Why does the Congressional Democratic leadership appear so hell-bent on getting a Wall Street bailout bill passed? Word from Capitol Hill today is that the framework of a deal is close to being agreed upon, but that some contentious aspects still need to be hammered out. However, opposition to any bailout of Wall Street with taxpayer funds apparently runs deep, on both sides of the political spectrum. Indeed, Republicans appear to be scared shitless to vote yes on such a massive transfer of government funds. I don't think it is hard to see why. They already face the daunting task of getting re-elected in the midst of a massive economic meltdown, and add to that the eight years of disaster under Dubya, and you can see that this would likely be the last nail in the coffin for many a Republican congressman. They would prefer not to have to go back to their districts to face an angry constituency, and explain how this Republican administration just cooked up the "mother of all waffles," to the tune of $700 billion dollars,
“We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself.”
-- 2008 Republican Platform
That pretty much sums up the state of the Republican Party, don't you think? Thanks to Craig Markwardt for forwarding that gem. Still, we are left with the question of why the Democratic leadership seems to want to take ownership of this noxious bill. A number of leading economists have recently questioned the need, indeed the usefulness, of the scheme outlined by Paulson. The ultimate albatross around the neck of our economy is debt, so it is not at all clear that borrowing nearly a trillion dollars to throw at the perpetrators of the debacle will be of any lasting value. More likely, it may simply speed up the flight from the dollar in the long run, more like gasoline on a fire rather than water.
Nevertheless, in the face of all of this opposition, the Democratic leadership still appears to be more concerned with the wishes of the administration and the so-called wizards of Wall Street than the average American. For one thing, Democrats should simply consider the source of this massive request. When was the last time Bush and Co. were right about anything? But for some reason, even with historic levels of dissatisfaction with Bush and the Republican party, there would appear to be nothing the Democrats in Congress would deny the Mediocrity in Chief.
While the times clearly call for strong leadership, all we continue to get from Pelosi and Reid is caution and unwarranted bipartisanship. Indeed, it has become the hallmark of this pair that the appearance of so called bipartisanship seems to be their raison d'etre. No matter what horrendous legislation they are passing, as long as they can appear "bipartisan", they seem to think that the American people will sit back and applaud. This is a calculation Democrats have been making now for a long time, and what success has it brought them? Very little. They still appear weak and unprincipled, and too willing to act in the interests of big money rather than their supposed base of support among working Americans. Before passing perhaps the biggest public bailout of corporate interests, the Democratic leadership needs to go before the people and clearly explain how and why this bailout will work, how it will be done, how it will be overseen, and how it will be paid for. If these issues are not clearly addressed in a rush to pass something, then the Democrats will also, rightly, face the ire of many outraged voters in November.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Sunday, September 21, 2008
A Financial Patriot Act
Twice in the George W. Bush era a catastrophe has had its epicenter on Wall Street. We know all about the first, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The second, the financial "storm" engulfing our corrupt banking and financial system, will now play itself out over the weeks and months to come. Already it has claimed hundreds of billions of dollars of the public trust, and the end may be nowhere in sight. The circumstances surrounding these two events, ironically, have much in common.
With it's head in the sand, ignoring ample warnings suggesting that strikes inside the US were likely being organized--recall the title of that Presidential Daily Briefing, "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US"--the Bush administration sleep-walked while the 9/11 attacks were being prepared and executed. The political results of that negligence we know all too well, expanded government powers; legislation gravely treading upon Constitutional liberties; a disastrous change in US foreign policy; torture, extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo Bay (to name but a few). Bad legislation was pushed through Congress and equally bad policies were foisted on an America kept fearful and ignorant by administration propaganda and deception. In a state of fear Congress rushed through the Orwellian-named "Patriot Act," provisions of which any true patriot would find unconscionable. Let us recap this sad tale. Those who were negligent, and by their negligence at least partially responsible, were left ultimately unaccountable, moreover, they were left in power, unchecked and with free reign to manage the aftermath of 9/11, to the disastrous ends we all now must live with.
Now, the American people, seemingly without a memory, are allowing a replay of this scenario to unfold, perhaps to equally disastrous ends. After eight years of corruption, deregulation, dismantling of any oversight and enforcement regime, and cheer-leading for corporate greed and excess, the same administration that napped while terrorists plotted, has been comatose while a largely foreseeable financial meltdown that may ultimately match or exceed the Great Depression, has been allowed to happen. And now, with the crisis at its apparent zenith, with fear and the professed need to act at near fever pitch, drastic solutions are being discussed by the administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress. Indeed, the first details of Treasury Secretary Paulson's proposed bail-out legislation has been made public this weekend, and from the looks of it has every indication of being a financial version of the Patriot Act. The remarkably terse text of the bill, essentially grants Paulson and the administration, a rolling $700 Billion slush fund with which to buy up the bad mortgage-related debts of ANY financial institution based in the US. How's that for broadly defined? Although it might seem that the $700 Billion is a cap, the text indicates that this is the amount that can be outstanding AT ANY GIVEN TIME. Thus, the total sum which American taxpayers could be on the hook for could be significantly more, say, several Trillion dollars! Now that's some serious coin! However, the most sinister and outrageous clause in the text is the following;
"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."
Yes, you might want to read that again. Decisions made by the Secretary regarding this Act would be NON-REVIEWABLE, by ANY agency, court or entity. This would be Congressionally mandated and approved fascism, nothing less. It would grant virtually unlimited financial power to the agents of the President without any accountability! Moreover, it would grant this authority to those who, Nero-like sat back, watched and indeed, precipitated the crisis with their disregard of their regulatory functions and pro-Wall Street legislation. But it would do even more than that, it would privatize the ill-gotten profits of these corporate criminals, while socializing all of the risk, on the backs of our kids, perhaps for decades to come. This is beyond outrageous. As Glenn Greenwald and others have pointed out, this should arguably be something of a "pitch-fork" moment, something that might actually get people out into the streets protesting, that is, if protests were still allowed. This must not be allowed to happen. Every thinking, responsible American needs to get on the phone and contact their representatives in Congress to oppose this monstrous draft bill.
While it may be true that some form of Government-sponsored bail-out is needed to stabilize the economy, all Americans should insist that it meet several conditions;
With it's head in the sand, ignoring ample warnings suggesting that strikes inside the US were likely being organized--recall the title of that Presidential Daily Briefing, "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US"--the Bush administration sleep-walked while the 9/11 attacks were being prepared and executed. The political results of that negligence we know all too well, expanded government powers; legislation gravely treading upon Constitutional liberties; a disastrous change in US foreign policy; torture, extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo Bay (to name but a few). Bad legislation was pushed through Congress and equally bad policies were foisted on an America kept fearful and ignorant by administration propaganda and deception. In a state of fear Congress rushed through the Orwellian-named "Patriot Act," provisions of which any true patriot would find unconscionable. Let us recap this sad tale. Those who were negligent, and by their negligence at least partially responsible, were left ultimately unaccountable, moreover, they were left in power, unchecked and with free reign to manage the aftermath of 9/11, to the disastrous ends we all now must live with.
Now, the American people, seemingly without a memory, are allowing a replay of this scenario to unfold, perhaps to equally disastrous ends. After eight years of corruption, deregulation, dismantling of any oversight and enforcement regime, and cheer-leading for corporate greed and excess, the same administration that napped while terrorists plotted, has been comatose while a largely foreseeable financial meltdown that may ultimately match or exceed the Great Depression, has been allowed to happen. And now, with the crisis at its apparent zenith, with fear and the professed need to act at near fever pitch, drastic solutions are being discussed by the administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress. Indeed, the first details of Treasury Secretary Paulson's proposed bail-out legislation has been made public this weekend, and from the looks of it has every indication of being a financial version of the Patriot Act. The remarkably terse text of the bill, essentially grants Paulson and the administration, a rolling $700 Billion slush fund with which to buy up the bad mortgage-related debts of ANY financial institution based in the US. How's that for broadly defined? Although it might seem that the $700 Billion is a cap, the text indicates that this is the amount that can be outstanding AT ANY GIVEN TIME. Thus, the total sum which American taxpayers could be on the hook for could be significantly more, say, several Trillion dollars! Now that's some serious coin! However, the most sinister and outrageous clause in the text is the following;
"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."
Yes, you might want to read that again. Decisions made by the Secretary regarding this Act would be NON-REVIEWABLE, by ANY agency, court or entity. This would be Congressionally mandated and approved fascism, nothing less. It would grant virtually unlimited financial power to the agents of the President without any accountability! Moreover, it would grant this authority to those who, Nero-like sat back, watched and indeed, precipitated the crisis with their disregard of their regulatory functions and pro-Wall Street legislation. But it would do even more than that, it would privatize the ill-gotten profits of these corporate criminals, while socializing all of the risk, on the backs of our kids, perhaps for decades to come. This is beyond outrageous. As Glenn Greenwald and others have pointed out, this should arguably be something of a "pitch-fork" moment, something that might actually get people out into the streets protesting, that is, if protests were still allowed. This must not be allowed to happen. Every thinking, responsible American needs to get on the phone and contact their representatives in Congress to oppose this monstrous draft bill.
While it may be true that some form of Government-sponsored bail-out is needed to stabilize the economy, all Americans should insist that it meet several conditions;
- It must not reward the perpetrators of this catastrophe. That is, the Wall Street fat-cats who gambled with the public's money, lost, and now wish to be repaid!
- It must be largely financed by those who sought to profit and brought about the conditions that precipitated the crisis. It must not be financed on the backs of the middle class and lower income Americans. This point has recently been emphasized by Independent Senator Bernie Sanders. Taxes should be raised on corporations and the wealthy, at a minimum.
- Any deal must be conditional on major changes to the current administration. At a minimum, those economic "stewards," the Treasury Secretary (Paulson) and Federal Reserve Chairman (Bernanke) who were so demonstrably wrong must resign. However, a more reasonable requirement for Democratic approval of some bail-out would be resignation of the President and Vice President.
- It must be accompanied by a return to close regulation and policing of the banking and finance industries, indeed, of all corporations. There can be no return to "business as usual." A new commitment to a corporate culture that benefits society must be enforced.
- Those responsible for the debacle must not be allowed to manage the aftermath, and must be held accountable for their negligence and malfeasance.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, September 5, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)