Much has been written, said and shouted recently about the resurgence of the financial services industry. It appears to have re-surfaced in much the same form that it collapsed a short 30 months ago. Profits are flowing in, the market is flowing up, and bonuses are flowing back to the same managers who brought the world-wide financial structure to near-collapse.
Much of the controversy revolves around derivatives, which have been recognized as a large component of the structural risk in the market. It seems obvious enough that this instrument, convoluted and opaque to public scrutiny, should be regulated either out of existence or at least into submission. Why has this not been done?
Derivatives may take a number of forms. In Financial Disservices, Robbinsense, Feb ’09, we briefly described a derivative as a contract for an option to buy an instrument at a future time for a given price. Since it varies with the rate of return on a separate financial instrument, it “derives” its value from the other. To explain this a little clearer, let’s use a couple of examples.
Many are familiar with the commodities market, or at least the concept of “futures”. Because farmers have a one-year production cycle and there are many variables in bringing harvest to market, a futures market developed around agriculture. In an effort to bring stability to his production, the farmer attempts to reduce the elements of chance surrounding such factors as weather and fuel costs. The farmer attempts to buy essential products such as seed, fuel, fertilizer on the “futures” market, that is, he buys a future commitment to sell these commodities at a given price. If he can then sell his harvest ahead of time on the same market, he can be assured of a certain level of profit, so long as the weather cooperates enough to bring harvest to market.
One can see why farmers (with a large contingent of congressional support) might resist regulation or change to this system. As “end users” of the product there is some justification that these “derivatives” be allowed to continue. Another example is in the airline industry. Airlines don’t sell their product in a store; they sell it usually electronically, often months in advance. As such, they quote a price and need some confidence in what fuel will cost at the time of the flight. Without this, passengers would face last-minute refunds or surcharges. Airlines buy fuel on the futures market to “hedge” their costs. As such, airlines are “end-users”.
Not surprisingly, every industry has its own stake in continuation of this system, pressing congress to exempt it from regulation. Finally, we arrive at what is presently our largest (as well as until recently, fastest-growing) industry: financial services. Well, guess what, derivatives are also an “end-product” for this industry, and it makes a ton of money on them (especially when they’re insured by the national treasury). It may not appear “logical” to you and me that the many forms of these volatile instruments should be protected for this industry, which adds nothing to our GNP, but when you consider that the “case” for continued deregulation of these instruments is accompanied by hundreds of million of lobbying money, suddenly it all makes sense.
For all intents and purposes, congress is paralyzed in the face of the blizzard of lobbyists and money thrown into this effort. This brings us back, of course, to “business as usual”.
The public is ambivalent about regulation of the financial services industry, largely because of "conditioning". In the 1950s we were led to believe that "What's good for GM is good for America." Over the last 15 years, with the "liberal" media (oh sure!) blitz to support it, we've come to actually believe that's what's good for Wall Street, or The Dow Jones Industrial Average, is good for America. Actually, what's good for the financial sector is good for corporations and our moneyed elite. This does not make it necessarily good for America, and in some cases just the opposite. The financial services industry has pumped over $2.33 Billion into lobbying since 1989; we know they get their money's worth. Goldman Sachs in 2006 (the year before the collapse) paid a whopping 10% tax on income, which is taxed as capitol gains, while their own janitors pay far more.
In the face of a "typical" decade producing 20% to 30% growth in jobs, the "aughts" generated no job growth. Essentially, we have the "Stockholm Syndrome" in play here, with our lower classes being grateful for any crumbs thrown down by this giant squid of an industry.
Leadership from the president has the potential to break up this log-jam and produce meaningful regulation...if he steps forward. Keep your eyes on the debate.
The new Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070 has taken the country by storm. Everyone from Republican legislators to Major League Baseball and the NBA have denounced the law as a major affront to our freedoms, yet it is widely popular among white, middle-class citizens.
In between accusations that the Obama “Secular-Socialist Regime” will take us straight to Nazi Germany, Republicans are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospects of police conducting identification checks for “suspicious” people on the streets. There is word now that the Hew Hampshire legislature is planning a corresponding law to stem the flow of illegals into that state. Soon the Montpelier Patrol will be able to stop and question anyone who looks like they might be Canadian.
So what have we to do? The most obvious recourse for this law is review by the courts. But considering the notorious rightward tilt of Arizona (Goldwater country), the obvious candidate would be the Supreme Court, which has seen fit in recent times to look into elections, sports strikes and “pulling the tubes” cases on the spur of the moment. So why not address this issue?
With Justices Alito, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas on his side, Roberts has the majority needed to push the Republican agenda down our throats even in the face of a congress stacked against them by popular vote. Hence, we do not see this court overturning Arizona SB 1070, it may be left to the Justice Department to find redress over this matter. It’s also possible that boycotts from groups and even citizens could have a great enough impact on the state economy that Arizonans may see it in a different light.
Looking back on "Citizens United": beyond events on the national scale, courts at all levels of government will be affected by this landmark decision. Most states require periodic re-election of judges. Judicial appointments become partisan positions that require campaign funding. This ruling increases exponentially the amount of money that can flow into a judicial election, even at the local level. What judge can afford to make a ruling against a powerful commercial interest when that corporation has the power to unseat him in his next election? Between 1980 and 1990 $85 Million was put into judicial elections. In the following decade it went to $200 Million. The lid is now off. This has the potential to undermine our entire legal system by putting all courts in play. Good luck.
Provision for our Supreme Court occupies three short sections, approximately ½ page of our short constitution. The document is specific as to the court’s function and jurisdiction. With few distinct guidelines, the court relies upon tradition or precedent for guidance.
Until now.
Precedent, which has dominated the proceedings of the court for generations, has dictated that the body, which represents 1/3 of the government, and a crucial part of its checks and balances, be non-partisan. While “politics as usual” tends to dominate the other two branches, the court was to be above the fray and “keep the children from frivolous excess.”
Until now.
The court is the last bastion of protection for minority interests and the oppressed.
Until now.
To further protect the impartiality of the body, the court does not pick and choose which cases or subjects that it wishes to rule upon; The Solicitor General does this.
Until now.
Integrity of the court rises from the integrity of those appointing its officers, namely our presidents. The Senate is supposed to be the watchdog over dubious appointees, but the process begins with the president. History of the court has shown that it has carried such extreme gravity as to soften partisan voices. Known conservatives, such as former California Republican Governor Earl Warren, have become outspoken voices for liberal values. The reverse has also been observed over the years.
Until now.
Recent cracks began to appear in this fabric in 1987 when Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork. Bork was an outspoken advocate for “original intent” and “conservative values”, whatever those might be, and was the first nominee ever opposed by the ACLU. Six of 58 Republican senators joined the opposition.
Next, Thurgood Marshal, the first African American to sit on the bench, retired in 1990. In a cynical gesture, George H. W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to replace him. Thomas was a known, radical "conservative", committed to turning back the clock on civil rights, as though his own social and professional status, gained through positive action and quotas, would be tarnished by others following in his path. Thomas opposed all that Marshal had stood for in a distinguished career; but he was black. He had been a judge for only one year, and had produced no written decisions or briefs. Furthermore, outraged that her tormentor had been nominated for the bench, Thomas was accused by Anita Hill, a co-worker, of sexual exploitation on the job. The nomination produced a circus of televised hearings that clouded the entire proceeding. Thomas survived the hearings with strong opposition from Democrats and two dissenting Republicans.
With this as rationalized provocation, Republicans have taken the ball and run with it, as only Republicans can, by subsequently opposing every candidate proposed by Democratic presidents on partisan terms.
The culmination of partisanship reached a climax in December 2000 when the United States Supreme Court interceded in national election procedures in the state of Florida by overruling a re-count, mandated by the Florida Supreme Court, of a clearly tainted vote. Since the constitution dictates that each state will conduct its own proceedings, this was a clear violation of precedent and the constitution. On a strictly partisan divide of 5 Republican-appointed justices against the 4 others, the court blocked the re-count, effectively appointing George W. Bush to the presidency, over-riding the popular vote and the likely electoral selection of Al Gore.
Moving forward eight years, we find a new president elected by a significant majority of voters. Behind the result was the unprecedented force of a large, “grass-roots” movement of regular citizens, financing the election through donations of $10 to $200. To many, this would appear to be the very flower of democracy in action. Conservative (“original intent”) hearts should swell with pride over the success of this movement. But no. The election brought us a Democratic president.
Hence, the Supreme Court handed down an opinion in the Vanguard Church decision that opens the door to unlimited campaign contribution from corporations. The implications of this decision are staggering, given that most observers believe that excessive money in the campaign finance is already undermining our political system. Beyond that, it now becomes the fiduciary responsibility of every corporate officer to plunge forward with all available financial resources to direct the course and success of their company through political means. Given the excessive gravity of corporate influence through a variety of channels, this has the promise to sweep away completely the will of the people.
So what are the implications of this decision on our court?
First, granting corporations equal voice with people is a huge stretch of “original intent”. Virtually no one proposes that Jefferson and the framers championed corporate civil rights. It violates original intent, if not the constitution.
Second, there is a long precedent of denying corporations all but very limited access to direct, legal involvement in our political process. Half the states have strict restrictions on corporate influence, which will be swept aside. This decision comes from total contempt of precedent, from a Republican majority which claims to champion this cause. In his confirmation hearings, Chief Justice Roberts repeatedly invoked the sanctity of both original intent and precedent. This is sheer hypocrisy, if not arrogant disregard of the law by our most hallowed legal body.
Third, the court’s traditional cause of protecting the minority and oppressed is obliterated. Corporations already have by far the loudest voice in our political process. This decision amplifies their voice to further drown out that of the people.
Finally, this decision did not come from a case submitted by the Solicitor General. The VanguardChurch case involved a specific movie, Hillary, the Movie, that was produced to influence the 2008 election. As Ms. Clinton failed to carry the Democratic nomination, the movie became superfluous. But the court stepped out of the context of this case to make a decision of its own choice on our political process that will cast a shadow over all elections to come.
Republicans (who support this decision, of course) contend that it’s fair, and balanced by the provision that labor has also been granted this prerogative. This is a smoke-screen, given that the financial resources of industry dwarf those of labor.
To this “unbiased” eye, it appears that the court has moved to counter the emergence of widespread citizen involvement in the election process that gave us a Democratic president. Our Supreme Court has made a move to unhinge democracy (rule by the people) on behalf of plutocracy (rule by the few and the powerful, on behalf of the few and the powerful.)
In short, the Supreme Court has run amok. It has become an agent of the Republican Party, and has acted in response to a citizen movement to remove Republicans from power, as occurred in the executive and legislative branches. The court has taken this step in response to the threat of the loss of their majority on the bench at the hands of President Obama.
With Justices Alito, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas on his side, Roberts has the majority needed to push the Republican agenda down our throats even in the face of a congress stacked against them by popular vote. The recent decision by the Arizona Legislature requiring people to carry "papers" proving their legal residence would normally be quickly overturned by the Supreme Court. Not now. In less spectacular fashion, "Citizens United" will undermine our entire legal system by putting all courts in play. The vast majority of states require periodic re-election of judges. These become partisan positions when it's necessary to raise money for campaigning. What judge can afford to make a ruling against a powerful commercial interest when that corporation has the power to unseat him in his next election? Between 1980 and 1990 $85 Million was put into judicial elections. In the following decade it went to $200 Million. The lid is now off.
Perhaps the greatest mischief that this decision injects into our political mix is the threat it poses to confidence in the system. For generations we have “assumed” that the Supreme Court was the last bastion of fair play upon which we could fall back. Not only is the stature of the court compromised, but given the degree to which money and influence already dictate the course of our politics, the open door to unlimited funding from deep pockets could easily destroy any confidence we now have in the congress.
The irony is that our previous Republican president, with unanimous support of Republican members of congress and (seemingly) every Republican in the country, initiated at least three wars (Afghanistan, Iraq and “the war on terror”) and continue to advocate their indefinite extension based on the presumption that we’re bringing “democracy” to the region. Meanwhile, through a myriad of provisions of the “Homeland Security” Act, illegal wiretaps and their majority standing on the Supreme Court, they are systematically attacking our own democracy here at home.
So what precisely does the decision allow, and what can we do about it?
The new ruling does not allow unlimited political contributions to political candidates and parties. It allows corporations (and unions) to finance campaign materials. Corporations may now finance unlimited amounts of advertising, propaganda and broadcast time. The decision also overturns the 30 and 60-day blackout periods provided by McCain/Feingold, allowing scurrilous, “eleventh hour” attacks that candidates don’t have the time or resources to counter. With our bias to this media, this is our most influential source of campaigning power. (The “Swift Boat” attacks on John Kerry, occurring at the very end of the 2004 election cycle, though fabrication, have been credited with determining the outcome of that election.)
There is a citizen movement toward a constitutional amendment to repeal this decision: Move to Amend. Good luck. This process, requiring 2/3 majorities from both houses of congress plus approval from ¾ of state legislatures, could take years. In the time that this requires, the effects of the decision could easily remove any vestige of the integrity from our various legislatures that might be necessary to pass it.
There are things that can be done to mitigate this ruling. If the court can dictate that corporations have unlimited speech, then congress can dictate that we are entitled to know the source of the speech. Robbinsense advocates that campaign materials, henceforth, be required to have documentation prominently displayed to indicate the actual source of funding. No more “straw man” groups (“Citizens for Honesty in blah, blah, blah…” would be allowed.) If an “infomercial” that advocates a political position is known by the viewer to have been paid for by Exxon/Mobile and Bear Stearns, it is likely that viewers will realize they’re being manipulated. The thrust of the message in this case may even backfire.
Please write to your representatives in congress. If you don’t want to take the time to compose a message, use the following:
Congressman/Senator:
I am very concerned by the recent ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. I stridently and respectfully request that you take action to mitigate the consequences that this will have on our election process.
Specifically, I suggest that the time has come when the public should no longer be subjected to propaganda from deep-pocket sources without disclosure. Please introduce and/or support legislation that will require political broadcast material to display prominently the actual source of funding. We should see in large font a static, five-second display of the funding source/s at the beginning of the material, and at the end.
THE FOLLOWING BROADCAST IS FINANCED BY:
EXXON/MOBILE AND BEAR STEARNS
Plus,
THE PRECEDING BROADCAST WAS FINANCED BY
EXXON/MOBILE AND BEAR STEARNS
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
You may copy and paste this letter to an email to your representatives, in websites listed below.
In November of 1989 the Berlin wall fell. (George H. W. Bush was President.) On Christmas day, 1991, the demise of The Soviet Union was signaled by the resignation speech of Mikhail Gorbachev.
Previously, in a June ’87 speech at the Brandenburg Gate, President Ronald Reagan had said: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”Any Republican will tell you that Ronald Reagan was personally responsible for the fall of the communist state. Democrats tend to think the nation collapsed of its own dysfunction and inability to adapt to a modern world. The Soviet Union was, as the historian Stephen Kotkin put it, “lethargically stable.”
In the first place, it was not Reagan’s bellicosity, or even the threat of “Star Wars” that softened the SovietState. While he is now our right-wing darling, at the time, Reagan’s conciliatory policies through arms negotiations and diplomacy provoked anguished and increasingly bitter denunciations from the right. Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus branded Reagan “a useful idiot for Soviet propaganda.” Conservative columnist George Will pounded away at Reagan for having changed. “Four years ago, many people considered Reagan a keeper of the Cold War flame,” he wrote in 1988. “Time flies. For conservatives, Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy has produced much surprise, but little delight.” Republicans are notorious for poor or “selective” memory.
In fact, American presidents for decades had publicly advocated dismantling the wall. Mr. Reagan’s variation was to address their leader personally, at the wall.
Officially, this was East Germany’s wall. President Erich Honecker had no intention to tear down the wall. (He declared at the beginning of 1989 that the wall “will still exist in 50 or even 100 years.”) Honecker had been succeeded by Egon Krenz in November, however, and on the night of Nov. 9, 1989, as East Germans began streaming across the border, Krenz, tried to telephone Gorbachev to ask what he should do. Gorbachev didn’t take the call, and did not intervene. He wanted an entirely new relationship with the United States and Western Europe.
Neither Krenz nor Gorbachev had ordered dismantling of the wall, rather a directive to border guards had been misunderstood. The spokesman for the East German Communist Party misread a press release and told his country's people they were free to go -- "immediately," as of the night of Nov. 9, 1989, and not the next day, when new travel rules were officially supposed to take effect. When East Berliners started one-by-one walking through an open gate, no one intervened.
So the big question is, “to whom or what do Russians attribute the fall of the Soviet Government?” I’m going to put this in small font so it doesn’t jump off the page, but the actual answer is The Beatles.
Emerging from WW II, the Soviet Union was the second most powerful nation in the world. They commanded an enormous army and held much of Eastern Europe in their grip. They had robust industry, educated scientists and working social systems. With Western technology the Soviets exploded an atomic bomb in 1949, then a hydrogen bomb in ‘55. In October of 1957, they put the first satellite in orbit, a wake-up call to the world. They had cool clients all over the world such as Fidel and “Che”.
Though lampooned by Western press, Nikita Khrushchev was a colorful and charismatic leader. He commanded the respect and admiration of most of the Soviet people, and allowed modest forms of freedom, unknown in those lands. Remember that for centuries the Russian peoples had been enslaved and indentured by Mongols and Tsars. These developments were a strange breath of fresh air for a people for whom passivity and general misery had been cultural traditions. In fact, though, the Soviet state was held together by fear and belief. Still there was much at this time for the Russian people to celebrate and be proud of.
In 1964 two significant events occurred. One, Khrushchev was unseated by the Communist Party for being too liberal. He was replaced by Leonid Brezhnev. Dour and phlegmatic, he brought a geriatric regime to power and stifled all seeds of reform.
The second big event of 1964 was the world-wide explosion of The Beatles. While other bands and artists of the age (The Rolling Stones, The Doors, The Who) cast themselves as angry, rebellious, stolid, The Beatles exuded freedom and happiness. These were characters straight from the Russian fancied imagination. The Beatles became icons of all that young Russians wanted or cared about. The government condemned the group as bourgeoisie and dangerous---Western pollution, but enhanced their appeal by banning them, along with anything to do with “rock and roll.” “Popular” Russian music of the age still consisted of accordion-based folk groups and stodgy crooners, singing songs of the 30’s.
People caught with paraphernalia connected with The Beatles (music, attending live performances featuring Beatles music, even pictures) were subject to harsh reprisal including loss of career, loss of educational opportunity for self or children, sometimes imprisonment. Fans might carry pictures of their favorite group hidden in seams of their clothing. The vast majority, even with a picture of the four mop-tops, could only guess at connecting names with faces. The Beatles infiltrated the Russian mass-consciousness. Pictures were copied over and over until they had the fuzzy gauze of a spiritual icon. In a country with state-banned religion, they became the unofficial state religion. The Beatles punched holes in the iron curtain through which the Soviet people breathed.
Music came to the black market when it was discovered that X-ray film could carry the tiny imprints that created phonograph records. Small booths existed throughout The Soviet Union where people could make phonograph records. People could tape a recording of a Beatle song from Radio Luxembourg, take it into one of these kiosks and come out with a Beatle record to sell. If one emerged with Beatles music on a hard disc, they were likely to be apprehended. X-ray film could be rolled up and concealed in the sleeve of a coat.
The allure, fascination, frustration over this group was amplified when Paul seemed to speak to the people with Back in the USSR on the White Album (1968).
By the mid 70s, Beatlemania grew and expanded generationally, as the government began to cash in by selling pirated recordings and paraphernalia. The Beatles had become the embodiment of what the entire culture had longed for. By denying the people the object of their obsession, the government sealed its own fate, total cultural irrelevancy. The people had already defected in mind and heart. Present leaders, including Mr. Putin and Deputy Prime Minister Sergai Ivanov shared the Beatle craze.
In retrospect, for 40 years our elders admonished us that Communism was our greatest threat and came to rail over the emergence of rock and roll music, claiming it would destroy our youth and undermine society. Turns out that far more than any defense system or propaganda campaign, our music destroyed their great enemy.
For those who love to explode myths, the greatest book of the genre that I’ve found is Lies My Teacher Told Me, James W. Loewen.
Bias is the common term used to describe opinions that run counter to our own. A person with whom we agree is called “unbiased”. This phenomenon came from early ego-centricism. People thought our world was the center of the universe, then assumed that their country (or culture) was the center of the world.
Common knowledge tells us that Fox News presents Republican Bias, while MSNBC gives us the opposite. While the MSNBC crew presents “accepted” left-wing bias, this perspective comes from its position in the spectrum of broadcasting. These are no left-wing radicals! NBC is owned and operated by conservative, Republican tycoons; their advertisers are large corporations; how “left” can they be? Immediately following Olbermann's scathing commentary on insurance companies last month, came an ad for an insurance company! From my “biased” perspective, Olbermann, Maddow and Moyers are right on. They frequently lead their programs with negative, sometimes scathing, reviews on President Obama. Last month on his program, Moyers stated: "Let's face it, 2 political parties, equal opportunity hypocrites." We invite anyone to send us a comparable quote from Fox.
In a discussion, it’s natural to assume that disagreement comes from the other side’s ignorance. This phenomenon is advanced by the notion that “truth” can be known. Certainly “facts” are available, but “truth” is very slippery. “Opinions” lead to “facts” (which can easily be tailored), then “truth”. People arrive at opposing philosophies because they see the world from differing perspective; their truths are different. Some people, obviously, are more inclined than others to assume their opinions represent reality. Religious people are in the regular practice of connecting their opinions with “truth”, and are probably inclined to allow that connection to extend beyond the spiritual. (Or, people who think this way are more inclined to be religious. You choose.) See Belief, the Choice.
A significant factor in the (perhaps accidental) genius of Ronald Reagan was cultivation of the religious [right] for the GOP. Republican opposition tends to be much "noisier" than what comes from the left because these people come from the assumption that they know “the truth."
The operation of government, on the other hand, is not cut and dried. This is messy business, and we can never expect things to come out the way we want. There are too many competing interests and opinions. One of the many impediments to the smooth operation of political affairs is the amount of “disinformation” floating around. To paraphrase Churchill, “We must make the best of what is left among the ruins.”
Many would say that our sense of “entitlement” began with the social programs of The New Deal in the 30’s. But Social Security is the only “alphabet” program that survived the war. Most were not necessary, or couldn't be sustained during the war. Roosevelt did what appeared to be necessary to move the nation forward after three years of floundering under Hoover.
Propelled by robust industry and the Marshall Plan, America became an industrial and financial giant after the war. America “worked” and prospered during the fifties and even the sixties. In the seventies, cracks appeared in our superstructure with the energy crisis, and were highlighted by President Carter in his call to the nation to move in a new direction.
As for the budget, President Eisenhower was a relatively conscientious steward, and even Richard Nixon produced one balanced budget. The weight of our unfunded war in Vietnam, along with the social programs of the 60’s fell upon President Carter, who faced so-called “stagflation”, a term coined to describe high inflation coupled with increasing unemployment.
The clarion call of "modern" America was sounded in 1981 by Ronald Reagan, with “Morning in America”. Under his vision, prosperity would just happen! We didn’t have to pay for it; in fact, the lower he could drive taxes, the greater would be our prosperity! Reagan ushered in a dramatic increase in government programs and spending, doubling the “defense” budget and cutting back on nothing.
Through our history, multiple world wars, social problems and all, we arrived at the dawn of Reagan with public debt under a trillion dollars (it is now over $12 Trillion!) So who let the cat out of the bag? Common (Republican) wisdom tells us that it’s “tax and spend” Democrats who bust the budget. That makes no more sense than the multitude of other Republican canards, since “tax and spend” would tend to keep the books straight.
Reagan campaigned on fiscal prudence (don’t they all), and backed it up with his record as California Governor, where he raised taxes and balanced the budget. But this was the new Gipper! Now his policy was “borrow and spend”. Even though he raised taxes in his second term to slow the ballooning debt, by then he was the “Teflon president”, and his minions ignored it. Reagan increased government debt by three and a half times to $3.1 Trillion; the residual of his policy added two additional trillion in the four years of George H. W. Bush. Bush raised taxes in mid-term, was called to task for what was ignored from Reagan, and thus lost his bid for re-election.
Meanwhile in the 1984 presidential campaign, Walter Mondale, without “getting it”, spoke fiscal truth. "After four years of Reagan profligacy, the budget required a tax raise!" Mondale told us straight out that he would be a prudent steward of our legacy. He lost 49 states. After that, we all got it!
What had happened between even the 70’s and 1984? Ronald Reagan showed us the path to power. He told us we could have it all: limitless oil, lower taxes, all the government services we wanted. This was not a plan for good government; this was a ruse for getting elected.This is what Republicans venerate him for, and it has worked! Prior to Reagan, presidents (and aspirants) made the assumption that the American public wouldn't tolerate irresponsible government.
Reagan gave us the sense of entitlement. Who cares about the budget? We glorify consumption over responsibility. Would we demand responsibility from our government when we run our own households on credit card debt? Why would we vote for higher taxes when we're offered the alternative of 'all for nothing'?
Now the public simultaneously demands and rejects government commitment to programs that might deal with deficits, healthcare, unemployment…you name it! We want our government services, but we have been taught that we don’t have to pay for them. 67% favor balancing the budget even in recession; yet an even greater margin rejects the kind of spending cuts that would deliver this objective.
The public doesn’t watch CNN, or listen to public radio---or even Glenn Beck! We watch American Idol. We live in Playland. The most successful politicians are those who can offer the impossible with a straight face. Scott Brown, our new darling from Massachusetts, is going to balance our budget and cut taxes even more by "cutting government waste". (Have we heard this before?) Here's what we have not heard: “I’m going to cut military spending by 45%, legalize drugs, eliminate the tax exemption for mortgages over $85,000, eliminate farm subsidies, clean up the prescription drug fiasco, re-regulate and tax the financial services industry, stop water projects…”
Instead, Republicans reiterate their mantra of “tax and spend Democrats”, assuring us that any contrary messages come from “liberal media”. "Liberal media", Hah! There’s a serious disconnect when the “liberal media” is owned by a handful of rich, Republican industrialists. But it's enough to bamboozle voters. (A liberal media would have mobilized enough public skepticism to head off our recent wars by exposing the lies behind that mess.)
If we are going to turn this country around, we must realize that our childish expectations are what drive our politicians to treat us like children. We vote for irresponsible government, and we get what we demand. Some think that Democratic majorities in both houses of congress should be expected to push forward responsible legislation; but we now have 15 “new” (corporate) Democrats in the senate, and about 55 in the house. The far-right is on the march, propelled by middle America, to support policy that’s contrary to their own interests. (See What’s Wrong with Kansas.)
Republicans continue to run on promises of lower taxes, decrying “tax and spend Democrats”. To achieve endorsement, the party has a "No New Tax" pledge that all faithful are expected to take. I hear friends and acquaintances claim: “I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal”. What does that mean? Fiscal conservatism is a political term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending….(straight from Wikipedia). “Tax and spend”, my friends, (long-ago discarded by all parties) may be political liberalism, but it is fiscal conservatism. Borrow and spend, by any definition is fiscal “liberalism”, for lack of a more descriptive term. Those who utter this mantra probably voted for Reagan, if not Bush. Yet both of these men were "fiscal liberals and social conservatives."
Let’s take a look at some figures:
Removing politics from the equation, the entitlement figures for the next 30 years are staggering. Even from President Obama we find a disturbing lack of candor. Assuming full economic recovery, the shortfall of receipts for the next ten years is expected to be $8.5 Trillion! 43% of the budget during this period will be consumed by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (health insurance for the poor). The mass retirement of "baby boomers" propels this sea of red ink and will drive it higher. Essentially the budget will be set up to transfer wealth from young workers to retired boomers. This dilemma cannot be managed without draconian tax increases or large cuts in other government programs.
The irony, as so often is the case, is that reality lies 180 degrees from "common knowledge". "Conservatives" rage over "tax and spend" Democrats. They point their fingers at programs for the poor and indigent, while oblivious to corporate welfare and "welfare for the rich". The primary responsibility goes to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, who lied their way to power promising "tax cuts" for the rich and "voodoo economics". But the real onus falls on us, voters from Kansas and 49 other states, who returned these two men to office even after we could see what they were doing. The programs that we all expect and receive threaten to bury us. We tolerate political hacks who pander to greed by telling us they'll cut taxes "by eliminating waste" in government, while we drive our own families to the precipice on credit card debt.
Do-nothing Republicans and scared Democrats are not moving at this time of economic emergency. But the longer we delay real budget reform, the greater will be the stress on our beleaguered currency. At some point we will no longer be able to sell debt on the world market. Then, look out! The ensuing crisis will compel abrupt measures that make today’s choices look like a bunny slope. Good luck.
There were some interesting comments last month about budgets and debt, including: “Mr. Obama quadrupled our debt”, (a line that we had previously heard from a zealous Republican partisan in “rebuttal” to the State of the Union address.) Obviously, Tom took that statement and ran with it Robbinsense sent our staff scurrying to find the source of this dubious statistic.
Pull up this website to follow along. There it is, bigger than life. (First, this graph is not charting debt, it’s charting the government deficit. Avowed "conservatives" are frequently loose with specifics.) Bush deficit in 2008: about $450 Billion; Obama deficit in 2009: a whopping $1.85 Trillion! Case shut!
I have a problem with this, having lived through the period: the statistics don't jive with my memory. Where do these figures come from? Who is “The Foundry”? If we look a little closer and uncover hidden details, it turns out this is The Heritage Foundation, a group that by its own description:
“Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. We believe the principles and ideas of the American Founding are worth conserving and renewing. As policy entrepreneurs, we believe the most effective solutions are consistent with those ideas and principles.”
This looks suspicious. $400 Billion in 2008---that’s odd. Why would the figures projected for 2009 before Mr. Obama took office be three times higher?
·Deficit when Obama took office: By the time Obama took office, the black ink (of the Clinton years) had turned to gushers of red. "CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion," CBO said in its "Budget and Economic Outlook." That was released Jan. 8, 2009, only days before Obama’s inauguration. Update Feb 5: The $1.2 trillion projection would have been $966 billion had CBO been accounting for mortgage losses then the way they were eventually treated in the official deficit figures. See clarification below.
In all fairness, Mr. Obama was off also in his State of the Union address. He claimed that Bush left him a $1.3 Trillion deficit. Well, no one’s perfect.
After expanding the "Foundry" chart for clarity, let’s add the figures from the chart:
(2000:($237) Billion SURPLUS---Clinton’s final year in office)
2001: ($120) Billion SURPLUS---left over from Clinton budget
2002: 140Billion deficit
2003380“
2004 410“
2005 310 “
2006 230“
2007 150“
2008 430 “
Tot:1.930 (Trillion)
According to this graph, and The Heritage Foundation, the total debt accrued from the eight years of Bush presidency is $1.93 Trillion! Very interesting, since there’s little dispute that Mr. Bush entered office with $5.6 Trillion in government debt and left with about $10.5 Trillion, an accumulation of roughly $5 Trillion, not $1.93 T. Who are these people? Given that the Bush deficit figures are obviously cooked, we can assume the Obama figures are cooked also to corroborate anything that The Heritage Foundation wants to “prove”. (“Reliable” sources put the 2009 figure at about $1.45 Trillion.)
Cross-check these figures with a chart from Wikipedia. This is usually a pretty reliable source, as it is largely assembled by web-users. When figures or information is unconfirmed or disputed, Wikipedia posts a disclaimer.
Clearly Tom wasn’t talking about growth of government debt. Mr. Obama entered office with total debt of approximately $11 Trillion. It’s now about $12.5 Trillion (not $40 T!)
If one wants to look for real spend-thrifts, we must look to Republicans. Ronald Reagan almost quadrupled government debt, in eight years: $0.9 Trillion in 1981 to $3.1 Trillion in ’88. With inertia from the Reagan budget, George H. W. Bush piled on another $2 Trillion. We see from the figures above that George W. Bush doubled government debt during his tenure. These were both periods of prosperity for this country. Isn’t that when we’re supposed to rein the budget in? But Republicans continue calling Democrats the big spenders. It’s a war of words for the GOP…they make up their own facts.
The internet is an awesome tool. Funny Figures & Mad Money can be traced by anyone with a small dose of skepticism. Check your figures.
Well, we now know we can't even use the Republicans as a source of occasionally-valid Obama criticism. Even I, a certified Republican-hater, was astonished at the depths and extent of brazen, shameless hypocrisy exhibited by Alabama Senator Shelby as he acted like a puppy caught in a bear-trap in lashing out over the administrations announcement to close some 'gubbmint' facilities in his home state of Alabama. Although he's been 'tight-lipped' about it, his office nonetheless proclaimed, in a hissy fit of pique, that he will 'block' ALL of Obama's nominees. Not because they may be unsuitable, but just because they are HIS nominees. This is sure starting to seem like SOP for the GOP. If so, when, if ever, can we tell whether they have a VALID argument when their game-plan is to block, obstruct or defeat ANYTHING that comes from the administration? Any normal, sane human being knows that EVERYTHING Obama says or proposes can't be all bad. Surely there must be at least ONE thing that hasn't come directly from Satan.
Reading of this, yet another lapse of common sense coming from a Republican, I grew even more despondent over the fall from sanity that this party has taken. It's just too easy now to simply ignore them when you realize that ANYTHING that comes from their mouths, whether truthful or not, is too poisonous for normal, uncritical consumption. Forget for the moment Senator Shelby's hypocrisy over objecting to cutting government expense because it happens to come in his own back yard (including one which was one of his own EARMARKS (gasp!)) and his shameless use of calling the cuts tantamount to aiding the terrorists: we have, through his claim to block EVERY appointee, an elected official who has simply abdicated his duties as a US Senator. He might as well have said that he's decided never to speak again, because his words, truthful or not, will be dismissed as not worth the air used to form them. Like a schizophrenic in a mental ward, we'll never know if he speaks from a point of clarity or not. Yes, I'm glad that I no longer have to spend time fact-checking Republican claims, but honestly, I'd much rather do that than admit that they are now certifiably, unequivocally - irrelevant.
As Sarah 'her badself' Palin might have commented, 'Say it ain't so, Joe'!
Bill Jellick is a senior correspondent for Robbinsense
"Going Rogue," the title of Sarah Palin's book, refers to a remark made by an anonymous McCain aide late in last year's presidential campaign. It was used to describe the vice-presidential candidate's efforts to break free of her campaign constraints and go “off-script”. In particular, it referred to her reaction to the decision to pull out of the Michigan race. But the term seemed to catch on with the race in general, and with Palin in particular. She clearly sees herself as a self-propelled agent of her own will.
This book, reasonably well-written we assume by an un-credited ghost writer, is not a political treatise; it’s an autobiography. The first half deals with her life leading up to the 2008 presidential election. Palin’s fans and followers will savor every page of this quick-reading work. Critics will rush straight to the meat---the campaign.
Through it all, Ms. Palin emerges as a new style of feminist: a politician who took on the Ole Boy network and won; a wife with a supportive husband whose career takes second place to hers; and a mother who, unlike working women of an earlier age, isn't shy about showcasing her family responsibilities. She writes with sensitivity and affection about her gay college roommate, and she confesses her anguish when she found out that she was carrying a baby with Down syndrome. That experience, she says, helped her to understand why a woman might be tempted to have an abortion. This is not the prejudiced, dim-witted ideologue of the popular liberal imagination.
This woman, who’s captured our national imagination, is a walking package of “Americana”, by her portrayal a combination of Norman Rockwell, Garrison Keillor, Shirley Temple, Davy Crockett, William Jennings Bryan (sorry but Bryan was a pacifist,) and Annie Oakley on a snowmobile. Palin appears to be a dedicated public servant, eager to improve life for all of her constituants. She is scrupulous in her public dealings, instructing her daughter not to accept even a bottle of Gatorade from a car-pooling mother who happens to be a lobbyist.
It’s clear from day one of the campaign, however, that she’s under wraps. Though extolling praise for McCain, she chafes at her confinement, secluded even from the friendly, Alaskan press. When one of her aides asked McCain headquarters for permission for her to go to the rear of the campaign plane to talk to reporters, the response was swift: "No! Absolutely not—block her if she tries to go back." She rails about being prepped for her debate with “non-answers” to questions: “Why wouldn’t I want to answer the question?”
It’s all here. Every morsel that emerged during the campaign; from the announcement of her daughter’s pregnancy to the phone call from the French President, it’s all here, eagerly explained:
“Wardrobegate” was thrust at her without her endorsement. She was not delighted by her unwed, teenage daughter’s pregnancy, but would make the most of it. “Book-banning” was a misunderstanding, and over-blown by the (liberal) media. “Hunting wolves from choppers was photoshopped.” Troopergate was spawned from a false report made by a local blogger. (Public Safety Commissioner, Walt) Monegan was fired because of insubordination, not because he wouldn’t fire Mike Wooten, Palin’s ex-brother-in-law. Fortunately we learn that in her admittedly weak interview with Katie Couric, she said Russia could be seen from Alaska, not from her front porch. The poor performance resulted from getting a bit flustered and a poor briefing by the campaign staff. “Hi, do you mind if I call you ‘Joe’?” was not a gesture of flippant informality, but from fear that she’d call him “Senator O’Biden”, and she didn’t know the mic was hot.(?) Randy Scheunemann, a well-known Washington lobbyist was assigned to Palin’s staff by the campaign, not Sarah herself. Engagement in a lengthy phone call from a comic in Montreal, claiming to be French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, was the natural result of having received so many previous calls from foreign leaders. Of course. Wardrobegate II, the family returned 30 boxes of clothing. Allegations of corruption in her administration? Well…
And here we get to the beef. A great deal of speculation swirls around the decision to resign the governorship. Going Rogue presents a full capitulation of the circumstances. Returning to “normal” life, leaving the bubble of protection of the campaign, the Palins were pummeled by the full thrust of celebrity: paparazzi, intrusion and wackos galore. It’s easy to see how this could make governing troublesome. Even in back-woods Alaska they were inundated by prying people stalking the family. The prying included “inquiry” into public records, which in Alaska is free. FOI inquiries require attention and resolution from the government, and from Palin’s personal resources.
Yet her airy resignation speech of July 3rd seemed evasive at best…interesting that this issue was skimmed over in a very short paragraph. The usual culprits, of course stand behind all of this: liberals. Paparazzi, liberals? Tabloid readers, liberals? Intrusive wackos, liberals? Sarah is a bonafide celebrity. Our society produces a host of people obsessed by celebrities. Digging into a personal life, scratching for any morsel of life or character to make an impact on their lives is a consuming pursuit for these people. Republican reality, and Palin’s reality, however, is that liberals and Democrats are responsible for all things bad. No “liberal” that I know would have the slightest notion of engaging in this kind of stuff. Watching Fox News, Rush, Beck and the others, however, we see and hear anger-baiting pundits inflame their audience with validation of victimhood. Does anyone suspect that Scott Roeder or Joe Stack were Democrats? (These were good American, right-wing terrorists, now applauded by many right-wingers.) Do we contend that Sarah’s own constituency was responsible for this disruption? Not necessarily. But it seems likely that intrusions into the Palin family came from the spectrum of people obsessed by Sarah, rather than liberals.
Rogue is part travelogue, with many references to the majesty of the Alaskan landscape---“We stopped amidst the fjords of Kodiak where emerald green mountains plunge straight down into brilliant blue waters surrounded by picturesque---” always with a smattering of scorn to all who would suggest that pristine wilderness be preserved. It should be exploited for the benefit of all U. S. citizens, and particularly for Alaskans. BTW, Alaska is not owned by Alaskans, per se, (unless we speak of the Inuits.) Alaska was bought by the government and people of the United States.
Aside from covering all bases, the book is a well-spring of Republican sloganeering. Every trite sop that has been sounded for the last forty years, one would think, came from Sarah. Here we find half a dozen lectures on the propriety of “fiscal responsibility” (from one side of her mouth). From the other side she makes thirty-four references to Ronald Reagan, extolling the benefaction of his great presidency. Does Palin not know that Reagan was the most fiscally irresponsible president we’ve ever had? Doesn’t matter; her legions don’t know or care.
Palin seems to see the world through the prism of politics: “I had more administrative and executive experience than either Obama or Biden.” Fascinating that she did not include McCain on the list.
Indignation over the “book burning” allegation: “Suddenly I was the book-burning evangelical extremist sweeping down from the North on her broomstick. Reporters didn’t bother to find out the facts and print the truth.” What about “Death Panels", Sarah?
“I reminded Americans that it hadn’t been so long ago that the pundits had written John off…..determination, resolve and sheer guts of Senator McCain…” No mention here that his opponents had imploded, leaving him the only man standing; or that he was considered so marginal that no one bothered attacking him.
Rationalization and “spin” flow like a fire hose. We find long-winded descriptions of her voracious reading as a child (in a home with no television)…vindication for silly remarks to Katie Couric? When offered three opportunities to name “one” periodical or news source that she used for information, she couldn’t do it. “Oh, I read them all” is ingenuous beyond the belief of any but the most ardent Palin supporter. Contending that she naively thought that she and Couric were just going for “girl-talk”, even if that’s true, who, engaged in our politics, can’t spontaneously come up with “Time” or “Newsweek?”
(“Death panels” are a far-fetched image based upon proposed insurance coverage for private conferences with personal doctors. This was not 'fashioned' by President Obama. The disgusting reality, ignored by Palin and Republicans, is that “death panels” exist…now. They exist in the executive chambers ofinsurance companies, making the decision to rescind coverage for sick policy-holders.) But politically, this works beautifully. When Andrew Breitbart, the founder of BigGovernment.com, introduced Ms. Palin by describing her as “the first person to tell us about the death panel,” the partisan crowd cheered wildly. Can we believe, then, any of the rationalizations presented here?
Page after page of plaints---liberals!
“In those days, ACLU activists had not yet convinced young people that they were supposed to feel offended by other people’s free exercise of religion.”(?)
“90% of the newspeople covering the debates were liberal.” Really?
“The time has come to acknowledge that it is counterfeit objectivity the liberal media try to sell consumers.” and “…beware the left’s attempts to silence these…('informative' talk-show hosts.)”
We are offered (only) one specific: ….hateful and “distorted images over Trig’s pretty face…" by "...the official Alaskan blogger for the Democratic National Committee…”
Note that there is no reference here. In fact there are no footnotes, not a single reference in the entire book. The reader is to accept all claims as fact. It’s odd that a book covering a political period or life would appear without footnotes. Even Robbinsense provides references for all “facts” and sources regarding material or claims that the publisher thinks readers might find suspect. Palin supporters require no validation of her “facts”---they are not skeptical of anything that supports what they want to believe.
As a political work, at best this book serves as a manifesto of the political “right”. Going Rogue is an entertaining and worthy book, as Sarah Palin is an interesting and entertaining personality. Literature? Well…. But for a committed Republican or the 25 million or so Sarah Palin fans, this is cotton candy.
In The Way Forward, we hope to find clues as to what might be on the horizon. But at a mere 13 pages, The Way is another tour through the GOP slogan book. [“We (America) don’t go looking for fights, but we’re ready to face them if necessary.” Like Iraq?] In a rare moment of candor, Palin admits that we cannot expect to get more than slogans even from Republicans. The reader is left lurching for some leader who can bring this country out of the wilderness…...Sarah?
Welcome, gentle readers, to the twelfth edition of Robbinsense.
In our 100-day assessment of the president’s performance, Robbinsense gave Mr. Obama a C to C-. We had a number of comments from readers that our assessment was harsh and premature. Two weeks ago we passed the next significant milestone, the one-year mark. With approval ratings tumbling toward 50%, the election of a Republican senator in Massachusetts, and a shocking ruling from the Supreme Court, it appears that our assessment may have been on the money.
We have still seen no significant change from the mess that Mr. Obama inherited, nor have we seen as yet any evidence that such change might be forthcoming. Operations in Washington appear to be on track with “business as usual”, instead of “change that you can believe in”.
Considering the impact of recent events and the gravity of the situation, our February issue will focus on this matter. Jackson Dave takes a look at where we are and speculates on where we might go. The issues currently on track are many and deep. I want to apologize up front for the length of Jack's essay. We try, at Robbinsense, to keep our articles under 2000 words, but this was apparently impossible.
Correspondent Bill Jellick, from our Boulder desk presents an additional view. Bill’s an obstreperous sort and usually stirs up the pot.
Additionally, our editorial staff presents an over-view on war in the late 20th Century.
Next month we’ll take a look at facts and figures. Also, we'll try to get to the most protean, if not compelling, enigmatic and controversial political force (or is that farce) of our age: Sarah Barracuda, herself. Where are we going? And why? Does Jackson Davereally sport a Sarah Palin for president bumper sticker?
Robbinsense will endeavor to publish between the first and fifth day of every month. If you wish to be notified of new posts, contact the publisher; otherwise, just stop in for a pique. If you enjoy an article, please pass our site on to your friends; and don’t hesitate to insert comments---this is a "public forum". (Under “Select Profile” you may select “anonymous” or input your name under “Name/URL”. Leave “URL” blank---unless you have one. If all else fails, send an email to the publisher. Posted comments cannot be altered; they can only be deleted. If you wish to edit a comment, post your corrected comment and notify the publisher by email.)
Hi, I'm Mark Robbins and this is my blog. I enjoy writing and sharing my thoughts with others, regarding politics, music, wine, golf and news of the day. Enjoy---and hey, I hope you'll join the discussion with comments.
This is my alter-ego, Jackson Dave. He's a Robbinsense staff writer and as a young man, he sees through a broader lens. I hope you'll enjoy his columns.
Poor Mexico, The violence will never end 'til they stop the flow of drugs!
`
Newt Gingrich
"I think one of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don't encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat, obedient, loyal and faithful and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around a campfire but are lousy in politics."
