Saturday, January 30, 2010

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.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

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.

Monday, January 25, 2010

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!

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

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.


Saturday, January 16, 2010

No One Trusts You Anymore

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



Monday, January 11, 2010

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?

Monday, January 4, 2010

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.

Saturday, January 2, 2010

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.