Who is crying now?

That may sound like a 1950’s pop song (slow dancing…), but in this case it describes the GOP talking about spending deficits.

Bernie Horn, of The Campaign for America’s future, writes in Truthout:”Here it comes – an avalanche of misleading and mistaken “facts” about President Obama’s budget.

Last week, the House and Senate Budget Committees approved versions of the fiscal 2010 budget resolution, working from an extraordinary proposal by Barack Obama. The House version is fairly close to what the President proposed, while the Senate bill is a bit different – but still 98 percent of what the President requested. This week, the budget will come to the floor of the House and Senate, including votes on a series of amendments to slash or weaken progressive programs… The mud of fabrication and misinformation is so deep, we’ll have to peel it off in layers.

Huge Hypocrisy

First and foremost, conservatives are being supremely hypocritical about deficits and debt because their deficits caused the current national debt. Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts for the rich and profligate military spending tripled the national debt. George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the rich and war spending doubled the national debt. In fact, nearly 80 percent of the current debt – about which conservatives now bitterly complain – was caused by the three most recent conservative presidents: Reagan, Bush Senior, and Bush Junior.

Adding insult to injury, Republican budgets have been notorious for containing gimmicks designed to hide the full extent of their irresponsibility – the most egregious was funding the Iraq war with special appropriations outside of the budget.

This year, President Obama changed all that. His budget described a comprehensive plan covering 10 years. It included contingency funds that may or may not have to be spent. It was, quite simply, the most honest budget ever…three big lies about revenues. Obama is not “proposing the largest tax increase in history.” He is proposing to restore a measure of tax fairness by letting George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the rich expire next year. He is proposing to return to the tax policies that were in place during America’s great economic expansion of the late 1990s. Under the Obama program, only the rich will see their taxes increase – those with incomes over $250,000 per year. For all the rest of us, our tax rates will decline. In fact, Obama’s plan will deliver the largest middle-class tax cut in history.     Similarly, Obama’s plan is not “aimed at taxing small-business people.” This talking point is based on a fictional definition of a small businessperson invented by the Bush Administration… And I’ll bet you’re wondering, what is this “massive new national sales tax on your electric bill”? There is none. This is right-wing framing for the “cap-and-trade” system that experts insist is the only practical way to get a handle on global warming. This system forces companies to pay for their pollution, thereby encouraging clean, green technologies.

So to review the conservative tax trickery, the truth is that Obama’s budget delivers a substantial tax cut to 95 percent of Americans. The only ones who will see their taxes increase are the wealthy – and the corporate polluters!… If we spend to build the American economy, long-term deficits will go down. If we don’t spend, the recession will linger and deficits will skyrocket. It’s as simple as that.

And that brings us to the false argument that cutting the current budget is good for “our children.” If we don’t invest in our nation’s infrastructure, if we don’t restructure the pathetic economy handed down to us by George W. Bush and his conservative allies, if we don’t create a sustainable health care system, if we don’t take necessary steps to achieve energy independence and fight global warming – then we will be placing a terrible burden on our children. For them, and for us, we’ve got to change course, now….No doubt the GOP will offer one or more alternative budgets on the House and Senate floors later this week. No doubt they will be just like the alternative Republican stimulus packages in February – full of tax cuts for the rich and spending cuts for the rest of us.

The bottom line is: Conservatives caused this mess and now are running away from any responsibility for cleaning it up.”

——-

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future and author of the recent book, “Framing the Future: How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People.”

see: http://www.truthout.org/033109R

Change in Great Lakes Region elected Republicans – less conservative!

The ACU, a conservative organization – is giving lower (less conservative) ratings to elected officials from the Great Lakes region.  

Muriel Kane, Rawstory: ” The American Conservative Union recently released its Congressional ratings for 2008 — and the figures suggest the possibility of a significant division between hardcore conservatives in the Republican Party and those who might be more open to voting with the Democrats, particularly on economic issues…In New York, for example, a number of Republican members of Congress appear to have grown more moderate — either that or the ACU’s standards have become more extreme. For example, Rep. Peter King came in at only 50% in 2008, down from 68% the previous year and a lifetime record of 75%. Rep. John McHugh was at 40%, compared with a lifetime figure of 72%.
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan are other states where a number of Republican members of Congress drew ACU scores between the 40’s and the 70’s. These figures are in many cases 10, 15, or even 30 points lower than their lifetime ACU records. 

Most of these Republicans remain clearly conservative according to their own standards — but the ACU figures suggest … a different path from Limbaugh conservatism. ” 

see: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Conservative_rankings_suggest_Rust_Belt_GOP_0329.html

Post election, the Right is still Wrong!

t is worth remembering that those choices were in essence inherited by the president, who is still new to his office

According to  GOP pundits, everything is still the Democrats fault, as good old Joe Conason reports in TruthDig: ” As Barack Obama’s economic advisers confront choices that vary from bad to worse in their mission to revive the financial sector and the broader economy, it is worth remembering that those choices were in essence inherited by the president, who is still new to his office. Listening to his critics, especially on the right, it would be easy to believe that the president is personally responsible for ballooning deficits, gigantic bailouts, ridiculous bonuses, nationalized institutions and careening markets. It would be easy to believe but it’s entirely false—and merely the latest episode in an old political con game that is all too typical of Washington.  Ever since Election Day 2008, the usual suspects have been hard at work, deflecting responsibility from the Bush administration (and the Republicans in Congress) for the catastrophic effects of conservative policy enacted during the past eight years. Within days after Obama’s victory, as stock prices fell, radio host and ideological commissar Rush Limbaugh exclaimed that we were already in the “Obama recession.”” …Among the boldest perpetrators of this con game over the past few decades is Limbaugh, who shares with his fellow Republicans a peculiar method of timing the blame for economic woe. When he was flacking for the first President Bush back in 1992, he wrote: “The worst economic period in the last 50 years was under Jimmy Carter, which led to the 1981-82 recession, a recession more punishing than the current one.” But of course the president during the 1982 recession was not named Carter; that president was the sainted Ronald Reagan.”

Looking at the national stated unemployment rate:

Nov 1976 Carter elected 7.8%

Nov 1978 Carter mid term 5.9%

Nov 1980 Regan elected 7.6%  (N.B.: many Were Better off than in 76!)

Nov 1982 Regan midterm 10.8%

Nov 1992 Clinton elected 7.4%

Nov 2000 Bush selected 3.9%

Nov 2002 Bush mid term 5.9%

Nov 2008 Obama elected 6.8%

Compare these numbers to Limbaughs lies…

see: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090325_the_con_game_of_blame/

There is a chance that the worst is over…

Today, stocks are up roughly 20 percent in the past two weeks, the biggest such short-term rally since 1938

“In October, all three asset classes — stocks, bonds and commodities such as oil and farm products — were in freefall. Today, stocks are up roughly 20 percent in the past two weeks, the biggest such short-term rally since 1938.” 

Biggest short term rally since 1938?

From McClatchy: “WASHINGTON — With the Dow Jones Industrial Average rising around 20 percent over the past few weeks, a down Friday notwithstanding, the question on many lips is whether the stock market has hit bottom and, if so, when might the broader economy follow?

Stock prices often reflect expectations of how the economy will be faring six months or so into the future. If the recent rise in stock prices reflects that the market has bottomed out and is starting a bull run — as some prominent analysts tentatively suggest — that would point to a turnaround for the economy by late summer or early fall.

Few analysts are willing to declare that we’ve hit bottom without hedging, especially since there’s been plenty of premature speculation before about a market bottom during the past 16 months of recession. As if to mock the budding optimism, the Dow closed down Friday by 148.38 points to 7,776.18.

Most analysts now agree, however, that there are some encouraging shafts of light after months of pitch-black news.

“The best news now is that despite the worst . . . daily litany of horrible news, the strongest renewed bank fears, despite all of that, we’ve got stocks today essentially where they were in October,” said James Paulsen, chief investment strategist for Wells Capital Management, owned by the giant bank Wells Fargo.”

see: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/64992.html

EFCA Update

From TruthDig: “Sen. Arlen Specter gave the Employee Free Choice Act the shaft Tuesday, mortally wounding legislation that would make forming unions significantly easier. Labor leaders were depending on support from moderates such as Specter, but, facing a primary challenge, the Pennsylvania Republican chickened out.  The senator blamed the recession for his decision…. Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.) said [Tuesday] that he would oppose legislation making it easier for workers to form unions, dealing a severe blow to organized labor’s top political priority as he faces a 2010 primary challenge from the right.

Union leaders were counting on Specter to be the 60th vote needed to stop an expected GOP filibuster of the Employee Free Choice Act later this year. He was the lone Senate Republican to support consideration of the measure in 2007, when it stalled in the Senate.

“It is a very emotional issue, with labor looking to this legislation to reverse the steep decline in union membership, and business expressing great concern about added costs which would drive more companies out of business or overseas,” Specter said in a Senate floor speech … .”

I hope labor leaders have something other than Specter to base their success upon, and that the term ‘mortally wounded’ was premature.

see: http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20090325_union_bill_in_trouble/

It Has happened here…

In an earlier post, I referenced the Sinclair Lewis novel: “It Can’t Happen Here”,  – see wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here.

In 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004, the persons who became President had the interests of the wealthiest Americans – not the majority – as an agenda, supported by three major theories: the anti-middle class supply side economics;  the anti-welfare system illegitmacy epidemic; and the anti-public education suppossed crisis in public education – all have turned out to have been hoaxes .  (“Up From Conservatism”, by Michael Lind).  It should be emphasized that during the brief respite of the Clinton administration – in which taxes were raised slightly on the highest incomes, and 21 million new jobs were created – those positive results were not in the headlines.

1980 might be excused, as it was not then completely clear what the agenda would be, but the rest cannot .  As to the issue of the honesty of the 2000 and 2004 elections, at least 53-57% of voters should have rejected the Republican candidate, which would have made the election very difficult to steal.

The untruths propogated by the Bush 43 administration to justify the invasion of  Iraq are another example of mass deception, as was the attempt to destroy Social Security, which failed, and the near criminalization of popular issues, such as access to safe, legal abortions.

How have the wealthiest several percent succeeded in controlling the vast majority?

o By clever framing of the issues, e.g. ‘pro-life’, ‘war on terror’

o By the creation of an enemy – ‘terrorists’

o By getting out their voters with wedge issues (abortion, race)

o With the help of a supportive corporate media

How did we turn the tide in 2008?

o The neocons helped us by hurting the economy and the infrastructue, and their pursuit of the troubled adventure in Iraq

o We choose a charismatic, intelligent, empathetic candidate with wide appeal, who overcame a non-traditional background to get more votes than any other candidate in US history.

o We identified concerns of the majority, and got them out to vote

How can we avoid future disasters?

o Remain vigilant

o Reveal history

o Resolve the problems which are the most important to the greatest number of people

o Reject the false messages of biased media sources.

see also: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090323_america_is_in_need_of_a_moral_bailout/

Blue collar vs. White: It’s when, not if, one showers…

Washington policymakers “treat the people who take a shower after work much differently than they treat the people who shower before they go to work.”

David Sirota writes on TruthDig: 

“United Steelworkers President Leo Gerard likes to say that Washington policymakers “treat the people who take a shower after work much differently than they treat the people who shower before they go to work.” In the 21st century Gilded Age, the blue-collar shower-after-work crowd is given the tough, while the white-collar shower-before-work gang gets the love, and never before this week was that doctrine made so clear.”

“…Last month, the same government that says it “cannot just abrogate” executives’ bonus contracts used its leverage to cancel unions’ wage contracts. As The Wall Street Journal reported, federal loans to GM and Chrysler were made contingent on those manufacturers shredding their existing labor pacts and “extract[ing] financial concessions from workers.”

While this issue may be changing – see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/us/politics/22regulate.html?hp – 

The fact is that those blue collar workers who ‘shower after work’  are treated differently than white collar workers who ‘shower before work’ . 

also: “Congressional Republicans have long supported the laws letting bankruptcy courts annul mortgage contracts for vacation homes. Those statutes help the shower-before-work clique at least retain their beachside villas, no matter how many of their speculative Ponzi schemes go bad. But for those who shower after work, it’s Adams-esque bromides against “absolving borrowers of their personal responsibility,” as the GOP announced it will oppose legislation permitting bankruptcy judges to revise mortgage contracts for primary residences.”

In general, talk of voiding labor union contracts raises little public furor, which cannot be said of allowing bankrupt financial institutions to pay large bonuses to those who made questionable decisions…

see: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090319_a_government_of_men_not_laws/

“It can’t happen here?”

It Can’t Happen Here is a semi-satirical political novel by Sinclair Lewis published in 1935. It features newspaperman Doremus Jessup struggling against the fascist regime of President Berzelius “Buzz” Windrip, who resembles Gerald B. Winrod, the Kansas evangelist whose far-right views earned him the nickname “The Jayhawk Nazi“. It serves as a warning that political movements akin to Nazism can come to power in countries such as the United States when people blindly support their leaders.” (From wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here).

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (George Santayana, The Life of Reason”)

It can happen here, and this concern is raised most appropriately by Robert Freeman in AlterNet March 19:

“In early 1919, Germany put in place a new government to begin rebuilding the country after its crushing defeat in World War I. But the right-wing forces that had led the country into the War and lost the War conspired even before it was over to destroy the new government, the “Weimar Republic.”

They succeeded.

The U.S. faces a similar “Weimar Moment.” The devastating collapse of the economy after eight years of Republican rule has left the leadership, policies, and ideology of the right utterly discredited. But, as was the case with Germany in 1919, Republicans Do Not Intend to Allow the New Government to Succeed (emphasis mine). They will do everything they can to undermine it. If they are successful, the U.S. may yet go the way of Weimar Germany.”

The new government that took over the collapsed country was moderate left, led by the president of the German Socialist party, and the right planned to make it fail:

” …They would do everything they could to make sure that the new government failed.

Their strategy was two-fold: first, stoke the resentment of the population about the calamitous state of its living conditions-no matter that those conditions had been created by the very right-wing oligarchs who now pretended to befriend the little guy. Rage is rage. It is glandular and unseeing. Once catalyzed it is easy to turn on any subject.

And stoking resentment was easy to do. Just before the War ended, the military concocted its most Sensational Lie: the German army hadn’t Actually been Defeated (mine). It had been “stabbed in the back” by communists, traitors, and Jews. It was an easy lie to sell. It entwined an attack on an alien political ideology — liberalism — with the latent, pervasive myth of German racial superiority.

The second strategy of the right was to prevent the new government from succeeding. To begin with, success of the left would conspicuously advertise the failure of the right. Moreover, success by the left would legitimize republican government, so hated by the oligarchs of the right. Much better for the people to be ruled by the self-aggrandizing right-wing autocracy that had governed Germany for centuries.

So the rightists set out to do everything they could to make it Impossible (mine) for the leftists to govern. They would use parliamentary maneuver, shifting coalitions, domination of the new mass media, legislative obstruction, staged public relations spectacles, relentless pressure by narrow but powerful interests, judicial intimidation and, eventually, outright murder of their political opponents.”

Does this sound familiar?

It can only happen here if we drop our guard: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (George Santayana, The Life of Reason”)

How do we prevent this:  “There is absolutely no substitute for proper preparation.”

see: http://www.alternet.org/workplace/132155

“Why don’t they eat cake”- when inequalities soar

While it is uncertain if Marie Antoinette (sp?) ever said that, it remains the archtype of arrogance and ignorance, some of which is being repeated today.   Ralph Waldo Emerson, “March without the people, and you march into the night,”

E.J. Dionne writes in TruthDig: “Conservatives have argued for decades that the sins most dangerous to our society were rooted in lust when in fact the most damaging transgressions involved greed.

    We are at the beginning of a great popular rebellion against those who showed no self-restraint when it came to lining their own pockets. Their entitlement mentality arose from an inflated sense of their own value, of how much smarter they were than everyone else.”

Right on!  More: “In fact, the reaction to AIG reflects a morally justified public intuition that the rewards in our society to the very wealthy are totally out of line with their contributions to the common good.

    A study of compensation levels in 2007 found that average CEO pay at S&P 500 companies was 344 times higher than the average worker’s wage, and that the top 50 investment fund managers took home 19,000 times—yes, that’s with three zeroes—as much as typical workers earned.

    Now I am not against people getting rich or entrepreneurs reaping profit from their investments of time and energy. But there is no moral or practical justification for such levels of inequality. Capitalism worked extremely well in the three decades after World War II without such radical inequities. It’s when inequalities soar that the system runs into trouble—precisely what happened at the end of the 1920s, when inequality reached levels similar to today’s.”

Repeating:  344 Times, and 19,000 Times.

What should the administration do? “With the populist furies unleashed, the Obama administration has two choices. It can try to fight the public. Or it can use the public’s legitimate outrage to move the country in a better direction.

    Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, points to the irony that populism threatens to work against Obama even though the president has proposed “a populist budget” that asks the wealthy to commit more money to the common good.

    Frank also ridicules the idea that AIG can’t find smart people to replace those who might walk away if they are denied their extravagant bonuses. With unemployment among investment bankers at a rather high level, “it’s not like you’re going to have trouble hiring good people,” he said dryly.

    Obama needs to do two things at the same time. The administration will have to spend piles of money to unwind the financial mess. A share of the largesse, as Frank acknowledges, may indirectly benefit some of the malefactors in this saga. Yet if the public sees this spending primarily as a reward to those who got us into this fix, and not as necessary to solving a problem that affects us all, it will revolt.

    So the administration also needs to argue that the new economy it will create on the ashes of the old will be more equitable, based on fair reward for capital and labor alike, not on an ethic of greed and excess.

    Obama can work with the populist wave or he can be overwhelmed by it. As Kazin notes, American progressives have succeeded in improving the “common welfare” only when they “talked in populist ways—hopeful, expansive, even romantic.” 

    Kazin cites the line popularized by Ralph Waldo Emerson, “March without the people, and you march into the night,” and then adds: “Cursing the darkness only delays the dawn.”

see: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090318_in_defense_of_populism/

Democracy?

What does ‘democracy ‘mean’?  One hears the word tossed around in many contexts, with the implicit assumption that ‘everyone understands’ what it means.  Not!  In my major of  mathematics – a subject of much rigor – it was necessary that definitions be clear, concise, and consistent.  While we don’t need as much rigor in most disciplines, clear definitions are still the foundations on which knowledge must be built.  (N.B.: “It depends on what the definition of  ‘is’   is…” )  Are there standard definitions of democracy?  If there are, they are unclear in everyday usage.

As an example, when the neocons said that a nation was a ‘democracy’, that meant it: had some kind of elections; had a free market economy; and agreed with US policies.  Moving on, I propose that there are four types of democracy: pure democracy; economic democracy; social democracy; and political democracy.

Pure democracy is what existed in Athens: every free male had an equal vote; every issue was majoritarian; and the majority ruled.  (N.B.: Since Socrates was tried for being an atheist, I’ll steer clear of pure democracies.)

Economic democracy is what has existed in the United States, from the era of Carnegie and Rockefeller to the Internet boom:  one was not restricted in matters of birth or class from success in the business world.  This gave us an advantage over countries where one had to have the ‘right school tie’ to succeed.

Social democracy is an environment where anyone who qualifies – irregardless  of religious, racial, and ethnic background – can participate in most aspects of society, including access to public facilities, to education,  and to social,  charitable, and civic organizations.  While this has not universally been true throughout US history, we have been making progress in this matter since the late sixties.

Political democracy describes the situation where all citizens are eligible to vote, there is wide voting participation, and each vote is fairly and accurately counted: perhaps the US will be there some day…

Summary: etymologically,  ‘democracy’ means rule by the people.  Having said all of the above, to give a concise defininition: “democracy is government by the consent of the governed”.

Proverb: “As the twig is bent, so the tree is inclined”  &, “If the twig is not secured, the tree  will point in no specific direction”