Socialized Capitalism

The last few days have seen some rather astonishing developments coming out of the Treasury Department of the Bush administration, what with the collapse and bail-out of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the 500 point implosion of the stock market on Monday, followed by the death or sale of several big-name Wall Street financial institutions including; Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, and now most recently, the insurance giant AIG. But not to worry, we can all rest easy knowing that none other than that economic genius John McCain has decreed that our economy has "sound fundamentals." I'm so glad, just imagine what unsound fundamentals might look like!

We are truly fortunate, as over the last few weeks we have been witness to the perfection of a new kind of political economy. This new form of governance can only accurately be called "Socialized Capitalism." And who have been the authors of this new kind of socialism for the rich? You guessed it, none other than the self-styled free-market, Capitalist, Republican administration of George W. Bush! Here's how it works. Powerful corporate and wealthy interests essentially take over the functions of government. This was easy, as the die was cast when the Republicans came back to power with the 2000 "election" of Bush. These elite, wealthy special interests are essentially the constituency of the Republican party (though the Democratic Party does not escape all blame here either). With the reigns of power in hand, or at least in the hands of their surrogates, corporations can then re-write regulatory law and weaken the oversight and enforcement functions of the government. In the context of the financial sector, this gave banks and investment firms carte blanche to freewheel and make a killing, selling "derivatives" and bundled, mortgage-backed securities, while overexposing themselves to substantial debts from an ocean of bad loans in the process. Then, when the bill finally comes due and the pyramid scheme collapses, that same corporate-run government that initially rigged the game, allowing and enabling the plunder, provides billions and billions of tax-payer dollars to bail out those poor ailing corporations. It's a perfect confidence racket, and every tax-paying citizen is a chump with the word "sucker" written right across their forehead. Not just you, your young children will be saddled with this debt for years to come. These hucksters have mortgaged our kids futures to enrich their already rich constituents. Almost enough to make one boiling mad, eh?

And all this is brought to you by that very same Republican Party that loves to talk about free markets, small government, personal responsibility and the wonders of unfettered Capitalism, the same Republican Party that becomes apoplectic when anyone even breathes the words liberal, socialism or, god forbid, welfare. Of course all this Republican talk of free markets etc. is a steaming pile of guano, and maybe after being fleeced for eight years by Bush and Co. enough Republican-voting "suckers" out there will finally get the message? Republicans love big government, especially the kind that is doling out huge sums of cash to their constituents. They love free markets for the other guy, but hate them if it means they would have to compete fairly. And personal responsibility? Republicans are NEVER responsible, that's also for the other guy. In fact, when you're a Republican it's always the other guys fault. Make no mistake, this Republican administration is practicing rampant socialism for all its corporate constituents. Forget about welfare queens, Bush, McCain, and all their Republican supporters are the welfare kings, the kings of corporate welfare. We let them stay in power at our own peril.

Mendacious Maverick

It's pretty obvious that national political conventions have become little more than highly staged media events, designed to, in the words of George W. Bush, "catapult the propaganda." While this is now largely true of both major political parties, the recently concluded Republican convention has clearly broken new ground in terms of outright deception, Orwellian abuse of language and the overall debasement of our political culture. Indeed, it was as if, protected by some kind of force field, the Excel Center in Minneapolis became a kind of twilight zone, with no memory, impervious to history and fact, a virtual tabula rasa on which the Republicans could hope to re-write the failed legacy of eight years of disastrous rule. Nowhere was this more evident than in the remarks from John McCain on accepting the presidential nomination of his traitorous Party.

Since it would take an epic tome to document all the dissembling and deception evident in McCain's speech, let's just hit some of the major themes and highlights and see how they hold up to some reality-based thinking. Perhaps the most astounding claims from McCain revolve around the notion that the Republican ticket represents the agent of change in the upcoming election. McCain's first change pedigree, he would have us believe, is his choice of a virtually unknown, largely inexperienced, right-wing, neophyte governor, none other than Alaskan governor Sarah Palin. As McCain boasted, "I'm very proud to have introduced our next vice president to the country. But I can't wait until I introduce her to Washington. And let me offer an advance warning to the old, big-spending, do-nothing, me-first, country-second Washington crowd: Change is coming." But wait, who exactly are those old, big-spending, country-second Washington hacks? If you're thinking they are exactly the same Party that was nominating McCain, then you'd be right, and McCain was and has been a major player in this me-first crowd for the past eight years. McCain would have you believe that he and his Party, the authors of eight years of perfidy, are the ones to "clean up the mess" in Washington. If you are willing to swallow that pile of bull, then I know a bridge for sale, cheap. The only truth here in McCain's statement is that there really is a mess in Washington, but he (and his Party) is the mess! The contradictions in McCain's message were succinctly highlighted by The Nation's John Nichols, who pointed out, "Even as he (McCain) was pledging to 'change the way government does almost everything,' the senator from Arizona announced his commitment to much, much more of the same."

McCain's next big theme was of course "defense" (actually, offense might be a more apt description). McCain boasted about his supposed key part in authoring and implementing the so-called "surge" in Iraq, and further boasted that, "Thanks to the leadership of a brilliant general, David Petraeus, and the brave men and women he has the honor to command, that strategy succeeded and rescued us from a defeat that would have demoralized our military, risked a wider war and threatened the security of all Americans." The notion that "the surge" rescued us from a defeat in Iraq is fanciful, as Tom Engelhardt has pointed out. It is an indication of the depths to which the Republican Party has sunk for its present leader to brand an unnecessary, immoral, illegal and devastating war, that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and laid waste to an entire country, a success, indeed, it is an obscene characterization. Also, McCain is apparently unaware that many in our military are already demoralized by this war, as this short video from the Guardian's Sean Smith demonstrates, and that it is the Iraq war itself, and American military adventurism, that threatens wider war and the security of Americans. By any measure; moral, economic, political, the Iraq war has been nothing less than catastrophic. To suggest continuing it to some undefined, unattainable "victory" is nothing less than insanity.

McCain, however, doesn't see fit to stop with Iraq, he further brandishes the saber at both Russia and, of course, Iran, a favorite Republican "whipping boy." But McCain really starts to lose it when he attempts to tongue-lash Russia for its "invasion" of Georgia and, in his words, "reassembling the Russian Empire." He then further castigates Moscow, arguing that, "we can't turn a blind eye to aggression and international lawlessness that threatens the peace and stability of the world and the security of the American people." The irony here is rich indeed, as McCain has been a cheer-leader for just such aggression and lawlessness with the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. However, one of the benefits of being a Republican is that it comes with an immunity to irony. If McCain had any legitimate security bonafides he might also consider the effect of unnecessary NATO expansionism in intimidating Russia toward a more belligerent posture with respect to its neighbors. Further, insisting on an unnecessary and dangerously destabilizing (and arguably useless) missile defense system in Eastern Europe, is also needlessly isolating Russia. McCain also contradicts his own CIA in perpetuating the favorite Bush administration canard that Iran is dangerously close to developing a nuclear weapon.
Clearly McCain doesn't know half as much about real national security issues as he likes to claim. As his own fellow traveler Pat Buchanan put it, if elected, "McCain will make Cheney look like Ghandi." Trust me, we can do without that.

Jack-Booted Thugs

We live in a Police State. While many would likely consider such a statement hyperbolic, how else to describe the despicable abuse of police power evidenced in Minnesota last night and this morning by the jack-booted thugs of the St. Paul police department and Ramsey County Sheriff's Office. Overnight and this morning a number of sweeping "raids" were carried out in which heavily armed police, including SWAT teams, invaded homes and detained and intimidated citizens doing nothing other than assembling peaceably in their homes and pursuing their First Amendment rights and political freedoms. The houses raided were targeted because they contained, in the words of the police, suspected protesters and "anarchists." One group targeted, I-Witness, has made a name for itself by simply documenting the behavior of police at large public gatherings and protests, such as the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York. Indeed, the group was instrumental in documenting NYPD police misconduct and their work resulted in the release and acquittal of upwards of 400 people wrongfully arrested at the convention. Another group facing harassment, the "RNC Welcoming Committee," was apparently planning some protests for the upcoming convention, but since when has a public protest become a crime!? According to Bruce Nestor of the Minnesota chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, none of those detained, harassed or questioned had committed any violent actions or crimes, they were simply targeted for "suspected" behavior, guilty, apparently, of thought crimes, at least in the minds of the fascist police in St. Paul. See Glenn Greenwald's blog for additional discussion of these raids.

Make no mistake, such raids and police tactics are illegal and are meant to intimidate people from expressing their political views and aims. More to the point, such raids are nothing less than state-sponsored terrorism. How else to describe the pointing of loaded weapons at innocent citizens? What right do the police have to abuse their power, to burst in on peaceful citizens, brandish weapons and arrest and detain people? Indeed, to place law-abiding and peaceful citizens at risk of death and serious injury. Such behavior is anathema to a democratic nation, indeed, it is nothing less than that expected of such totalitarian regimes as Nazi Germany, and must not be tolerated in a free society. Those who conceived, organized, approved and executed these raids must be brought to account, including the judges who would sign such frivolous warrants, and the contemptible cops who would carry them out.

If our democracy was functioning as envisioned we might hope that the Justice Department could step in to investigate such abuses of police power and provide a means to redress the grievances, but can one hopefully expect such a response from the Justice Department of Bush consigliere Michael Mukasey? Not likely, indeed, it is exactly this kind of Surveillance State that George Bush has created and glorified with his warrant-less spy program and never-ending "war on terror." In fact, as one might have guessed, it now actually appears that the FBI was also involved in the raids. Surprise, surprise!

Unfortunately, there seem to still be lots of Americans with their heads in the sand muttering something like, "you're talking crazy Tod, that could never happen here, I don't have anything to worry about, I'm a law abiding citizen." We can only hope enough of these people get their heads out of the sand before it is too late. Increasingly I feel, however, that it is already too late.

Income Inequality and the "Skills Gap," Who Knew?

I'll confess right at the outset to being no fan of David Brooks. He's the kind of "conservative" that has done plenty to help bring about the economic conditions we currently have to live with, but will then go and tell us it's all our fault for not bringing up our kids in the proper educational environment. In a recent Op-Ed in the New York Times, Brooks makes just this case, that a principal cause of the massive gulf between the haves and have-nots in the US is a "skills gap" resulting from the woeful state of education in the country. He partly bases his arguments on a new book from Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz, “The Race Between Education and Technology.” While few would argue about the importance of education in enabling a productive economy and just society, it's clear that rather than explore the responsibility of three decades of conservative, quasi- laissez-faire policies on the current economy and income distribution, Brooks would much rather lay the blame at the masses who have not raised their kids, in his words, "...bathed in an atmosphere that promotes human capital development ..." Man, I'm glad my mother didn't raise me that way!

We could tear down Brooks' straw-man easily enough, but let's just make a few observations. First, wages have been stagnant or declining across the class/income board for more than 20 years now. That is, even the well-educated have been sliding down the ladder, although they are of course relatively more economically secure than their unskilled brethren. Meanwhile, studies show that Americans are among the most productive workers on the planet, and yet few of the productivity gains over these last 20 years have been put back into pay-checks. Now why is that? Where did all that money go? Somehow the corporate classes keep getting richer and richer. These facts do not point fundamentally to an education problem, rather, a much more accurate diagnosis would be class warfare!

Of course we need to better educate our children, but what Brooks and his ilk fail to explore is WHY we are not able to adequately educate all our citizens. Predictably, Brooks tries to dismiss some big issues, such as globalization, outsourcing and predatory capitalism, stating that, "the populists are going to have to grapple with the Goldin, Katz and Heckman research, which powerfully buttresses the arguments of those who emphasize human capital policies. It’s not globalization or immigration or computers per se that widen inequality. It’s the skills gap."

It's hard to know where to begin with such statements. It's as if all the economic choices, decisions and policies put in place by Republican administrations, beginning with Reagan (with significant Democratic assistance, or at least acquiescence I might add), that have been the fuel on the fire of income inequality for almost 30 years now never happened! Nope, it was the "skills gap," who knew? Although education is certainly a piece in the puzzle, I would argue that conservative economic policies, essentially placing all corporate interests over those of workers, including the resulting widening income inequality, are the primary causes of any "skills gap," not the other way around.

But for me, the biggest "whopper" in Brooks' whole piece is his overarching premise, stated in the first two sentences, I quote, "Why did the United States become the leading economic power of the 20th century? The best short answer is that a ferocious belief that people have the power to transform their own lives gave Americans an unparalleled commitment to education, hard work and economic freedom."

This is just so much conservative drivel. Just like every other major industrial power, the US grew by protecting it's markets, having a strong state-sponsored sector, and maintaining unfettered access to resources basically around the globe (and a productive citizenry). The nonsense that Brooks is peddling here is this pernicious myth of American exceptionalism. This is the same myth that enables a mediocrity like George W. Bush to talk about bringing democracy to Iraq (or insert currently relevant country), and our political class will basically cheer-lead. I have yet to go to another country and find people not committed to education, hard work and economic freedom. These values are evident in most every culture I have ever encountered, therefore they cannot be the PRIMARY reasons for the United States economic success.

Much can be learned about the state of our politics and society that this kind of mumbo-jumbo is placed on the Op-Ed page of one our most influential newspapers, rather than in a landfill, where it belongs.

Police State

It's one of the unchallengeable myths of political and major media discourse, that the United States is among the most democratic of societies. Politicians and pundits alike heap praise on American democracy and consistently tout our brand as without peer around the world. Such thinking is virtually axiomatic in the mainstream consensus, however, the weakness of American democracy can be seen in many areas, not least of which is the degree to which public dissent or protest have been marginalized, especially in the past decade.

An important aspect of such marginalization is the use of local, state and federal authorities to harass and intimidate anyone with the temerity to challenge authority or present an alternative to the ossified status quo. Particularly egregious is the targeting of those working for and promoting peace. This goes so far as to lead to the Orwellian labeling of pacifists as potential "terrorists."

If one thought that such activity ended with the exposure of COINTELPRO in the '70s then one would be wrong. The most recent revelations, based on documents obtained via an ACLU sponsored Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit, reveal that in 2005 and 2006 the Maryland State Police (and the Department of Homeland Security), were infiltrating and spying on a number of Maryland peace groups and the anti-death penalty group Campaign to End the Death Penalty. These groups were simply exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights, and, indeed, many of the group members were and are avowed pacifists, including long-time Baltimore-based peace activist Max Obuszewski. Another person caught up in the surveilance was progressive sports writer Dave Zirin, a member of Campaign to End the Death Penalty. Read Zirin's eloquent and defiant response to this official lawlessness here.

These documents show that Maryland State Police agents had covertly infiltrated numerous meetings of these groups, and had created extensive, classified dossiers on many of their members. One result of this surveilance is that several individuals from the groups, including Obuszewski, were entered into law enforcement databases whose ostensible purpose is to track drug offenders and terrorists. The suspected "crimes" that Mr. Obuszewski was allegedly included in the database for included terrorism. When non-violent opposition to war becomes "terrorism," then everyone should feel a chill run up their spine.

The surveillance of these groups was persistent. Even after agents spent days at meetings at which nothing more "threatening" than carrying clipboards down the street or participating in tablings at farmers markets, they still recommended the spying continue. Is this what trained police agents take for criminal activity? I would hate to see whom untrained agents would implicate in alleged criminality! Can there be any legitimate excuse for such surveillance? Obviously the police must know that such activity is lawful, not threatening and indeed is protected by constitutional rights, yet they do it anyway, which begs the question why? Former Maryland State police superintendent Tim Hutchins attempted to defend the practice by arguing, “you do what you think is best to protect the general populace of the state.” But this is laughable, any simple investigation of these groups, not requiring covert infiltration and surveillance, would have been sufficient to determine that they were engaged in completely lawful activity. So whom are the Maryland State Police really protecting? It seems clear that the police in these cases are acting largely to support the interests of those in power, and not simply to uphold the law. This is an outrageous abuse of authority and one which should not be tolerated in a truly democratic society.

Democratic Surrender Monkeys

Unconditional surrender! That is the only accurate phrase to describe Friday's passage by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives of the so-called FISA Amendments Act of 2008. This bill, the bastard child of House majority leader Steny Hoyer (Md) and Senate intelligence committee chair Jay Rockefeller (WVa) gives the Bush administration everything it wanted on the domestic spying front, and more! As Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, the bill gives to the administration what it could not have even hoped to obtain from a Republican-led House. It greatly expands the powers of the government to spy on Americans, and in its most odious sections grants sweeping immunity to telecom companies and their Bush administration allies for breaking the existing FISA law. It retroactively excuses, and attempts to put a stamp of approval on half a decades worth of administration law breaking. It does this by placing a so-called "requirement" on the administration that makes a mockery of the rule of law and the Constitutional separation of powers. Essentially, the bill requires that existing law suits be dismissed if the telecom companies simply show that they were directed by the President or his agents to carry out the spying, and/or that the administration "certified" that it was legal! Talk about handing the fox the keys to the chicken coop. This legislation grants to serial lawbreakers the power to decide legality, and reinforces the theory perpetuated by this administration that if the President says it is legal, it is! A more dangerous, and un-Constitutional precedent can hardly be envisioned.

Moreover, the bill provides for broad secrecy surrounding the dismissal of lawsuits, the government simply having to invoke the magical phrase, "national security," to shield the details of the law breaking from the eyes of the public. The section of the bill granting this sweeping immunity is entitled, "Protection of Persons Assisting the Government." Orwell himself would have struggled to come up with that one, but it was apparently duck-soup for the Democratic enablers of Bush administration lawbreaking.

Let's try and get our heads around the magnitude of this capitulation. It's not that easy, so stay with me. The Democratic-controlled House just handed this stunning victory to perhaps the weakest sitting President in history; a President that can barely maintain 25% approval ratings; a President whose Party is also now widely, and justifiably reviled and rightly fearful that they will be thrown from office in large numbers come November; a President and Party that have treated the Democrats with utter disdain and contempt for almost 8 years, who have called them "traitors" and most recently referred to their presumptive presidential nominee as an "appeaser" like those who appeased the Nazis. It is this President and Party that the Democratic leadership, over the opposition of more than half of their caucus, including many committee chairmen, handed such a victory! Politics is wondrous strange indeed.

What could be the mental calculus at work in the minds of such "leaders?" Indeed it is hard to fathom how the majority Party in the House could rend itself asunder so and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. One is forced to conclude that there are basically two reasons for such a wholesale capitulation. First, the current Democratic leadership is largely beholden to the same Corporate interests as the Republican Party. Put simply, the big telecoms fill many Democratic coffers with cold hard cash. And if anything is clear from the status quo in Washington it is that money talks. So, it's simply too easy for them to grant immunity and not upset the apple cart, or perhaps the gravy train is a more accurate phrase in this case. Consider the signal this sends to many Americans, that Corporate money is much more important to the Democratic Party leadership than the Constitutional freedoms of their own constituents. This is a craven and cowardly calculation if ever there was one. Second, it seems that the senior Democratic leadership are still so fearful; so cowardly and fearful. They somehow believe that surrendering the rule of law will make them look "tough on terrorism." In fact, what is plain for all to see is that it simply makes them look weak, craven and without principles or honor. That is, it makes them look just like Republicans!

The reality here is far different from the "tough on terrorism" pretext being offered by the capitulators. Passage of this legislation will not do anything to increase security against terrorism. The existing FISA law was and still is entirely adequate to enable the government to obtain the necessary intelligence to protect the Nation. Moreover, this administration's actions in the so called "war on terrorism" have not made us safer. Far from it, their reckless foreign policy has only bred more fanaticism abroad, and they have neglected common sense strategies to strengthen our domestic security posture. Even in the face of mountains of current polling data suggesting that American's attitudes are sharply opposed to the direction that this administration and its Republican Party rubber stamp have steered the country, the fossilized and inept Democratic leadership still believe that in order to win elections they must look more and more like Republicans. Since it is now absolutely clear that they will never learn this lesson, perhaps because they ultimately share most of the same priorities as the Republicans, the final remedy must be to vote the whole pathetic lot of them out of office. If you are interested in helping in this regard, check out the campaign being organized by Act Blue.

Supreme Ideologues

With another 5 - 4 decision the Supreme Court has recently upheld basic provisions of the Constitution while simultaneously sending a stinging rebuke to the Bush administration's "enemy combatant" detainee policy. The Court was reviewing a challenge to the Military Commissions Act which had stripped habeus corpus rights from detainees in the wake of the Court's previous decision on detainee policies in Hamdan vs Rumsfeld. This was the third ruling over a six year span in which the Court has made clear that the administration's manufactured legal "system" surrounding detentions at the Guantanamo Bay gulag is un-Constitutional (read illegal). However, after each previous rebuke the Administration was able to work with it's Republican allies in Congress to pass legislation defying the Court's decision. Shamefully, the infamous Military Commissions Act that this most recent decision strikes down was passed with significant Democratic support as well.

Justice Kennedy, who has recently become the "centrist" swing vote on the Court, joined with the more liberal Justices; Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens and Breyer in arguing that, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,” and asserting that the Court is the final arbiter of what the law is, not a self-styled unitary executive commander in chief. In many ways this decision was rather straightforward. The most relevant section of the Constitution, the so-called "Suspension Clause" (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2), states, "The Privilege of the Writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The great writ is a cornerstone of English law, and came about as a response to the arbitrary power of English kings to exert the right to hold anyone for as long as they liked without ever having to explain to anyone why. Indeed, the drafters of the Constitution, having recently experienced the excessive and unjust powers of a king, in this case George III, felt strongly enough to enshrine the right to habeas corpus directly into the wording of the document. The clause is quite clear, the only exigencies that might abrogate it being invasion or rebellion, neither of which situation exists today by any reasonable interpretation of those words.

One might then reasonably ask how the Court could be so divided on this apparently basic issue? It essentially comes down to the idea that one either believes in the rule of law, or the rule of men. The four Justice minority in this case; Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas, have left no doubt where they stand on this notion. They have consistently supported the "theory" that Mr. Bush as commander in chief is essentially the law, and can do as he pleases. They voted as a block in all the previous detainee cases, except for the Hamdan case for which Roberts had to recuse himself, since he had previously ruled against the habeas petition while sitting on the US Court of Appeals for the DC circuit. So, there can be little doubt what his decision would have been had he participated. This gang of four has consistently shown where their loyalties lie, not with the Constitution, but with a political party and it's extreme rightwing, neofascist ideology that is in thrall to power, whether it be executive, governmental (as in their own power on the Court), or the private power of corporations.

In his dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Roberts claimed that the Bush administration's detainee policy represented, “the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants.” That these ostensible "protections" violate the supreme law of the land apparently carries no weight with Roberts. Moreover, the "procedures" put in place by the administration allow Bush to, by fiat, declare anyone an "enemy combatant" without a meaningful, independent judicial review. This is hardly the due process envisioned by the drafters of the Constitution when they added the Suspension Clause. And to think that we must suffer this Chief Justice for perhaps decades to come. While in his confirmation hearings Roberts pledged reasonableness and objectivity, his decisions on the Court since then suggests the exact opposite.

Of the other dissenting opinions that of Antonin Scalia was, not surprisingly, the most outrageous. Scalia argued that the decision, “warps our Constitution” and, went as far as to suggest that it will place American lives at risk, “The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed,” he argued. Of course, the only thing warped and twisted here is Scalia's logic. That a decision which restores an important right guaranteed by the Constitution represents a "warping" of it strains credulity. And isn't it ironic that Scalia, who helped halt the 2000 Florida recount that ensconced Bush in the White House, should then argue that this decision will cost more American lives, when his 2000 decision helped to set in motion the disastrous Bush presidency, that has cost many thousands of American soldiers their lives, not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. We can be thankful that there are still at least five Justices with some commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law, and it should be absolutely clear that the country can no longer tolerate the appointment of political idealogues to the Court. The stakes are far too high for that.