Last week I attended a scientific meeting in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Such trips usually are an occasion to catch up on some reading on the flights. In this case it was also an opportunity to gorge myself on as much green chile as possible, having obtained a serious chile addiction when I lived there. I managed to get through the bulk of Jane Mayer's, "The Dark Side," an unflinching look at how the Bush administration betrayed America's commitment to decency and the rule of law, and in its place implemented a criminal policy of torture and abuse of terror suspects, or even innocents caught up in its unbounded "war on terror."
Mayer documents the suffocating paranoia around the Bush inner circle in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In particular, there seemed to be a deeply held fear that subsequent attacks were imminent, and that these could somehow topple the Nation. Tinged with this fear for the Nation within the administration was also a dread that a substantial fraction of the blame would, rightly, fall on those in power, and thus derail their already sputtering agenda. This paranoia led the administration to construct its response largely as a military exercise, purposefully choosing not to solve the problem of terror in the context of law enforcement. This choice would eventually lead to disastrous consequences both for citizens at home and countless innocents in places as far reaching as Afghanistan and Iraq.
Out of this environment of fear those around Vice President Cheney saw an opportunity to finally reclaim executive power that had been relinquished in the aftermath of the disastrous war in Vietnam and the abuses of the Nixon administration. Indeed, Cheney and those around him sought to establish the "unitary executive," essentially the notion that the President is a law unto himself. While Mayer describes no end of illegal and unethical behavior within the administration, several disturbing themes become apparent. These include;
1) Absolute contempt for the law. Time and again when faced with possible legal impediments to their desired goals administration apparatchiks simply disregarded the law, or worse, presumed the power to interpret or re-write laws as they saw fit. The leading example of this was the "overthrow" of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) by a small handful of administration lawyers--including the now infamous John Yoo and Jay Bybee-- who would essentially presume the power to write legislation. Time and again the administration would cut-off debate or dissent by simply having its OLC junta craft an appropriate memo (edict might be a more accurate term), many of which would essentially argue that 2+2=5, the famous "torture memo" being the most well-known example. This use of an ostensibly independent agency (the Justice Department) as a de-facto internal legislative body effectively short-circuited the Constitution. As such, these machinations represented gross violations of the President's duties and oath to defend the Constitution and by themselves would constitute impeachable offenses, or worse.
2) Absolute contempt for the democratic process. It was remarkable the extent to which political appointees in relatively low-level positions were essentially making and implementing national policy, often in areas for which their positions had no official portfolio. The most egregious example of this behavior was within the Vice President's office, where David Addington, Cheney's legal counsel, wielded enormous influence on national security issues, an area in which he had no formal portfolio. Indeed, more than once had Addington driven other administration members to fits of rage by usurping their positions in the national security hierarchy. In particular, Addington, because of his closeness to Cheney, was able to influence policy surrounding detainee interrogation and disposition to an almost unbelievable extent. This became possible also because Cheney would apparently always have the last word with President Bush, essentially getting him to agree to anything the Vice President desired. While American democracy can only truly function within a partnership of the different branches of government, this notion of partnership was anathema to the Bushites. They sought to and did exclude any and all, in any branch of the government, who might be perceived as cool to their radical ideas. Often this was done with deception and dishonesty, or, more commonly, through intimidation and threats. So much for whistle-blower legal protections, oh, that's right, see 1) above.
3) An absolute commitment to secrecy and the impunity that it enables. The Bush administration expanded exponentially the use of the secret classification, and attempted to hide from public view almost anything that it perceived as controversial, which, as it turned it was most of their "war on terror" programs. Indeed, it can be argued that the Bush administration lowered the "state secret" defense to new levels of abuse. It becoming necessary to declare anything and everything a state secret that might reflect badly on the administration. Deeply troubling was the desire by some in the administration to empower secret special forces with the "authorization" to kill whomever was deemed necessary to eliminate, no matter where they may be. Sounds a lot like a "death squad" to my ears. Such secrecy and indeed, a devotion to it, are incompatible with a functioning democracy. It remains troubling that even under President Obama the Justice Department appears intent on defending much of the Bush administration's arguments concerning so-called state secrets. This is even more disconcerting in that it is now pretty clear that much of this secrecy was enacted to shield illegal conduct from public scrutiny.
4) Honorable Americans tried to do the right thing at almost every turn. One of the hopeful themes from "Dark Side" is that in most of the situations described, one or several agents within the government were committed to working within the framework of the law, and attempted to prevent the implementation of disastrous and illegal policies. A sobering realization, and which has crucial implications for future accountability, is how, invariably, they were unable to stop the Bush train. Indeed, a number of FBI agents were appalled by the nature of "enhanced" interrogation policies being implemented by the CIA. In several cases FBI agents had first begun interrogations of suspects using smart and legal methods of interrogation, and with much initial success, only for the CIA to subsequently be granted custody, and for the "gloves to come off." An invariable outcome of this was that the detainees would actually be less responsive with information. Also, with such tactics, it becomes impossible to gain information over the long term, and moreover, it becomes almost impossible for such coerced evidence to be used at trial.
Meanwhile, it's been remarkable to watch the recent torture "debate" in the corporate media. On the one hand it's rather astonishing to see the extent to which so-called mainstream outlets are willing to give former administration officials, most notably Cheney, a pulpit from which to proclaim the efficacy of "enhanced" techniques. On the other hand, one would have to search far and wide for even a brief discussion of the actual law and facts surrounding torture, which is actually quite clear and easily understood. I would argue that several factors contribute to this willingness. First, the conservative, right-wing, reactionary viewpoint of Cheney and his ilk is well represented in the corporate world of big media. For this fascist crowd the law is just a self-serving tool. Laws are for the other guy, we'll just do whatever we perceive to be in our interests, emphasis on the "our." Another angle is that corporate media loves a confrontation. The torture good or bad debate fits nicely into this framework. "Conservative" viewpoints, by definition one of the acceptable opinions, are always given a hearing, no matter how extreme, to perhaps be countered by the "liberal" viewpoint. No matter the laws broken, or the long-term, extensive damage done to American security and America's standing in the world, those who authored the torture policies and should, rightly, be facing prosecutions, can be paraded as patriots on America's corporate airwaves.
It is in such an environment that the new administration, and Democrats in general appear remarkably weak and unwilling to directly confront and oppose the question of "enhanced" interrogations. Democrats are unable, or perhaps simply unwilling, to articulate the fact based narrative of how Republican policies around the war on terror have left America much less secure. This is evidenced in Obama's willingness to adopt much of the Bush administrations framing of the global war on terror. Obama talks a good game, but when we look at the policy choices that have been made with regard to detainee treatment and the so-called war on terror in general, the pace of any change has been either depressingly slow or simply non-existent. Particularly troubling is the Obama administration's apparent unwillingness to seek investigations and prosecutions of former Bush administration officials for engineering a torture policy in clear violation of American and International law. If the rule of law means anything, then Obama needs to support a criminal investigation. If he does not, then those so inclined will draw the obvious conclusion, that they too can break the law as they see fit. It is indeed ironic that after a century of American leadership on human rights we may now have to wait for universal jurisdiction proceedings in a Spanish court to see some accountability for America's torturers.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
The "Bow" Situation
Wolf Blitzer must be the highest paid buffoon in the history of media buffoonery. Wolf hosts, among other things, CNN's "The Situation Room." Think generals huddled around a map contemplating movements of their military formations that could result in the end of the world as we know it. That's what CNN, and most of the rest of America's corporate media, would like us to think, that every "story" they report is of the utmost importance to the security of Americans, that even a simple greeting of a head of state could result in the "fall" of America. Thus, we are to think that Wolf, and his peers at other networks, are the epitome of seriousness, that they are perhaps amongst the most sanguine Americans, having been entrusted to such important positions. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The most recent episode underlining the complete bankruptcy of main-stream American "journalism" is the kerfuffle regarding President Obama's ostensible handshake and "bow" to the Saudi King. Obama, apparently meeting the king for the first time, leaned over and grasped his hands in greeting. Not an uncommon practice, but after the fact a stream of wing-nut conservatives grasped at this "subjugation" of ostensible American dominance to argue that Obama was one step from selling the country over to the Saudis. This, a non-story is ever there was one, became a lead item in the 24 hour news-cycle-driven lunacy that has become American corporate media. This would not be possible if not for "journalists" like Blitzer who will happily run with whatever ridiculousness is uttered by right-wing wack-jobs like Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, etc, etc, (add your favorite). Blitzer can, with a straight face, query his hand-picked guests, invariably someone with at least a tenuous connection with reality (the "liberal"), and a "conservative" for balance, in this particular case the former Bush White House press secretary, the hopelessly imbecilic Dana Perino, who was more than happy to argue that Obama was close to relinquishing the sovereignty of the United States. And they go back and forth, one side attempting to make some connection with reality, and the other completely off the rails. But, crucially, each is treated on an equal footing. The ridiculous assertions of Perino and the right wing echo chamber are granted de facto legitimacy, regardless of the factual content--or lack thereof-- of their assertions. This is what American media has become.
By definition there are two viewpoints that are allowed access, the "liberal," and "conservative," none others need apply. Both of these form the mainstream consensus. To large extent they support similar political viewpoints. Most importantly, both are subservient to private, corporate constituencies. Each side is allowed to express their opinions, and that is the "news." To large extent what each side says is, by definition, the news, and the primary function of American corporate media is to present the statements of each side, without any attempt to determine what might be factual and what might not. For the most part, the corporate media reflect the viewpoints of their owners and peers, which perhaps explains their willingness to present even the most laughable and ludicrous claims of the right as "news," "bow-gate" simply being the most recent example.
Our corporate media outlets have ceased to function as news agencies, rather, they are largely conveyors of propaganda, often hate-filled and dangerous, the most egregious recent examples coming from the tortured mind of Fox News' Glenn Beck. At a time of economic turmoil, with millions of people struggling to stay afloat, and anxious and uncertain about the future, this is a potentially explosive situation.
The most recent episode underlining the complete bankruptcy of main-stream American "journalism" is the kerfuffle regarding President Obama's ostensible handshake and "bow" to the Saudi King. Obama, apparently meeting the king for the first time, leaned over and grasped his hands in greeting. Not an uncommon practice, but after the fact a stream of wing-nut conservatives grasped at this "subjugation" of ostensible American dominance to argue that Obama was one step from selling the country over to the Saudis. This, a non-story is ever there was one, became a lead item in the 24 hour news-cycle-driven lunacy that has become American corporate media. This would not be possible if not for "journalists" like Blitzer who will happily run with whatever ridiculousness is uttered by right-wing wack-jobs like Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, etc, etc, (add your favorite). Blitzer can, with a straight face, query his hand-picked guests, invariably someone with at least a tenuous connection with reality (the "liberal"), and a "conservative" for balance, in this particular case the former Bush White House press secretary, the hopelessly imbecilic Dana Perino, who was more than happy to argue that Obama was close to relinquishing the sovereignty of the United States. And they go back and forth, one side attempting to make some connection with reality, and the other completely off the rails. But, crucially, each is treated on an equal footing. The ridiculous assertions of Perino and the right wing echo chamber are granted de facto legitimacy, regardless of the factual content--or lack thereof-- of their assertions. This is what American media has become.
By definition there are two viewpoints that are allowed access, the "liberal," and "conservative," none others need apply. Both of these form the mainstream consensus. To large extent they support similar political viewpoints. Most importantly, both are subservient to private, corporate constituencies. Each side is allowed to express their opinions, and that is the "news." To large extent what each side says is, by definition, the news, and the primary function of American corporate media is to present the statements of each side, without any attempt to determine what might be factual and what might not. For the most part, the corporate media reflect the viewpoints of their owners and peers, which perhaps explains their willingness to present even the most laughable and ludicrous claims of the right as "news," "bow-gate" simply being the most recent example.
Our corporate media outlets have ceased to function as news agencies, rather, they are largely conveyors of propaganda, often hate-filled and dangerous, the most egregious recent examples coming from the tortured mind of Fox News' Glenn Beck. At a time of economic turmoil, with millions of people struggling to stay afloat, and anxious and uncertain about the future, this is a potentially explosive situation.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Kickin' Up
The payment of upwards of $200 million in bonuses to employees of one-time insurance giant AIG, after said company was bailed out to the tune of $180 billion with hard-earned taxpayer money, has rightly led to a firestorm of indignation from the public and clearly vulnerable politicians and administration officials, including President Obama, with their fingerprints all over the odious bailout legislation and policies. Apparently, AIG execs paid out "retention" bonuses, some to the tune of more than $5 million, to individuals in its financial products unit, the very division responsible for bringing the company to its knees. The ostensible argument given by AIG generalissimo Edward Liddy was that these employees needed to be persuaded to stay with the company because they were the only ones with sufficient knowledge of all the murky "deals"--bets would be a more honest description--to allow the company to "unwind" the deals and extricate itself with a minimum of additional losses. That the AIG execs felt this was a proper decision shows us the depths to which our so called financial masters and their defenders and supporters in the government have fallen. And, go figure, a significant fraction of the "bonused" just took the money and ran. While a herd of politicians and current and former administration officials had initially sworn they had no prior knowledge of the bonuses, it is now clear that both the relevant Congressional leaders and Treasury officials knew that the payments would be made and acquiesced. Read, for example, the eloquent summary of current affairs by Alexander Cockburn at Counterpunch.
Let's get a few numbers out in the open that will let us gauge the level of greed and corruption which is now being evidenced. According to the Census Bureau, the median household income in the United States for 2007 was just about $50,000. That is, half of all households made less than this, and the other half made more. Since about the mid '70s average incomes for most American workers have remained flat or actually fallen. The only reason median household incomes have risen modestly is because more people are working per household, and generally working longer. Now, consider that some of the bonuses paid by AIG execs were in excess of $5,000,000, a sum 100 times greater than half the families in the US earn in a whole year. Next, consider that these sums were paid AFTER the company was near failure and was rescued by 10's of billions of taxpayer dollars, and with the tacit approval of government officials, and one begins to see that Americans have a right to be boiling mad over this intolerable state of affairs.
I've often wondered what it is that a corporate CEO does in each 8 hour day that would justify the incredible sums they are paid in compensation, often in the region of many millions of dollars per year, not even considering so-called bonuses! From recent events one can only conclude that the ability to run a company into the ground doesn't come cheap. Ironic how a chief argument of many corporate and Wall Street apologists has been the professed need to maintain exorbitant compensation and bonuses in order to keep the "best and brightest" at these firms. With talent like that Wall Street could afford some mediocrity, or better yet, downright incompetence! One of the more "creative" recent arguments put forth in support of the bonus payments has to be that of CNBC anchor Mark Haines who suggested that, "It’s just like when the Allies were victorious over Nazi Germany in World War II, when we occupied the country, we left a lot of Nazis in place because they were the ones who made the trains run on time and the bureaucracy function properly, etc. And it was distasteful, but you needed them." Like I said, creative. Insane, but creative.
While mainstream media attention on "bonus-gate" has shed some important light on the issue, as usual the more important story lies elsewhere, and serves to show the truly massive scale of the corruption on Wall Street and in the government as well. While AIG was "bailed-out" with more than $100 billion in public funds it now appears clear that a large fraction of this money was then funneled to the very same financial institutions--most notoriously Goldman Sachs, which received almost $13 billion--and that have been at the heart of the financial scandal and who themselves had to be rescued with billions of dollars of taxpayer funds. Democracy Now has an excellent story on this so-called "back-door bailout."
The dealing around Goldman in particular reeks of corruption. As Robert Scheer has ably discussed, the decision to save AIG, only days after Lehman Brothers had been allowed to fail, was reached after a meeting that included a host of former Goldman execs and proteges as well as the CEO of Goldman, the only CEO at the meeting. Participants at the meeting included then head of the NY Federal Reserve bank, and current Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner; and former CEO of Goldman and then Treasury secretary (in the Bush administration) Hank Paulson. All of these parties need to be subpoenaed to testify before Congress, if not a court of law, to answer some very serious questions. Principle among these is why the CEO of Goldman would even be permitted at such a meeting, with the company having upwards of $20 billion in toxic "bets" insured by AIG? If that's not a conflict of interest then I don't know the meaning of the phrase. Moreover, the fact that President Obama has moved a number of these people into his administration, including Geithner and Lawrence Summers, the protege of one-time Goldman CEO and Clinton administration Treasury secretary Robert Rubin, is deeply troubling. Recall that is was Rubin who led the Clinton administration's support for the Financial Services Modernization and Commodity Futures Modernization Acts, both of which became law and did anything but modernize the financial industry, and in fact paved the way to unregulated credit default swaps and other financial instruments of mass destruction, in the prophetic words of Warren Buffet. Given the magnitude of the plunder, and the degree of public outrage it is hard to see how Obama can continue to support Geithner. Indeed, if Obama wishes to maintain support from working people, then he should do an about-face and start fresh with a new economic team comprised of reputable Main-street economists and not a pack of Wall Street re-treads.
Or perhaps the whole scandal is simply revealing who is really in charge of our economy and government. Wall Street financial institutions, and other corporate interests generally, have been among the largest contributors to both major political parties for decades now. Moreover, the revolving door from government to Wall Street has been operating at full speed during this time. Little wonder then that government decisions on financial deregulation and the use of public money, have so often favored these financial robber barons.
In the world of organized crime the boss has the last say, and his lieutenants and foot soldiers have to go "upstairs" to get tacit approval for their deals and to keep the boss up to speed on what's going down. Or, at least, that's how the bosses would like it to go. OK, I confess to having watched a certain trilogy of Francis Ford Coppola films more than a few times! Another key aspect of the criminal underworld is that the junior guys have to "kick up" a decent percentage of proceeds from their dealing, and of course, everybody eventually kicks up to the boss. Maybe we're just seeing the "foot soldiers," our own elected representatives, kicking up to the real bosses, the financial oligarchs who seem increasingly to have the final say in decisions which impact all Americans. Moreover, the boss always holds the fear of reprisal over the heads of his underlings. Don't let the boss find out you've been holding out on a particular deal, that's a good way to get yourself whacked. It would seem that our real economic masters are now holding the whole country hostage with a similar kind of fear, "better pay up or we'll just whack the whole economy." While undoubtedly these analogies are not perfect, they seem to hold more than a grain of truth. Chiefly, that corruption is much more endemic to "free market" capitalism than is ever admitted in our supposedly free corporate media. We love to talk about the corruption present in other countries economies and governments, but nothing can compare to the levels of corruption we have seen on Wall Street recently, and which have had devastating consequences here and around the world.
Let's get a few numbers out in the open that will let us gauge the level of greed and corruption which is now being evidenced. According to the Census Bureau, the median household income in the United States for 2007 was just about $50,000. That is, half of all households made less than this, and the other half made more. Since about the mid '70s average incomes for most American workers have remained flat or actually fallen. The only reason median household incomes have risen modestly is because more people are working per household, and generally working longer. Now, consider that some of the bonuses paid by AIG execs were in excess of $5,000,000, a sum 100 times greater than half the families in the US earn in a whole year. Next, consider that these sums were paid AFTER the company was near failure and was rescued by 10's of billions of taxpayer dollars, and with the tacit approval of government officials, and one begins to see that Americans have a right to be boiling mad over this intolerable state of affairs.
I've often wondered what it is that a corporate CEO does in each 8 hour day that would justify the incredible sums they are paid in compensation, often in the region of many millions of dollars per year, not even considering so-called bonuses! From recent events one can only conclude that the ability to run a company into the ground doesn't come cheap. Ironic how a chief argument of many corporate and Wall Street apologists has been the professed need to maintain exorbitant compensation and bonuses in order to keep the "best and brightest" at these firms. With talent like that Wall Street could afford some mediocrity, or better yet, downright incompetence! One of the more "creative" recent arguments put forth in support of the bonus payments has to be that of CNBC anchor Mark Haines who suggested that, "It’s just like when the Allies were victorious over Nazi Germany in World War II, when we occupied the country, we left a lot of Nazis in place because they were the ones who made the trains run on time and the bureaucracy function properly, etc. And it was distasteful, but you needed them." Like I said, creative. Insane, but creative.
While mainstream media attention on "bonus-gate" has shed some important light on the issue, as usual the more important story lies elsewhere, and serves to show the truly massive scale of the corruption on Wall Street and in the government as well. While AIG was "bailed-out" with more than $100 billion in public funds it now appears clear that a large fraction of this money was then funneled to the very same financial institutions--most notoriously Goldman Sachs, which received almost $13 billion--and that have been at the heart of the financial scandal and who themselves had to be rescued with billions of dollars of taxpayer funds. Democracy Now has an excellent story on this so-called "back-door bailout."
The dealing around Goldman in particular reeks of corruption. As Robert Scheer has ably discussed, the decision to save AIG, only days after Lehman Brothers had been allowed to fail, was reached after a meeting that included a host of former Goldman execs and proteges as well as the CEO of Goldman, the only CEO at the meeting. Participants at the meeting included then head of the NY Federal Reserve bank, and current Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner; and former CEO of Goldman and then Treasury secretary (in the Bush administration) Hank Paulson. All of these parties need to be subpoenaed to testify before Congress, if not a court of law, to answer some very serious questions. Principle among these is why the CEO of Goldman would even be permitted at such a meeting, with the company having upwards of $20 billion in toxic "bets" insured by AIG? If that's not a conflict of interest then I don't know the meaning of the phrase. Moreover, the fact that President Obama has moved a number of these people into his administration, including Geithner and Lawrence Summers, the protege of one-time Goldman CEO and Clinton administration Treasury secretary Robert Rubin, is deeply troubling. Recall that is was Rubin who led the Clinton administration's support for the Financial Services Modernization and Commodity Futures Modernization Acts, both of which became law and did anything but modernize the financial industry, and in fact paved the way to unregulated credit default swaps and other financial instruments of mass destruction, in the prophetic words of Warren Buffet. Given the magnitude of the plunder, and the degree of public outrage it is hard to see how Obama can continue to support Geithner. Indeed, if Obama wishes to maintain support from working people, then he should do an about-face and start fresh with a new economic team comprised of reputable Main-street economists and not a pack of Wall Street re-treads.
Or perhaps the whole scandal is simply revealing who is really in charge of our economy and government. Wall Street financial institutions, and other corporate interests generally, have been among the largest contributors to both major political parties for decades now. Moreover, the revolving door from government to Wall Street has been operating at full speed during this time. Little wonder then that government decisions on financial deregulation and the use of public money, have so often favored these financial robber barons.
In the world of organized crime the boss has the last say, and his lieutenants and foot soldiers have to go "upstairs" to get tacit approval for their deals and to keep the boss up to speed on what's going down. Or, at least, that's how the bosses would like it to go. OK, I confess to having watched a certain trilogy of Francis Ford Coppola films more than a few times! Another key aspect of the criminal underworld is that the junior guys have to "kick up" a decent percentage of proceeds from their dealing, and of course, everybody eventually kicks up to the boss. Maybe we're just seeing the "foot soldiers," our own elected representatives, kicking up to the real bosses, the financial oligarchs who seem increasingly to have the final say in decisions which impact all Americans. Moreover, the boss always holds the fear of reprisal over the heads of his underlings. Don't let the boss find out you've been holding out on a particular deal, that's a good way to get yourself whacked. It would seem that our real economic masters are now holding the whole country hostage with a similar kind of fear, "better pay up or we'll just whack the whole economy." While undoubtedly these analogies are not perfect, they seem to hold more than a grain of truth. Chiefly, that corruption is much more endemic to "free market" capitalism than is ever admitted in our supposedly free corporate media. We love to talk about the corruption present in other countries economies and governments, but nothing can compare to the levels of corruption we have seen on Wall Street recently, and which have had devastating consequences here and around the world.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Jindal's World
This was not a fair fight. No, this was more along the lines of Ali - Liston. Bobby Jindal was completely over-matched, and it showed. Rather than getting bludgeoned by speedy fists, he was furiously pelted by someone who knows how to craft a sentence above the 8th grade level. This, apparently, is not something that can be said about Jindal's speech writer! Maybe Jindal can at least use that old excuse, "hey, I didn't write it, I just had to read it."
It's hard to know what planet Bobby -- "Americans can do anything" -- Jindal, and by implication the bulk of the Republican Party, has been living on for the past few years, but it clearly has not been the same one the rest of us toil upon. This short speech, all of 12+ minutes, was an exercise in self delusion. Jindal attempted to blame Democrats for "Big Government," deficit spending only a month or so after the end of a singularly disastrous period of Republican governance. A period in which Jindal's party took Clinton surpluses and proceeded to run them up into the most fantastic deficits in our country's history. Jindal argued that "... Democrats have spent our children's money on things we don't need." How quaint, apparently Jindal is not familiar with such prudent Republican spending as, say, the IRAQ WAR?
About mid-way through his remarks, Jindal, seeking to thump away on that old GOP meme about how government is really the problem, uttered this bit of balderdash from between his lips, "THE STRENGTH OF AMERICA IS NOT FOUND IN OUR GOVERNMENT." Wow, at a time when many Americans are really facing difficult and uncertain times, only the Republicans would stoop so low as to try and further alienate people from the one remaining institution that can and should be a source of aid, their very own government.
If we are indeed a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then what else can we draw from this shocking statement other than that Jindal does not really believe we are a strong people, and with compassion, should help one another through our shared government. Moreover, aside from the astonishing nonsense of what he's saying, if Jindal and other Republicans really believe this tripe, then why do they want to be a part of our government, that is, to govern? Why does anyone in Jindal's Party want to be part of the government? As far as I'm concerned they can do the rest of us a big favor and just stay home and leave the governing to adults. We'd all be a lot better off, Republicans included.
Jindal then moved on to a few other hot-button issues, notable among these was health care. He had the chutzpah to suggest that Republicans want, and by implication are working for, universal health care for all Americans. This was classic right-wing smoke and mirrors. This bald-faced fib comes from the spokesman of the Party that had been in power for eight straight years--with control of both the Congress and White House for most of it--and that did exactly NOTHING on health care!! Indeed, they clearly love health care so much that Jindal's own President vetoed health care for children, twice! Now that's what I call tough love.
According to Jindal, "Americans can do anything." While I generally share Jindal's professed belief in the resilience of my fellow citizens, I was always taught that one should also be honest when making self assessments. Indeed, given the current state of affairs in the Nation, it would appear to seeing eyes that there are a few things that Americans cannot seem to do. These would include, for example; 1) Managing banks. 2) Managing large manufacturing enterprises, such as, for example, car companies. 3) Finding weapons of mass destruction. 4) Providing health care for all our citizens. Interestingly, of the first three items listed I'm willing to bet that the particular Americans who can't seem to do these things are overwhelmingly registered Republicans. Funny how that is. Moreover, these are examples where government was taken "out of the way," so to speak, so as to let those enterprising Americans in charge of our corporations lead us all to financial nirvana. Isn't it just a tad ironic that after working so vigorously to "get government off their backs," these Americans whom Jindal argues can do anything are the first to run to Uncle Sam to get on the public bailout dole?
Maybe the strength of America really should be and needs to be in it's government? At any rate, it presently is most certainly not found in it's Republican-stuffed corporate board-rooms! While that conclusion should be as emphatically clear as an Ali jab, you can be sure that you would never hear it cross the lips of Bobby Jindal.
It's hard to know what planet Bobby -- "Americans can do anything" -- Jindal, and by implication the bulk of the Republican Party, has been living on for the past few years, but it clearly has not been the same one the rest of us toil upon. This short speech, all of 12+ minutes, was an exercise in self delusion. Jindal attempted to blame Democrats for "Big Government," deficit spending only a month or so after the end of a singularly disastrous period of Republican governance. A period in which Jindal's party took Clinton surpluses and proceeded to run them up into the most fantastic deficits in our country's history. Jindal argued that "... Democrats have spent our children's money on things we don't need." How quaint, apparently Jindal is not familiar with such prudent Republican spending as, say, the IRAQ WAR?
About mid-way through his remarks, Jindal, seeking to thump away on that old GOP meme about how government is really the problem, uttered this bit of balderdash from between his lips, "THE STRENGTH OF AMERICA IS NOT FOUND IN OUR GOVERNMENT." Wow, at a time when many Americans are really facing difficult and uncertain times, only the Republicans would stoop so low as to try and further alienate people from the one remaining institution that can and should be a source of aid, their very own government.
If we are indeed a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then what else can we draw from this shocking statement other than that Jindal does not really believe we are a strong people, and with compassion, should help one another through our shared government. Moreover, aside from the astonishing nonsense of what he's saying, if Jindal and other Republicans really believe this tripe, then why do they want to be a part of our government, that is, to govern? Why does anyone in Jindal's Party want to be part of the government? As far as I'm concerned they can do the rest of us a big favor and just stay home and leave the governing to adults. We'd all be a lot better off, Republicans included.
Jindal then moved on to a few other hot-button issues, notable among these was health care. He had the chutzpah to suggest that Republicans want, and by implication are working for, universal health care for all Americans. This was classic right-wing smoke and mirrors. This bald-faced fib comes from the spokesman of the Party that had been in power for eight straight years--with control of both the Congress and White House for most of it--and that did exactly NOTHING on health care!! Indeed, they clearly love health care so much that Jindal's own President vetoed health care for children, twice! Now that's what I call tough love.
According to Jindal, "Americans can do anything." While I generally share Jindal's professed belief in the resilience of my fellow citizens, I was always taught that one should also be honest when making self assessments. Indeed, given the current state of affairs in the Nation, it would appear to seeing eyes that there are a few things that Americans cannot seem to do. These would include, for example; 1) Managing banks. 2) Managing large manufacturing enterprises, such as, for example, car companies. 3) Finding weapons of mass destruction. 4) Providing health care for all our citizens. Interestingly, of the first three items listed I'm willing to bet that the particular Americans who can't seem to do these things are overwhelmingly registered Republicans. Funny how that is. Moreover, these are examples where government was taken "out of the way," so to speak, so as to let those enterprising Americans in charge of our corporations lead us all to financial nirvana. Isn't it just a tad ironic that after working so vigorously to "get government off their backs," these Americans whom Jindal argues can do anything are the first to run to Uncle Sam to get on the public bailout dole?
Maybe the strength of America really should be and needs to be in it's government? At any rate, it presently is most certainly not found in it's Republican-stuffed corporate board-rooms! While that conclusion should be as emphatically clear as an Ali jab, you can be sure that you would never hear it cross the lips of Bobby Jindal.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Guitar tracks
In one of my first posts I indicated that I am a guitar hobbyist, and that I would try and post some examples of my playing. So here are a few songs. Please comment if you like, but keep in mind that the operative term is hobbyist. One of the tracks has my son doing back-up vocals of a sort, he was whining about how hungry he was, hence the name. Just click on the title, and you should find the mp3 files. I also added a link above my blog-list. Enjoy.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Bad Banking
If even after what seems a never ending string of financial debacles you were still not completely convinced that the status of the US economy was anything but abysmal, then ruminating on the following chart for just a few seconds should help to remove any remaining optimism. The figure, compiled by Speaker of the House Pelosi's office, shows the run of job losses for several recent recessions and compares them with our current economic downturn. You can easily pick out the "Republican Depression" (ie. our current economic nightmare), it's the green curve that is heading South faster than a jackrabbit fleeing the gun sights of Dick Cheney. The scary thing, other than there being no evidence for a slowing in job losses, is that it's not even clear that the rate of job losses has reached it's peak. That is, the next few months could see the economy shed even more jobs than the last few.
Having gotten their proverbial butts kicked in the recent election, the Republicans were keen to make some changes to show voters and their constituents that they had not become completely irrelevant. Thus, newly elected National Committee Chair Michael Steele's first public utterances were basically along the lines of, "wrong? what's wrong? there's nothing wrong with our party, we just have to do a better job of selling our ideas." Yes, I kid you not, it was the old, we're just not good salesmen routine. Well Michael, good luck with that.
But not to worry so much, the Republicans did manage to latch onto what they argued was a "winning" political issue, watering down and stalling what almost all reputable economists consider a vital government spending program to stimulate the "rigor mortising" economy. Not a single House Republican saw fit to vote in favor of Obama's economic recovery plan, that's right, not a single one! And over in the Senate, mental steam engines such as Mitch McConnell were arguing that the bill did not have, wait for it, enough tax cuts! Even in the face of overwhelming data that shows that the fastest way to stimulate the economy, read add jobs, is by direct government spending--and essentially everyone agrees that creating more jobs is our most pressing economic need--the Republicans are still calling for more tax cuts. Word has it that the new Republican leadership is also working on the tax cut cure for cancer bill. Maybe they should get Michael Steele working on that.
Unfortunately, the Democrats, and President Obama in particular, have not done a good job of explaining why the spending plan is so important, nor countering the specious arguments put forth by Republicans and their echo chamber of talking heads in the main stream media. Rather, Obama seemed to be selling a "bipartisanship" stimulus bill, almost as if "bipartisanship" would feed hungry mouths, and keep roofs over people's heads. "Johnny, be a good boy and pass me another helping of the bipartisanship, please." Of course, there is nothing inherently problematic about seeking votes and allies across the aisle, however, it should not be a requirement for passage of a bill, particularly when the other side preconditions its support on the same failed policies that wrecked America in the first place. In such a case, the President needs to be much more aggressive in pushing the right ideas and facing down the Republicans when they propose the same useless and counterproductive policies. Indeed, Obama's desire for the illusive "bipartisanship" has resulted in a bill out of the Senate that cut too much useful spending and included ineffective tax cuts, simply to get all of three Republican votes. No, if Republicans cannot see fit to do the right thing, then Obama needs to get tough and go directly before the American people and hammer the Republicans as the Party of Herbert Hoover, that, having driven the ship of state over a cliff, are now unwilling to aid in its recovery.
Of course, with the Republicans having suddenly discovered a voice for fiscal restraint (after running up the biggest deficits in history, and amidst a depression no less), it was not much of a surprise that they could find many a willing media servant, who, if not mouthing Republican talking points verbatim, could at least be counted on to completely obfuscate the truth. Most notable in this regard was the vanilla-brained Charlie (don't call me Charles) Gibson of ABC News. In perhaps a record low moment (among many) Gibson, while questioning President Obama couldn't seem to get his little head around the concept that government spending is, by definition, economic stimulus. Gibson argued that, "a lot of people have said it's a spending bill and not a stimulus." So much for not being able to grasp perhaps the most fundamental fact surrounding the issue. Not even able to grasp this truism, how could we expect anything more but pablum from Gibson. As economist Dean Baker so eloquently put it, "Spending that is not stimulus is like cash that is not money. Spending is stimulus, spending is stimulus. Any spending will generate jobs. It is that simple. ... Any reporter who does not understand this fact has no business reporting on the economy." How much is ABC paying Charlie Gibson?
Meanwhile, all is clearly not the "Change We Need" in the White House. Evidence of this is clear in Obama's selections to head his economic team. Both Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and chief economic advisor, and ex-Clintonista, Lawrence Summers are so deeply entrenched in the policy and regulatory regimes that helped to fuel and precipitate the crisis, that one can still see the umbilical cords connecting them with Wall Street. Indeed, Geithner only just recently "announced" his new plan for Treasury to prop up the collapsing banks. I put announced in quotes because when you discuss a plan but then give essential no specifics, it's not really much of an announcement is it? The response from investors was swift, they either couldn't figure out what Geithner was actually talking about doing or they felt that it perhaps wasn't the "sweet-heart" deal that they had quite hoped for from the former Wall Street man. Either way, the stock market took another significant vacation in a southerly direction.
From Geithner's terse statements and pronouncements since, it has become clear that one aspect of the new bailout plan is the formation of a fed-run "bad bank" that will essentially accrue to itself much of the toxic securities that many banks find in abundance on their rose-red balance sheets. Of course, the name is telling, because the joke's on us, guess who the "bad bankers" are? That's right, it's just us poor tax paying suckers who are going to get stuck with all the bad debts made by these rich folks for whom the requirement of being restricted to, say a paltry salary of $500,000 a year is a travesty to scarring to bear. And what do we get for assuming all the risk in this little transaction? In real capitalism those who assume the risks stand to receive the biggest rewards, but not so much in this case. There is no indication that Geithner intends to obtain stakes in the bailed out banks for the government, so that taxpayers would get some compensation if and when the banks become profitable. But this is certainly not "real" capitalism. No, what we are witnessing here is more socialism for the rich, and social Darwinism for the rest of us. This is effectively the same dynamic that has led us to this point. Profits are privatized, but losses and risk are subsidized with the public's money. Put more simply, gamblers get to play at the table with someone elses money. Not the kind of system that you would expect to generate probity and restraint is it? Nope, the operating term here is corruption of the highest order.
At this stage a much more sensible, equitable, and arguably effective plan would be for receivership (ie, nationalization) of the failed and failing institutions. Indeed, many of the economists who foresaw the devastation and were ignored are calling for nationalization as the most effective solution, but the voices of those who best understood the situation and saw it coming continue to be largely ignored. A good example here is Nouriel Roubini, professor of economics at the Stern School, NY and no communist he, who argues eloquently that from a pragmatic standpoint the only remaining workable solution is nationalization. Let's see how long it takes the likes of Geithner and Summers to reach the same conclusion. I won't be holding my breath.
Having gotten their proverbial butts kicked in the recent election, the Republicans were keen to make some changes to show voters and their constituents that they had not become completely irrelevant. Thus, newly elected National Committee Chair Michael Steele's first public utterances were basically along the lines of, "wrong? what's wrong? there's nothing wrong with our party, we just have to do a better job of selling our ideas." Yes, I kid you not, it was the old, we're just not good salesmen routine. Well Michael, good luck with that.
But not to worry so much, the Republicans did manage to latch onto what they argued was a "winning" political issue, watering down and stalling what almost all reputable economists consider a vital government spending program to stimulate the "rigor mortising" economy. Not a single House Republican saw fit to vote in favor of Obama's economic recovery plan, that's right, not a single one! And over in the Senate, mental steam engines such as Mitch McConnell were arguing that the bill did not have, wait for it, enough tax cuts! Even in the face of overwhelming data that shows that the fastest way to stimulate the economy, read add jobs, is by direct government spending--and essentially everyone agrees that creating more jobs is our most pressing economic need--the Republicans are still calling for more tax cuts. Word has it that the new Republican leadership is also working on the tax cut cure for cancer bill. Maybe they should get Michael Steele working on that.
Unfortunately, the Democrats, and President Obama in particular, have not done a good job of explaining why the spending plan is so important, nor countering the specious arguments put forth by Republicans and their echo chamber of talking heads in the main stream media. Rather, Obama seemed to be selling a "bipartisanship" stimulus bill, almost as if "bipartisanship" would feed hungry mouths, and keep roofs over people's heads. "Johnny, be a good boy and pass me another helping of the bipartisanship, please." Of course, there is nothing inherently problematic about seeking votes and allies across the aisle, however, it should not be a requirement for passage of a bill, particularly when the other side preconditions its support on the same failed policies that wrecked America in the first place. In such a case, the President needs to be much more aggressive in pushing the right ideas and facing down the Republicans when they propose the same useless and counterproductive policies. Indeed, Obama's desire for the illusive "bipartisanship" has resulted in a bill out of the Senate that cut too much useful spending and included ineffective tax cuts, simply to get all of three Republican votes. No, if Republicans cannot see fit to do the right thing, then Obama needs to get tough and go directly before the American people and hammer the Republicans as the Party of Herbert Hoover, that, having driven the ship of state over a cliff, are now unwilling to aid in its recovery.
Of course, with the Republicans having suddenly discovered a voice for fiscal restraint (after running up the biggest deficits in history, and amidst a depression no less), it was not much of a surprise that they could find many a willing media servant, who, if not mouthing Republican talking points verbatim, could at least be counted on to completely obfuscate the truth. Most notable in this regard was the vanilla-brained Charlie (don't call me Charles) Gibson of ABC News. In perhaps a record low moment (among many) Gibson, while questioning President Obama couldn't seem to get his little head around the concept that government spending is, by definition, economic stimulus. Gibson argued that, "a lot of people have said it's a spending bill and not a stimulus." So much for not being able to grasp perhaps the most fundamental fact surrounding the issue. Not even able to grasp this truism, how could we expect anything more but pablum from Gibson. As economist Dean Baker so eloquently put it, "Spending that is not stimulus is like cash that is not money. Spending is stimulus, spending is stimulus. Any spending will generate jobs. It is that simple. ... Any reporter who does not understand this fact has no business reporting on the economy." How much is ABC paying Charlie Gibson?
Meanwhile, all is clearly not the "Change We Need" in the White House. Evidence of this is clear in Obama's selections to head his economic team. Both Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and chief economic advisor, and ex-Clintonista, Lawrence Summers are so deeply entrenched in the policy and regulatory regimes that helped to fuel and precipitate the crisis, that one can still see the umbilical cords connecting them with Wall Street. Indeed, Geithner only just recently "announced" his new plan for Treasury to prop up the collapsing banks. I put announced in quotes because when you discuss a plan but then give essential no specifics, it's not really much of an announcement is it? The response from investors was swift, they either couldn't figure out what Geithner was actually talking about doing or they felt that it perhaps wasn't the "sweet-heart" deal that they had quite hoped for from the former Wall Street man. Either way, the stock market took another significant vacation in a southerly direction.
From Geithner's terse statements and pronouncements since, it has become clear that one aspect of the new bailout plan is the formation of a fed-run "bad bank" that will essentially accrue to itself much of the toxic securities that many banks find in abundance on their rose-red balance sheets. Of course, the name is telling, because the joke's on us, guess who the "bad bankers" are? That's right, it's just us poor tax paying suckers who are going to get stuck with all the bad debts made by these rich folks for whom the requirement of being restricted to, say a paltry salary of $500,000 a year is a travesty to scarring to bear. And what do we get for assuming all the risk in this little transaction? In real capitalism those who assume the risks stand to receive the biggest rewards, but not so much in this case. There is no indication that Geithner intends to obtain stakes in the bailed out banks for the government, so that taxpayers would get some compensation if and when the banks become profitable. But this is certainly not "real" capitalism. No, what we are witnessing here is more socialism for the rich, and social Darwinism for the rest of us. This is effectively the same dynamic that has led us to this point. Profits are privatized, but losses and risk are subsidized with the public's money. Put more simply, gamblers get to play at the table with someone elses money. Not the kind of system that you would expect to generate probity and restraint is it? Nope, the operating term here is corruption of the highest order.
At this stage a much more sensible, equitable, and arguably effective plan would be for receivership (ie, nationalization) of the failed and failing institutions. Indeed, many of the economists who foresaw the devastation and were ignored are calling for nationalization as the most effective solution, but the voices of those who best understood the situation and saw it coming continue to be largely ignored. A good example here is Nouriel Roubini, professor of economics at the Stern School, NY and no communist he, who argues eloquently that from a pragmatic standpoint the only remaining workable solution is nationalization. Let's see how long it takes the likes of Geithner and Summers to reach the same conclusion. I won't be holding my breath.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Depressed
As the Nation sinks deeper and deeper into the Bush Depression and the professed "small government" conservative ideologues of the administration throw around more and more billions of dollars of "bailouts," the priorities of a corrupt and wretched economic system are brought into sharp focus. The capitalist system has but one master, money. Decisions are taken such that the only consideration is that those with money can make more money. If that means that others would suffer so that "Capital" can profit, then so be it, money knows no ethics but money. There are essentially no rules. While a giant edifice of "lawfulness" has been erected around the system, at it's core it is the essence of lawlessness, take from others so that I may profit. How else to see the massive frauds that are routinely perpetrated on the powerless by the powerful. How else to see a world where 5% have accumulated most of the wealth, while 4 billion people toil in misery day in and day out. As long as the interests of money are served, then essentially any means can be justified.
That people are fed; children clothed, sheltered and educated; the sick cared for, then it is only a secondary outcome, as these basic human rights barely enter into the calculations of how money will seek more money. Indeed, such is the situation in our Nation today that the seeking of money will effectively determine if the sick are cared for. A more profoundly anti-human principle can scarcely be envisioned, yet our economic masters preach that it is the only way, as if the right of Capital to seek ever more profit were a natural law, akin to gravity or electrodynamics.
The worship of money is clearly seen in the recent response to the implosion of the Wall Street investment banks and the more recent, impending bankruptcy of the US automobile industry. The Wall Street financiers were provided with upwards of 700 billion dollars of bailout funds, and nary a single bank executive was required to appear before Congress to account for their catastrophic mismanagement, corruption and malfeasance, or explain how the public's largesse would not end up in the same rat-hole as the rest of their capital. No, the bailout was passed in a near-frenzy of media-induced panic, and subsequently, it seems not to have had any of its professed effects, the economic crisis only deepening, and banks remaining largely unwilling to lend. It did, however, manage to burden future generations with an even larger mountain of debt, and to transfer a huge sum of public funds to private hands, one of the few things that the Bush administration has been any good at. Maddeningly, perhaps as much as 1.6 billion of the funds went to the CEOs of bailed out institutions, in the form of bonuses and other compensation!
Consider next the treatment of the leaders of the US automobile industry. They were seeking a mere 30 billion dollars or so, a sum twenty times less than the titans of finance were bequeathed, but the Big Three auto CEOs were required to testify at congressional hearings, during which they were chastised and skewered for their abysmal management of their companies. It didn't help matters that they flew into Washington in the lap of luxury aboard their corporate jets. It would seem that no level of failure is sufficient to abrogate certain executive privileges. Indeed, in order to sway the Republican side of the aisle, the execs were required to submit a plan that would demonstrate how they planned to return to profitability. Moreover, this was apparently also an opportune time for Republicans to blame unionized American auto workers, and insist that they grant wage and benefits concessions which would put them on a par with their non-unionized brethren toiling for foreign automakers on American soil. Particularly repulsive was the sight of southern Senators, such as Kentucky's insipid Mitch McConnell, carrying water for foreign corporations like Toyota and Honda that employ non-unionized workers in their states. Here we had US politicians, with flags pinned to their lapels, insisting on reduced wages and benefits for American workers in the interests of foreign-owned companies. McConnell's "Grinchiness" did not escape the ire of many labor organizations, including the California Nurses Association. Indeed, it might be argued that the tax breaks and cheaper labor offered by southern states like Alabama and Kentucky to attract foreign manufacturers has been part of the demise of the US auto industry. Ah, but that's the "beauty" of the free market, the only thing that matters is the bottom line. Presumably, corporate bag-men like McConnell will not be satisfied until all American workers are toiling at subsistence wages, purely in the interests of Big Money.
A deeper irony is that the "success" of the financial industry represents the victory of the "paper" economy over the "nuts and bolts", manufacturing economy. It used to be that American wealth was founded on the manufacture of durable goods, but with the globalization of capital, manufacturing has been steadily "out-sourced" to regions with relatively low wages and lax labor laws. The factories of China and the maquiladoras of Mexico come to mind. This left finance and service industries as the remaining growth areas, but these industries are not truly generators of new wealth, they just tried to tap into existing wealth, or worse, financed the perpetuation of America's consumption economy on a mountain of debt. That debt is now burying us all, and as the bills come due, we are witnessing a steady contraction in US economic output.
Another irony is that none of this is new. We have seen the inherent instability in the capitalist system now for more than a century. The struggles of working people have managed to dull the sharp blade of capitalist downturns, winning many battles that acted to civilize the workplace, among these the 8 hour day and the 5 day work-week, and to erect a meaningful, if shaky, safety net in the form of government assistance programs and controls on capital. How quickly we forget though, and given the opportunity and their enormous financial power and the political influence it can buy, economic elites have been quick to attempt to redress the gains of working people and once again put everyone at the service of capital.
Although times are hard, a window of opportunity can be opened with the education of more people to the true realities of an unregulated capitalist system. With a new President about to take office, a President willing to listen to the needs of working people, we have a chance to try and address the fundamental problems with our present economic system. We should insist that economic decisions be based on real human values, and not simply the desire to maximize profits at all costs.
That people are fed; children clothed, sheltered and educated; the sick cared for, then it is only a secondary outcome, as these basic human rights barely enter into the calculations of how money will seek more money. Indeed, such is the situation in our Nation today that the seeking of money will effectively determine if the sick are cared for. A more profoundly anti-human principle can scarcely be envisioned, yet our economic masters preach that it is the only way, as if the right of Capital to seek ever more profit were a natural law, akin to gravity or electrodynamics.
The worship of money is clearly seen in the recent response to the implosion of the Wall Street investment banks and the more recent, impending bankruptcy of the US automobile industry. The Wall Street financiers were provided with upwards of 700 billion dollars of bailout funds, and nary a single bank executive was required to appear before Congress to account for their catastrophic mismanagement, corruption and malfeasance, or explain how the public's largesse would not end up in the same rat-hole as the rest of their capital. No, the bailout was passed in a near-frenzy of media-induced panic, and subsequently, it seems not to have had any of its professed effects, the economic crisis only deepening, and banks remaining largely unwilling to lend. It did, however, manage to burden future generations with an even larger mountain of debt, and to transfer a huge sum of public funds to private hands, one of the few things that the Bush administration has been any good at. Maddeningly, perhaps as much as 1.6 billion of the funds went to the CEOs of bailed out institutions, in the form of bonuses and other compensation!
Consider next the treatment of the leaders of the US automobile industry. They were seeking a mere 30 billion dollars or so, a sum twenty times less than the titans of finance were bequeathed, but the Big Three auto CEOs were required to testify at congressional hearings, during which they were chastised and skewered for their abysmal management of their companies. It didn't help matters that they flew into Washington in the lap of luxury aboard their corporate jets. It would seem that no level of failure is sufficient to abrogate certain executive privileges. Indeed, in order to sway the Republican side of the aisle, the execs were required to submit a plan that would demonstrate how they planned to return to profitability. Moreover, this was apparently also an opportune time for Republicans to blame unionized American auto workers, and insist that they grant wage and benefits concessions which would put them on a par with their non-unionized brethren toiling for foreign automakers on American soil. Particularly repulsive was the sight of southern Senators, such as Kentucky's insipid Mitch McConnell, carrying water for foreign corporations like Toyota and Honda that employ non-unionized workers in their states. Here we had US politicians, with flags pinned to their lapels, insisting on reduced wages and benefits for American workers in the interests of foreign-owned companies. McConnell's "Grinchiness" did not escape the ire of many labor organizations, including the California Nurses Association. Indeed, it might be argued that the tax breaks and cheaper labor offered by southern states like Alabama and Kentucky to attract foreign manufacturers has been part of the demise of the US auto industry. Ah, but that's the "beauty" of the free market, the only thing that matters is the bottom line. Presumably, corporate bag-men like McConnell will not be satisfied until all American workers are toiling at subsistence wages, purely in the interests of Big Money.
A deeper irony is that the "success" of the financial industry represents the victory of the "paper" economy over the "nuts and bolts", manufacturing economy. It used to be that American wealth was founded on the manufacture of durable goods, but with the globalization of capital, manufacturing has been steadily "out-sourced" to regions with relatively low wages and lax labor laws. The factories of China and the maquiladoras of Mexico come to mind. This left finance and service industries as the remaining growth areas, but these industries are not truly generators of new wealth, they just tried to tap into existing wealth, or worse, financed the perpetuation of America's consumption economy on a mountain of debt. That debt is now burying us all, and as the bills come due, we are witnessing a steady contraction in US economic output.
Another irony is that none of this is new. We have seen the inherent instability in the capitalist system now for more than a century. The struggles of working people have managed to dull the sharp blade of capitalist downturns, winning many battles that acted to civilize the workplace, among these the 8 hour day and the 5 day work-week, and to erect a meaningful, if shaky, safety net in the form of government assistance programs and controls on capital. How quickly we forget though, and given the opportunity and their enormous financial power and the political influence it can buy, economic elites have been quick to attempt to redress the gains of working people and once again put everyone at the service of capital.
Although times are hard, a window of opportunity can be opened with the education of more people to the true realities of an unregulated capitalist system. With a new President about to take office, a President willing to listen to the needs of working people, we have a chance to try and address the fundamental problems with our present economic system. We should insist that economic decisions be based on real human values, and not simply the desire to maximize profits at all costs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)