is a deductible expense under tax laws, Goldman Sachs, which is technically taxed at a top corporate rate of 39 percent, will save about $9 billion in federal income taxes on the bonuses it pays out for 2009

Meanwhile, in the world that We The People inhabit:

The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth

There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent.

Middle-income households made less in 2008, when adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999 - and the number is sure to have declined further during a difficult 2009. The Aughts were the first decade of falling median incomes since figures were first compiled in the 1960s.

And the net worth of American households - the value of their houses, retirement funds and other assets minus debts - has also declined when adjusted for inflation, compared with sharp gains in every previous decade since data were initially collected in the 1950s...

Are you pissed off yet? Face it, the vast majority of us live in a world where our economic power is slipping away. Our generation will NOT be better off than prior generations. And it is happening because of systemic looting and pillaging at the top levels. Corporations are hugely successful, yet jobs are moved overseas to cut expenses. You see, we cost too much. We are encouraged to buy, buy, buy, but our earning power is slipping. The only ones getting rich are those who are rigging the game against the rest of us. We have no say in whether or not our job remains on-shore. We get almost no input on the way corporate taxes are structured. We - as a collective whole - are too busy rooting through the dregs to see that those wielding the slop bucket are fatter than ever. We are told The Story and we buy into it, convinced that we are lucky just to have a job.

We Are Being Held Down in a deliberate and far-reaching way. Wake up. Get mad. Get Active. DO something about it. Educate yourself. Know from whom you are buying and consider why you are buying it. Where does the dollar you spend end up? As an anecdotal aside, I recall a conversation I had with a coworker, a dedicated American car purchaser. I mentioned that I was looking at either a Mitsubishi or a Dodge, similar cars. She banged her hand on the table and said, "Buy the Dodge!" I pointed out that, in fact, the Dodge was made in Japan by Japanese workers, but the final sales dollars went to the American CEO who made (at that time) some 300 times what the line workers were making. The Mits, on the other hand, was assembled in the US, by American union workers, and the final sales dollars went to the Japanese CEO who made only 48 times what the line workers made. Who did she want me to feed: The American Workers, or the grossly overpaid suit? Knowledge is power, dear readers.