Threaten To Destroy The Country - Media Calls You A "Centrist"

-- by Dave Johnson

The country has a very large debt built up from years and years of borrowing since Reagan. Bush's last budget year had a deficit of $1.4 trillion! This borrowing was caused by:

1) Conservative tax cuts for the rich under Reagan and Bush II that broke the budget.
2) Conservative spending increases, mostly on military.
3) Interest that must be paid each year on the debt resulting from 1 and 2.
4) Emergency spending made necessary by the financial crisis caused by conservative "free market" deregulation and cronyism.

Conservatives propose to address this debt they caused by:

1) Gut Social Security because money that was borrowed from Social Security to pay for the tax cuts for the rich needs to be paid back to Social Security so citizens who paid into the system can retire.
2) Gut Medicare because it is a popular government program that helps regular people.
3) Gut other non-military government programs that that help citizens who don't happen to be rich and are not owners of big corporations.
4) More tax cuts for the rich and increases in military spending. (Because they propose this as the solution to everything.)

Currently there is a proposal being floated for a "debt commission" structured to force these solutions without the cumbersome processes of democracy getting in the way.

Senators Gregg, Conrad, Bayh and others are threatening to force the United States of America to default on its debt obligations if such a commission is not set up,

Conrad, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and a group of about a dozen other Democratic senators said that the enactment of a special fiscal process was key to their votes on the debt limit increase. The federal debt limit, now at $12.4 trillion, must be raised by mid-February to prevent the government from defaulting.

How are these Senators described by the media? As "centrists" and "moderates." For example, from the story,

The commission’s supporters, mainly centrist lawmakers in both chambers, have said that the special legislative process is necessary to any fiscal reform because lawmakers aren’t willing to consider the politically perilous tax increases and spending cuts necessary to bring down the deficit, which hit a record $1.4 trillion last year.

Again and again these pro-corporatist, anti-democracy politicians -- so radical that they are threatening to destroy the credit of the United States -- are described as "centrist" and "moderate!" Please click these two links.

Words have power, and the words "moderate" and "centrist" force people's thinking in certain directions. It is no accident that these words are repeated in the corporate media to describe those proposing policies that further the interests of the largest corporations over the interests of regular citizens and democracy.

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America's Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF.

-- Posted by Dave Johnson at 6:09 PM PST on January 15, 2010.

Link to this | Comments (0) |

Bank Taxes

-- by Dave Johnson

The big bankers say they shouldn't have to pay any taxes because they have paid back the government's bailout loans. What they are missing is the cost to the world of what they did. The unemployment costs, the foreclosures - people losing their homes, the lost pensions, the suicides... they don't even see this or care. They certainly aren't taking any responsibility.

But they are getting huge bonuses. And paying hundreds of millions to lobby to block any reform.

-- Posted by Dave Johnson at 4:03 AM PST on January 15, 2010.

Link to this | Comments (0) |

Big Banks Skimming Profits From Haiti Relief

-- by Dave Johnson

Is anyone at all surprised that the big banks are skimming off the top of Haiti relief donations? See As Wallets Open For Haiti, Credit Card Companies Take A Big Cut

-- Posted by Dave Johnson at 12:47 PM PST on January 14, 2010.

Link to this | Comments (0) |

Another Jobs Disappointment With No Clear Path Forward

-- by Dave Johnson

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America's Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture as part of the Making It In America project. I am a Fellow with CAF.

On top of last week's bad news on unemployment, with 85,000 more jobs lost in December, today's initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits report was 444,000, an increase of 11,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 433,000

The "rule of thumb" break-even point for this number is said to be 425,000. This means as many people are hired as laid off in a given week. (Even now new people get hired in our vast economy -- somewhere.) So the conventional wisdom is that when this number is 425,000 it is break-even and the economy is not losing or gaining jobs.

BUT what happens when the economy is not only laying people off, but also is not hiring at the usual rate? Then 425,000 layoffs isn't going to be breakeven, and this is what appears to be our situation now. Calculated Risk, BLS: Near Record Low Job Openings in November,

Openings near a series low can't be a positive sign. Separations [layoffs] have declined sharply, but hiring has not picked up. This also suggests that eventually (possibly when the March 2010 benchmark revision is announced in Feb 2011), the November net change in employment will be revised down.

Government is the only positive force in the economy right now. President Obama's "stimulus" saved or created about 2 million jobs. Imagine where we would be without the stimulus. It would not just be worse by 2 million jobs, it is possible the panic that was happening might have continued or even increased. And imagine if we didn't have the FDIC insuring people's bank accounts. Every bank would have failed, and people who didn't get their money out in time would be flat broke. And imagine if we didn't have unemployment benefits, COBRA subsidies for the unemployed, Food Stamps, etc. Just imagine.

But what we don't have is a clear path out of this, triggering the rest of the economy to perform for us again. (and never mind doing so in a way that is sustainable, environmentally sound, healthy, etc.) We have government assistance until the economy gets better but we do not have a clear government plan to make the economy get better. We still have this failed conservative "free market" thinking standing in the way of We, the People working together to get things going again. This used to be called "industrial policy." Of course, not having an industrial policy is an industrial policy -- a really, really bad one -- especially when almost every competing country does have policies they are acting on.

China, for example, has very strong government policies for promoting Chinese companies and industries. And as a result China's economy is said to be strongly recovering, even as our own continues to stagnate. China's policies include holding their currency artificially low and otherwise subsidizing companies to gain market share at the expense of the rest of the world.

But a policy to help our economy doesn't have to be at the expense of others. It can be a policy to help bring workers in other countries up to our standards, so they can become customers for our own products and services. This lifts the economy in our country as well as for our trading partners (not competitors). We can apply tariffs at the border on products that are made by people who are not fairly paid, or who are not allowed to organize unions, or who are not allowed to vote for government officials who would protect their safety, wages, environment, etc.

So let's start thinking about how our government can work with us to help us, instead of this weird, failed conservative "everyone on your own" free-market approach that led to collapse, please.

-- Posted by Dave Johnson at 12:12 PM PST on January 14, 2010.

Link to this | Comments (0) |

CA Cons Still Trying To Live Off What We Built In The 60s & 70s

-- by Dave Johnson

This post originally appeared at Speak Out California.

It took years for liberalism's redistributive itch to create an income tax so steeply progressive that it prompts the flight from the state of wealth-creators: "Between 1990 and 2007," Voegeli writes, "some 3.4 million more Americans moved from California to one of the other 49 states than moved to California from another state."

Click through to Speak Out California!

-- Posted by Dave Johnson at 12:12 PM PST on January 13, 2010.

Link to this | Comments (0) |

Don't Leave Women's Health Care Out Of The Reform Bill

-- by Dave Johnson

Passing this along:

We Will Not Be Thrown Under the Bus!

On January 13th, Not Under the Bus, the premier women's health care campaign from the Women’s Media Center, is asking women everywhere to take action against the discriminatory, anti-choice language that exists in both the House and Senate health care bills. These bills would effectively roll back women’s health care coverage in the area of reproductive rights. It is up to all of us to make sure we don’t get thrown under the bus by politicians in Washington.

Here’s how you can TAKE ACTION on Wednesday, January 13th:
Tweet: Take Action today with @NotUnderTheBus. Demand that women’s rights be protected in #HCR: http://bit.ly/7u15IG #underthebus

Post our video to your Facebook page, Blog, or status:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUtLTB6zKbo

Donate your Facebook Status to raise awareness:
“Today is Take Action Day with NotUnderTheBus.com. What are you doing to demand pro-choice, fair health care? http://bit.ly/7u15IG Take Action. Write an op-ed, call your Senator, and sign a petition. Demand that women’s rights be protected in health care reform.”

Sign and Share Our Petition: Tell lawmakers in Washington to keep women’s health care safe, fair and covered and urge them to strike any anti-abortion amendments from the final bill. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/do-not-throw-women-under-the-bus

-- Posted by Dave Johnson at 7:22 AM PST on January 13, 2010.

Link to this | Comments (0) |

Right Wing Catches On That Conservative Trade Policies Hurt Us

-- by Dave Johnson

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America's Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture as part of the Making It In America project. I am a Fellow with CAF.

Be afraid. Over at The Drudge Report, under a photo of a Chinese soldier (but no siren), are three headlines:

Becomes biggest exporter, edging out Germany...

China banks eclipse American rivals...

So OK, conservatives seem to be FINALLY starting to notice that their so-called "free trade" policies caused a problem!

When Ronald Reagan took office we had a trade surplus with China - we exported to China more than we imported from China. But the conservative "free market" ideologues said that "the market" must determine everything instead of the people in our democracy, that government is bad, that "free trade" lifts all boats, etc. -- even though there is no such thing as "free" trade or "free" markets... They negotiated trade agreements guaranteed to give away our strong trade position, stopped enforcing old or new trade laws, and got rid of any idea of having a national industrial policy.

By the time Bill Clinton took office instead of a trade surplus we had a trade deficit with China of almost $23 billion - importing from China much, much more than we exported to them. Under President Clinton, influenced by conservative "free trade" arguments, this trade deficit grew to $83 billion.

Then, under George W. Bush this trade deficit grew to $268 billion in a single year! Time after time Bush refused to enforce trade agreements and the imbalance just got worse and worse.

(WSJ)

By last year the trade imbalance with China was 69% of our entire trade deficit.

(EPI)

So NOW the conservatives are looking at what they have done, and they are very afraid. They borrowed from China year after year, and now they are afraid that China will use all that borrowed money to collapse the dollar. If you are on any right-wing mail lists half of the emails you receive are saying that dollar could collapse any minute.

So a big headline at Drudge! I guess even they are ready to admit that their policies were bad for the country.

-- Posted by Dave Johnson at 7:29 PM PST on January 12, 2010.

Link to this | Comments (0) |

Will Supreme Court Rule For One-Dollar-One-Vote?

-- by Dave Johnson

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America's Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF.

The Supreme Court could say as soon as Monday that corporate executives are free to use huge amounts of corporate resources to directly influence elections. The vote will probably be 5-4 and we know which 5 and which 4 and why.

If this happens it will fundamentally change the way our elections are decided, our leaders are chosen, and our laws are made. The ruling will complete the transition, already underway, from a one-person-one-vote ideal to a corrupt one-dollar-one-vote system run for the benefit of those with the most dollars to throw into elections. And of course those with access to the most corporate dollars will use their new influence to increase their own dollars - and influence - at the expense of those with fewer dollars. Monopoly capitalism will be the New World Order.

It is simple to imagine how unlimited direct use of corporate resources will change our lives. Just for example, suppose executives at a chemical company want to save money by dumping toxins into a nearby river. Suppose a county or state government is trying to block this. Imagine the effect unlimited direct corporate money can have in a county or even a state election. Of course those executives will be able put in place a local or state government that lets them dump into the river. They probably will be able to get laws passed preventing their company from being sued for the resulting cancers. I know that this sounds pretty darn close to the political system that we have today but with direct use of corporate resources to influence elections the corrupting influence will be much more direct and corrosive.

This is not what some call corporatism and is not about companies making decisions, because companies don't think or make decisions. This is about executives -- people -- at the helm of huge, powerful companies using the company's vast resources to benefit themselves. This is at the expense of people in other, smaller companies. It is so important to understand that it is done by people - executives using corporate resources because companies are not sentient entities, no matter what anyone says. They don't think and they certainly don't speak. And it isn't everyone in these companies. The people in Sales or Accounts Receivable don't make the decisions, a few people at the very top do. In order to address this problem we need to understand that the actions of corporations are really the actions of a few people. Corporations don't act or "do" anything, people do.

This is about monopoly capitalism. Of course executives in control of the biggest companies will use their financial power to consolidate their control over our system, for their personal benefit. Smaller companies in the same industries and startups that threaten to compete won't stand a chance because the rules will be bent against them. If you think the oil and coal companies are hampering efforts control CO2 emissions and foster new alternative energy sources now, then just wait until the resources of giant companies are allowed to directly control our elections and therefore our government. If you think giant pharmaceutical companies are getting favors like unlimited patent life now, just wait until the Supreme Court opens up direct use of corporate resources.

So how did we get here?

It is difficult if not impossible for individuals to raise sufficient capital to enable large-scale projects that can cost millions, even billions to get started. So we developed corporations which areprivate legal entities designed to pool individual resources and accumulate vast sums, far beyond the ability of individuals to gather. The corporate legal structure enables large numbers of people to contribute to an effort. This also spreads the risk. Even if someone could raise the kind of money it takes to design and build a 747, why put all the eggs into one basket?

This legal structure was developed and is supported by our laws to benefit all of us. In fact, we even grant "limited liability" to the investors in corporations to encourage their development so investors are not responsible for the debts of a corporation. This is just one of many benefits granted to corporations by we, the People. We set up this structure to benefit us - why else would we have done it?

These pooled resources are supposed to be used only for business purposes, and the businesses are supposed to operate on a regulatory playing field that is set up by us. Corporate executives are only supposed to use corporate resources to run the business for the benefit of the shareholders. Some argue that use of their company's money to influence the political system brings benefits back to the companies thereby benefiting the shareholders. But in this example influence comes with an expectation of gain which is just bribery and is therefore illegal. On the other hand, some claim that these companies only have our best interest at heart, and expect nothing but good government in return for their largess. Of course without direct corporate gain this use of corporate funds by executives is a waste of shareholder's resources, and is therefore theft. Bribery or theft, which is it? Either way it is wrong.

Democracy developed in reaction to corrupt rule by wealthy and powerful interests for their own benefit at the expense of the rest of us. So it was recognized from the beginning that such pooled resources are a danger to the democracy we fought so hard to develop, and rules were put in place to prevent this from happening. But like the smallest leak in a dam, any use of corporate money to gain influence of course turns into greater and greater influence. The first bribe led to greater resources to use for a larger second bribe, and so on. As each bribe increased the influence of a wealthy corporate few eventually we ended up with a political party entirely dedicated to furthering the control of that wealthy few, to the point of appointing Supreme Court justices dedicated to that end. And here we are.

What can we do about this?

First of all, if by some miracle the Supreme Court doesn't open up direct use of corporate resources in elections we must recognize how close we have come to losing democracy, and stop all use of corporate resources to influence not just elections but public attitudes as well. Even without the Supreme Court opening things up, we have been heading down this path for some time. We have to stop corporate resources from leaking out of the companies and affecting corporate rulemaking. This includes lobbying, which is really just bribery. Company resources will always be used to bring advantages to that company -- over other companies and the rest of us.

If the governmental systems come entirely under the control of a wealthy few with access to the resources of giant corporations we are in a heap of trouble. But we have been here before, a century or so ago. A strong progressive movement can turn things around. We will need to develop strong public outreach from progressive organizations to help the public understand what is happening,. We will need to support labor unions as they fight to restore the ability of people to make a living and have some power and control over the workplace. And we will need to help people learn to fight the propaganda that is and will be thrown at us 24 hours a day.

-- Posted by Dave Johnson at 1:35 PM PST on January 09, 2010.

Link to this | Comments (1) |

Tell Me Again

-- by Dave Johnson

How giving all of our money to the big banks helped the economy.

-- Posted by Dave Johnson at 6:12 PM PST on January 08, 2010.

Link to this | Comments (0) |

On The Radio at 1pm PST

-- by Dave Johnson

I will be on Fairness Doctrine radio show today at 1pm PST / 4pm EST with Jim Dean.

Listen live at http://www.wdisam.com/shows/fairdoc/

-- Posted by Dave Johnson at 11:18 AM PST on January 08, 2010.

Link to this | Comments (0) |