August 28, 2010

Corporate Power

We went into health care reform looking to free ourselves from a predatory industry that was harming us and the country, and get ourselves Medicare-For-All.

We came out the other side with all of us ordered to buy health insurance from the predatory health insurers.

This has been another chapter in democracy v.s. predatory corporatist plutocracy.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 3:52 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

August 9, 2010

UK Shock Doctrine

Have you read The Shock Doctrine? It is a very important book for understanding how the conservatives operate to shift everything to the wealthy few. It explains what is happening in England now: British Towns and Institutions Reel From First Austerity Cuts

Posted by Dave Johnson at 12:35 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

August 3, 2010

Do We Need A Democracy Tariff?

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.

We need a Democracy Tariff, imposed at the border on goods that are brought in from countries where the people have not been able to build a strong democracy that protects their workers, wages and environment.

Yesterday in Exporting Jobs Is Not “Trade.” It Evades Democracy's Protections I wrote that ... well ... exporting jobs is not "trade." Packing up a factory here to send the jobs there, and then bringing the same goods that factory was making back here to sell is done for one and only one reason. It is done to get around the wage, safety and environmental protections that We, the People fought to build.

We formed this country and we fought to build protections that brought us a reasonably good life, and a middle class, and some security - social security - so we don't always have to be struggling and living on the edge of a cliff, surviving only at the whim of a wealthy few with all the power. We fought a revolution against government by a wealthy and powerful few, and we fought again and again to keep and protect government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Our wage, safety and environmental protections are the result of our democracy. We, the People fought and built a government to empower and protect us, to provide good wages and provide some security and that involves rules that limit what the owners of companies can do -- regulations. We build up a system of public structures like courts, laws, schools, roads, bridges -- spending -- that enable commerce to prosper. And we ask those who benefit from that commerce we enabled to share the return on our investment with us -- taxes and wages.

Democracy, government, regulations, spending, taxes. The stronger each of these are, the better We, the People do. The weaker they are, the worse off we are.

Lately wealthy corporate owners -- who benefit from the commerce that our democracy, government, regulations, spending and taxes enabled -- have found another way to get around these protections that We, the People built for ourselves. They move manufacturing and jobs to countries where the people have not been able to build strong democracies to protect their interests, and then bring the goods made by the exploited workers there back here to sell. They call that "trade" when really it is just a way to get around the borders that we are able to protect. As I wrote yesterday,

These workers make the same products that had been made here, sell them in the same stores here, but make them outside of the boundaries of our democratically-won protections. And to make things worse, the companies then demand wage and benefit cuts from the workers who are still here, claiming that "globalization" means they now have to compete with workers with no rights, so they must accept less.

There is a solution to this problem. These protections that we built brought us prosperity. And that means we have a strong market. Everyone in the world wants to be able to sell to us, and we can use that power to set the rules for access to our markets.

A Democracy Tariff

We should not let exploitation of workers and the environment be a competitive advantage that is used against the democratic protections we have built for ourselves. We can and should set a "Democracy Tariff" on goods that come from countries that do not protect their workers and/or environment. This tariff should be enough to offset the competitive advantage that comes from exploiting workers and the environment. If those countries do not change we can use the revenue from the tariff to build our infrastructure and strengthen our competitive position. If those countries do change, all the better, because as democracy strengthens there, the people will prosper and can trade fairly with us to buy things we make here. Everyone is better off when trade is free and fair.

There are degrees of democracy and there can be degrees of Democracy Tariff. For example, some countries might protect workers but not the environment. The tariff on goods from those countries should be enough to offset the advantage gained from exploiting the environment but not as high as for countries that exploit both workers and the environment. Other countries might have some degree of protections but not allow unionization. The tariff should be enough to offset whatever degree of exploitation is at work.

If a Democracy Tariff is called "protectionism" so be it. We have learned the hard way that democracy is fragile and must be protected.

We must not allow exploitation of workers and the environment to be a "comparative advantage" used against our democracy -- government of the people, by the people and for the people -- and the protections and prosperity it has brought us.

Sign up here for the CAF daily summary.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 11:19 AM | Comments (1) | Link Cosmos

July 13, 2010

Wait, Who Said We Want Less Government Protecting And Empowering Us?

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

Cut spending? Wait - where did that terrible idea come from? Government is We, the People and its job is to protect and empower us. Why in the world would we want to cut back on that?

WSJ today, The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth, "Runaway government spending, not declining tax revenues, is the reason the U.S. faces dramatic budget shortfalls for years to come."

Wait a minute. Back up. Where did this come from? Who, anywhere, any time agreed to cut government? Why do We, the People allow these anti-government zealots to pre-frame the budget deficit as a problem of government doing too much for us? Which government function is the "too much" part? Reigning in runaway corporations? Consumer protection? Worker safety inspections? Food safety inspections? Maintaining and modernizing our infrastructure? Educating people? The courts? Keeping the water and air clean? There is a long list of things our government does for us. Why would we want less of that?

Imagine if Democrats voted to just put $500 billion a year in rockets and shot the rockets at the moon, and spent the next 30 years demanding that conservatives do their part and raise taxes to pay for that. Do you think the top 1% would just say, "OH, OK, let's do that." Of course they wouldn't.

But under anti-government conservatives all of these things that our government does to protect and empower us were cut to the bone or just ended, resulting in mine disasters, bank meltdowns, predatory corporations scamming all of us, and the BP oil spill. We, the people got poorer and less secure while the rich got really, really richer.

Why would anyone in their right mind think that was a good idea?

Conservatives cut taxes on the rich, resulting in the greatest concentration of wealth ever. The entire economy turned into an everything-to-the-top vacuum cleaner scheme, filled with scams shaking down and fleecing We, the People of everything we have and delivering it to a few wealthy corporation-owners. And then we get this bamboozlement that "the deficit" is out of control, so we have to cut back on anything that remains of government working for We, the People? I don't think so.

Think about the level of bamboozlement that is going on here. Conservatives cut taxes on the rich, and then spend the next 30 years saying, "OK, now you have to do your part and cut the things government does for the people." The whole thing was a scheme to deliver power to a few at the top. In Reagan Revolution Home To Roost: America Drowning In Debt you can see the step-by-step outline of the plan, in their own words. The deficit plan was right there for everyone to see:

• Step 1: Cut taxes to "cut the allowance" of government so that it can't function on the side of We, the People. Intentionally force the government into greater and greater debt.
  
• Step 2: Use the debt as a reason to cut the things government does for We, the People. When the resulting deficits pile up scare people that the government is "going bankrupt" so they'll let you sell off the people's assets and "privatize" the functions of government. Of course, insist that putting taxes back where they were will "harm the economy."
  
• Step 3: Blame liberals for the disastrous effects of spending cutbacks.

So when did We, the People agree to this one-way bargain, cut taxes for the rich and cut what government does for us? We didn't, and we should stop acting like we did.

Every single one of us knows that the deficits are the result of tax cuts for the rich and huge military spending increases. If we want to fix the deficit problem we know exactly what to do.

Sign up here for the CAF daily summary.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 9:01 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

July 5, 2010

They Own This Place

George Carlin on the American Dream:

Posted by Dave Johnson at 6:27 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

July 4, 2010

Independence

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

July 4, 1776, Independence Day celebrates our fight to cast off colonial rule by a wealthy elite who were keeping the benefits of our labors for themselves. We fought this system and we won our independence.

In the years since We, the People have built up solid public structures like our system of laws and courts, schools and universities, roads and transit systems, police and fire departments, food and drug regulations, worker protections, minimum wages and maximum hours -- all of which have enabled us to prosper together.

In 1776 democracy and government by the people were literally revolutionary concepts but even now they continue to face constant attack from the interests of concentrated wealth. Today we face a new form of this attack on our shared prosperity. Where we have fought and built protections and rule by the people, companies evade our rules by moving factories and jobs to places that have not, and remain exploited. They hold us hostage, saying “give in or we’ll just move your job, too.” They create conditions where we are forced to fight each other for lower and lower wages just to keep a roof over our heads. They corrupt our democracy with floods of cash, and our politicians with promises of jobs as highly-paid lobbyists. They buy our news sources and pollute our information. Their propaganda poisons our people against their own leaders.

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary to cast off the chains of corporate rule and great concentration of wealth and power, we must do so. We can fight this now, just as we fought it in 1776, and fought it again and again in our history. We built this country and its government and democracy, and we ought to keep it.

Sign up here for the CAF daily summary.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 12:49 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

June 29, 2010

The Real Deficit Is Jobs!

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

The real deficit is jobs. That is one more of those things that everyone can see in front of their faces, but we're told it isn't what it is. There aren't enough jobs, and we're being told this is our fault because we wanted pensions and good wages and vacations and respect and dignity and please, sir, just a little slice of the pie.

In case you haven't noticed, the world's economy is suddenly undergoing a classic "Shock Doctrine"-style, coordinated propaganda attack. The wealthy and powerful, having insisted that countries cut their taxes and run up debt, now insist that the middle class and poor must work harder, have their pensions reduced, sell off (to them) their publicly-held resources, and take other "austerity" steps to pay off the debt that these lazy, parasitic peasants dared to run up.

The excuse is that "the markets" will “lose confidence” in us. Apparently we aren't working the salt mines hard enough. "The markets" -- that's the crowd who got in trouble and insisted that the world would end unless we immediately handed over to them all the rest of the money in the world -- will "lose confidence" in our ability to work the mines hard enough, and will cut us off, unless we cut our pensions, sell off (to them) our resources, and promise never to be lazy and make demands for better wages, pensions, workplace safety, and do it now.

The real deficit is jobs.

History teaches that the way out of an economic slowdown is to invest in infrastructure, education and modernizing manufacturing.

Slactivist said it best the other day,

This calls to mind an old story:

But knowing their hypocrisy, he said unto them, "Why are you putting me to the test? Bring me a dime and let me see it."

And they brought one. Then he said to them, "Whose head is this -- FDR's or Herbert Hoover's?"

They answered, "Roosevelt's."

And he said unto them, "Right. So shut up. Have you morons already forgotten the 20th Century? When the choice is between imitating what worked and what really, really didn't work, why are you pretending it's terribly complicated?"

And after that, no one dared to ask him any question.

I'm not an economist, but we've got five applicants for every single job opening. If you tell me that the best response to that situation is to lay off hundreds of thousands of teachers, I will not accept that this means that you're smarter and more expert than I am. I will instead conclude -- regardless of your prestige or position or years of study -- that you're a moral imbecile.

According to the Labor Department,

By the end of 2009, the jobless rate stood at 10.0 percent and the number of unemployed persons at 15.3 million. Among the unemployed, 4 in 10 (6.1 million) had been jobless for 27 weeks or more, by far the highest proportion of long-term unemployment on record, with data back to 1948.

That's right, it was the policies of austerity that created a depression, and the policies of job-creation, infrastructure investment and taxing the wealthy to pay for it that got us out. But that was back when We, the People were still in charge.

In other news:

Number Of Millionaires Grew Amid Recession.

The rich grew richer last year, even as the world endured the worst recession in decades.

Top 1 Percent of Americans Reaped Two-Thirds of Income Gains in Last Economic Expansion, Income Concentration in 2007 Was at Highest Level Since 1928, New Analysis Shows,

Two-thirds of the nation’s total income gains from 2002 to 2007 flowed to the top 1 percent of U.S. households, and that top 1 percent held a larger share of income in 2007 than at any time since 1928, according to an analysis of newly released IRS data by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez.

During those years, the Piketty-Saez data also show, the inflation-adjusted income of the top 1 percent of households grew more than ten times faster than the income of the bottom 90 percent of households.

Top 1% Increased Their Share of Wealth in Financial Crisis,

According to his analysis, the top 1% held 34.6% of all national wealth in 2007. By Dec. 31, 2009, they held 35.6%.

Meanwhile, share of national wealth held by the bottom 90% fell to 25% from 27%.

Corporate Wealth Share Rises for Top-Income Americans

In 2003 the top 1 percent of households owned 57.5 percent of corporate wealth, up from 53.4 percent the year before, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the latest income tax data.

. . . For every group below the top 1 percent, shares of corporate wealth have declined since 1991.

. . . Long-term capital gains were taxed at 28 percent until 1997, and at 20 percent until 2003, when rates were cut to 15 percent. The top rate on dividends was cut to 15 percent from 35 percent that year.

See if you can make the connection. They want us to cut back our pensions, cut our wages, sell off our resources and work harder, to pay back the money that was borrowed and handed to them.

Sign up here for the CAF daily summary.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 11:14 AM | Comments (1) | Link Cosmos

June 15, 2010

Obama's Speech - The Carter Context

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

"The moral equivalent of war."

Tonight President Obama will talk about the Gulf oil catastrophe, and, hopefully, overall energy and climate policy. A look back at President Carter's fight over energy brings some context to this situation.

On April 18, 1977, 33 years ago, President Jimmy Carter gave a White House speech on energy and asked the country to change direction.

"Tonight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly."

Carter said solving this energy problem would be "The moral equivalent of war." Please, please read the speech, and its ten principles. It will help set the stage for understanding where we are today.

If we fail to act soon, we will face an economic, social and political crisis that will threaten our free institutions.

But we still have another choice. We can begin to prepare right now. We can decide to act while there is time.

That is the concept of the energy policy we will present on Wednesday. Our national energy plan is based on ten fundamental principles.

The first principle is that we can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and are willing to make sacrifices.

We failed to act soon. And we face an economic, social and political crisis that threatens our free institutions.

It turned out to be a very, very hard fight. The right's new network of corporate-funded "think tanks" was setting up shop and beginning to spread their poisonous, divisive, anti-government propaganda. They didn't like the idea of government trying to solve problems. The big oil giants certainly didn't want government researching alternatives to their gravy train. We understand the right's operation today, but people did not yet understand what was going on because the country had never been subjected to a destabilization campaign of this magnitude -- from the inside.

You can really feel the effect of the right's campaign when you read a speech Carter gave two years later. On July 15, 1979, President Jimmy Carter gave what is called the "Crisis of Confidence" speech. It's also known as the "Malaise" speech. I consider it to be one of the great speeches by a President. Carter again talked to the country about energy policy, pleading with people to take this seriously. He said, "The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our Nation. These are facts and we simply must face them."

Well, we didn't face them. Instead the country elected Reagan who immediately took the solar panels off of the White House, killed mass transit and alternative energy programs and steered the country on a path of toward dominance by the wealthy and big corporations - especially oil companies.

Now it is 2010, we have been at war in the Middle East for years, carbon in the air is raising the planet's temperature and melting the Arctic ice cap, and ... the oil in the Gulf. President Obama is giving his first Oval Office speech this evening and all of this is the broader context. Will he take on the entrenched interests that defeated Carter and brought us Reagan and later the two oil-company executives who invaded Iraq, encouraged buying Hummers and left us with a $1.4 trillion deficit?

As Carter said, "It is a clear and present danger to our Nation. These are facts and we simply must face them."

Energy speech:

Crisis of confidence speech:

Sign up here for the CAF daily summary.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 9:47 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

June 2, 2010

BP, The Gulf and Carter's 'Malaise Speech'

I came across Carter's "Malaise" Speech today. Republicans mocked him for this speech and the oil companies went all out for Reagan. (Reagan took the solar panels off of the White House the first week he was there.) What Carter said is as relevant and important today as ever, probably even more so. Please read.

Ten days ago I had planned to speak to you again about a very important subject -- energy. For the fifth time I would have described the urgency of the problem and laid out a series of legislative recommendations to the Congress. But as I was preparing to speak, I began to ask myself the same question that I now know has been troubling many of you. Why have we not been able to get together as a nation to resolve our serious energy problem?

Posted by Dave Johnson at 12:24 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

May 29, 2010

Bob Herbert Should Be A Blogger

Because he tells it like it is, not like the DC insiders think it is!

Please go read!

With all due respect to the president, who is a very smart man, how is it possible for anyone with any reasonable awareness of the nonstop carnage that has accompanied the entire history of giant corporations to believe that the oil companies, which are among the most rapacious players on the planet, somehow “had their act together” with regard to worst-case scenarios.

These are not Little Lord Fauntleroys who can be trusted to abide by some fanciful honor system. These are greedy merchant armies drilling blindly at depths a mile and more beneath the seas while at the same time doing all they can to stifle the government oversight that is necessary to protect human lives and preserve the integrity of the environment.

If he was a blogger he could receive a coveted Seeing the Forest Blog Hero Award. Maybe I'll come up with an honorary award...

Posted by Dave Johnson at 7:25 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

May 27, 2010

"Government Doesn’t Have The Resources To Stop It"

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

People want the President to exert leadership to turn things around.

The oil leak. Unemployment. Credit card scams. Foreclosures. Predatory corporations. Environmental destruction. Global warming. Roads and bridges crumbling. Incomes stagnant. Schools getting worse. Companies moving overseas. Problem after problem.

People want to know, "Why doesn't the government push BP aside and take over?" The answer is, "Government doesn't have the resources to stop it."

People want to know why the government can't do more to help unemployed people, help with health care, help provide good educations, help with college, maintain the infrastructure, and all the other things that government does.

The answer, these days, is always, "Government doesn't have the resources." And that, in a nutshell, was exactly the plan.

We, the People no longer have the resources to solve our problems. We now must depend on and defer to the corporations and the wealthy few to make the important decisions and get things done instead of being able to decide and do on our own.

This is the legacy of 30 years of conservatism. They called it "starving the beast." Reagan called it “cutting their allowance.” President Bush, told that his policies had turned the country back to massive deficits, said this was, "Incredibly positive news'' because it will create "a fiscal straitjacket for Congress." He came into office with a $236 billion surplus. His last budget left us with a $1.4 trillion deficit. "Incredibly positive news."

They disemboweled the regulatory agencies. They "privatized" government functions and resources, letting a well-connected few profit at the expense of the rest of us.

The Reagan deficit plan was right there for everyone to see:

Step 1: Cut taxes to "cut the allowance" of government so that it can't function on the side of We, the People. Intentionally force the government into greater and greater debt.

Step 2: Use the debt as a reason to cut the things government does for We, the People. When the resulting deficits pile up scare people that the government is "going bankrupt" so they'll let you sell off the people's assets and "privatize" the functions of government. Of course, insist that putting taxes back where they were will "harm the economy."

Step 3: Blame liberals for the disastrous effects of spending cutbacks.

And here we are. Every time you hear someone say that we have to fight the deficit instead of getting things done that We, the People need done you are witnessing The Plan in action.

And now, government doesn't have the resources to stop it.

NOTE: Part of the America's Future Now conference in Washington D.C. from June 7-9 will be devoted to strategy on how the progressive movement can fight the deficit cutters. Speakers such as Van Jones, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, AFL CIO President Richard Trumka, Arianna Huffington will offer a build vision for how the progressive movement can rebuild America's economy and put people back to work. Click here to attend.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 10:40 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

May 22, 2010

Oil Spill: Why Were Bush's People Still There?

The Minerals Management Service of the Interior Department was supposed to be regulating and inspecting the oil rig that exploded. They weren't. They were a "captured" regulator. This was entirely due to the conservative deregulation ideology.

President Obama took office in January 2009. This is May, 2010. Why were those Bush people still there?

Where else in our government are Bush holdovers, and why hasn't President Obama gotten rid of them? We want a return to Rule of Law not Rule of Big Corporations. We voted for that. Where is the President We, the People voted for?

Posted by Dave Johnson at 9:51 AM | Comments (3) | Link Cosmos

The American Present

Bob Herbert - More Than Just an Oil Spill

This is the bitter reality of the American present, a period in which big business has cemented an unholy alliance with big government against the interests of ordinary Americans, who, of course, are the great majority of Americans. The great majority of Americans no longer matter.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 8:21 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

May 6, 2010

Executive Entitlement Vs We The People Democracy

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.

There have so been many examples lately of the wealthy and the executive class having a sense that they are superior and entitled to fleece and feed off of the rest of us. Here is one more.

BP CEO Tony Hayward on who will be responsible for paying oil spill damages,

Mr Hayward reiterated a promise that BP “will honour all legitimate claims for business interruption”. Asked for examples of illegitimate claims, he said: “I could give you lots of examples. This is America — come on. We’re going to have lots of illegitimate claims. We all know that.”

So with this terrible oil tragedy ruining the ecology of a whole region, killing off the livelihoods of the people who depend on that ecology, he starts right out by mocking Americans who might go to court to collect for the damage that BP has caused them. "We all know" that there are going to be illegitimate claims. Frivolous lawsuits. Moochers and parasites, just waiting for a chance to get their hands on BP's big pile of loot—the pile that Hayward and other executives and producers worked so hard to accumulate. (BP's first quarter profit in 2010 was over $6 billion.)

Mind you, this was after BP got caught making fishermen sign waivers agreeing not to ask for more than $5,000 in damages from the company if they wanted work in the company's cleanup effort. Got that? The fishermen are thrown out of work by BP's huge Gulf oil catastrophe. So, desperate for any work they can get they ask for work doing the dangerous job of helping with the cleanup effort, and before "letting" them work BP makes them sign a form saying that they won't ask for more than $5,000 for ruining their livelihood. Or else they won't get any work helping with the cleanup.

Look how far down the road we have gone.

The entitled executives demand deregulation, because regulation is "government interference" and "meddling" in the affairs of businesspeople.

Then, with the protections removed, they call for "tort reform," which means citizens can't sue for compensation for damages after the fact.

Of course, they are trying to prevent the meddling government from setting up a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which would prevent scamming, cheating, fleecing and bamboozling of consumers - at least in financial products. (Other scamming, fleecing and bamboozling would still be OK.)

And most important, keep the government from taxing the wealthy or businesses -- and this keeps the interfering government from having the funds for meddlesome inspections and enforcing laws and regulations that keep them from doing anything they want to do.

But government is We, the People, and we are supposed to be in charge here, and making the decisions. Not a few executives who feel entitled to anything they want. They think We, the People are meddling and interfering, because they are so much smarter, and know so much better than us, the herd. So they demand deregulation. They demand that government keep its nose out of their business. This is how we have ended up with catastrophe after catastrophe, finance, mining, oil and debt disasters.

We, the People have to restore our own understanding of our own power and responsibility. These things happened because WE stopped being eternally vigilant. We are the ones who have let them get their noses under the tent, and it is up to us to take back control of our own democracy.

Sign up here for the CAF daily summary.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 1:58 PM | Comments (1) | Link Cosmos

May 4, 2010

Wall Street Plays Hardball

Wall street plays hardball - just ask Eliot Spitzer about that.

And now you can ask certain members of Congress, too. You mess with (threaten to apply sensible financial reforms on) the power, the power messes with you back: Members of Congress Bet Against Stocks in Year of Financial Crisis - WSJ.com.

This isn't just a news story, this is Wall Street sounding a warning shot at members of Congress. If you try to pass reforms that limit our bonuses, you are going to be in the fight of your life.

That's what happened to Eliot Spitzer. Here he is in 2002. Here he is in 2003. Then, Wall Street salivating over Eliot Spitzer's downfall. How many private detectives do you think it took?

Posted by Dave Johnson at 6:03 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

May 3, 2010

Airlines Just One More Corporate Scam

Why does it seem that every single corporation is all about tricking you and squeezing you?

Go price the cost of flying from San Francisco to Chicago on Delta. It's $240 round-trip, but you have to go through Detroit.

But if you just want to fly to Detroit it is $616 round-trip. Because there is less competition and they can squeeze you.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 4:47 PM | Comments (1) | Link Cosmos

May 2, 2010

Plutocracy and Anti-Government Front Groups

It is entirely about maintaining a plutocracy, and it uses the model developed by the tobacco companies to keep the government away - keep us from protecting ourselves. When you look into it, ALL the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-regulation ideology out there is funded by a few ultra-wealthy people and/or the corporate resources they have access to. It isn't corporate rule, it's rule be a few with access to the vast corporate resources. (Look into the history of the movement and its orgs like Federalist Society that got the people onto the Supreme Court who rules that corporate resources can flood our elections.)

Along these lines go read Secretive Right-Wing Plutocrats Use Front Groups To Attack New Campaign Finance Disclosure Bill

Posted by Dave Johnson at 8:14 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

April 29, 2010

The Revolving Door

This post originally appeared at Open Left.

If you are not familiar with the term "revolving door" it describes people who move from lobbying firms to government and back.

The Sunlight Foundation has just come out with Revolving Door From Capitol Hill to Big Banks,

Concerned about seeing their huge profits cut, six big banks are leading the charge to weaken or block new financial regulations being considered in the United States Senate. To push their cause these banks have hired 145 former government officials–congressmen, staffers and executive branch officials–to lobby on Capitol Hill and in the executive branch.

And they are spending a ton of money,

The top six bank holding companies engaged in lobbying on financial regulation include Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, these banks spent a combined total of $23.8 million lobbying Washington in 2009.

Please go over to Sunlight and take a look at this.

The level of influence that the largest corporations have over our government is not a surprise to anyone. The way it works is we are supposed to have a marketplace that is a level playing field and our government officials make the rules of that playing field from a distance, uninfluenced. Companies then compete on that playing field, and the ones who best serve the public are rewarded.

But what happened is that the rulemaking was not kept apart from the players on the field. Imagine a player in a football game approaching the rulemakers in the middle of a game and offering $150K to change a rule. And obviously that player then gains from the change and the gain enables more resource for more and larger bribes. How fast does the playing field tilt completely to that player?

So what we have is the largest companies setting the rules of the playing field so that the game comes out in favor of ... the largest companies. Oil, tobacco, health insurance, we see it everywhere.

The solution? Prohibit company resources from leaking out of the company in any way that can influence the public or legislators. Company funds should be used to run the company only. Of course, the Supreme Court just did the opposite...

Posted by Dave Johnson at 4:57 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

April 19, 2010

Here Comes The Corporate Money

Here comes the corporate money and it is as bad as you can imagine. Lies, smears... Money is flooding in from Wall Street, smearing members of Congress who want to regulate Wall Street, accusing them of ... being on Wall Street's side.

The Bankers’ Latest Scam,

In January and February she began tracking deceptive ads targeting Democrats in ten states that tie bank reform legislation to “Wall Street bailouts.”

One such television ad in Montana urges voters to contact Senator Jon Tester and tell him to oppose a “$4 trillion bailout” for Wall Street.

The ad, paid for by a group called the Committee for Truth in Politics, begins with ominous music as words appear on a black screen:

“Fat cat lobbyists. Special interests. Lining their pockets at our expense. HR 4173 already passed in the U.S. House.” Photos of House Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank flash past. More words appear: “Soon to be considered in the Senate.” Photos of Harry Reid and Chris Dodd standing beside Frank and Pelosi pop up, followed by pictures that move almost too fast to follow: Wall Street, wads of cash, a man smoking a cigar and two men in suits shaking hands in front of the White House, scenes of people out of work, the word “foreclosure” and the figure $4,000,000,000,000. Then more words appear: “The Big Bank Bailout Bill. Lobbyists and Bureaucrats. They play. We pay.” (Photos of ordinary Americans.) “More taxes. Spending. Debt.” (A beleaguered-looking citizen in reading glasses, apparently doing his taxes.) “Call Your Senators” (phone numbers for Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester). “We won’t be fooled again. EVER.”

HOW do we fight this?

Posted by Dave Johnson at 8:36 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

Distrusting The Government

Hey, that could be a good blog name, like Seeing the Forest, Smelling the Coffee and Growing the Garden.

A Pew Poll says Distrust in Government Skyrockets.

If you look at the poll you find that trust in government tends to drop through Republican administrations, and then rises through Democratic ones.

Also, there is a huge, well-funded anti-government effort out there with dozens of corporate-funded think tanks, an entire TV network, and all of talk radio. All the time, 20 hours a day, telling the public that government and democracy are bad, and corporations should run things. Marketing works, so I'm not surprised by these results.

One last point. Reading the poll - 142 pages - one thing runs through it. People don't see what government does for them anymore, and thinks that interests - especially the banks right now - are who the government is representing. I think some of that is people taking much of what the government does for granted, like roads, bridges, police, etc. I think some of it is that a huge amount of the spending is on things like military -- currently more than a $trillion for everything related to the military budget -- and interest on the Reagan/Bush debt.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 1:30 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

April 17, 2010

Tax Tricks - Do Corporations Pass Taxes On To Customers?

Here is a tax trick you hear all the time: we shouldn't tax corporations because they just "pass the taxes along to customers." Go to any of the usual anti-tax, anti-government sites and you'll see them trying to trick people with this.

First of all, if companies really did "pass taxes along to consumers," so what? Is that a reason not to pay for the roads, bridges, schools, courts etc., that enable the company to be profitable enough to pay taxes? But actually they don't -- because they can't.

This tax trick is based on a popular assumption that businesses can just raise prices whenever they want to. But a well-run business is already charging what they should charge for their product or service. If they have room to raise prices they should already have done so. But of course doing so this will cause them to lose sales to competitors.

Taxes are on profits, and profits are calculated at the end of a tax year by adding up all the revenue and subtracting all the costs. When a product or service is sold the company doesn't really know yet how much profit, if any, it will have at the end of the year, so it doesn't know what the tax will be, so how can it adjust prices? But if a company was able to just raise prices based on anticipation of profits, then the result would be that profits would be higher because of the higher price charged, which means taxes would be even higher, so the company should have raised prices even more, but that means the profit would be even higher, so they have to go back and charge more, but then ... I think you are starting to see how silly this idea of raising prices to cover taxes can get.

About those competitors - if one company is doing well and therefore making a profit, and another company is not doing so well, and therefore not making as much profit, and the first company raises prices to cover the taxes on the profit, then the second company has a price advantage so the first company loses sales and isn't going to have a profit after all so they really should put the prices back down, but then the other company's price advantage goes away and they are making a profit again so they should raise prices but ... Hey, this just gets silly, too!

Companies do not pass on taxes to their customers. So don't fall for this tax trick, it's just silly.

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. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 1:05 PM | Comments (1) | Link Cosmos

No Matter What They Propose

Matthew Yglesias - The Battle Lines

Back in January, Frank Luntz wrote a memo saying that the best way to defend Wall Street from any new regulation was to spuriously characterize efforts at regulatory reform as leading to “endless bailouts.”

[. . .] [now] They claim that the bill “allows for endless taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street and establishes new and unlimited regulatory powers that will stifle small businesses and community banks.”

This doesn't quite capture the sense of that is happening.

Luntz said the way to kill financial reform was to characterize it as "endless bailouts" no matter what they propose.

This is how it works. You do a series of focus groups. You ask "if I told you so-and-so would that make you be against it?" If they say that if they were told that Democrats were stealing green cheese from the moon and forcing ducks to swim in it they would be against it - whatever "it" it - then you would start hearing from everywhere that Democrats were stealing green cheese from the moon and forcing ducks to swim in it. No. Matter. What. The. Truth. Was.

So yes, Republicans are going to say that the financial reform bill will lead to endless bailouts. It is what they were going to say -- all of them -- no matter what the bill has in it.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 12:13 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

April 14, 2010

A Wealthy Few Pick Up The Cash, We Pay The Costs

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.

A few weeks back I wrote about Whirlpool closing their Evansville, Indiana plant and moving the work to Mexico. I wrote about the lunacy of an economic system that encourages companies to destroy lives, communities and the very economy that the Whirlpools depend on. This company was taking stimulus dollars with one hand and laying people off with the other.

Whirlpool did this because they could do it, making a wealthy few a bit more wealthy, and because you and I - not Whirlpool - have to pick up all the costs. This is called externalizing costs. It means you and I pick up the costs and an already-wealthy, connected few pick up the cash. It's the way our system currently is designed.

A step toward a solution to this problem would be to require companies to start estimating the externalized effects of their actions. What is the cost of cleaning up all the discarded cigarette butts? What is the cost of cleaning up the trash near a McDonald's? What are the costs from the health effects of added salt or sugar? So how about requiring companies to just estimate externalized costs so that We, the People can start getting a handle on this problem. Just start Is that too much to ask?

Now there is a study of the ripple effects of the Evansville plant closing. The full study, Layoff at Whirlpool: Costs to the Evansville Metro Area and Indiana Taxpayers, written by Greg LeRoy, executive director of Good Jobs First, concludes that direct costs to the community (us) will include:

- An additional 1,536 “ripple effect” jobs, for a total loss of 2,502 jobs;
- The loss of $138 million in income, including about 90 cents in additional income lost for every dollar lost by a Whirlpool employee; and
- A decline in tax revenues of $17.7 million, especially property, sales and both personal and corporate income taxes.

But that's not all.

This taxpayer-cost estimate... does not include substantial lost federal revenues... Nor does it include social safety-net programs to assist the dislocated workers. However, for one such program alone we conservatively estimate that: - Unemployment Insurance Benefits for the dislocated Indiana Whirlpool workers will cost more than $4.15 million....

Combining tax losses with Unemployment Insurance costs generates a conservative taxpayer-cost estimate of more than $21.8 million—or $22,588 per worker dislocated in Indiana.

WE pick up those costs. A wealthy few get a bit wealthier. Welcome to the system.

But that's not all.

The surrounding retail stores, gas stations, and all other places these workers spend will see a drop in sales. Teachers, police, etc. will be under pressure as the local economy dries up. Homes will be foreclosed and property values for all will drop. The costs of those foreclosures will fall on others. Etc. All so a few already-wealthy will get a bit wealthier.

At least skim through the study to see all the ways the rest of us will be affected.

WE pick up those costs. A wealthy few get a bit wealthier. WE CAN CHANGE THE SYSTEM.

Past posts on Whirlpool's Evansville plant closing:

Whirlpool: Mexican Workers Paid $70/Week Can't Buy Refrigerators
Whirlpool Tells Callers: Call Congress. They're Right!
Whirlpool Exec Responds: The System Made Us Do It
Whirlpool Bites Hands Of American Taxpayers That Feed It

Sign up here for the CAF daily summary.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 10:51 AM | Comments (1) | Link Cosmos

April 3, 2010

How Do We Counter Republican Propaganda?

The speech below by Rep. Paul Ryan lays out how the Republicans will campaign this fall. It is well-crafted propaganda, designed to get people to vote for what is really a corporate-run, privatized society replacing our democracy and distributing the benefits of everything that We, the People built over to a select few wealthy elites.

Lots and lots of people are buying it. There are a few reasons for this. I think the most important reason is that most people are not hearing anything else. There is nothing in any of the places where most people get information to counter this stuff.

Another reason people are buying it is that it draws on a few decades of trial-and-error narrative-building that has become a conventional wisdom. Many, many people actually believe now that cutting taxes increases revenue, taxes hurt and "take money out of" the economy, businesses always do things more efficiently and effectively than government, and the rest of the pro-corporate litany. Even our own Democratic leaders like President Obama frequently repeat this right-wing stuff, thereby destroying the credibility of progressive arguments.

The propaganda is backed by a rewriting of history that is taking place. Many people now think that Roosevelt's policies made the depression worse, etc. This is because the right is out there saying it over and over and no one is reaching the general public with anything to counter the lies. Today you can barely turn on a radio, open a newspaper, turn on the TV, go to most churches or go to many kinds of organized group activities like hunting groups, veterans groups, etc. without being blasted with this stuff.

Oh, and one more thing, you can't listen to any Republican, anywhere, talk without hearing the same points as you hear on the talk radio shows or read in the ubiquitous op-eds repeated almost word-for-word, driving the point home to people over and over from every direction. Imagine Democrats trying to drive a coherent, coordinated and repeated narrative. HA!

Those of us who believe in democracy need to come up with a public campaign to counter this stuff before it is too late. This requires a change in the way we think. Each of us must understand that our efforts have to start reaching out to the broad, general public, not just blog-readers, and make the case. The public out there beyond the blogosphere needs to hear reasons why one-person-one-vote democracy is better for them than one-dollar-one-vote "free market" corporatocracy or else they are naturally going to choose the latter. You can't blame people for making this choice if the only thing they are hearing out there in Kansas and Texas and Alabama is one side of the argument, and the other side isn't even engaging.

I'm saying we should start thinking about things like DailyKos and Firedoglake ads on the sides of buses. We should be thinking about putting up billboards that say "Government is We, the People making the decisions instead of big corporations making the decisions." We should be thinking about hosting public speaking engagements and getting our Fox-watching relatives to come.

So please read the following with the idea of how to counter it in mind. Instead of arguing with all the lies and distortions you are about to read, think about how to talk to regular people in ways that help them understand why democracy, taking care of each other, and our all-of-us-in-it-together progressive values benefit them.

For example, counter-arguments include informing people of the fact that government is "We, the People" making decisions for ourselves -- so "big government" really just means more control by the people over how our resources are used, and over our own lives. The tax burden rests on fewer people at the top because wealth is so greatly concentrated that a few people now get most of the income and control almost all of the wealth. And of course, much of what is complained about in the following was actually forced on us by Republicans, like the massive debt!

So here it is: Should America Bid Farewell to Exceptional Freedom? By Rep. Paul Ryan

Last week, on March 21st, Congress enacted a new Intolerable Act. Congress passed the Health Care bill - or I should say, one political party passed it - over a swelling revolt by the American people. The reform is an atrocity. It mandates that every American must buy health insurance, under IRS scrutiny. It sets up an army of federal bureaucrats who ultimately decide for you how you should receive Health Care, what kind, and how much...or whether you don't qualify at all. Never has our government claimed the power to decide when each of us has lived well enough or long enough to be refused life-saving medical assistance.

This presumptuous reform has put this nation ... once dedicated to the life and freedom of every person ... on a long decline toward the same mediocrity that the social welfare states of Europe have become.

Americans are preparing to fight another American Revolution, this time, a peaceful one with election ballots...but the "causes" of both are the same:

Should unchecked centralized government be allowed to grow and grow in power ... or should its powers be limited and returned to the people?

Should irresponsible leaders in a distant capital be encouraged to run up scandalous debts without limit that crush jobs and stall prosperity ... or should the reckless be turned out of office and a new government elected to live within its means?

Should America bid farewell to exceptional freedom and follow the retreat to European social welfare paternalism ... or should we make a new start, in the faith that boundless opportunities belong to the workers, the builders, the industrious, and the free?

We are at the beginning of an election campaign like you've never seen before!

We are challenged to answer again the momentous questions our Founders raised when they launched mankind's noblest experiment in human freedom. They made a fundamental choice and changed history for the better. Now it's our high calling to make that choice: between managed scarcity, or solid growth ... between living in dependency on government handouts, or taking responsibility for our lives ... between confiscating the earnings of some and spreading them around, or securing everyone's right to the rewards of their work ... between bureaucratic central government, or self-government ... between the European social welfare state or the American idea of free market democracy.

What kind of nation do we wish to be? What kind of society will we hand down to our children and future generations? In the coming watershed election, the nature of this unique and exceptional land is at stake. We will choose one of two different paths. And once we make that choice, there's no going back.

This is not the kind of election I would prefer. But it was forced on us by the leaders of our government.

These leaders are walking America down a new path ... creating entitlements and promising benefits that model the United States after the European Union: a welfare state society where most people pay little or no taxes but become dependent on government benefits ... where tax reduction is impossible because more people have a stake in the welfare state than in free enterprise ... where high unemployment is accepted as a way of life, and the spirit of risk-taking is smothered by a tangle of red tape from an all-providing centralized government.

True, the United States has been moving slowly toward this path a long time. And Democrats and Republicans share the blame. Now we are approaching a "tipping point." Once we pass it, we will become a different people. Before the "tipping point," Americans remain independent and take responsibility for their own well-being. Once we have gone beyond the "tipping point," that self-sufficient outlook will be gradually transformed into a soft despotism a lot like Europe's social welfare states. Soft despotism isn't cruel or mean, it's kindly and sympathetic. It doesn't help anyone take charge of life, but it does keep everyone in a happy state of childhood. A growing centralized bureaucracy will provide for everyone's needs, care for everyone's heath, direct everyone's career, arrange everyone's important private affairs, and work for everyone's pleasure.

The only hitch is, government must be the sole supplier of everyone's happiness ... the shepherd over this flock of sheep.

Am I exaggerating? Are we really reaching this "tipping point"? Exact and precise measures cannot be made, but an eye-opening study by the Tax Foundation, a reliable and non-partisan research group, tells us that in 2004, 20 percent of US households were getting about 75 percent of their income from the federal government. In other words, one out of five families in America is already government dependent. Another 20 percent were receiving almost 40 percent of their income from federal programs, so another one in five has become government reliant for their livelihood.

All told, 60 percent - three out of five households in America - were receiving more government benefits and services (in dollar value) than they were paying back in taxes. The Tax Foundation estimates that President Obama's budget last year will raise this "net government inflow" from 60 to 70 percent. Look at it this way: three out of ten American families are supporting themselves plus - through government - supplying or supplementing the incomes of seven other households. As a permanent arrangement, this is individually unfair, politically inequitable, and economically dangerous.

It raises a subtle but real threat to self-government when the few are paying more and more of the bill for government services and subsidies to the majority: "He who pays the piper calls the tune." The next chapter is the rule of "crony capitalism," where those who pay most taxes get the privileges, and government by and for the people is replaced by government by and for the few. The end of this story is soft despotism.

We already see enough of "crony capitalism." When government sends bailout money to Wall Street firms they label "too big to fail," that's "crony capitalism." When government buys shares in General Motors, names their management, and dictates their salaries, that's "crony capitalism." When big health insurance companies, instead of competing for market, team up with Congressional Health Care writers to order every individual to buy their products, that's "crony capitalism." When thousands of small businesses have to meet bottom lines with no government bailout, well, you're too small to succeed...good luck!

The Democratic leaders of Congress and in the White House hold a view they call "Progressivism." Progressivism began in Wisconsin, where I come from. It came into our schools from European universities under the spell of intellectuals such as Hegel and Weber, and the German leader Bismarck. The best known Wisconsin Progressive was actually a Republican, Robert LaFollette.

Progressivism was a powerful strain in both political parties for many years. Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, and Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, both brought the Progressive movement to Washington.

Early Progressives wanted to empower and engage the people. They fought for populist reforms like initiative and referendum, recalls, judicial elections, the breakup of monopoly corporations, and the elimination of vote buying and urban patronage. But Progressivism turned away from popular control toward central government planning. It lost most Americans and consumed itself in paternalism, arrogance, and snobbish condescension. "Fighting Bob" LaFollette, Teddy Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson would have scorned the self-proclaimed "Progressives" of our day for handing out bailout checks to giant corporations, corrupting the Congress to purchase votes for government controlled health care, and funneling billions in Jobs Stimulus money to local politicians to pay for make-work patronage. That's not "Progressivism," that's what real Progressives fought against!

Since America began, the timid have feared the Founding Fathers' ideas of individual freedom, so they yearn for Old World class models. Our Progressivists are the latest iteration of that same fear of the people. In unprecedented numbers, Americans are speaking out against the intolerable Health Care bill and irresponsible debt-ridden spending.

Does anyone recall Norman Rockwell's famous "Freedom of Speech" painting of an average working Joe standing and speaking his mind at a town hall meeting? Today's Progressivists ridicule average Americans speaking out at tea parties across the nation and denounce their criticisms as "un-American." Millions of average Americans reject their big government solutions, and that scares them.

Last January President Obama said: "There are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, have been taking place for over two hundred years."

He was right. So let's examine these "philosophical differences" of government. Progressivists say there are no enduring ideas of right or wrong. Everything is "relative" to history, so our ideas need to change. Progressivists say the Founders' Constitution including its amendments, with its principles of equal natural rights, limited government, and popular consent is outdated. We should have a "living constitution" that keeps up with the times. Progressivists invent new rights and enforce them with a more powerful central government and more federal agencies to direct society through the changes of history. And don't worry, they say. Bureaucrats can be controlled by Congressional oversight.

Would you like an example of how successful Congressional oversight is? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Government-Sponsored Enterprises (or GSEs), underwrote trillions of dollars in junk mortgages. Year after year their officials and others from HUD, Treasury, and other agencies who supervise them marched up to Congress for hearings. Red flags were raised. The oversight committees had other priorities and dismissed them out of hand. With the housing market already tanking, Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said: "This ability to provide stability to the market is what, in my mind, makes the GSEs a congressional success story." Less than 18 months later, the ‘market-stabilizing' GSEs went belly-up due to their shoddy business practices, collapsing the mortgage credit industry and sparking the worldwide financial meltdown. No one knows the ultimate cost to the taxpayers but it will be gigantic.

If Congress can't control what a few mortgage finance bureaucrats do with your dollars, why would anyone trust Congress to control what tens of thousands of bureaucrats will do with your health?

The Progressivist ideology embraced by today's leaders is very different from everything rank-and-file Democrats, independents, and Republicans stand for. America stands for nothing if not for the fixed truth that unalienable rights were granted to every human being not by government but by "nature and nature's God." The truths of the American founding can't become obsolete because they are not timebound. They are eternal. The practical consequence of these truths is free market democracy, the American idea of free labor and free enterprise under government by popular consent. The deepest case for free market democracy is moral, rooted in human equality and the natural right to be free.

A government that expands beyond its high but limited mission of securing our natural rights is not progressive, it's regressive. It privileges the powerful at the expense of the people. It establishes the rule of class over class. The American Revolution and the Constitution replaced class rule with a better idea: equal opportunity for all. The promise of keeping the earnings of your work is central to justice, freedom, and the hope to improve your life.

In their hearts Americans know this, but people were alarmed in 2008 by rising unemployment, falling home values, a credit crunch, and a financial meltdown.

They voted for a change of parties in the White House, and elected the largest Democratic Congressional majority in more than three decades. So overwhelming was their majority that the opposition is unable to do anything to stop them from running roughshod over our foundations. Harry Reid had a supermajority in the Senate that could not be filibustered. Still, the people's mandate for Congress and the new President was clear, simple, and unmistakable: get employment back on track ... get our economy growing again.

Americans have lost jobs nearly every month since these leaders took over the federal government in January 2009, more than 4 million at last count. The official unemployment rate hovers near 10 percent, but if we add in folks who have stopped looking for work due to lack of job prospects, the rate is a lot higher.

They began by passing the first Stimulus, a taxpayer giveaway to their favorite special interests. The price tag was $862 billion. They pushed through a second stimulus bill that cost you another $18 billion. Let's see: since 4 million Americans have been unemployed since they passed these "stimuli," that averages $220,000 per job lost. Think about that. Democrats can't even put people out of work without spending near a trillion dollars!

Just to return to where we were at the end of 2007, 8.4 million jobs have to be created. To reduce unemployment to its pre-crisis level of 5 per cent by the end of President Obama's term, our economy needs to create 247,000 new jobs per month. But we are headed in the wrong direction ... except in one field: the government is growing at breakneck pace in expanding federal payrolls.

Although millions of private sector jobs have been lost since the recession began, Washington is on track to add about 275,000 more people to the public payrolls - a whopping 15 percent increase. And we aren't talking minimum wages here. More federal workers make over $100,000 than those earning $40,000 or less. The average government worker's salary in 2009 was 21 percent higher than private sector salaries. The average federal worker's compensation package, including benefits, was nearly $120,000 in 2008, twice the private sector at $60,000. One study shows the private sector benefit package averages $9,900 while the federal package averages almost $41,000. Now the Administration wants Congress to privilege federal workers by writing off their unpaid student loans after ten years. People in productive private sector jobs would keep paying for twenty years. Progressivists would really like everyone to work for the government.

Has any Congress in history enacted, or tried to enact, so many foolish, squalid, and counterproductive programs?

It isn't good news when anyone losses his job. But I'll make an exception when the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader lose theirs in November!

As their first major item of business last year, these leaders pushed through a budget so bloated that it will double the federal debt in five years, and triple it in ten.

Now the Administration has sent Congress a budget that's far worse. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office [CBO] reports that 10 years from now, this budget will drive the federal debt burden up to 90 percent of the nation's entire economic production. It propels spending to a new record of $3.8 trillion next year [FY 2011]. It widens the annual deficit to a new record of $1.5 trillion this year [FY 2010], and raises $1.8 trillion in new taxes through 2020.

Two and a half years after this recession started, and no new private jobs? Think what these mind-boggling tax increases and mountain of debt are signaling to people who want to open or expand job-creating businesses. Congress keeps raising the barriers against work and production - that's your answer.

At a time when economic and job expansion should be Washington's highest priority ... and as if the multi-trillion dollar Health Care debacle were not enough, the Progressivist leadership in Congress are adding insult to injury by promoting their energy and climate agenda through their Cap and Trade plan. Put aside the fact that there is growing disagreement among scientists about climate change and its causes. This bill is a big mistake for other reasons.

CBO estimates that Cap and Trade's total cost is another near-trillion dollars. By one CBO estimate, the tax and energy cost bills for the average American household may grow by $1,600 a year. Other studies put this cost a lot higher.

If you don't believe me, let me quote a key Democratic Senator:

Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Coal-powered plants...natural gas...whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was...would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers...So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

That was Senator Barack Obama in January 2008, talking about what he would do as President. Don't say the man doesn't work to keep his promises!

Economists across the spectrum tell us that Cap and Trade would make our long-term national economic production fall below potential, causing higher unemployment. Federal spending is on an unsustainable path that can only get worse if this happens. There is general agreement that the environmental improvements from Cap and Trade are either nonexistent or too small to measure.

Congressional leaders are also pushing an unprecedented expansion of the Federal Reserve Board's regulatory powers over financial institutions under the belief that government must protect the people from themselves. This measure will direct federal agents to inspect, and at their pleasure object to, the wages and compensation which businesses on Main Street as well as Wall Street wish to pay employees. It puts bureaucracies in charge of deciding the type and line of credit which consumers and businesses will have access to when they shop for cars, homes, education, and expansion of facilities. The Fed has already failed the twofold assignment it has - keeping the economy and jobs growing, and keeping prices stable. It should return to its original mission of guaranteeing the long-term value of our dollar. Instead the same leaders who never knew the government mortgage giants were supplying credit for worthless mortgages now want Fed bureaucrats to regulate the businesses that supply personal and commercial credit? If that happens, economic recovery will be a longer time coming.

And now I want to return to the Health Care Frankenstein. Most Americans understand that government-run Health Care is not free, not cheap, and not compassionate. I think most Americans believe Congress has no idea of what the public demand will be for subsidized Health Care. They are correct. When Medicare was enacted, Congress guessed it would cost about 10 percent of what it turned out to be after 25 years. Heck, Congress couldn't even figure the cost of the 3-month long Cash for Clunkers subsidy last year, underestimating it on the order of 1 to 9. Most Americans know the Congressional majority are clueless about what their government-run Health Care system is going to cost.

The drama that brought this creature to life was unedifying ... part tragedy and part farce. Ethical categories went out the window. Never in history have the deliberations of Congress been subverted on this scale. The secrecy, the lack of transparency, the half-truths were stunning. The votes called at midnight ... the 2 and 3 thousand page bills members of Congress had no time to read before the votes ... the sordid backroom deals, the Cornhusker Kickback that shamed Nebraska, the Louisiana Purchase, the "Gator Aid" Medicare privilege for Florida, the additional Medicare dollars for states whose wavering representatives only yesterday were ferociously denouncing earmarks ... the federal judgeship dangled for one lawmaker's brother ... the raid on the Medicare piggy bank ... the lie that $250 billion for "doc fix" shouldn't count as a Health Care cost ... the double-counted deficit estimate scam that would land any accountant in jail ... the proposed Slaughter rule that Congressmen not record a vote on a bill their constituents hate, just "deem" it passed and vote on the amendments...and to complete the farce, the phony Executive Order pretending not to fund abortions when the Health Care bill, as "the supreme law of the land," does fund abortions. The level of political corruption to buy the votes for this debacle makes all past examples look penny ante by comparison.

Self-government stands or falls on integrity, not only in those who represent you but in the enactment of law. This indecency soiled our freedom and embarrassed the democracy we promote in other nations. And this may not be the last of it. To enact its transformative agenda, this leadership employs the Machiavellian saying that the end justifies the means. America was born in a revolution against that whole idea. Soon it will be the norm.

The Constitution and the consent of the people are all that stand between limited and unlimited government power. Zealous ideologues with the best of intentions brush aside the limits on power in order to get whatever they believe is good for the people ... no matter what the people believe. Our system of freedom can survive an assault, but it won't survive if the people are frightened, or angry, or asleep at the switch. A great Democrat, President Andrew Jackson, once said: "eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty." We can thank our current leaders at least for this: they have awakened the nation to the danger of taking self-government for granted.

Congress is not only enacting a social welfare state agenda over the objections of the people. It is failing to address the problems that threaten to engulf our country, principally economic decline and entitlement-driven debt crisis. The coming election will be a referendum on the agenda of our current leadership. Either it will give them a mandate that says "more of the same," or it will end the abuse of power and put America back on the path of growth and freedom.

Supposing the American people use their referendum in November to elect a new majority, what would the next Congress do?

The first order of business will be "repeal and replace." We will work to repeal federalized Health Care and replace it with a robust, competitive open market in health care that puts patients and their doctors at the center - not employers, not insurers, and not government agents. This takes at least two elections, and we must show our perseverance.

A new Congress will then turn to the great problem of our stagnant economy and the debt tsunami bearing down on us. The days of pretending not to notice are over. The next Congress will understand this threat and act after transparent deliberation and real debate.

I have put forward my specific solution, called "A Roadmap for America's Future," to meet this challenge. The CBO confirms that this plan achieves the goal of paying off government debt in the long run - while securing the social safety net and starting up future economic growth.

The problem in a nutshell is this: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, three giant entitlements, are out of control. Exploding costs will drive our federal government and national economy to collapse. And the recession plus this Congress' spending spree have accelerated the day of reckoning.

Today, Medicare is $38 trillion short of its promised benefits. In five years, the hole will grow to $52 trillion. Your family's share of this gap is $458,000. Medicaid will add trillions more in state and federal debt.

Social Security's surplus is already gone, and its debt is mounting. Unless its finances are strengthened, the government will be forced to cut benefits nearly 25 percent or raise payroll taxes more than 30 percent.

Both Republicans and Democrats have failed to be candid about this. And we have only postponed the crisis by shaking a tin cup at China and Japan.

A new Congress could start by making you the owner of your health plan. Under my Roadmap reform, a tax break that now benefits only those with job-based health insurance will be replaced by tax credits that benefit every American. And it secures universal access to quality, affordable health coverage with incentives that hold down health-care cost increases.

Everyone 55 and over will remain in the current Medicare program. For those now under 55, Medicare will be like the health-care program we in Congress enjoy.

Future seniors will receive a payment and pick an insurance plan from a diverse list of Medicare-certified plans - with more support for those with low incomes and higher health costs. To reform Medicaid, low income people will receive the means to buy private health insurance like everyone else.

Under the Roadmap's Social Security proposal, everyone 55 and older will remain in the existing program with no change. Those under 55 will choose either to stay with traditional Social Security, or to join a retirement system like Congress's own plan. They will be able to invest more than a third of their payroll taxes in their own savings account, guaranteed and managed by the federal government. For both Social Security and Medicare, eligibility ages will gradually increase, and the wealthy will receive smaller benefit increases.

And we need to get this economy moving again, so the Roadmap offers taxpayers an option: either use the tax code we have today, or use a simple, low-rate, two-tier personal income tax that gets rid of loopholes and the double taxation of savings and investment. And let's replace corporate income taxes with a simple, competitive 8.5 percent business consumption tax. These low-rate and simple tax reforms would provide the certainty and the incentives for investors to open new enterprises and for workers to find a marketplace expanding in new jobs.

The Roadmap plan shifts power to individuals at the expense of government control. It rejects cradle-to-grave welfare state ideas because they drain individuals of their self-reliance. And it still honors our historic commitment to strengthening the social safety net for those who need it most.

I would welcome honest debate in the next Congress on how to tackle our fiscal crisis - and the larger debate on the proper role of government. It's time politicians in Washington stopped patronizing the American people as if they were children - deferring tough decisions and promising fiscal fantasies. Tell Americans the truth, offer them a choice, and count on them to do what's right.

A political realignment is on the way. Democratic leaders are staking their party's future on their ideological agenda. Financial Services Committee Chairman Frank candidly admits that his party "are trying on every front to increase the role of government." Former President Clinton told a Netroots convention last year that "We have entered a new era of progressive politics, which if we do it right could last 30 or 40 years."

The question is, do we realign with the vision of a European-style social welfare state, or do we realign with the American idea?

My party challenges the whole basis of the Progressivist vision of this country's future. We challenge their attack on American exceptionalism. We challenge their claim that bureaucratic centralization is the only way the US can meet the economic and social challenges of our time.

Those leaders have underestimated the good sense of the American people. They broke faith with independents, Republicans, and their own rank-and-file. They walked away from the foundational truths that made America the wonder and the envy of the world. The price of their infidelity will be high.

I hope you won't mind an aside. I absolutely love Oklahoma! As you may know, I married Janna Little, daughter of Dan and Prudence Little, from Madill. Well, Janna and I are planning on spending half of our year here in retirement. And I can tell you it won't be Summer...it's just gets too hot here for a Wisconsinite. We will be spending the Fall and Winter here. You see, I love to hunt and fish. Each year we come for deer, duck, and turkey season. Janna refers to these times as Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter. There's something about Oklahoma that is truly captivating. It's a beautiful, big, unconstrained country with great-hearted people who know what it is to live like free men and women.

Some of my friends in Marshall County have on occasion called me "yankee," which I find particularly disturbing. I have always thought a yankee is someone from the Northeast, not the upper Midwest. Needless to say, I am told this can be fixed if I include among my life's achievements the high and noble accomplishment of noodling a giant catfish from the banks of Lake Texoma. And so, I will be returning in early June, otherwise known as noodling season, to gain this rite of passage so that I may never be called yankee again, and also hoping I keep my ten fingers intact.

Knowing America, and Oklahoma as I have come to know it, I am confident that the American character is up to every challenge. America is not over. This exceptional nation will not go down the way of mediocrity. Ronald Reagan used to say: "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction ... It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for [our children] to do the same." We are that generation. The fight is our fight, and it begins now! The time is at hand to reclaim America for freedom.

Thank you very much.

Note: Congressman Paul Ryan delivered this speech to the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs in Oklahoma City on March 31, 2010.

Paul Ryan represents Wisconsin's First Congressional District. He serves as ranking member of the House Budget Committee and senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 11:37 AM | Comments (2) | Link Cosmos

April 1, 2010

Look Who's Funding Climate Change Denial

Go see. Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine | Greenpeace USA

So when you hear from the Mercastus Center, Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute or a lot of other "think tanks" you're actually hearing from Koch Industries - a giant oil company.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 4:02 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

March 21, 2010

WTF Does That Even Mean?

OK I turned on the TV and saw about a minute of the health insurance debate. A Republican was saying "A government big enough to give you what you want is a government big enough to take it away."

WTF? WTF does that even MEAN?

It sounds scary and sinister, but I WANT the government big enough to give people what they want and need. I mean WTF?

And government is rule by the people. So I WANT it BIG. I WANT the people having lots of control over our affairs. I mean, what is the alternative if not big corporations making the decisions for us?

Posted by Dave Johnson at 6:30 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

March 14, 2010

Supreme Court Corporate Speech Quid-Pro-Quo?

So soon after Supreme Court Clarence Thomas votes to allow corporations to put unlimited money into politics his wife sets up an organization that will accept unlimited money from corporations hoping to influence politics. I wonder how much she'll be paid?

Is this the quid-pro-quo that it obviously seems to be?

Posted by Dave Johnson at 3:46 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

March 10, 2010

It Is Time To Put Our Foot Down: Ten Steps We Can Take To Stop Closing Factories And Eliminating Jobs

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.

The economy is still getting worse more slowly. We lost "only" 36,000 jobs last month. We need to create 11 million new jobs just to get back to where we were before "free-market" conservatives took over our government and dismanted the protections and regulations that had protected us from this.

Jobs lost, communities devastated, lives destroyed. Over and over again. Yet with all of this going on companies like Whirlpool and Toyota are still closing factories, laying of American workers, and moving manufacturing out of the country! Toyota is closing the NUMMI plant in Fremont, California, which could lose up to 50,000 jobs across California. Whirlpool -- recipient of stimulus dollars from the government -- is closing a factory in Evansville, Indiana and moving the jobs to Mexico where people will be paid $70 a week and certainly won't be buying anything made in America.

It's the system. While the executives collect bonuses and tax breaks for their destructive actions We, the People have to pick up the tab. We pay the unemployment, the stimulus, etc. Our communities pay the cost of losing the jobs and the tax base, our economy pays the cost of losing the manufacturing capability. And the executives and private equity firms and Wall Street get rich. So of course they do more of it.

How crazy is this? In the middle of this terrible jobs crisis companies are still closing factories here and shipping the jobs out of the country. Why do we allow this?

Whirlpool and Toyota (and Wall Street's $140 billion bonus pool this year) ought to be the last straw. It is time for We, the People to put our foot down and say not one more factory closed, not one more job sent out of the country! In fact, it is time to start bringing jobs BACK.

It is time to stop letting goods into the country that are made by exploited workers in areas with no environmental protections without a tariff to take away the price advantage gained from going around the protections that We, the People have fought so hard for.

There is only one way the country can earn the money to pay back what we borrowed from China, Japan and others. That is to make and sell things to others!!! THAT is what "trade" means. "Trade" does not mean allowing greedy executives to sidestep the laws and regulations and protections that We, the People fought so hard to get.

Look around us. Jobs lost, communities devastated, homes foreclosed, lives destroyed, governments going broke. All because of a runaway system that encourages the destruction of our economy. Our system actually encourages executives to close factories and lay people off! Executives make profits and get bonuses (that benefit from tax cuts) if they can figure out how to eliminate YOUR job or close a factory or cheapen a product or keep you from talking to customer support or make you pay an extra fee, etc.

Wall Street and executives benefit from this -- and get tax cuts, tax breaks and subsidies for doing it. But the economy-at-large is destroyed by these same actions when they are widespread. On top of that, we know that when we lose the factories we have to borrow money to buy the things we used to make. But we give tax breaks instead of penalties to companies that do this.

Here are just some steps that We, the People can take to start turning this around:

- A border tariff on imports to remove the price advantage of goods produced by exploited, underpaid workers.

- A border tariff to remove the price advantage of goods produced in ways that harm the environment.

- A border tariff on goods from countries that are not democracies, to remove any pricing advantage gained from not allowing people to vote and set rules that benefit themselves.

- A border tariff on goods from countries that restrict workers from organizing to improve their wages and working conditions, to remove any pricing advantage gained from not allowing workers to bargain. (America currently doesn't meet this standard.)

- Remove tax benefits and instead impose tax penalties and fines on companies that close factories here. Don't let it be profitable to do this!

- Increase taxes on the big monopolistic companies to remove the advantages that help them destroy America's smaller, regional and local businesses -- the very job creators we need.

- Increase income taxes on high incomes to reduce the incentive to pursue short-term windfalls instead of long-term interests. Make it take a long time to accumulate a fortune. Making a fortune is great but it should be a reward for helping our economy and society, not destroying them.

- Break up the "too big to fail" Wall Street firms that wrecked the economy. And get the money back -- all of it.

- Explore the use of Eminent Domain to keep factories in communities and workers in the factories.

- Formulate and follow a national economic/industrial strategy to build a new green manufacturing economy

Please add some ideas in the comments. I will have more to say on all of this.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 12:20 PM | Comments (1) | Link Cosmos

March 8, 2010

Who REALLY Runs Things?

A story out today, Business Lobbyists Push to Revive Estate Tax They Tried to Kill

The National Federation of Independent Business and more than 40 business organizations wrote Senate and House leaders last week asking for quick action on a proposed 35 percent levy on inheritances worth more than $10 million per couple. The Associated General Contractors of America is urging members to contact lawmakers about the plan.

Why are CORPORATE lobbyists working to kill the estate tax? Wouldn't you think they would be lobbying for corporate, not personal interests?

Think about the implications of this. Just who does the corporate lobby work for? If you thought it was corporations it would appear you were wrong.

At the very least, are the beneficiaries of the lobbying paying for the lobbying? If corporate funds are being used to pay these lobbyists, are the beneficiaries claiming the value of this lobbying benefit as income on their tax forms?

Posted by Dave Johnson at 11:25 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

We Already Have A Huge Carbon Tax - But Oil And Coal Companies Get The Money

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.

We all pay a huge "hidden" tax when we burn oil and coal. Oil companies get the money. This is holding our economy back.

Today when we burn oil or coal we put the toxic waste that results straight into the air. This causes damage to all of us, in many ways. First, of course, the carbon dioxide accumulates and over time causes the planet to get warmer, which causes the climate to change. Then there is the standard air pollution, smog, etc. that we are so familiar with, and the effect this has, especially on our health.

This pollution is a hidden tax on all of us. We don't make the oil and coal companies pay anything for the consequences of the use of their products. WE pay the price instead of them. They just get the profits. This is called socializing the costs and privatizing the profits. We collectively pay the price of the pollution. They privately get to keep the profits.

This failure to collect the cost of using coal and oil holds our economy back. By collectively paying this pollution price instead of adding it to the price of coal and oil itself, burning coal and oil appears to cost us less than it actually costs us. This makes it appear that other forms of energy are more costly, which discourages investment in these other forms of energy. For example, using solar panels appears to cost more than just getting electricity from the power company. But the power company is burning coal and the public-at-large is directly paying the price for the pollution. This subsidy for coal makes a kilowatt-hour have a lower price on your bill than what solar coasts. This coal and oil subsidy keeps solar power from getting the kind of investment it deserves, which keeps coal and oil on top.

Keeping the price of oil and coal lower than it should be keeps us dependent on oil and coal as our energy source. It keeps us from investing in now, more efficient ways to generate the power we use. It keeps oil and coal companies in charge of the direction of the economy. We should see this for what it is, and see the opposition to a carbon tax for what it is. Enriching an already-wealthy few is not what our public policy is supposed to be about.

So we need to set a "price" for burning carbon - a carbon tax - which makes its use reflect the cost of the damage it does and which we are all therefore paying anyway. Using a tax to add this cost to the price means that investors will find solar, wind, biofuels and other forms of energy production more attractive, and will develop these. And We, the People would get the money for use fighting the effects of burning oil and coal.

Another cost that we are paying is that this oil and coal subsidy is not in effect in the rest of the world. So in other countries investment in energy alternatives is taking off. They are becoming the leaders in the 21st century economy. When the price of oil and coal reflect their true cost the green manufacturing revolution will take off in our own country as well..

In January, Senator Lindsey Graham said,

“Every day that we delay trying to find a price for carbon is a day that China uses to dominate the green economy.”

This is the reason Jimmy Carter tried to wean the country off of oil and coal. We could have gotten started 30 years ago and by now could be well ahead of the rest of the world in green manufacturing. But the big oil and coal companies were able to stop the effort.

This is the reason that Al Gore tried to get a "BTU Tax" in 1991. We could have gotten started 20 years ago and by now could be well ahead of the rest of the world in green manufacturing. But the big oil and coal companies were able to stop the effort.

This is the reason President Obama is trying to get "cap and trade" passed today.

So we haven't gotten started yet. Senator Graham is right. We need to find a price for carbon -- instead of all of us just continuing to subsidize the oil and coal companies. They already have plenty of money.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 11:01 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

February 28, 2010

Remember Tobacco?

Tobacco is still killing over 400,000 Americans each year.

Does anyone remember lawsuit by the US Government against tobacco companies, and the Justice department asked for a huge damages award? Then with their usual corruption the Bush administration set that aside and asked for only $10 billion? See Prosecutor Says Bush Appointees Interfered With Tobacco Case.

Well guess what?

The Obama administration asked the Supreme Court on Friday to allow the government to seek nearly $300 billion from the tobacco industry for a half-century of deception that "has cost the lives and damaged the health of untold millions of Americans."

But the tobacco companies know that 5 of those Supreme Court justices are likely to dance with the once that got them there. They are now claiming it was all just "free speech":

The companies also say the courts' decision to brand their statements about smoking as fraudulent unfairly denied them their First Amendment rights to engage in the public-health debate about smoking.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 7:21 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

February 22, 2010

2010 Midterm Election Prediction

Here is my 2010 midterm election prediction:

Gasoline prices are about to start climbing, and will continue to climb through the summer, and well into the fall. No one will be able to pin down exactly why.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 7:46 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

February 21, 2010

Create Real Jobs That Pay Off: Update Our 1970'S Infrastructure

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.

One legacy of the Reagan tax cuts is that we stopped maintaining - and never mind modernizing - our infrastructure. As a result there is a LOT of work that needs doing. And there are a very, very large number of unemployed people. Hmmm...

There are so many more ways our economy suffers as the consequences of Reagan-era choices come home to roost. The current economic doldrums are in great part the result of Reagan-era choices:

* The deferred infrastructure maintenance and modernization that resulted from the tax cuts mean that our economy is no longer world-class. Bob Herbert has been writing about this problem for a while. From his most recent,

Schools, highways, the electric grid, water systems, ports, dams, levees — the list can seem endless — have to be maintained, upgraded, rebuilt or replaced if the U.S. is to remain a first-class nation with a first-class economy over the next several decades. And some entirely new infrastructure systems will have to be developed.

So here we are with a massive infrastructure deficit that is harming our ability to compete economically in the world. Just one example: China has 42 high-speed rail lines coming into operation connecting their major cities, and we are just starting our first one connecting ... Tampa to Orlando?

* The education cutbacks then are really hurting now.

* Energy. Cancelling all of Carter's efforts to solve our energy problems has left the economy dependent on last century's expensive and polluting energy sources and the monopolistic giants that control them.

* Debt. Tax cuts creating "structural deficits" have built up tremendous debt and the accompanying burden of paying interest on that debt and dependence on those who fund our borrowing habit.

* Militarization. We spend more on military than every other country on earth combined. The big defense corporations keep us from doing anything about it. Historically this kind of military spending and the resulting debt has ruined empires and kingdoms, and here we are.

* Government. Outsourcing/cutting/destroying/hating government and the commons has left us ill-equipped to catch up with China and others, and deal with monopolistic multinational corporate giants.

Schools, highways, power grid, ... everything. And all this work needs to be done on top of the need to retrofit all of our country's buildings to be energy efficient. Or we will just continue to fall forther behind. There is so much work that needs to be done. I wonder how the cost compares to the amounts that have been transferred to the very rich since the tax cuts started.

Hmmm... Let's see ... high unemployment ... lots of work that needs doing ... massive wealth accumulated at the very top ... hmmm... dot. dot. dot. And on top of that, there is all that evidence that past investment in infrastructure leads to great prosperity in the years following the investment ... dot. dot. dot. hmmm... Ideas are forming... connections are being made...

I can hear the shrieking from the "free market" conservative bunch now, just for thinking such thoughts: "But ... but .. that would be just WRONG to just ... give people jobs doing what needs to be done!!! and taxing the RICH -- the very beneficiaries of past infrastructure investment -- to pay for it? How can you even dare suggest such a thing???!!!"

Public works projects -- infrastructure. Example: In the 1950s, with top tax rates at 90%, we started the massive public works project that is the Interstate Highway System. How did that investment work out for our economy? How many companies benefitted from the ability to deliver trucked goods across the country in a short time? How did those top taxpayers do economically as a result of such investments?

Hmmm...

Posted by Dave Johnson at 12:12 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

February 6, 2010

Did Bush Leave Us Bankrupt, Corrupt, Ungovernable?

From Open Left

When you sell the farm, the farm's gone.

Is it already too late for America? I’m starting to think that the anti-tax, anti-government conservative movement that started in the mid-70s, elected Reagan and led to the terrible Bush Presidency may have effectively destroyed the country, leaving it bankrupt, corrupt,ungovernable, ruled by a wealthy elite -- and we're only now just starting to realize it. To cover tax cuts we stopped maintaining the infrastructure and started borrowing. To satisfy their hatred of government we increasingly stripped away rule of law, regulation, and belief in one-person-one-vote. We are seeing the consequences of all of that coming back to roost now.

Reagan left us with massive debt and ever-increasing interest payments. Bush left us with $1.3 trillion deficits and a destroyed economy that would force further increases in the borrowing for years - to be blamed on Obama. The "free marketers" gave away our manufacturing base that will take decades and massive capital investment to recover. Obama can try, but it may just be too late to do anything about the borrowing. We need massive investment in jobs and infrastructure, and a national economic/industrial plan. But, with their own Reagan/Bush debt as ammunition, conservative ideologues continue to block every effort at investment to get out of the mess we are in.

The conservatives destroyed the regulatory structure of the government. They removed the inspectors, administrators, regulators and replaced them with corrupt cronies.

The conservatives killed off, contracted out or sold off - "privatized" - so much of our in-common resources and heritage of public structures. Water systems, oil and mineral leases, government functions, elements of the military, etc.

The conservatives destroyed the rule of law, leaving behind public perception of rule by cronyism, favoritism and mob.

The conservatives destroyed public understanding of democracy, leaving behind a one-dollar-one-vote system that their Supreme Court just formalized, along with a corporate media that works to keep people uninformed. And to make matters worse, now the telecoms can argue before Federalist Society judges that their "speech rights" are violated by rules making them carry labor and progressive websites over the internet lines they control. And forget about the idea of them ever letting anti-corporate-rule candidates raise money on "their" internet.

I hate to reference Friedman but this from last week has been sticking in my mind. He says the world is looking at the mess in the US and is turning away from democracy as a result.

[Foreigners] look at America and see a president elected by a solid majority, coming into office riding a wave of optimism, controlling both the House and the Senate. Yet, a year later, he can’t win passage of his top legislative priority: health care.

“Our two-party political system is broken just when everything needs major repair, not minor repair,” said ... who is attending the forum. “I am talking about health care, infrastructure, education, energy. We are the ones who need a Marshall Plan now.”

Indeed, speaking of phrases I’ve never heard here before, another goes like this: “Is the ‘Beijing Consensus’ replacing the ‘Washington Consensus?’ ” Washington Consensus is a term coined after the cold war for the free-market, pro-trade and globalization policies promoted by America. ... developing countries everywhere are looking “for a recipe for faster growth and greater stability than that offered by the now tattered ‘Washington Consensus’ of open markets, floating currencies and free elections.” And as they do, “there is growing talk about a ‘Beijing Consensus.’ ”

The Beijing Consensus, ... is a “Confucian-Communist-Capitalist” hybrid under the umbrella of a one-party state, with a lot of government guidance, strictly controlled capital markets and an authoritarian decision-making process that is capable of making tough choices and long-term investments, without having to heed daily public polls.

It is too late to recover?

Accountability is a first step. If the current administration would hold the corrupt actors accountable, maybe we could begin to restore governance. And the public would know who to blame for what has happened to us, enabling them to support policies that will get us out of this. But so far they won't. If they won't even investigate torture and illegally invading a country why should we expect any accountability for the financial collapse, corrupt government contracts, bribery, embezzlement, corruption and other crimes of the Bush era?

More equitable distribution of the fruits of our economy is another step. Our system worked so much better back when the top tax rate was 90%. The returns from our investment in infrastructure were more widely shared. And back when it took many years to build a fortune businesses had an interdependence with their communities. Executives needed the schools and roads and other public structures functioning well. They needed long-range business and community planning. But just imagine trying to do something about the concentration of wealth today.

So where do we go from here. Is democracy over? Is rule of law a thing of the past? Is predatory monopoly control by the largest corporations the way things are and will be? Does the world now move to governance by a wealthy elite?

Or is the winter and the rain and the snow just getting to me?

What are your thoughts?

Posted by Dave Johnson at 8:00 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

January 22, 2010

How To End Corporate Domination Of Government - And Our Lives

The Supreme Court yesterday allowed corporate executives to tap into their company's resources and use that money to directly influence elections instead of for the profitable operation of the company. This use of company funds isn't considered bribery because the company executives can claim they are only engaged is "speech" to promote good government, not influence public officials to bring a return to the company.

To fix this we should pass a law that tightens up corporate governance and explicitly spells out - as law - that for-profit companies can only use company resources for the profitable operation of the company. This would make it illegal to use company money to "promote good government" or any other excuse currently used to get around the bribery laws. If by law executives can't use the company's money except for activities that return a profit, then use of this money in politics can't be just "speech" -- it is to return a profit. Therefore the federal bribery of public officials statute would apply to any use of corporate resources to elect candidates:

18 U.S.C. § 201 : US Code - Section 201: Bribery of public officials and witnesses (b) Whoever - (1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent - (A) to influence any official act; ...

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.

Currently it is the fiduciary responsibility of the managers of a company to use corporate resources only for the profitable operation of the company, but not law, and executives largely ignore this responsibility and get away with it. Give this responsibility the force of law. Spell it out. And by doing so, protect the corporation's shareholders from this misuse of their money by executives.

Would this end "corporate philanthropy? Yes it would! This is a good thing!

I completely agree with Milton Friedman that corporate philanthropy is nothing more than a scam - theft from the company by the few who make these decisions. If there is extra cash laying around and the money isn't used to bring back profit to the company it should be distributed to the shareholders or taxed. That is what a company is FOR. We need to restore this understanding of what these companies are for.

We shouldn't have our parks, symphonies, etc. decided by some executive's vanity. In a democracy we should have these things because We, the People want them. Tax big companies and let US decide how to use the money, instead of begging some executive to let us have these things. This is why we set up the legal construct that allows these companies to exist.

There is a common misunderstanding of what a corporation is that led to the Supreme Court getting away with this. A corporation is not a sentient entity, but we tend to think of it that way and this leads us to bad decisions about where they fit in society. It is simply a legal construct that allows the pooling of resources to reduce individual risk, so that large-scale projects can be accomplished. One person can't fund the building of a 747 airplane and even if one person had the resources it would be "putting all of the eggs in one basket." By bringing in thousands that risk is reduced and the necessary capital is gathered. To further reduce risk we excuse the shareholders from personal liability for the debts of the company - they don't have to pay the debts if the company goes bankrupt or is sued and they don't go to jail if the company does something bad.

We through our laws set this construct up for our benefit - to accomplish large-scale projects, create goods and jobs, and to pay back a portion to us as taxes. In return for giving the investors these advantages we expected a return. The advantages would lead to profits that would be shared so we could build the roads, schools, courts and other public structures that enable these companies and us to thrive. But over time that understanding has also eroded and the tax burden has shifted ever downward - or just borrowed.

Companies don't make decisions, think, act or speak and more than a book or a chair does. A few executives at the top make these decisions and then use corporate resources to implement them. Bob in Sales and Alisha in Accounts Receivable have nothing to do with these decisions. If the executives screw up or engage in schemes that enrich themselves Bob and Alisha get laid off, the executives have already pocketed their bonuses so they don't really care and "the company" doesn't "learn a lesson" because it can't lean any more than a book or a chair can.

We must restore this understanding of the role of corporations in our society. They exist to accomplish certain things. We, the People set this up to benefit US. We enabled the aggregation of vast resources and assumed that the fiduciary responsibility to only use those resources for operating the company would be upheld. This turns out to have been a mistake. The executives who control those resources are using them to tilt the playing field and bring advantage to themselves, in ways that have nothing to do with delivering better products or services. They instead use these resources to influence government to just hand them competitive advantage - or just cash.

So if we want to end corporate domination of our politics and our lives we need to tighten up corporate governance and spell out in law that the resources of a corporation must not leak out of that corporation, and should ONLY be used for the profitable operation of the company and nothing else.

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 8:29 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

January 21, 2010

Monopoly Corporatocracy Replaces Democracy

The Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 to make George W. Bush President allow large corporations to spend as much as needed to place their candidates in office, so that they will pass laws:

• giving them access to government funds
  
• restricting their smaller competitors
  
• allowing them to dump toxins in the water and air
  
• requiring people to purchase health insurance - (already in progress)
  
• anything else they want
  

This ruling unleashes monopoly corporatocracy. The - currently - biggest corporations win. This sets in place that they get to run things now, and stay biggest. Of course first and foremost the biggest companies will use their vast resources to keep the playing field rigged to their advantage so they stay biggest. And then to get bigger. How long before they get antitrust laws off the books? And then of course we will see things like Exxon will get laws passed restricting alternate energy.

Imagine being a state legislator and a company tells you they will spend ten or a hundred million against you - smearing you like the Hillary documentary this case was about - if you don't do what they say. No one can stand up against that and if they DO they'll be out of office in a heartbeat.

This one-dollar-one-vote ruling is a sad day for one-person-one-vote democracy.

“I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816

Posted by Dave Johnson at 8:18 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

January 18, 2010

Corporate Rule

I saw this over at The Big Picture: George Carlin on the American Dream

Posted by Dave Johnson at 10:37 AM | Comments (1) | Link Cosmos

January 17, 2010

Lines For The Peasants, Services For The Rich

Coming back from DC Friday I was in a very long security line at Dulles Airport. Very long. But there was a special, short security line for First Class passengers. The rich got to sail past the peasants. I guess this is our new post-Bush government-in-action, left in place by Obama.

This was a government service, in a public airport. This was not the entry to the passenger cabin of the plane, where the rich get to sit first and then you have to file past them, looking at the nice, comfortable seats and the champagne-and-orange-juice they are served before the peasants are allowed to enter. This was a government-operated security checkpoint, making the peasants stand in line while the rich got special service.

I guess it's similar to how the biggest banks get special treatment by the government, and smaller banks get the FDIC Friday-after-closing takeover. The large oil and coal companies get government checks while innovative startup alternative-energy companies are on their own, with potential investors aware that the government will help the fossil-fuel giants crush them.

We are truly in a post-democracy era and most of us are the post-industrial peasants. The government will help the already-rich stay that way, the rest of us are harvested for profits and as disposable workers.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 4:13 PM | Comments (1) | Link Cosmos

Fixing the Economy

Corporate governance is a big part of what happened. One needed regulatory fix is simple: Federal Corporate Charter. Apply federal standards for incorporation so Delaware's lowest-common-denominator incorporation laws stop screwing up other state effort to regulate. See The Big Picture: Failure of Corporate Boards Is Ruining America.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 7:55 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

January 15, 2010

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

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 | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

January 9, 2010

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

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 | Comments (1) | Link Cosmos

January 6, 2010

Washington Post Joins Wall Street Sneak-Attack On Social Security

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

At the end of the year the Washington Post published as "news" a story, "Support grows for tackling nation's debt" that pushed the idea of "a special commission to make the tough decisions that will be required to dig the nation out of debt" and "rein in skyrocketing spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security" before the "unsustainable entitlement spending" before it can "undermine the nation's economy."

The Post called that "news." No alarm bells went off in their editorial department.

Where did this "news" story come from? The Washington Post has a deal with an outfit called “Fiscal Times” to provide “news” articles like this one. But Fiscal Times doesn’t really provide news, it is in reality a “front” – one of many – for an organization called the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. Peter G. Peterson, a Wall Street billionaire, set up this foundation many years ago ostensibly to advocate that the government reduce its deficit spending and debt, but in reality the foundation advocates reductions in government benefits to citizens, forcing the citizens who can afford it to purchase private services instead. (Those citizens who can't afford it? Well, too bad but "the market" isn't about them.) The foundation says little about the larger government spending on military (cut "waste") and tax cuts for the rich (ending them "wouldn’t come close to addressing our fiscal gap").

The Peterson "news" story quotes people from other Peterson front groups like the Concord Coalition. So in essence the Peterson story quotes the people that Peterson pays to put out quotes. But it creates the impression that lots of "experts" agree this is what is needed.

This strategy goes back to a larger Wall Street effort to get rid of Social Security. A 1983 Cato Institute Journal document, "Achieving a Leninist Strategy" by Stuart Butler of Cato and Peter Germanis of Heritage lays it out for us. The document is still available at Cato, and select quotes are available at Plotting Privatization? from Z Magazine. It is worth reading the entire document (in particular the section "Weakening the Opposition") to understand completely the strategy that has been unfolding in the years since, but the following quotes give you an idea:

"Lenin recognized that fundamental change is contingent upon ... its success in isolating and weakening its opponents. ... we would do well to draw a few lessons from the Leninist strategy."

" construct ... a coalition that will ... reap benefits from the IRA-based private system ... but also the banks, insurance companies, and other institutions that will gain from providing such plans to the public."

"The first element consists of a campaign to achieve small legislative changes that embellish the present IRA system, making it in practice a small-scale private Social Security system.

"The second main element ... involves what one might crudely call guerrilla warfare against both the current Social Security system and the coalition that supports it."

"The banking industry and other business groups that can benefit from expanded IRAs ..." "... the strategy must be to propose moving to a private Social Security system in such a way as to ... neutralize ... the coalition that supports the existing system."

"The next Social Security crisis may be further away than many people believe. ... it could be many years before the conditions are such that a radical reform of Social Security is possible. But then, as Lenin well knew, to be a successful revolutionary, one must also be patient and consistently plan for real reform."

So there you have it. Every time you hear that "Social Security is going broke" you are hearing a manufactured propaganda point. Every time you hear that "Social Security is a Ponzi scheme" you are hearing a manufactured propaganda point. Every time you hear that "Social Security won't be there for me anyway" " you are hearing a manufactured propaganda point.

Don't fall for it. If they can gut Social Security they stand to make a lot of money but you stand to lose your retirement. Ask the government to look into better ways to cut spending and mostly to go back to taxing the wealthy like they did back when there were no deficits and the economy worked for every one, not just a few wealthy people sat the top of the pyramid.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 9:27 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

January 4, 2010

Why Things Are The Way They Are

This post by Ian Welsh is one of the best articulations of what is going on with the economy and the Democratic Party, that I have come across: Open Left:: Why Democrats Are Trying to Commit Electoral Suicide. I encourage you to read it.

Moreover they understand that with a few exceptions, the financial economy is the American economy. It's what the US sold to the rest of the world: pieces of paper in exchange for real money which could be used to import real goods, so Americans could live beyond their means.

Shut that down and what's going to replace it? How are you going to avoid an immediate meltdown of the US standard of living? How are you going to avoid a large part of the elite being wiped out? You or I may have answers to that, except to wiping out a large chunk of the elite, which is something which needs to be done, but those who grew up under the system, who believe in the system, and who ran the system don't. What they've done all their lives is what they understand. And more to the point the system has been good to them. The last 35 years may have been a bad time to be an ordinary American, but the elite has seen their wealth and income soar to levels even greater than the gilded age. The rich, in America, have never, ever, been as rich as they are now.

And if you're a member of the elite, your friends, your family, your colleagues—everyone you really care about, is a member of the elite or attached to it as a valued and very well paid retainer. For you, for everyone you care about, the system has worked. Perhaps, intellectually, you know it hasn't worked for ordinary people, but you aren't one of them, you aren't friends with them, and however much you care in theory about them, it's a bloodless intellectual empathy, not one born of shared experience, sacrifice and the bonds of friendship or love.

There is much more, so go read.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 8:35 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

January 2, 2010

The Rise of the New Oligarchs

Juan Cole writes about The Rise of the New Oligarchs,

At about 1.3 million adults, it is not too large to have some cohesive interests, and its corporations, lobbyists, and other institutions allow it to intervene systematically in politics. It owns 45 percent of the privately held wealth and is heading toward 50, i.e. toward a Banana Republic. Thus, we have a gutted fairness doctrine and the end of anti-trust concerns in ownership of mass media, allowing a multi-billionaire like Rupert Murdoch to buy up major media properties and to establish a cable television channel which is nothing but oligarch propaganda. They established 'think tanks' like the American Enterprise Institute, which hires only staff that are useful agents of the interests of the very wealthy, and which produce studies denying global climate change or lying about the situation in Iraq.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 10:55 PM | Comments (1) | Link Cosmos

Credit Cards

If you use credit cards then you are an idiot.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 7:45 PM | Comments (2) | Link Cosmos

December 31, 2009

Is Obama Progressive?

I think Jerome a Paris does a good job answering the question in his diary, Daily Kos: Obama is better than the extreme-right,

I've already described Obama as a "sane conservative" - he is running policies that would have been mainstream right-wing 30 years ago, and which would be mainstream rightwing in most of Europe, he's restoring competence in government (something I consider a major thing in itself, even if it makes few headlines) and he's mostly governing on the line he promised. It's welcome progress from recent years, and it beats the available alternatives on offer at the voting booth. He's doing the best with the system he inherited. But is he a progressive? In my view, not really. I'm of the opinion that the current system is hopelessly flawed and cannot continue as it is in the long term. And I'm not happy that Obama's policies have been to basically patch the system as it is, and push any resolution of its current contradictions further down the road. There will be a real crisis (a much bigger one than last year's) at some point in the future, but it's hard to tell if it's going to be next year or in a decade. Many people think authorities did a good job in avoiding the worst following last year's financial collapse, and that we're now back on the right track; if you're one of them, then the criticism of Obama as a hostage (or, if you're less kind, ally) to the banking lobby makes little sense and I fully appreciate that. [emphasis added]

Posted by Dave Johnson at 5:10 PM | Comments (2) | Link Cosmos

December 29, 2009

Move Your Money

I just came across this over at Huffington Post

The post and the video both send you over to http://moveyourmoney.info/

Posted by Dave Johnson at 4:02 PM | Comments (2) | Link Cosmos

December 28, 2009

Does Corn Syrup Cause Obesity?

All you have to do is look around to see that something has changed in the American diet. Everyone is gaining a lot of weight. It isn't "personal responsibility" if it is systemic. You can't blame everyone who is getting fat if everyone is getting fat at the same time.

Many have suspected that corn syrup has something to do with it, and the timing certainly makes it look that way.

The corn problem is huge: The big ag corps get these huge subsidies to grow corn. So they pump corn products into everything. They use some of the subsidies to bribe legislators to give them more subsidies, further corrupting our government. Animals are fed corn, which makes them sick, which makes them need antibiotics, which eventually makes the antibiotics useless. The Gulf of Mexico has a huge dead zone coming out of the mouth of the Mississippi because all the fertilizer from growing corn runs down the river and pollutes the Gulf. Poor farmers in Mexico can't make a living growing corn because American corn is so heavily subsidized, so they give up and migrate north.

So take a look at this: High Fructose Corn Syrup Proven to Cause Human Obesity.

Stop the corn subsidies. Just stop them. Cut them off. This will lower "government spending" - especially when you add in the amounts spent on the resulting health care needs - and save our health, Mexican incomes, reduce government corruption, reduce pollution in the ocean, help stop animal suffering and even help us have antibiotics that are effective.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 12:09 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

December 26, 2009

Corporate Money in Politics -- Is It Bribery, Or Is It Ineffective?

Just why is corporate money used to influence legislation? It is either to bring about a profitable result, or it is not. For those who make the argument that bribing lawmakers is running the business, by benefiting the shareholders, the answer is that such a quid pro quo is bribery under our laws, and we should put the people making the decision to use the company's money like this into jail.

But if they argue that they are not using the company's money with the expectation of a return, they should be fired for using the company's money and getting no return.

So which is it? It is one or the other. But both of them already are prohibited under our rules, just not enforced.

As long as we think of corporations as sentient entities we are keeping ourselves from identifying the real problem - which keeps us from fixing it. It is not corporations, but PEOPLE using corporate resources that are the problem.

We need to do is keep corporate resources from leaking out of the corporation. We need to apply strict accounting standards and laws about use of corporate money for anything other than running the business.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 12:28 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

Getting Corporate Money Out Of Politics Must Become Our #1 Priority

Health care: huge majorities of the public want something - anything - along the lines of a "public option" or Medicare buy-in. In the last election people turned out and overwhelmingly voted in Obama, 60 senators and a huge majority in the Congress.

But after "the system" plays itself out we instead end up with government power ordering all of us to buy insurance from giant insurance corporations. It remains illegal for us to buy into Medicare because this would interfere with the stream of money flowing from all of us to a few already-wealthy executives and owners.

It is so clear now what our system has become. The wealthy have a lock on our politics, and we can't help but see it. It is in the way of getting anything done. It is blocking our ability to do anything about our urgent problems like health care, climate change, financial reform, and of course the low-wage, everything-to-the-top structure of our jobs.

The other day I wrote, Concentration Of Wealth = An Influence Lock On Our Politics,

We have now reached the point where wealth is at least as concentrated as it was in 1929. With similar consequences.

Just how concentrated is the wealth and income? The L-Curve website graphically illustrates the disparity. Here's how it works. ... [click through to read this part] . . .

The societal consequences are dramatic. This happened as a result of wealth's ability to influence our country's decision-making. And that influence was used to increase the wealth of the influencers, which increased their influence. But this has come at the expense of regular people, whose incomes have stagnated, forcing them into increasing debt.

We have reached a breaking point where a consumer-based economy can no longer be sustained. But this has not led to any loosening of the grip that money has on our political system. If we don't force the political system out of that grip and restore democracy we will not be able to fix our economic system.

The question is, with the mask pulled aside - with everyone seeing how the wealthy are controlling the system - will we find ways of fixing it? Will we be able to take back democracy from the malefactors of great wealth? The obvious steps include getting all corporate money and influence out of our politics - and our lives. But even if we manage to vote in 100 Senators and 100% of the Congress, will we be able to accomplish this?

We all have to start talking about this, and making it the #1 priority of our political efforts. Nothing else can be accomplished until we take this on, but if we take this on then we can finally get on with the business of governing for the people.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 9:33 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

December 9, 2009

Why YOU Can't Have Medicare

There is one and only one reason YOU can't have Medicare: to preserve the huge checks for CEOs of giant health insurance companies. That is how our country works now.

Matthew Yglesias ｻ The New Health Care Deal

Posted by Dave Johnson at 8:14 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

November 24, 2009

Credit Card Company Scams

Digby writes about a scam by Bank of America, where they switched the envelope to look like junk mail, so people threw it away, and they collect million upon millions in late fees. Credit Card Companies Are Using Dirty Tricks to Force Us to Pay Late Fees: Why Won't Congress Do Something?

It was clearly a sneaky trick. Yes, it's my responsibility to know when my bills are due, but I had been in the habit of putting the bill into the "to pay" file and paying it on the following Monday. It didn't occur to me that the bill would suddenly come in an envelope with no return address or label on it that didn't look like a bill and so I tossed it into a junk pile and didn't look at it right away.

And that's what people are dealing with all the time as consumers, with their health insurance, their credit cards, their mortgages, their pensions -- overwhelming complexity designed to trip them up and cost them money or deny them benefits to which they believed in good faith they were entitled. And its all perfectly legal -- or at least there's no visible accountability for it.

Chase ran a scam on me. I didn't realize it was a scam until I was talking with someone else and found out exactly the same thing happened to her. I had automatic payments set up. They stopped the automatic payments, and charged me late fees. And when I got them to reverse the late fee, they applied a fee reversal fee!

Here's the thing. Nothing is getting done about any of this big-corporate corruption! Democrats have a huge opportunity to demonstrate that they are on the side of regular people -- but just enough corrupt Democrats in the Senate are joining with the totally-corrupt Republicans to keep anything from getting done.

Digby writes,

I just don't get this. This is a populist moment and with the exception of a few liberal economists and professors and a couple of Democratic congressmen, the whole field is being left to the teabaggers. This populist fever doesn't just affect the rural working folks, it affects people in the big urban centers and the suburbs just as much. Everybody's getting screwed. Somebody needs to address that or the wrong people are going to be blamed.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 1:48 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

November 14, 2009

How The Rich Get Richer

Paul Rosenberg nails it: Open Left:: The "Entitlement Problem": Racing ourselves to the bottom

But to a very large extent, the culture wars are a war of constructed tribal identity, fronting for elite corporate interests, and their primary historical achievement has been to transform an economy of broadly-shared growth into one of stagnation and diminished prospects for the many. The various issues that are involved are far less significant in the long run than this overarching effect in terms of the upward redistribution of wealth, power, opportunity and possibility.

Please go read it.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 8:59 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

The Public Purpose Of Banking

Food for thought: Attention Lloyd Blankfein: The Public Purpose of Banking,

... WHO controls the banks is ultimately less important than HOW we control the banks’ activities. Oversight is all very nice, but at times it pays to get back to first principles. What on earth is the public purpose of these things? [emphasis added]

[. . .] Newsflash: the public purpose of banking is NOT to provide profits per se to shareholders. Rather, the provision of the ability to earn profits is only a tool used to support the attendant public purpose.

WHY do we have corporations in the first place? Who is our economy FOR, anyway?

Posted by Dave Johnson at 11:47 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

November 9, 2009

Online Agreement Scam

Have you ever been required to click that you agree to an agreement before you can register a domain name, use software, etc?

This is a scam.

I am willing to bet that no human has ever read one of these agreements -- and the companies requiring you to agree know this. For example I just renewed a domain name at Network Solutions. Click through to see the agreement and tell me if you believe that any human, anywhere, including any human at Network Solutions, has ever read through to the end of this agreement:

Service Agreement

The service agreement you are viewing provides terms and conditions relevant to the products/services you are purchasing. To view a consolidated version of the service agreement, containing the terms and conditions for all products/services sold by Network Solutions at this site, click here.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
General Provisions (Sections 1 - 30)

* Domain Names (nsWebAddress) - Schedule A, B, C1-C12, E, F, G

ALL SERVICES ARE GOVERNED BY THE GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT ARE LISTED BELOW ALONG WITH THE TERMS IN THE APPLICABLE SCHEDULE(S) FOR THE SPECIFIC SERVICES THAT ARE PURCHASED.

This is Service Agreement Version Number 8.2

1. INTRODUCTION. In this Service Agreement ("Agreement"), "you" and "your" refer to each customer ("Customer") and its agents, including each person listed in your account information as being associated with your account, and "we", "us" and "our" refer collectively to Network Solutions, LLC and its wholly-owned subsidiaries ("Network Solutions"). This Agreement explains our obligations to you, and your obligations to us in relation to the Network Solutions service(s) you purchase. By purchasing or otherwise applying for Network Solutions service(s), you agree to establish an account with us for such services. When you use your account or permit someone else to use your account to purchase or otherwise acquire access to additional Network Solutions service(s) or to modify or cancel your Network Solutions service(s) (even if we were not notified of such authorization), this Agreement as amended covers any such service or actions. Additionally, you agree that each person listed in your account information as being associated with your account for any services provided to you (including, but not limited to, domain name registration services) is your agent with full authority to act on your behalf with respect to such services in accordance with the permissions granted, and that the Primary Contact and Account Administrative Contact for your account shall have the authority, without limitation, to terminate, transfer (where transfer is permitted by the Agreement), or modify such services or your account information, or purchase additional services. Any acceptance of your application(s) or requests for our services and the performance of our services will occur at our offices in Herndon, Virginia, the location of our principal places of business. Except as otherwise expressly set forth in this Agreement, you agree that if you list, directly or by default, Network Solutions as a contact for your account and/or any of the services in your account, we have the right, without notice, to remove our name and/or information from any such account or service and to replace the same with the name and/or information provided by you for any other contact associated with that account or service.

2. VARIOUS SERVICES. Sections 1 through 30 apply to any and all Network Solutions services that you purchase, whether purchased separately or as a part of a complete solution or package bundle. The terms and conditions set forth in the Schedules of this Agreement apply only to customers who have purchased the Network Solutions services referenced in those Schedules. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of Sections 1 through 30 and the terms of the Schedules, the terms of the Schedules shall control with regard to the applicable Network Solutions service. IMPORTANT NOTICE CONCERNING SERVICES THAT ARE COMBINED TOGETHER AS A PART OF A BUSINESS SOLUTION: If you purchase Network Solutions services that are sold together as a "bundled" package (e.g., you select nsSpace™ that includes both a domain name (nsWebAddress™) and a Network Solutions Website builder or other services, as opposed to your purchasing such services separately), termination of any part of the services will result in termination of all Network Solutions services provided as part of the bundled package. Please see Section 10(d) of this Agreement for more information. You acknowledge and agree that some or all of the services you purchase or receive from us may be provided by one or more vendors, contractors or affiliates selected by Network Solutions in its sole discretion. As a part of your Services, Network Solutions may provide you access to third party functionality, including, but not limited to applications, widgets, RSS and other types of news, event and industry feeds, calculators, recommended copy, forms and templates that are incorporated or are offered as a part of one or more of the Services ("Third Party Functionality"). Network Solutions does not control such Third Party Functionality and is therefore not liable for any issues of any kind relating to the Third Party Functionality. Network Solutions reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to terminate, suspend, cancel or alter your access to Third Party Functionality at any time.

3. FEES, PAYMENT AND TERM OF SERVICE. As consideration for the services you purchased, you agree to pay Network Solutions the applicable service(s) fees set forth on our Website at the time of your selection, or, if applicable, upon receipt of your invoice from Network Solutions. All fees are due immediately and are non-refundable, except as otherwise expressly noted in one or more of the Schedules to this Agreement or as such fees are billed by Network Solutions under an invoice to a Customer that expressly permits payment for Services by a Customer within thirty (30) days after Network Solutions has sent the Customer such invoice ("Net-30 Customers"). Network Solutions may require a Customer to successfully complete a credit application prior to such Customer qualifying to become a Net-30 Customer. Customers who purchase Service(s) through outbound telemarketing and request cancellation of Service(s) within ten (10) days of purchase are entitled to a refund of all fees. If you qualify, we may extend payment terms to you under our Business Account Credit Program. Network Solutions will charge you a processing fee if you terminate or cancel any package prior to the completion of any limited money-back guarantee time period for that package or service (the "Processing Fee"). A Processing Fee of $29.95 will be charged for the cancellation of any one-year annual hosting, ecommerce, or Website design package. The Processing Fees for cancellation of multi-year packages will be: $24.95 per year for two-year packages, $19.95 per year for three-year packages, $14.95 per year for five-year packages and $9.95 per year for ten-year packages. Unless otherwise specified herein or on our Website, each Network Solutions service is for a one-year initial term and renewable thereafter for successive one to ten-year terms, as set forth during the renewal process. Any renewal of your services with us is subject to our then current terms and conditions, including, but not limited to, successful completion of any applicable authentication procedure, and payment of all applicable service fees at the time of renewal and in the case of domain name re-registration, the domain name registry's acceptance of your domain name registration. Except with respect to service to which you subscribe on a monthly basis, we will endeavor to provide you notice prior to the renewal of your services at least fifteen (15) days in advance of the renewal date. Additional payment terms may apply to the Network Solutions services you purchase, as set forth in the applicable Schedules to this Agreement. Pricing for services, renewals, and product upgrades and add-ons may vary based upon the date of your purchase. We may provide you with an opportunity to "opt in" to our automatic renewal process in accordance with the instructions (and subject to your agreement to the terms and conditions pertaining to that process) on our Website. You agree that if you use of our auto-renew service, we will attempt to renew your service approximately sixty (60) days prior to its expiration , for the same term then-currently in place for the service, and at the then-current price for the service. You acknowledge and agree that the renewal price may be higher or lower than the price you paid for the then-current term of the service, and that we are authorized to charge your credit card or other payment method (such as PayPal®) on file for the renewal of the service(s). In any event, you are solely responsible for the credit card or payment information you provide to Network Solutions and must promptly inform Network Solutions of any changes thereto (e.g., change of expiration date or account number). In addition, you are solely responsible for ensuring the services are renewed. Network Solutions shall have no liability to you or any third party in connection with the renewal as described herein, including, but not limited to, any failure or errors in renewing the services. In order to process a renewal under our auto-renew service, we may use third-party vendors for the purpose of updating the expiration date and account number of your credit card or payment method on file. Such third-party vendors maintain relationships with various credit card issuers and may be able to provide us with the updated expiration date and account number for your credit card by comparing the information we have on file with the information the third-party has on file. By selecting our auto-renew service, you acknowledge and agree that we may share your credit card or other payment method information with such a third-party vendor for the purpose of obtaining any update to your credit card expiration date, account number, or payment account. You agree to pay all value added, sales and other taxes (other than taxes based on Network Solutions income) related to Network Solutions services or payments made by you hereunder. All payments of fees for Network Solutions services s hall be made in U.S. dollars. Set up fees, if any, will become payable on the applicable effective date for the applicable Network Solutions services. All sums due and payable that remain unpaid after any applicable cure period herein will accrue interest as a late charge of 1.5% per month or the maximum amount allowed by law, whichever is less. In the event of non-payment by a Net-30 Customer on any amount of any invoice, Network Solutions reserves the right to refer such invoice and Net-30 Customer to a collection agency in order for Network Solutions to secure payment on the invoice. Network Solutions may terminate any or all of the Services of a Net-30 Customer who fails to pay an invoice in a timely fashion. Network Solutions may charge a late fee(s) to Net-30 Customers for late payment of an invoice or a reinstatement fee(s) to Net-30 Customers who wish to reinstate Service(s) that have been terminated due to non-payment.

4. ACCURATE INFORMATION. You agree to: (1) provide certain true, current, complete and accurate information about you as required by the application process; and (2) maintain and update according to our modification procedures the information you provided to us when purchasing our services as needed to keep it current, complete and accurate. We rely on this information to send you important information and notices regarding your account and our services. You agree that Network Solutions (itself or through its third party service providers) is authorized, but not obligated, to use Coding Accuracy Support System (CASS) certified software and/or the National Change of Address program (and/or such other systems or programs as may be recognized by the United States Postal Service or other international postal authority for updating and/or standardizing address information) to change any address information associated with your account (e.g., registrant address, billing contact address, etc.), and you agree that Network Solutions may use and rely upon any such changed address information for all purposes in connection with your account (including the sending of invoices and other important account information) as though such changes had been made directly by you.

5. PRIVACY. Our privacy statement, (a) for Websites and/or value added services purchased through www.netsolwebsites.com is located on our Website at http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/privacy-policy.jsp and is incorporated herein by reference, as it is applicable to such Website purchases (other services purchased through www.netsolwebsites.com, including, but not limited to, domain name registrations, are covered by the privacy statement set forth on our Web site at http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/privacy-policy.jsp), (b) for Network Solutions services purchased through www.mycomputer.com is located on our Website at http://www.mycomputer.com/agreements/privacy_policy.html and is incorporated herein by reference for all such Network Solutions services, and (d) for all other Network Solutions services is located on our Website at http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/privacy-policy.jsp and is incorporated herein by reference for all such Network Solutions services. The applicable privacy statement sets forth your and our rights and responsibilities with regard to your personal information. You agree that we, in our sole discretion, may modify our privacy statement. We will post such revised statement on our Website at least thirty (30) calendar days before it becomes effective. You agree that, by using our services after modifications to the privacy statement become effective, you have agreed to these modifications. You acknowledge that if you do not agree to any such modification, you may terminate this Agreement. We will not refund any fees paid by you if you terminate your Agreement with us except as otherwise expressly provided in one or more of the Schedules attached hereto. We will not process the personal data that we collect from you in a way incompatible with the purposes and other limitations described in our privacy statement. You represent and warrant that you have provided notice to, and obtained consent from, any third party individuals whose personal data you supply to us as part of our services with regard to: (i) the purposes for which such third party's personal data has been collected, (ii) the intended recipients or categories of recipients of the third party's personal data, (iii) which parts of the third party's data are obligatory and which parts, if any, are voluntary; and (iv) how the third party can access and, if necessary, rectify the data held about them. You further agree to provide such notice and obtain such consent with regard to any third party personal data you supply to us in the future. We are not responsible for any consequences resulting from your failure to provide notice or receive consent from such individuals nor for your providing outdated, incomplete or inaccurate information.

6. OWNERSHIP. Except as otherwise set forth herein, all right, title and interest in and to all, (i) registered and unregistered trademarks, service marks and logos; (ii) patents, patent applications, and patentable ideas, inventions, and/or improvements; (iii) trade secrets, proprietary information, and know-how; (iv) all divisions, continuations, reissues, renewals, and extensions thereof now existing or hereafter filed, issued, or acquired; (v) registered and unregistered copyrights including, without limitation, any forms, images, audiovisual displays, text, software and (vi) all other intellectual property, proprietary rights or other rights related to intangible property which are used, developed, comprising, embodied in, or practiced in connection with any of the Network Solutions services identified herein ("Network Solutions Intellectual Property Rights") are owned by Network Solutions or its licensors, and you agree to make no claim of interest in or ownership of any such Network Solutions Intellectual Property Rights. You acknowledge that no title to the Network Solutions Intellectual Property Rights is transferred to you, and that you do not obtain any rights, express or implied, in the Network Solutions or its licensors' service, other than the rights expressly granted in this Agreement. To the extent that you create any Derivative Work (any work that is based upon one or more preexisting versions of a work provided to you, such as an enhancement or modification, revision, translation, abridgement, condensation, expansion, collection, compilation or any other form in which such preexisting works may be recast, transformed or adapted) such Derivative Work shall be owned by Network Solutions and all right, title and interest in and to each such Derivative Work shall automatically vest in Network Solutions. Network Solutions shall have no obligation to grant you any right in any such Derivative Work.

7. EXCLUSIVE REMEDY; TIME LIMITATION ON FILING ANY CLAIM. YOU AGREE THAT OUR ENTIRE LIABILITY, AND YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY, IN LAW, IN EQUITY, OR OTHERWISE, WITH RESPECT TO ANY NETWORK SOLUTIONS SERVICE(S) PROVIDED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT AND/OR FOR ANY BREACH OF THIS AGREEMENT IS SOLELY LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT YOU PAID FOR SUCH SERVICE(S) DURING THE TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL NETWORK SOLUTIONS, ITS LICENSORS AND CONTRACTORS (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THIRD PARTIES PROVIDING SERVICES AS PART OF THE SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE FOR WEBSITES FROM NETWORK SOLUTIONS) BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES EVEN IF NETWORK SOLUTIONS HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. TO THE EXTENT THAT A STATE DOES NOT PERMIT THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AS SET FORTH HEREIN NETWORK SOLUTIONS'S LIABILITY IS LIMITED TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW IN SUCH STATES. Network Solutions and its licensors and contractors disclaim any and all loss or liability resulting from, but not limited to: (1) loss or liability resulting from access delays or access interruptions; (2) loss or liability resulting from data non-delivery or data mis-delivery; (3) loss or liability resulting from acts of God; (4) loss or liability resulting from the unauthorized use or misuse of your account number, password or security authentication option; (5) loss or liability resulting from errors, omissions, or misstatements in any and all information or service(s) provided under this agreement; (6) loss or liability relating to the deletion of or failure to store email messages; (7) loss or liability resulting from the development or interruption of your Website or your Network Solutions Website; (8) loss or liability from your inability to use our email service, Website manager service or any component of the subscription service (for websites from Network Solutions); (9) loss or liability that you may incur in connection with our processing of your application for our services, our processing of any authorized modification to your domain name record or your agent's failure to pay any fees, including the initial registration fee or re-registration fee; (10) loss or liability as a result of the application of our dispute policy; or (11) loss or liability relating to limitations, incompatibilities, defects, or other problems inherent in xml, xkms, or any other standard not under Network Solutions sole control. YOU AGREE THAT REGARDLESS OF ANY STATUTE OR LAW TO THE CONTRARY, ANY CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OF OUR SERVICES MUST BE FILED WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR AFTER SUCH CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE OR SUCH CLAIM SHALL BE FOREVER BARRED.

8. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. YOU AGREE THAT YOUR USE OF OUR SERVICE(S) OR OUR LICENSORS' SERVICES IS SOLELY AT YOUR OWN RISK. YOU AGREE THAT ALL OF SUCH SERVICES ARE PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS," AND "AS AVAILABLE" BASIS, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THIS AGREEMENT. WE AND OUR LICENSORS EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. NEITHER NETWORK SOLUTIONS NOR OUR LICENSORS MAKE ANY WARRANTY THAT SERVICE(S) LICENSED HEREUNDER WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS, OR THAT THE SERVICE(S) WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, TIMELY, SECURE, OR ERROR FREE; NOR DO WE OR OUR LICENSORS MAKE ANY WARRANTY AS TO THE RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE USE OF THE SERVICE(S) OR AS TO THE ACCURACY OR RELIABILITY OF ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED THROUGH OUR SERVICES. YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT ANY MATERIAL AND/OR DATA DOWNLOADED OR OTHERWISE OBTAINED THROUGH THE USE OF OUR SERVICES IS DONE AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION AND RISK AND THAT YOU WILL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO YOUR COMPUTER SYSTEM OR LOSS OF DATA THAT RESULTS FROM THE DOWNLOAD OF SUCH MATERIAL AND/OR DATA. WE MAKE NO WARRANTY REGARDING ANY GOODS OR SERVICES PURCHASED OR OBTAINED THROUGH ANY OF OUR SERVICES OR ANY TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO THROUGH SUCH SERVICES. NO ADVICE OR INFORMATION, WHETHER ORAL OR WRITTEN, OBTAINED BY YOU FROM US OR THROUGH OUR SERVICES SHALL CREATE ANY WARRANTY NOT EXPRESSLY MADE HEREIN, YOU MAY NOT RELY ON ANY SUCH INFORMATION OR ADVICE. TO THE EXTENT JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN WARRANTIES, SOME OF THE ABOVE EXCLUSIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR AND SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO ANY PRODUCTS AND/OR SERVICES PURCHASED BY YOU FROM A THIRD PARTY.

9. INDEMNITY. You agree to release, indemnify, defend and hold harmless Network Solutions and any of our (or their) contractors, agents, employees, officers, directors, shareholders, affiliates and assigns from all liabilities, claims, damages, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, relating to or arising out of (a) this Agreement or the breach of your warranties, representations and obligations under this Agreement, (b) the Network Solutions services or your use of such services, including without limitation infringement or dilution by you, or someone else using our service(s) from your computer, (c) any intellectual property or other proprietary right of any person or entity, (d) a violation of any of our operating rules or policies relating to the service(s) provided, (e) any information or data you supplied to Network Solutions, including, without limitation, any misrepresentation in your application, if applicable, (f) the inclusion of metatags or other elements in any website created for you or by you via the Network Solutions services, or (g) any information, material, or services available on your licensed Network Solutions Website . When we are threatened with suit or sued by a third party, we may seek written assurances from you concerning your promise to indemnify us. Such assurances may, without limitation, be in the form of a deposit of money by you to us or our representatives to cover our fees and expenses, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees, in any such suit or threat of suit. Your failure to provide such assurances may be considered by us to be a material breach of this Agreement. We shall have the right to participate in any defense by you of a third-party claim related to your use of any of the Network Solutions services, with counsel of our choice. We shall reasonably cooperate in the defense at your request and expense. You shall have sole responsibility to defend us against any claim, but you must receive our prior written consent regarding any related settlement. The terms of this paragraph will survive any termination or cancellation of this Agreement.

10. TERMINATION.

a. By You. You may terminate this Agreement upon at least thirty (30) days written notice to Network Solutions for any reason.

b. By Us. We may terminate this Agreement or any part of the Network Solutions services at any time in the event you breach any obligation hereunder, fail to respond within ten (10) calendar days to an inquiry from us concerning the accuracy or completeness of the information referred to in Section 4 of this Agreement, if we determine in our sole discretion that you have violated the Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy, which is located on our Website at http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/aup.jsp and is incorporated herein and made part of this Agreement by reference, or upon thirty (30) days prior written notice if we terminate or significantly alter a product or service offering.

c. Effect of Termination. Except as otherwise expressly set forth herein or on our Website, Network Solutions will cease charging your credit card, if applicable, for any monthly service fees as of the expiration of the monthly billing cycle in which the termination is effective. Unless otherwise specified in writing by Network Solutions, you will not receive any refund for payments already made by you as of the date of termination, and, you may incur additional fees (in the case of a monthly or annual subscription being paid over time, as provided in various Schedules below). If termination of this Agreement is due to your default hereunder, you shall bear all costs of such termination, including any reasonable costs Network Solutions incurs in closing your account. You agree to pay any and all costs incurred by Network Solutions in enforcing your compliance with this Section. Upon termination, you shall destroy any copy of the materials licensed to you hereunder and referenced herein. You agree that upon termination or discontinuance for any reason, we may delete all information related to you on the Network Solutions service, if applicable. In addition to the terms set forth herein, certain Network Solutions services may have additional terms regarding termination, which are set forth in the applicable Schedule.

d. Effect of Termination of Solutions or Bundled Services. In addition to the terms set forth in subsection 10(c) above, if you purchase Network Solutions services which are sold together as a solution or bundled package of Services, any termination relating to such solution will terminate all Network Solutions services included in such bundle. For instance, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any domain name (nsWebAddress™) registered with or maintained by Network Solutions under this Agreement (but not including any domain names you may have registered, either with Network Solutions or a third-party registrar, separately and not as part of a bundled service may be cancelled and may thereafter be available for registration by another party. You acknowledge and agree that upon any termination or cancellation of your bundled services or solution the terms and conditions regarding transfer of expired domain names as described in this Service Agreement, Schedule A, paragraph 14 may apply. Upon the effective date of termination, Network Solutions will no longer provide the solution or bundled Services to you, any licenses granted you shall immediately terminate, and you shall cease using such services immediately; provided, however, that we may, in our sole discretion and subject to your agreeing to be bound by the applicable agreement(s) and to pay the applicable fees, allow you to convert certain services included in the bundled services to stand alone services. Should you or we cancel or terminate your Services at any time prior to the completion of the one-year term, such cancellation or termination may result in an early termination fee charged to your account.

e. If you breach any term of this Agreement including, but not limited to, this terms of any Schedule, Network Solutions may, in its sole and exclusive discretion, suspend or terminate your Services immediately and without notice to you. Service Fees may continue to accrue on suspended accounts and you will continue to remain responsible for the payment of any Service Fees that accrue during the period of suspension.

11. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. You agree and warrant that: (i) neither your registration nor use of the any of the Network Solutions services nor the manner in which you intend to use such Network Solutions Services will directly or indirectly infringe the legal rights of a third party, (ii) you have all requisite power and authority to execute this Agreement and to perform your obligations hereunder, (iii) you have selected the necessary security option(s) for your domain name registration record, (iv) you are of legal age to enter into this Agreement (or you are at least 13 years of age and have your parents' permission to apply for services hereunder); and (vi) you agree to comply with all applicable laws and regulations.

12. MODIFICATIONS TO AGREEMENT. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, you agree during the term of this Agreement, that we may: (1) revise the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and/or (2) change part of the Services provided under this Agreement at any time. Any such revision or change will be binding and effective 30 days after posting of the revised Agreement or change to the service(s) on Network Solutions Websites, or upon notification to you by email or United States mail. You agree to periodically review our Websites, including the current version of this Agreement available on our Websites, to be aware of any such revisions. If you do not agree with any revision to the Agreement, you may terminate this Agreement at any time by providing us with notice. Notice of your termination will be effective on receipt and processing by us. Any fees paid by you if you terminate your Agreement with us are nonrefundable, except as expressly noted otherwise in one or more of the Schedules to this Agreement, but you will not incur any additional fees. By continuing to use Network Solutions Services after any revision to this Agreement or change in service(s), you agree to abide by and be bound by any such revisions or changes. We are not bound by nor should you rely on any representation by (i) any agent, representative or employee of any third party that you may use to apply for our services; or in (ii) information posted on our Website of a general informational nature. No employee, contractor, agent or representative of Network Solutions is authorized to alter or amend the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

13. ACCOUNT ACCESS. To access or use the Network Solutions services or to modify your account, you may be required to establish an account and obtain a login name, account number, password and/or passphrase. You authorize us to process any and all account transactions initiated through the use of your password and/or passphrase. You are solely responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of your password and passphrase. You must immediately notify us of any unauthorized use of your password or passphrase, and you are responsible for any unauthorized activities, charges and/or liabilities made through your password or passphrase. In no event will we be liable for the unauthorized use or misuse of your login name, account number, password or passphrase. You agree that we may log off any account that is inactive for an extended period of time.

14. AGENTS. You agree that, if your agent, (e.g., your Primary Contact or Account Administrative Contact, Internet Service Provider, employee) purchased our service(s) on your behalf, you are nonetheless bound as a principal by all terms and conditions herein, including the domain name dispute policy. Your continued use of our services ratifies any unauthorized actions of your agent. By using your login name, account number or password, or otherwise purporting to act on your behalf, your agent certifies that he or she is authorized to apply for our services on your behalf, that he or she is authorized to bind you to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, that he or she has apprised you of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and that he or she is otherwise authorized to act on your behalf. In addition, you are responsible for any errors made by your agent.

15. OTHER POLICIES. In addition to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the purchase of services may make other Network Solutions Policies applicable to you and the use of our services. In making a purchase of our services, you agree to the terms set forth in these policies. Network Solutions reserves the right to make changes to these policies. You agree to periodically review the policies in our Terms of Use to be aware of any such revisions.

16. RIGHT OF REFUSAL. We, in our sole discretion, reserve the right to refuse to register your chosen domain name, issue you a digital certificate, or register you for other Network Solutions service(s), or to delete your chosen domain name within the first thirty (30) calendar days from receipt of your payment for such services. In the event we do not register your chosen domain name, issue you a digital certificate, or register you for other Network Solutions service(s), or we delete your chosen domain name or other Network Solutions service(s) within such thirty (30) calendar day period, we agree to refund any applicable fee(s) you have paid. You agree that we shall not be liable to you for loss or damages that may result from our refusal to register your chosen domain name, refusal to issue a digital certificate, the deletion of your chosen domain name or refusal to register you for other Network Solutions service(s).

17. NOTICES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. (a) Except as expressly provided otherwise herein, all notices to Network Solutions shall be in writing and delivered via overnight courier or certified mail, return receipt requested to Network Solutions, LLC, Attention: Legal Department, 13861 Sunrise Valley Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20171. All notices to you shall be delivered to your mailing address or email address as provided in your account information (as updated by you pursuant to this Agreement) or to any email address associated with your domain name registration(s) with Network Solutions. (b) You authorize us to contact you as our customer via telephone, at the number provided by you in your account information (as updated by you pursuant to this Agreement), which telephone number is incorporated herein by reference, email or postal mail regarding information that we deem is of potential interest to you. Notices and announcements may include commercial emails, telephone solicitations and other notices describing changes, upgrades, new products and services or other information pertaining to Internet security or to enhance your identity on the Internet and/or other relevant matters.

18. SEVERABILITY. You agree that the terms of this Agreement are severable. If any term or provision is declared invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, that term or provision will not affect the remainder of this Agreement; this Agreement will be deemed amended to the extent necessary to make this Agreement enforceable, valid and, to the maximum extent possible consistent with applicable law, consistent with the original intentions of the parties; and the remaining terms and provisions will remain in full force and effect.

19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. You agree that this Agreement, the rules and policies incorporated by reference in this Agreement (including, without limitation, the dispute policy and the privacy statement) are the entire, complete and exclusive agreement between you and us regarding our services and supersede all prior agreements and understandings, whether written or oral, or whether established by custom, practice, policy or precedent, with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement, including, without limitation, any purchase order provided by you for the services.

20. ASSIGNMENT AND RESALE. Except as otherwise set forth herein, your rights under this Agreement are not assignable or transferable. Any attempt by your creditors to obtain an interest in your rights under this Agreement, whether by attachment, levy, garnishment or otherwise, renders this Agreement voidable at our option. You agree not to reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, resell or otherwise exploit for any commercial purposes any of the services (or portion thereof) without Network Solutions prior express written consent.

21. GOVERNING LAW.

a. You and Network Solutions agree that this Agreement and any disputes hereunder shall be governed in all respects by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, United States of America, excluding its conflict of laws rules. You and we each agree to submit to exclusive subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction and venue of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division for any disputes between you and Network Solutions under, arising out of, or related in any way to this Agreement (whether or not such disputes also involve other parties in addition to you and Network Solutions). If there is no jurisdiction in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, for any such disputes, you and we agree that exclusive jurisdiction and venue shall be in the courts of Fairfax County, Fairfax, Virginia.

b. The parties hereby waive any right to jury trial with respect to any action brought in connection with this Agreement.

c. The application of the United Nations Convention of Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded.

22. AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND. By applying for a Network Solutions service(s) through our online application process or otherwise, or by using the service(s) provided by Network Solutions under this Agreement, you acknowledge that you have read and agree to be bound by all terms and conditions of this Agreement and documents incorporated by reference.

23. INDEPENDENT PARTIES. Neither party nor their employees, consultants, contractors or agents are agents, employees or joint ventures of the other party, and they do not have any authority to bind the other party by contract or otherwise to any obligation. Each party shall ensure that the foregoing persons shall not represent to the contrary, either expressly, implicitly, by appearance or otherwise.

24. WAIVER. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless it is in writing and signed by an authorized representative of Network Solutions. The remedies of Network Solutions under this Agreement shall be cumulative and not alternative, and the election of one remedy for a breach shall not preclude pursuit of other remedies. The failure of a party, at any time or from time to time, to require performance of any obligations of the other party hereunder shall not affect its right to enforce any provision of this Agreement at a subsequent time, and the waiver of any rights arising out of any breach shall not be construed as a waiver of any rights arising out of any prior or subsequent breach.

25. EXPORT RESTRICTIONS. You acknowledge and agree that you shall not import, export, or re-export directly or indirectly, any commodity, including your products incorporating or using any Network Solutions services in violation of the laws and regulations of any applicable jurisdiction.

26. U.S. Government Users. In the event any software is provided by Network Solutions to a U.S. Government User, the software and accompanying documentation which are used as part of the Network Solutions service are "commercial items," as such terms are defined at 48 C.F.R. 2.101 (Revised Oct 2002), consisting of "commercial computer software" and "commercial computer software documentation," as such terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 (Revised Oct 2002) and is provided to the U.S. Government only as a commercial end item. Consistent with 48 C.F.R. 12.212 and 48 C.F.R. 227.7202-1 through 227.7202-4 (Revised Oct 2002), all U.S. Government entities acquiring the use of the Service and accompanying documentation shall have only those rights set forth herein.

27. FORCE MAJEURE. Neither party shall be deemed in default hereunder, nor shall it hold the other party responsible for, any cessation, interruption or delay in the performance of its obligations hereunder due to causes beyond its control including, but not limited to: earthquake; flood; fire; storm; natural disaster; act of God; war; terrorism; armed conflict; labor strike; lockout; boycott; supplier failures, shortages, breaches, or delays; or any law, order regulation, direction, action or request of the government, including any federal, state and local governments having or claiming jurisdiction over Network Solutions, or of any department, agency, commission, bureau, corporation or other instrumentality of any federal, state, or local government, or of any civil or military authority; or any other cause or circumstance, whether of a similar or dissimilar nature to the foregoing, beyond the reasonable control of the affected party, provided that the party relying upon this section (i) shall have given the other party written notice thereof promptly and, in any event, within five (5) days of discovery thereof and (ii) shall take all steps reasonably necessary under the circumstances to mitigate the effects of the force majeure event upon which such notice is based; provided further, that in the event a force majeure event described in this Section extends for a period in excess of thirty (30) days in the aggregate, Network Solutions may immediately terminate this Agreement.

28. HEADINGS. The section headings appearing in this Agreement are inserted only as a matter of convenience and in no way define, limit, construe or describe the scope or extent of such section or in any way affect such section.

29. SURVIVAL. In the event this Agreement terminates as provided herein, Sections 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10(c), 10(d), 11, 14, 15, and 17 through 29 of this Agreement shall survive such expiration or termination.

30. AIRLINE FREQUENT FLYER MILES. Network Solutions may provide you with the opportunity to receive airline frequent flyer miles ("Miles") with select airlines as determined by Network Solutions, in its sole discretion from time to time, for qualifying purchases in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth on our Website. You acknowledge and agree that (a) any Miles accrued and awards issued are subject to the terms and conditions of the applicable frequent flyer program, (b) all applicable taxes and fees related to such Miles and/or award travel are your responsibility, (c) in order to earn Miles for qualifying purchases the name on your Network Solutions account and the applicable frequent flyer account must match, (d) Network Solutions has your permission to provide your account information to the applicable airline granting any such Miles, (e) you will only be eligible to receive up to one hundred thousand (100,000) American Airlines® AAdvantage® Miles during a 12-month period if you are a U.S. entity or citizen or sixty thousand (60,000) American Airlines AAdvantage Miles during a 12-month period if you are a non-US entity or citizen, (f) you will only be eligible to receive up to fifty thousand (50,000) United® Mileage Plus® Miles during a 12-month period, (g) all Delta SkyMiles® credited to your Delta SkyMiles program account shall be standard miles and shall not count toward medallion or other elite status unless otherwise stated by Delta, (h) all US Airways® Dividend Miles terms and conditions apply, and (i) all claims related to or arising from uncredited Miles must be made within one (1) year of the date of any such qualifying purchase. Please allow 8-10 weeks for miles to be posted to the applicable frequent flyer account. Miles will be processed after two full months of service for Web Hosting transactions. You are eligible to earn Miles for qualifying purchases unless otherwise stated by the applicable airline frequent flyer program, your employer or other third party.

American Airlines and AAdvantage are registered marks of American Airlines, Inc.

American Airlines reserves the right to change the AAdvantage program at any time without notice. American Airlines is not responsible for products or services offered by other participating companies. For complete details about the AAdvantage program, visit www.aa.com. United® and Mileage Plus® are registered trademarks of United Air Lines, Inc. United may change Mileage Plus program rules, regulations, travel awards and special offers or terminate the Mileage Plus program at any time and without notice. United, its subsidiaries, affiliates, and agents are not responsible for any products and services of other participating companies. For complete details about the Mileage Plus program, visit www.united.com. Network Solutions reserves the right to end or amend this program without notice.

SERVICE SPECIFIC TERMS: The following terms apply in addition to Sections 1 through 30 only if you have purchased the particular Service described or if the Service was purchased as part of a bundled solution:
Importing /legal/dynamic-service-domains.jsp
SCHEDULE A TO NETWORK SOLUTIONS SERVICE AGREEMENT

ADDITIONAL TERMS APPLICABLE TO REGISTRANTS OF DOMAIN NAMES (nsWebAddress™)

The terms in this Schedule apply to the registration and use of an nsWebAddress™ or domain name.

1. Security. Network Solutions does not guarantee the security of your domain name registration records, and you assume all risks that the password and/or passphrase you select may be compromised as a result of fraudulent, unauthorized or illegal activity.

2. Fees and Payment. Initial domain name registrations, and domain name registrations that have passed the registration agreement's anniversary date, must be in a paid status to transfer, delete, modify, or otherwise to request Network Solutions to affect the domain name record or to provide domain name services. Domain name registrations in an unpaid status are routinely deleted on a regular basis.

3. Transfers and Licensing of Use. You agree that you may not transfer your domain name registration to another domain name registrar during the first sixty (60) days from the effective date of your initial domain name registration with us. In addition, you agree that you may not transfer your domain registration to another domain name registrar for thirty (30) days after there has been a change in your Primary Contact information or WHOIS Administrative Contact information for your account(s). You may transfer your domain name registration to a third party of your choice, subject to the procedures and conditions found at: http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/static-service-agreement.jsp#rnca, incorporated herein by reference. Even if you license the use of our domain name registration services to a third party, you remain responsible for complying with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, and you accept liability for harm caused by such licensee's wrongful use of our domain name registration services, unless you promptly disclose the identity of such license upon request by any person who provides reasonable evidence of actionable harm.

4. Network Solutions' Disclosure of Certain Information. Subject to the requirements of our privacy statement, in order for us to comply the current rules and policies for the domain name system, you hereby grant to Network Solutions the right to disclose to third parties through an interactive publicly accessible registration database (such as WHOIS) the following mandatory information that you are required to provide when registering or reserving a domain name: (i) the domain name(s) registered by you; (ii) your name and postal address; (iii) the name(s), postal address(es), email address(es), voice telephone number and where available the fax number(s) of the technical, administrative and billing contacts for your domain name(s); (iv) the Internet protocol numbers of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s) for such domain name(s); (v) the corresponding names of those nameservers; (vi) the original creation date of the registration; and (vii) the expiration date of the registration. If you are an individual who wishes to opt out of having your information displayed in the WHOIS database, you must choose the Private Registration service that is described in Schedule D to this Agreement. You consent to allow us to transmit this registration data to an ICANN approved or designated escrow agent who stores this information pursuant to ICANN requirements. You also grant to Network Solutions the right to make this information available in bulk form to third parties who agree not to use it to (a) allow, enable or otherwise support the transmission of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via telephone, facsimile, or email (spam) or (b) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that apply to our systems to register domain names.

5. Domain Name Dispute Policy. If you registered a domain name through us, you agree to be bound by our current domain name dispute policy that is incorporated herein and made a part of this Agreement by reference. The current version of the domain name dispute policy may be found at our Website: http://www.icann.org/dndr/udrp/policy.htm. In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions in this Agreement and those in the domain name dispute policy, the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail.

6. Domain Name Dispute Policy Modifications. You agree that we, in our sole discretion, may modify our dispute policy. We will post any such revised policy on our Website at least thirty (30) calendar days before it becomes effective. You agree that, by maintaining the reservation or registration of your domain name after modifications to the dispute policy become effective, you have agreed to these modifications. You acknowledge that if you do not agree to any such modification, you may terminate this Agreement. We will not refund any fees paid by you if you terminate your Agreement with us.

7. Domain Name Disputes Brought by Third Parties. You agree that, if your use of our domain name registration services is challenged by a third party, you will be subject to the provisions specified in our dispute policy in effect at the time of the dispute. For the adjudication of any disputes brought by a third party against you concerning or arising from your use of a domain name registered with us or your use of our domain name registration services, you (but not Network Solutions) agree to submit to subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction and venue of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division and the courts of your domicile. You agree that in the event a domain name dispute arises with any third party, you will indemnify and hold us harmless pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth below in this Agreement. If we are notified that a complaint has been filed with a judicial or administrative body regarding your use of our domain name registration services, you agree not to make any changes to your domain name record without our prior approval. We may not allow you to make changes to such domain name record until (i) we are directed to do so by the judicial or administrative body, or (ii) we receive notification by you and the other party contesting your registration and use of our domain name registration services that the dispute has been settled. Furthermore, you agree that if you are subject to litigation regarding your registration and use of our domain name registration services, we may deposit control of your domain name record into the registry of the judicial body by supplying a party with a registrar certificate from us. You agree that we will comply with all court orders, domestic or international, directed against you and/or the domain name registration.

8. No Guaranty. You agree that, by registration of your chosen domain name, such registration does not confer immunity from objection to either the registration or use of your domain name.

9. Revocation. You agree that we may suspend, cancel or transfer your services, including, but not limited to, domain name registration services in order to: (i) correct mistakes made by us, another registrar or the registry in registering your chosen domain name: (ii) to resolve a dispute under our domain name dispute policy: or (iii) to remedy an unauthorized change in the domain name account.

10. Survival. In the event the Agreement or this Schedule terminates, Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of this Schedule shall survive such expiration or termination.

11. Under Construction Page. You acknowledge and agree that any or all domain names that are (i) registered with Network Solutions, (ii) hosted on a Network Solutions domain name server, and (iii) do not otherwise resolve to an active Website, may resolve to an "under construction" or similar temporary Web page ("Under Construction Page"), and that Network Solutions may place on any such Under Construction Page promotions and advertisements for, and links to, Network Solutions' Website, Network Solutions product and service offerings, third-party Websites, third-party product and service offerings, and/or Internet search engines. You agree that Network Solutions may change the content and/or appearance of, or disable, any Under Construction Page at any time, in its sole discretion, and without prior notice. If for any reason, you do not want a domain name to resolve to the Under Construction Page described above, you may select an Under Construction Page that contains only Network Solutions branding and a domain name registration search box, as provided on our Website. You also agree that any domain name directory, sub-directory, file name or path (e.g. ) that does not resolve to an active web page on your Website being hosted by Network Solutions, may be used by Network Solutions to place a "parking" page, "under construction" page, or other temporary page that may include promotions and advertisements for, and links to, Network Solutions' Website, Network Solutions product and service offerings, third-party Websites, third-party product and service offerings, and/or Internet search engines. You agree that Network Solutions may change the content and/or appearance of, or disable any of these temporary pages at any time, in its sole discretion, and without prior notice.

12. Requests to Change Registrar; Transfers Generally. You agree that Network Solutions may deny any request to transfer a domain name registration that is otherwise capable of transfer to another registrar where you fail to respond appropriately to a transfer confirmation request from Network Solutions. Furthermore, you acknowledge and agree that pursuant to applicable policies adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") related to the transfer of domain names it is possible for your domain name to be transferred to another registrar even though the transfer has not actually been approved by you, and you agree that we shall not be liable to you for any such unauthorized transfers. You also acknowledge and agree that we cannot control and shall not be liable to you for the actions of third parties, including but not limited to registry operators, in connection with a domain name transfer, or a reversal of or refusal to reverse a domain name transfer, whether or not the transfer was approved by you.

13. Domain Protect. You agree that we may, but are not obligated to, place your domain name registration in a Domain Protect status to prevent unauthorized transfers of your domain name registration, as described on our Website. You acknowledge and agree that in order to transfer a domain name registration that is in a Domain Protect status, you may first have to access the account manager tool on our Website and remove the domain name registration from Domain Protect status.

14. Grace Period; IP Address Changes; Renewal and Transfer of Expired Domain Names on Your Behalf. You agree that we may, but are not obligated to, allow you to renew your domain name registration services after the domain name expiration date has passed. You agree that after the expiration date of the domain name registration and before it is deleted or renewed, we may direct the domain name to an IP address designated by us, including, without limitation, to an IP address which hosts a parking, under construction or other temporary page that may include promotions and advertisements for, and links to, Network Solutions' Website, Network Solutions product and service offerings, third-party Websites, third-party product and service offerings, and/or Internet search engines, and you agree that we may place our contact information in the WHOIS output for the expired domain name. Should you not renew the domain name during any applicable grace period, you agree that unless you notify us to the contrary we may, in our sole discretion, renew and transfer the domain name to Network Solutions or a third party on your behalf (such a transaction is hereinafter referred to as a "Direct Transfer"), and your failure to so notify us after the domain name expiration date shall constitute your consent to such a Direct Transfer. In the event we are able to identify such a third party (the "Direct Transfer Customer") and effectuate such a Direct Transfer, we will notify you via email after the transaction is completed ("Direct Transfer Notification"). Additionally, you will be eligible to receive a portion of the funds received by us as a result of a Direct Transfer of the domain name, as follows: (i) if you registered the domain name with Network Solutions directly through our Website, you will be eligible to receive twenty percent (20%) of the Net Proceeds received by us from our third party vendor as a result of a Direct Transfer; and (ii) if you registered the domain name with Network Solutions through a third party agent (such as your ISP, for example), you will be eligible to receive fifteen percent (15%) of the Net Proceeds received by us from our third party vendor as a result of a Direct Transfer. You acknowledge and agree that the Direct Transfer process may be facilitated through a single Direct Transfer Customer, or through a brief auction involving multiple parties who are interested in the domain name. For purposes of this paragraph, "Net Proceeds" shall mean the total fees paid to us by our third party vendor as a result of a Direct Transfer, less any registry fees, credit card charge-backs, processing and check fees, and other costs or fees associated with the Direct Transfer of the domain name. You agree that we shall have no obligation to pay you, and you shall have no right to receive, any percentage of the Net Proceeds unless, within ninety (90) days after the date of our Direct Transfer Notification, you first provide us with the name, address and related information requested by us (including, but not limited to, a Form W-9, if applicable) in our Direct Transfer Notification. We cannot guarantee, and we make no representation or promise, that any Direct Transfer will occur with respect to any particular domain name. You also agree that in the event your domain name services are terminated by us pursuant to this Agreement, we may transfer your domain name registration to Network Solutions or a third party, without any liability to you or obligation to compensate you in connection therewith.

15. New Customers through a Backorder Service. If you are registering a domain name through a backorder service and that domain name was registered with, and not yet deleted by, Network Solutions at the time of your purchase, you acknowledge and agree that the term of your registration will be for a period of one year from the original expiration date for the domain name immediately prior to your purchase, as the registration is the result of a Direct Transfer (defined above). If you are registering a domain name through a backorder service and the domain name was not registered with Network Solutions at the time of your purchase but was deleted by the applicable top-level domain registry at the time of your purchase, you acknowledge and agree that the term of your registration will be for a period of one year from the date it is initially registered with Network Solutions by the provider of the backorder service.

16. Registration of Premium Resale Domain Names. Premium Resale Domain Names are registered to third party registrants and are made available to you for registration through the Network Solutions storefront. Network Solutions makes no representations or warranties regarding the Premium Resale Domain Names displayed on its storefront and you agree that any dispute that may arise from any registration of a Premium Resale Domain Name shall be directed toward the registrant who has listed the Premium Resale Domain Name on our storefront for purchase. You further agree that Network Solutions shall have no liability whatsoever with respect to the Premium Resale Domain Name registered by you and that the Exclusive Remedy and Indemnity provisions in Sections 7 and 8 of these General Terms shall apply to your registration. If you are registering a Premium Resale Domain Name through our storefront, you acknowledge and agree that the term of your registration will be for a period of one year from the original expiration date for the domain name, as your registration is the result of a transfer from the previous registrant. The registration of a Premium Resale Domains Name may be cancelled only under certain circumstances and within 5 business days from the date of purchase. If you cancel during the 5 day period, you will be charged a processing fee.

17. Sharing of Information. You also acknowledge and agree that Network Solutions will share with each applicable domain name registry which provides Country Code Top Level Domains ("ccTLDs") or Generic Top Level Domains ("gTLDs") services, certain information submitted by you in your application(s) for our services, as required by our agreement(s) with the applicable registry or to provide the services you have applied for. You also acknowledge and consent to the use, copying, distribution, publication, modification and other processing of your personal data by the applicable registry and its designees and agents in connection with the applicable registry's service obligations to us or third parties, or as otherwise deemed necessary by the registry to fulfill the registry's service obligations to us or any third party.

18. Registry Actions or Inactions. Our ability to provide services to you depends in part upon the provision of services by third parties, such as the registry for each ccTLD or gTLD. We cannot control and will not be responsible for the actions or inactions of such third parties. For example, each registry has reserved the right to deny, cancel or transfer any domain name registration under certain circumstances. You acknowledge and agree that we shall not be liable to you or any other party in connection with claims, damages, losses, expenses or costs incurred or suffered by you as a result of actions taken or not taken by third parties, including, but not limited to, the applicable registry for your ccTLD or gTLD.

19. No Guarantees. We make no guarantees, representations or warranties that your proposed registration request for a domain name will be accepted by the applicable registry. You acknowledge and agree that the proposed registration request for a domain name(s) submitted by Network Solutions to any registry may fail or be rejected by the applicable registry for any number of reasons, including, but not limited to, the fact that your proposed registration request for a domain name was not first in time. You acknowledge and agree that the successful registration will depend upon a number of different factors that Network Solutions cannot predict or control.

20. Indemnification. In addition to Section 9 of the General Provisions of this Agreement on Indemnity, you are to indemnify, release, defend and hold Network Solutions, and each applicable registry for each ccTLD or gTLD harmless for all liabilities, claims, damages, costs and expenses arising out of: (a) your breach of any terms of each Schedule applicable to the domain name you have registered; (b) any violation of a third party's right related to your registration; (c) any dispute with the applicable registry or a third party arising out of your registration; (d) any dispute related to the submission of your registration to the applicable registry; or (e) any use of the domain name(s) that you register with the applicable registry.

21. Disclaimer Concerning Intellectual Property Protection. YOUR REGISTRATION OF A DOMAIN NAME DOES NOT PROVIDE YOU WITH ANY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTIONS, RIGHTS OR REGISTRATIONS, NOR DOES IT PROVIDE YOU WITH ANY RIGHTS TO ANY PARTICULAR DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION.

22. Business Profiles. You acknowledge and agree that any or all domain names that are
(i) registered with Network Solutions, (ii) hosted on a Network Solutions domain name
server, and/or (iii) do not otherwise resolve to an active Website, may resolve to an
"business profile" or similar temporary web page (a "Business

Posted by Dave Johnson at 5:26 PM | Comments (5) | Link Cosmos

November 4, 2009

Wall Street's War Against the Real Economy & We, the People

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.

At a meeting with bloggers before last week's Building The New Economy conference, AFL-CIO President Rich Trumka talked about how we have developed two economies, one real and one financial. As he said, originally the financial sector was designed to support the real economy by providing capital as needed for building manufacturing facilities, public infrastructure, etc. But in recent decades the power of Wall Street has twisted that relationship until the real economy now feeds the financial economy.

As I have been writing about, for decades the real economy has been "financialized" by the Wall Street types -- sold off piece by piece providing short term profits for a very few. We lost more than 50,000 manufacturing facilities in just the last decade! If you sell your house you might have some cash in your own pocket for a while but your family doesn't have a place to live and the present state of our economy demonstrates the long term cost of this kind of short-term thinking: a few Wall Street types have a bunch of cash and the rest of us don't have an economy anymore.

As each factory closes and its jobs are eliminated the companies that supplied machines, parts and supplies also go away. The effect on those of us still employed (for now) has been profound as we work longer hours for less pay and fewer benefits with ever-higher stress levels. A few get ever richer, the rest of us have ever-lower standards of living and quality of life. And our country's ability to bounce back becomes ever more compromised.

Along with others at CAF I have been exploring how We, the People became the servants of Wall Street and what to do about it. The post Companies As Buy-And-Sell Commodities - Workers, Customers and Country As Costs laid out the pattern of company buyouts and takeovers since Reagan. Here is the company-buyout pattern that has turned into a machine with no human concerns:

buying up good companies, shedding and outsourcing the workers, cutting their pay and benefits, outsourcing and cheapening the product or service, fleecing and mistreating the customers, closing the offices and factories and running up debt.

The post Caught In A Machine That Grinds Us Up talked about the incentives that created this inhuman machine:

I have described here a destructive, unsustainable system that creates company- and society-breaking machines. These exist because of the economic and social incentives that our government has set up and we allow to stay in place. Breaking unions, stealing pensions, outsourcing jobs and squeezing customers all depend on government not enforcing laws and regulations – especially labor, consumer and environmental rules. …

Certainly there is no incentive at the top to stop this. This system helps a wealthy few get ever wealthier and not feel the consequences. The people who do this are celebrated as "successful." And if they don’t like the resulting devastation to the economy, community, country and world they can just hop into their private jet or yacht to retire to their private island or tax haven.

This is conservative economics and the long-term consequences. Since Reagan supposedly stopped government from "picking winners and losers" our government has indeed been picking winners and losers with Wall Street winning and the rest of us losing. This brought about a concentration of wealth so severe that a very few now control almost all of the wealth of the country.

Over and over again we see the consequences of conservative economics and Wall Street domination: Short-term profits for a very few with devastating long-term consequences for the rest of us.

We see these consequences now as the economy supposedly enters “recovery” – Wall Street is reaping vast profits and paying astonishing bonuses – enabled by taxpayer dollars – while the taxpayers themselves face loss of houses, raises or jobs, pensions, health care, etc. Gains for a few at the expense of the rest of us.

Wall Street vs Costco

Just as with the private equity game, Wall Street and market ideology has been at war with any part of our economy that benefits customers or workers. For example, in 2005 the NY Times took a look at Wall Street’s war against Costco, How Costco Became the Anti-Wal-Mart. The complaint? Costco treats its customers and workers well. The article quotes one after another Wall Street “analyst” complaining that Costco is “altruistic” or “overly generous.” One makes it clear, saying the company “could force employees to pick up a little more of the burden.” In their eyes a business serving customers or employees is wrong. From the article,

Some Wall Street analysts assert that Mr. Sinegal is overly generous not only to Costco's customers but to its workers as well.

Costco's average pay, for example, is $17 an hour, 42 percent higher than its fiercest rival, Sam's Club. And Costco's health plan makes those at many other retailers look Scroogish. One analyst, Bill Dreher of Deutsche Bank, complained last year that at Costco "it's better to be an employee or a customer than a shareholder."

The head of Costco explained that they take a longer-term view:

Mr. Sinegal, whose father was a coal miner and steelworker, gave a simple explanation. "On Wall Street, they're in the business of making money between now and next Thursday," he said. "I don't say that with any bitterness, but we can't take that view. We want to build a company that will still be here 50 and 60 years from now."

And how does he do for himself?

Despite Costco's impressive record, Mr. Sinegal's salary is just $350,000, although he also received a $200,000 bonus last year. That puts him at less than 10 percent of many other chief executives, though Costco ranks 29th in revenue among all American companies.

"I've been very well rewarded," said Mr. Sinegal, who is worth more than $150 million thanks to his Costco stock holdings.

So in 2005 Wall Street’s short-term view of how Costco should operate was to squeeze the workers, cheapen the products, fleece the customers and grossly overpay the CEO. Costco did none of that, and now it is 2009 – the long term. How is Costco doing? I looked over their annual report and they are going just fine. According to The Motley Fool,

The retailer of pianos, coffins, and, yes, 30-pound jars of mayonnaise -- along with hundreds of other goods in bulk -- has managed to continue growing during the recession, impressively avoiding any layoffs in the process.

By the way, last year Sinegal’s salary was still $350,000. And a week ago US News and World Report wrote about Sinegal that he still “has a habit, which sometimes irks stockholders and almost certainly annoys his competitors, of taking excellent care of his employees.”

So Costco, a real company, was under attack from Wall Street for providing actual service to customers and actual pay and benefits to employees who were actually in the United States. And Costco came out OK through the 2008 financial crisis and aftermath.

But then, what we call Wall Street came out of this OK as well. Thanks to their stranglehold on our political and economic systems Wall Street came out of all this enriched and emboldened, using taxpayer dollars to pay bonuses and increase their lobbying. Many of the individuals who might have looted and destroyed companies and communities are rich and gone, others are still collecting bonuses. As far as the public sees, few of them have faced negative consequences for what they did -- virtually guaranteeing that such activities will continue.

Lessons

What lesson should we take away from this? Costco is a rare exception to the new rules. How many companies can get away with ignoring the demands of Wall Street that they cheapen the products, squeeze the employees and drain their surrounding communities? Why do we allow a system that enriches a very few in the short term while harming the rest of us, and how do we change this? Why do we tolerate IBG-YBG, the "I'll be gone - you'll be gone" take-the-money-and-run attitude that understands that there are no consequences when you take as much as you can from everyone else?

Now that Wall Street and short-term, unsustainable profit-taking have brought us to inevitable collapse, where do we go from here? Well obviously too-big-to-fail is just too big and that is a starting point. We were forced by their size to bail out these institutions, actually making them even bigger, and now they use our money to lobby against taxpayer interests, lobby for more bailout dollars, lobby against compensation curbs and taxes, lobby against politicians who want to change things, against rules to protect consumers, and anything that might change the short-term destructive approach. Using our dollars to do this - did I mention? We should break them up, like England is doing. But our government is, for whatever reasons, not doing so.

The recent Building The New Economy conference provided some guidelines that we can follow as we look for paths out of this. Take a look at the blog posts from conference participants that try to tackle these questions. (There is also a highlights video and should be more video when available.) The themes from the conference included the need for the Obama administration to develop a national industrial/economic policy, a rebalancing of trade, increasing the manufacturing that we do IN the U.S., a new emphasis on increasing research and development, modernizing and maintaining our infrastructure, an infrastructure bank to finance public projects, improving education and access to education including vocational education, and passing the financial reforms currently before Congress.

And how about using taxpayer stimulus dollars to actually stimulate OUR economy?

So how do we reign in Wall Street? Leave a comment.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 7:29 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

November 2, 2009

Corporate Money In Elections -- What To Expect

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 may decide as soon as tomorrow on the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case involving a corporate-funded anti-Hillary smear ad. It is likely the conservative-dominated activist court will overturn precedent and rule in favor of removing restrictions on corporate spending in elections, with terrible consequences. The 5-4 ruling will say that large companies injecting vast sums to sway election results is “free speech.” Imagine, vocal cords on a Cayman Islands post office box!

Common Cause has a report out, titled, Corporate Democracy: Potential fallout from a Supreme Court decision on Citizens United. "Lifting the ban on corporate political spending could unleash a flood of money into the political system and further diminish the public’s voice," the report says.

Really, imagine regular people trying to run for office while competing with the massive aggregated financial power of the biggest corporations. And imagine what will happen to anyone who dares to try to go up against their interests when they are able to openly spend any amount needed to get their way. I have come up with some examples of what to expect:

- The cost of running for office – any office – will increase exponentially. Even local campaigns will cost millions of dollars, as big corporations install their chosen representatives. Even locally powerful businesses will join the game, with car dealers paying to get local ordinances passed prohibiting new competitors, etc.

- A member of Congress considers voting against a special tax break for a certain very large corporation – or a law outlawing their competitors – which would bring the company $30 billion. The company lets that representative know they are prepared to spend a measly $200 million on a challenger in the next election, or for them if they vote the right way. How do you think that representative will vote -- and if they do the right thing how long do you expenct them to keep their seat?

- A huge oil company will certainly spend a measly $100 million to install a hand-picked board of county supervisors that will let them put a refinery in the middle of an organic farming or sensitive environmental region.

- Why wouldn't agribusiness spend a mere $1 billion installing legislators who vote to rescind food labeling requirements and food safety regulations?

- How long will it take before laws against monopolies, polluting the environment, etc. are repealed? Each election cycle will see corporate-backed candidates further consolidating the power and financial resources of a very few largest companies.

- Health insurance companies will pay Congress to pass a law ordering everyone to buy their product. Oh wait …

This is about the biggest corporations remaining dominant, using government power to channel tax dollars their way, while hampering competition -- especially from smaller, less powerful companies. The conservatives on the Court are there thanks to decades of spending by the biggest corporations that swayed public opinion in favor of big-corporation-supporting policies and politicians. We are seeing the results of these so-called “conservative” policies all around us as we lose our houses, raises, jobs and pensions while a select few grow ever richer.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of this tomorrow it will be the big payoff, forever consolidating big-corporate control of the country and economy and effectively ending what was left of American democracy.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 10:25 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

October 23, 2009

Moderates and Centrists

Who do the words "moderate" and "centrist" always and only apply to those who take the position of the largest corporations against the interests of and positions held by most people?

These words are a linguistic seizing of the high ground, rather like the use of the word "protectionist" as a pejorative.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 12:28 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

October 16, 2009

Companies As Buy-And-Sell Commodities - Workers, Customers and Country As Costs

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.

As we consider what we need to do to get our economy working again it is useful to look back at the things that went wrong.

The way people used to think about why you start a business was to make a product or provide a service. The business provides something that people need and if you do a good job and serve your customers well over time they will reward you for it. The better you do at that, the better you do for yourself. Right?

It's a pretty basic business model: a business does what it is in business to do, and people like it or don't, and the people who run the business do well or not accordingly.

For example, you would think that a mattress company was in the business of making mattresses, and a bakery was in the business of baking. You would think that an assisted living facility or nursing home company was in the business of caring for the people who came to them for care.

Maybe not – at least not for the owners and even managers of many of these companies. It turns out they’re not in those businesses. Sometimes, they’re not even there. Either way, they certainly don't care about mattresses or nursing homes or baking cookies. This is because of the rise of Wall Street dominance of American business. For the Wall Street crowd business models are something else entirely, and making something and serving customers is just not in the picture. In fact those things are in they way -- between the Wall Streeter banksters and their bonuses.

I’m talking about the private equity business, where the model is not unlike house-flipping during the insane housing boom. The model for them is get in, cut everything, grab all the cash you can and get out, never mind what it does to the companies, the customers, the employees or the country – that’s the new business model.

I wrote the other day about the Wall Street way of doing business:

Short-term gains for a few. Long-term harm to the rest of us.

… Our country let this happen because a wealthy few benefited in the short term from policies that harmed the rest of us over the long term. The wealthy few used some of the $$ gained to buy off lobby and contribute to campaigns of politicians who let them get away with it.

. . . The short-term benefits-to-a-few that were exchanged for long-term harm to the rest of us are now harming the rest of us here in the long term. We owe the rest of the world huge amounts of money. The economy has fallen apart because so many of us can't afford anything - like paying back the debts we had to take on to get by. Now the government can't do anything important because We, the People don't have the funds.

This is another story of a wealthy few selling off the country’s people and future, treating companies and people as commodities to be bought and sold for a quick short-term profit, with long-term harm done to the rest of us. The private equity company-buyout game works like this: buy a company, borrow against the company name and assets and put the proceeds straight into your pocket, sell off assets, outsource jobs, lay people off, cut pay and benefits for the rest, close facilities and factories, externalize costs onto the community, cheapen whatever the company makes or does, run up the debt some more, squeeze money out and pocket it and then sell. Hopefully you make off with the pension fund in the process.

Take a look at a recent NY Times story by Julie Creswell, about the destruction of Simmons Bedding, the mattress company, Profits for Buyout Firms as Company Debt Soared

Simmons says it will soon file for bankruptcy protection, as part of an agreement by its current owners to sell the company — the seventh time it has been sold in a little more than two decades — all after being owned for short periods by a parade of different investment groups, known as private equity firms, which try to buy undervalued companies, mostly with borrowed money.

Bought and sold by a parade of investment groups,

For many of the company’s investors, the sale will be a disaster. Its bondholders alone stand to lose more than $575 million. The company’s downfall has also devastated employees like Noble Rogers, who worked for 22 years at Simmons, most of that time at a factory outside Atlanta. He is one of 1,000 employees — more than one-quarter of the work force — laid off last year.

People wiped out,

But Thomas H. Lee Partners of Boston has not only escaped unscathed, it has made a profit. The investment firm, which bought Simmons in 2003, has pocketed around $77 million in profit, even as the company’s fortunes have declined.

. . . Wall Street investment banks also cashed in. They collected millions for helping to arrange the takeovers and for selling the bonds that made those deals possible. All told, the various private equity owners have made around $750 million in profits from Simmons over the years.

While a few made out like bandits.

They didn’t care about the employees. They didn’t care about the company. They didn’t care about the customer. They didn’t care about the country.

There were not in the business of making mattresses. And now America loses another company that made something.

Simmons is one of hundreds of companies swept up by private equity firms in the early part of this decade, during the greatest burst of corporate takeovers the world has ever seen.

Please read the entire story if you can. It’s the story of America since Reagan. The company was systematically plundered, slashing “costs” (aka the company’s future), cutting jobs and stealing pensions. (Bonus, read about how the CEO, while making $40 million, rarely showed up at headquarters, running the company from his yacht, with the company even paying the captain’s $92,000 salary. )

He didn't even bother to come in to company headquarters!

The chain of Simmons owners starts with William E. Simon, one of the architects of the modern conservative movement, buying the company, looting it. Then,

“A succession of private equity buyers came and went. Merrill Lynch Capital Partners bought Simmons in 1991 for … Merrill sold it to Investcorp, an investment group based in Bahrain, ... Two years later, Investcorp sold the company to Fenway ...

Then Thomas H. Lee Partners, known for Snapple, Rush Limbaugh’s early big advertiser, bought the company, and engaged in some financial magic. They:

“… created a holding company that it used to issue $300 million more in debt, which paid an additional $238 million dividend to the private equity firm. With that, THL had recouped its entire $327 million equity investment in Simmons.”

Yes, they borrowed against the company, paid themselves back what they paid for the company, sticking the lenders with the tab. And, of course, like the Wall Street bonuses from taxpayer bailous they get to keep that money, because … well just because.

THL was hardly alone in undertaking this sort of financial engineering, known as a dividend recapitalization. From 2003 to 2007, 188 companies controlled by private equity firms issued more than $75 billion in debt that was used to pay dividends to the buyout firms.

That was the story of one company destroyed by this private equity/hedge fund/ Wall Street game. Here is another, from May (also by Julie Creswell): Oh, No! What Happened to Archway?

Longstanding cookie makers with an extremely loyal fan base, Archway and its sister company, Mother’s, had their share of troubles in recent years as the once-family-controlled business that owned both brands was passed along from buyer to buyer — first to an Italian company, Parmalat, in 2000, and then, after an accounting scandal at Parmalat, to Catterton Partners in 2005.

The company was passed from buyer to buyer …

[. . .] “Those guys were stepping over quarters to pick up pennies,” he said. “They cut here and cut there and some of the things they needed to do. But, in my opinion, they threw away a lot of profits by a lot of bad decisions.”

After Catterton took over, Archway began ratcheting back spending on in-store promotions, which distributors contended made their cookies less competitive in stores. Catterton also abruptly shut a bakery and distribution plant in Oakland, Calif., which had made Mother’s Cookies for several decades. Operations were shifted elsewhere.

The product cheapened …

Besides putting 230 of the Oakland plant’s employees out of work, the closure had another negative effect. It lengthened the time between when the cookies were baked and when they hit store shelves around the country.

Some also believe that Archway altered its recipes or ingredients. Mr. Gallagher, the distributor, said that as time went on, he ended up having to eat a lot of cookies that he couldn’t sell. “I noticed, over time, they were getting worse and worse.”

Mr. Zinzer is more blunt: “Our cookies turned to crap. They were nowhere near as good as they used to be.”

A former employee inside the headquarters, who declined to be identified because of continuing litigation, said that as the company’s troubles worsened, the company began using less expensive ingredients in its cookies.

Customers treated like ATM machines,

When Mr. Pfeifer called Archway, however, to get a credit for the opened cookies, rather than simply filling out a form as he had done in the past, he said he was told he had to cut the individual seals on all of the wrappers on the pallet.

“Clearly that was meant to deter me from asking for credit. I said, ‘Forget it,’ ” Mr. Pfeifer said. “I took it all to the dump.”

Inevitably the story ends with this in the news last week: Mother's Cookies abruptly shut down

Mother's Cookies, an Oakland institution for 92 years, has been shuttered, its owner seeking bankruptcy protection for the company.

The ending was abrupt: Workers for the company, which shifted its baking and distribution operations to plants in Ohio and Canada in 2006, told workers Friday that operations would cease and cookies would no longer be made as of Monday.

. . . The owners did not comply with the federal law that requires a 60-day notification of any layoffs

Another plant shut down. More people laid off. Some very rich people pocketed a lot of money...

Next: Part II: Assisted living and nursing homes that aren't really in the assist or nurse business, and Stella D-Oro.

Notes -

SEIU's Behind the Buyouts site.

Flipped. How Private Equity Dealmakers Can Win While Their Companies Lose -- NYT Videos on the private equity game.

Also -

Take a look at the agenda for the Building the New Economy conference, Thursday, October 29, 2009 — 9:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m. at the Washington Court Hotel in Washington, D.C.
This conference sounds the call for the new economy we must build out of the ruins of the old. It focuses on the need for a new agenda to revive manufacturing in America.
-- Oh, it's free. But you have to RSVP.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 7:49 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

October 3, 2009

Bonuses From Bailout Money Would Pay Cost Of Healthcare

Banks that received government bailout money gave $33 Billion of that taxpayer money out as bonuses just this year. How much taxpayer money will be given out as bonuses next year and the year after that?

Meanwhile the apparent solution to people not being able to afford health insurance is they will be ordered to buy it. That is what a "mandate" means. Even with subsidies the poor will have to pay up to 13% of their income. The rest of us have no upper limit on what we will have to pay.

Insurance companies are ecstatic about this. Bankers are feeling pretty good, too.

I wonder how the voters are going to feel about all of this next year?

Posted by Dave Johnson at 11:36 AM | Comments (1) | Link Cosmos

September 30, 2009

A New Economy from Old Roots?

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.

How do we build a new economy out of the collapse of the old economy? How do we start fresh to begin creating jobs again, while building in economic and environmental sustainability, as well as workplaces that respect human needs and rights? How do we change things so that we all get to share the benefits of the economy rather than just contributing to the increasing wealth of a few vastly wealthy people?

While we look for a vision for a new economy, we should examine what has worked in the past. America had periods in which regular people enjoyed sustained increases in their standard of living. For a long time it was a conventional wisdom that each American generation would do better than the previous generation, more people would receive good educations, medical care would get better, the middle class would grow, leisure time would increase, poverty rates would decrease, retirement would be easier, etc.

But this pattern stopped. Beginning in the late 1970s and especially in the 1980s incomes began to stagnate, wealth increasingly concentrated at the top, working hours and workplace pressures steadily increased, availability of good health care started to decrease, etc. The standard of living of most Americans began to and continues to decline. At the same time corporations became more predatory as consumer protections vanished. Meanwhile outsourcing, deunionization and other anti-worker policies led to increasingly unpleasant, stressful and unrewarding worklives for more and more people.

Many of today's problems are traceable directly to the policy results of anti-government propaganda that was blasted out from well-funded conservative think tanks starting in the 1970s. The anti-government campaign led to defunding of many national, state and local government programs that improved education, helped the poor or enriched people's lives. We suffered deregulation in many areas where the government had protected consumers, workers, investors and the environment. Huge reductions in taxes for the wealthy were either offset by tax increases for the rest of us or government borrowing. And that borrowing has led to increasing problems of paying the interest and threats to funding even basic programs like Social Security and education.

So what worked, before the conservatives trashed the place?

Regulation

One thing we know for sure now, learned the hardest way thanks to the financial crisis: regulation worked. Regulation was necessary, it worked, it kept firms from taking risks that could bring down the economy. And we can also see now how regulations protected consumers from predatory corporate activities, workers from wage theft or unsafe working conditions, and the environment from exploitation and destruction.

Taxes

Before Reagan the tax rates at the top were very high. After you reached - and took home - a certain very high income you paid a high percentage of the rest in taxes. This had many beneficial results – even for the people who paid higher taxes. Government could afford to keep the physical, education and legal infrastructure in good condition without borrowing. Government could afford to invest in programs that improved our standard of living, health, knowledge and technology, which helped businesses grow. Businesses thrived in such well-watered soil.

The high tax rates also kept the bad side of human nature in check. When it took years to build up a fortune businesspeople had to rely on the health of the greater community to nurture their own wealth-building enterprises and keep them thriving over a long period. They had to think and act long-term. The roads needed to be kept in repair, the schools needed to provide excellent education to potential employees, the courts needed to be functional to enforce contracts, and they wanted the communities they were going to have to stay in to be pleasant places to live.

But once taxes were lowered vast windfalls could be realized from a single event and it made more sense to try to fleece the community with quick-buck schemes than to rely on it. We began to see corporate raiders break up solid, ongoing companies, steal pension funds, etc., while encouraging communities to cut spending on schools, roads, etc. It became more profitable sell off or outsource our manufacturing capacity. And then, as things fell apart, the few who benefited could just fly away in their private jets or sail away in their huge yachts. The greater community was no longer any use to them except as crops to be harvested. Vulnerable consumers are the only crop that is coming up in this economy.

Big Government

Government is We, the People making the decisions. "Big government" is simply another way of saying that more of the important decisions are made by the people. Shrinking government means handing the decisions over to big corporations. In the real world this is the choice. And in the real world big corporations make decisions that benefit them, and only them. Before you badmouth government think carefully about what the alternative is.

Old-Fashioned Government Planning

As I said in a post a few months ago,

The phrase “industrial policy” sounds so Walter Mondale, 1970s, smokestacks and brick factory old-fashioned. I suspect the subject turns people off, eyes glaze over, hands reach under the table for iPhones and Blackberries…

But here we are without an industrial policy. How’s that working out for us? Every other country has one. China seriously has one. We instead have huge trade deficits. We don't make things here so we have to borrow money to buy things made elsewhere.

To add insult to injury, recently Deutsche Bank released a research note advising investors that the U.S. was not a good investment because of our lack of a government industrial policy. See Deutsche Bank: Absence of US Clean Energy Policy Will Send Global Capital Elsewhere.

While we envision a new direction for our economy, maybe we should also be looking at returning to a few old-fashioned ways of doing things, too.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 4:09 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

September 23, 2009

Enforcing Trade Rules Shocks "The Village"

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.

The New York Times business section has this today, With a Receptive White House, Labor Begins to Line Up Battles. Oddly this "news" story incorrectly casts enforcement of trade agreements as opposing "free trade." From the story,

While labor’s opposition to free trade is nothing new, having an ear in the White House is. The Obama administration, though it says it supports free trade, has so far seemed more aligned with labor’s trade agenda than has any administration in decades.

What has alarmed America’s trading partners is the steelworkers’ victory when the president imposed a 35 percent tariff on Chinese tires under special trade rules that allow punitive measures without a finding of illegal trade practices.

... The president’s move has stirred worries that other unions and industries will rush to seek similar relief.

Here's the thing. This is not about opposition to free trade. This is about enforcement of existing agreements. This is nothing more than a request to the proper enforcement authorities to investigate if agreements are being violated, and to take the agreed-upon steps to remedy that if they are. But in recent years it because the expectation that the White House made decisions that were not based on rule of law, but rather on ... something else. From the article,

In four safeguard cases, President George W. Bush declined to impose penalties even though the United States International Trade Commission, a bipartisan panel, had found that Chinese imports hurt particular industries.

THAT should have been the shocking news, not the current news that agreements are going to have to be lived up to! A President of the United States sided with other countries, against American companies and workers, even after the trade enforcement bodies found clear violations of the agreements!

It seems that after eight years of general lawlessness we're at a point where it is expected that those with power can do anything they want regardless of agreements or laws. So now "the Village" (blogger term for comfortable "inside-the-beltway" Washington DC insiders) is shocked and offended when the rabble -- the rest of us -- actually wants the authorities to enforce the rules instead of deferring to power -- even when, as in this case, that power is being used against America. For example, when Attorney General Holder was looking into investigating whether laws against torture were broken, "the Village' was all atwitter and scandalized over the audacity of President Obama letting such a thing happen -- as if it was in any way appropriate for a President to make a political decision to keep the Justice Department from an investigation.

Under the previous administration it was expected that such decisions would be decided politically, based on who was donating the most to The Party or its supporting infrastructure of think tanks, etc., on any given day. Now we are seeing a return to rule of law. It's the same thing with this request to see if trade agreements are being honored.

The Village owes the concept of rule of law an apology.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 11:02 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

September 21, 2009

Who Runs The Country?

Chris Bowers says that the health care debate isn't as much about health care as Its About Who Runs The Country,

So this is about who the Democrats in Congress and the White House are going to govern with:

--Those who think that protecting large industries is more important than providing lower cost health care;
--Those who think offering lower cost health care is more important than protecting large industries.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 4:30 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

September 20, 2009

The Right's Strategic Propaganda Effort

Always worth reading again: Tentacles of Rage: The Republican propaganda mill, a brief history

This is a 2004 story looking at the history of how the right became so prominent in American politics in recent decades, roughtly from Gioldwater to George W. Bush. They had enormous funding - in the hundreds of millions per year - in those decades. Huge checks went to anyone who would promote right-wing corporate values. For example, mid-1970s:

... the terms of the offer an annual salary of $200,000, to be paid for life even in the event of my resignation or early retirement—spoke to the seriousness of the rightist intent to corner and control the national market in ideas.

In the 1970s $200K a year promised for life wasn't bad at all. And supplemented with speaking fees, book advances, the occasional $10K check for an article denying global warming, etc...

Posted by Dave Johnson at 8:41 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

September 8, 2009

The REALLY Important Political Event

The REALLY important political event this week is not President Obama's health care speech. This week the Supreme Court begins the procedure that will lead to a 5-4 vote (same as when they put Bush in office) to remove restrictions on the use of corporate money in politics.

The only reason the Supreme Court is considering this case is in order to overturn these restrictions. It will be a 5-4 vote. They would not be considering it at all if this were not what the 5-vote majority intends.

The removal of restrictions on corporate money in our politics will effectively mean the end of what is left of American democracy. It will finalize that America is a one-dollar-one-vote wealthocracy instead of a one-person-one-vote democracy.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 8:58 AM | Comments (1) | Link Cosmos

September 7, 2009

The Town Hall Disruptions Were A Corporate Strategy

This post originally appeared at Speak Out California

In April we posted A Warning About The Tea Parties here.  The post warned:

They are not what they claim to be.  They are not "spontaneous" or "grassroots."  They are another corporate-funded campaign to trick people into supporting more cut taxes for the rich.

. . . The events have been widely promoted by corporate-funded conservative PR professionals who specialize in "astroturf."  This is a term for the use of money to create an appearance of widespread "grassroots" support.  Currently the corporate-funded conservative lobbying groups Freedomworks and Americans for Prosperity, are organizing the events and conservative media including talk radio and FOX News are widely promoting them.  Support appears to be coming from Koch Industries, the largest privately-owned company in the country.

Many blogs and organizations have conducted research into these "tea party" groups, and warned that this corporate-built group was put together by lobbyists, for lobbyists, to further the goals of their corporate clients.  The names of the lobbyist groups organizing these events were posted along with their own documents proving they were behind the groups. Their strategies were exposed.  The entire operation was laid out in advance.

Then we watched the operation unfold.  Over the summer summer the groups were sent to Congressional town hall meetings that discussed health care reform.  They were given specific instructions to disrupt the meetings, while presenting an appearance of being ordinary citizens who are upset and against the health care reform.  Copies of these instructions were posted on the web.  The instructions include:

- Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: "Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up. The Rep should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington."

- Be Disruptive Early And Often: "You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep's presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep's statements early."

- Try To "Rattle Him," Not Have An Intelligent Debate: "The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions."

These are the actual instructions given to these groups. They were instructed to disrupt the town hall meetings, and not let others speak.  And this is what they did, across the country.  The entire time, blogs and organizations tracked this, showed how the lobbyist organizations were organizing it, showed where their online calendars were sending people to the different meetings, posted photographs of the signs they carried, that were printed by the lobbyist organizations, and showed newsletters printed by these lobbyist organizations taking credit for their work.

Now the summer is over, and we are witnessing phase two of the strategy.  The lobbyists and Republican members of Congress are going on news programs and claiming that "the public" opposes the health care reforms, because of the disruptions and occurred at town hall meetings!  This is utterly transparent to anyone who follows the news.  It was set in stone that they would say this now, even before the first town hall meetings began, because this was the strategy all along.  The script was written before the first town hall meeting:  make it look like people are upset at the health care reform, then try to kill health care reform based on these manufactured corporate astroturf performances.

Legislators: do not fall for it.

The oil and coal corporations have already started organizing these groups to show up and disrupt meetings on climate-change legislation, again creating a false appearance of public opposition to efforts to fight global warming.  Bloggers and organizations are writing about this now.

A leaked memo sent by an oil industry group reveals a plan to create astroturf rallies at which industry employees posing as "citizens" will urge Congress to oppose climate change legislation. 

Do not be fooled when it happens again.  And if you allow this lobbyist strategy to succeed this will become "the new normal" for politics in this country.  If the corporations get away with organizing people to disrupt meetings and intimidate legislators of course they will continue to 

Click through to Speak Out California

Posted by Dave Johnson at 12:05 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

September 4, 2009

Who Is The Boss?

The bailouts were done to save the big corporations. The citizens paid taxes, or money was borrowed in our name, and the money went to the big corporations. The big corporations then gave out huge bonuses. Some of the corporations actually gave out the exact amount they received from bailouts as bonuses.

Health care reform is something that is for the citizens. So do we ask big corporations to pay taxes, so citizens can have health insurance? No, instead our government is about to pass a low requiring citizens to cough up tons of money, to give to big insurance corporations. That is "reform."

Here is how it is now: We exist to serve the big corporations. That is the purpose of our lives - to be a "productive" member of society. We go to school to learn the things that best serve the big companies. Then we beg to have a "job" which means giving up our brains and labor so someone else can get rich. Once we get a "job" we are "allowed" to have some time off once in a while, if we are lucky. Some of us are allowed to take time off if we get sick.

All of the benefits of our economy now flow to a top few. Vast proportions of the income and wealth now sit at the top 1%. And vast proportions of that sit at the top .01%

Posted by Dave Johnson at 10:34 AM | Comments (4) | Link Cosmos

August 31, 2009

Healthcare Propaganda from Tobacco/Exxon

I received an email from the Tobacco/Exxon-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) promoting this video. The email said it is by Lee Doren (more here), not the video or the page it is on -- I had to track that down. There also isn't any info describing who made the video, or the connection with CEI. Doren heads "Bureaucrash," one more lobbyist astroturf group (a subsidiary of CEI).

"Bureaucrash is an international network of activists, called crashers, who share the goal of increasing individual freedom and decreasing the scope of government."

Actually, it is a subsidiary of a Tobacco/Exxon-funded lobbyist group that advocates replacing democracy with corporate rule. But who's counting?

The video is about how government is bad, public schools are bad, the post office is bad. "Health care is essential. Food, clothing, housing are all essential but we don't want the federal government paying for all those services for everybody." "Taxation equals force." "Advertising is a good thing." "Profits are essential. Profits prevent misallocation of resources in the economy." "CEOs make millions of people wealthy." "If insurance companies are forced to cover preexisting conditions it wouldn't be insurance." It even says Medicare is bad, and even advocates that firefighting be for=profit and at the same time run by volunteers not the government!

It actually says the only reason we need lobbyists is because of the socialists who are against corporations. The core message of the video is that corporations are better at making decisions for us than democracy.

Oh, one more thing, the video is entirely against Medicare-For-All single-payer health care, which isn't even on the table. Its very premise is a lie itself!

Anyway, take a look at what your corporate tobacco/Exxon dollars are paying for.

So why is Tobacco/Exxon paying for astroturf groups to fight against healthcare reform? Or is CEI getting checks from a new source lately?

Update - The following comment was trapped in the spam filter. It is posted now, but I am also highlighting it here:

Just for the record ExxonMobil does not fund the CEI. ExxonMobil has not provided any financial support to this organization since 2005. A simple check of our website shows the companies ExxonMobil supports. The report is published annually and can be found at http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/community_contributions_report.aspx

I'll look into this. CEI is still putting out climate-change denial stuff.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 10:42 AM | Comments (1) | Link Cosmos

August 29, 2009

One-Two Punch On Healthcare

Who could have known?

First we learn that there is a big effort by insurance-company lobbyists to use August to portray the health care effort as unpopular. Several lobbyist firms were involved in organizing loud, near-violent disruptions of Congressional town hall meetings, etc.

Then at the end of August we get lots of Republicans saying that we all saw how unpopular health care reform is: GOP senator signals fading hopes on health care,

"I heard a lot of frustration and anger as I traveled across my home state this last few weeks," said Enzi, who has been targeted by critics for seeking to negotiate on legislation. "People in Wyoming and across the country are anxious about what Washington has in mind. This is big. This is personal. This is one of the most important debates of our lifetime."

Gosh, do you think we are seeing a strategy unfold?

Posted by Dave Johnson at 8:50 AM | Comments (2) | Link Cosmos

August 4, 2009

Chase Credit Card Scam

Just to let everyone know, here is ANOTHER credit card scam that is being played on people.

I got a Chase Visa card with United miles on it through United Airlines. I noticed a $39 late fee on my bill. But I had set up the auto-pay online, to pay every bill when it was due. They have no excuse, and they will not take the fee off - and there is no one you can complain to.

Check your bill for late fees. They put them on your bill whether you are late or not, and you can't do anything about it. I asked what I can do to complain about the fee and they gave me the phone number of the comptroller of the currency. In other words, "Too bad, So sad."

Posted by Dave Johnson at 11:21 AM | Comments (4) | Link Cosmos

August 3, 2009

Conservative Hating On Cash For Clunkers

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

Government can work, and the “Cash for Clunkers” program proved it. So, naturally, conservatives have to hate on it.

The “Cash for Clunkers” turned out to be one of the most successful government programs in some time. It was so successful that a program that was meant to take until November achieved its goals in something like a week or two! Thousands of cars were sold, helping dealerships and car companies to move toward recovery. Thousands of gas guzzlers were scrapped, helping the country move toward improved energy efficiency.

Dealers reported that their showrooms were full and their sales way up. Ford reports that the program is helping them have a strong July.

Ford Motor Co has seen a sharp increase in sales over the past week since its dealers began accepting trade-ins under the U.S. government's "cash for clunkers" incentive program, the automaker's U.S. sales chief said on Thursday.

The only problem with the program was that so many people are taking advantage of it that the computer system got slowed down!

Yes, the program achieved its goals in record time. So the House has approved an additional $2 billion and the Senate should take it up this week. This means even more help to dealerships and manufacturers and even more fuel economy for the country!

What could be wrong with that?

Well if you are a conservative, plenty is wrong with that. First of all it makes government look good -- and conservatives just hate government. Government is those people who get in the way and tell companies they can't pour toxins into our rivers. Government is those people who show up and ask big companies to share what they make -- after building the roads and courts and schools that enabled them to do so well. That goes against everything conservatives stand for: dirty rivers, big corporations doing and taking anything they want for free, etc.

Mostly, though, a big success like this comes at exactly the wrong time for conservatives. Right now conservatives are fighting tooth and nail to keep We, the People from passing health care reform in a way that chooses better care and lower costs for the people over higher profits and CEO pay for insurance companies. So right now it is vitally important to discredit the idea that government can do things right.

So just as it starts to become clear that the government has a winner on its hands, we start to see reports in the conservative media -- Drudge Report, right-wing blogs, talk radio, FOX News, etc. -- that call the program a failure. In fact, many of these stories coincidentally seem to use almost the same wording! The lesson they all teach is this failure shows what will happen if we pass health care reform.

So draw your own lessons. Was a program that wildly overachieved its goals, stimulated the economy, improved the country's fuel efficiency and brought a great price for a new car to tens of thousands of Americas a success or not? I say it was, and I say it shows why we want a public option choice in the health care reform!

Posted by Dave Johnson at 1:25 PM | Comments (6) | Link Cosmos

Lobbyist Town Hall Disruptions Begin

The Drudge Report is hiliting (promoting) astroturf disruptions of townhall meetings with members of Congress, without letting readers know this is organized by insurance company lobbyists.

Saturday I wrote about the corporate lobbyist astroturf groups that are organizing "Tea Party" groups to disrupt town hall meetings between members of Congress and constituents. Their goal is to make it appear that there is widespread disapproval of the health care reform efforts.

It is called "astroturf" because it is not really grassroots, which is regular people organizing to get something done. It is corporate lobbyists manufacturing the appearance that the public wants something.

The instructions that the lobbyists are giving the astroturf are clearly to violently disrupt the meetings. They include:

"Be Disruptive Early And Often: “You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.”

– Try To “Rattle Him,” Not Have An Intelligent Debate: “The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions.”

These are quoted from the instructions given to the astroturf groups.

Rep Doggett in Austin:

Sen. Spector, Pennsylvania:

Posted by Dave Johnson at 6:10 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

August 1, 2009

$100 Million Taxpayer-Money Bonus For Running Up Price Of Oil

Did you read about the guy at Citigroup who is getting a $100 million bonus after Citigroup was bailed out with $45 billion of taxpayer money?

And did you read the Rolling Stone piece on Goldman Sachs, and how big Wall Street firms and their oil speculation were behind the huge runup in oil prices we saw last year.

So check out WHY the guy is getting a $100 million bonus from taxpayer money:

Mr. Hall, the 58-year-old head of Phibro, a small commodities trading firm in Westport, Conn., is due for a nine-figure payday, his cut of profits from a characteristically aggressive year of bets in the oil market.

... Regulators are pushing to curb the role of traders like Mr. Hall, whose speculation in the energy markets may have played a major role in the recent gyrations of oil prices.

"Aggressive bets on the oil market. So the guy is one of the people responsible for US having to pay so much for gas. And the guy is going to get a $100 million bonus for doing that, from OUR money! And, of course, if his big bets had failed, taxpayer dollars would be bailing the company out. Oh, wait, we're bailing them out already because of other big bets that failed...

Your tax dollars at work. But the guy needs the money. He has a lifestyle to keep up. He has "his 7,300-square-foot Greek Revival mansion" and

A few years ago, he bought a medieval castle in Germany from the neo-expressionist painter Georg Baselitz, and he and his wife have turned the property, said to contain roughly 150 rooms, into a private museum for their collection.

“He has about 4,000 pieces in what could easily be described as one of the world’s finest collections of contemporary art,” said a New York dealer, Mary Boone. It includes pieces by Andy Warhol, David Salle, Bruce Nauman and Julian Schnabel.

By the way, if taxes at the top were back to 90% this guy would STILL get $10 million of his bonus.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 1:25 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

How Much They Are Spending

Pay to Play Is Washington's Sport of Kings,

"This week, the Center for Responsive Politics reported that in the second quarter of this year alone, the pharmaceuticals and health product industries spent $67,959,095 on lobbying, and the insurance industry $39,760,477. Another $25,552,088 was spent by lobbyists for hospitals and nursing homes. That's a total of $133,271,660 in just three months, and that's not even counting the lobbying money spent to fight health care reform by professional associations like the US Chamber of Commerce."

I would just love to have the Swiss bank account numbers of those Dems voting against health care reform. (Not to imply there is any bribery going on, of course. I asked that completely unrelated to the above discussion of how much money the big corporations are spending to blog health care reform.)

By the way, did you see the big jump in the stock prices of the related companies last week after it was announced that the "Blue Dog" Democrats had managed to delay (which means possibly kill) health care reform?

Posted by Dave Johnson at 11:59 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

Corp Astroturf Memo: Disrupt Town Hall Meetings

Corporate astroturf outfits are organizing violent "Tea Party" disruptions of Congressional Town Hall meetings this summer.

Think Progress » Right-Wing Harassment Strategy Against Dems Detailed In Memo: 'Yell,'€™ 'Stand Up And Shout Out,'€™ 'Rattle Him'

The lobbyist-run groups Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, which orchestrated the anti-Obama tea parties earlier this year, are now pursuing an aggressive strategy to create an image of mass public opposition to health care and clean energy reform. A leaked memo from Bob MacGuffie, a volunteer with the FreedomWorks website Tea Party Patriots, details how members should be infiltrating town halls and harassing Democratic members of Congress:

They are organizing people TO DISRUPT the meetings with members of Congress. This is beyond dangerous.

"Be Disruptive Early And Often: “You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.”

– Try To “Rattle Him,” Not Have An Intelligent Debate: “The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions.”

Interestingly the memo closely resembles talking points distributed by a different corporate astroturf group, Freedomworks.

Please go read the post at Think Progress! See also previous posts on the corporate lobbyists who are organizing this tea party movement.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 9:24 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

July 31, 2009

Free-Market Conservatives Are Just Wrong

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.

There are things you can see in front of your face, and then there are things that conservative “free market” ideologues tell you.

One example is when they talk about the minimum wage. (An increase in the national minimum wage goes into effect today.) Conservative “free market” ideologues tell you that raising the minimum wage “costs jobs.” They say that if employers have to pay a few cents more per hour they won’t employ as many people.

But then there is something you can see in front of your face: whenever the minimum wage is raised, things get better. Things obviously get a little better for the people who work at the minimum wage, and for their families. As this works its way up the food chain things get a little better for the people and stores these workers rent and buy from. But also, studies looking into the effect of what actually happens after the minimum wage is raised show that the net effect is no loss of jobs.

Here is why. Employers hire the number of people they need to get done what needs to get done, according to demand. Ideally they employ the correct number of people to fill orders, run checkouts, stock shelves, etc. They don’t just have extra people sitting around for the heck of it. Of course there are some tasks where a calculation of a few cents in wages can make someone “not worth it,” but in the aggregate any jobs lost from this are offset by the new people hired to meet the increased demand created by people spending the higher wages. More people with more money to spend increases demand, which is good for business. Profits for some employers may be reduced a bit by the increase in labor cost, but these are also offset by increased profits for others due to increased demand.

Even so, conservative free-market conservative ideologues continue to make the claim that increasing the minimum wage “costs jobs” anyway. It’s what they do. They make a bad thing out of paying American workers good wages and benefits. They complain about workers getting pensions and health care. They just don’t seem to like it when regular people are better off. But here is a warning: never, ever dare suggest to a free-market conservative that a CEO or a trust fund child should pay some taxes – you’ll get an earful about how this would just ruin the economy.

The free-market conservatives are just wrong.

A second thing a free-market conservative ideologue wills tell you is that it is good for more and more of the things that used to be made here to be made in other countries instead. They say that by moving factories to other countries we all benefit because “we pay lower prices.” They say we benefit because “foreign competition encourages greater productivity” (even though we are talking about moving our factories from here to there.) They say that moving factories to other countries, “unites people in peaceful cooperation and mutual prosperity.”*

They say that moving factories to other countries, to make the same things that the factories were making here, should be called “trade.”

But we can all see right in front of our faces that none of this is so. Moving jobs out of the country to make the same things that were made here is not "trade" and it certainly hasn't brought us prosperity. It is just moving our jobs out of the country to make the same things that were made here, so a few people can pocket what was being paid to the American workers, while they stick the taxpayers with their unemployment pay and the costs of trying to keep their devastated communities alive.

Free-market conservative ideologues seem to believe that society works better when a few people get paid a lot, while the rest of us have very little, and advocate policies that bring that about. They have been the dominant force in our country's policymaking for many years, and we can see in front of our faces that the result is that a few people are getting paid more and more and the rest of us less and less. (Bailed-out Citigroup is paying one person a $100 million bonus, 738 others bonuses of $1 million or more, and Merril Lynch paid 696 people bonuses of $1 million or more.) They have put in place policies that stick the taxpayers with the costs and the wealthy few with the benefits.

We can all see that moving factories out of the country has destroyed lives, torn apart communities, created massive debt, created a very few massively rich people at the expense of the rest of us ... oh, and ruined the economy. That, too.

It is time for us to realize that these free-market conservatives are just wrong. They get paid to say that stuff, but it is just wrong. Moving a factory out of the country to make the same things it made here is not “trade.” It does not benefit anyone except a few, and when the purchasing power inevitably dries up it doesn’t even benefit those few either. They made a short-term profit and now we all suffer a long-term loss.

it is time for us to come up with new policies, new plans, new strategies and new rules of the game.

*Actual claims at Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies

Posted by Dave Johnson at 7:22 AM | Comments (1) | Link Cosmos

July 29, 2009

Why No Ciminal Investigations Of Financial Institutions And Others?

Who caused the economic crisis? | Salon

So what did banks do that was criminal? Well, first they paid your government to eliminate bank restrictions, then they overleveraged, knowing they could not honor contracts with such leverage, then they lied to their shareholders about the risks and magnitudes of their positions, hid their positions illegally off balance sheet, and through the use of derivatives managed to violate minimum capital requirements on an almost daily basis. They took bank debt leverage from 8:1 to over 30:1, thus assuring that the banking system could not survive even a modest credit tightening or recession. They made crazy bets in the credit default swap market that they could never honor in a downturn. They loaned money to anyone who could fog a knife because they knew they were going to stuff it to others through securitization and CDOs. If we had a criminal investigation, we would have access to the incriminating phone calls and e-mails in which the banksters disclosed what they really thought of the assets they were pawning off on others. ...

The final storyline of criminality is the biggest of all. It is bigger than the current financial crisis. It is corporate America's complete control of our nation's elected officials, especially our Congress, through lobbying and campaign donations. Yes, the banks played this game, but the game was much bigger than just the financial industry. Coal-fired utilities have so watered down impending legislation concerning global warming that they have now come out in favor of it in the House vote. TARP money went to banking friends of Hank Paulson, although 97 percent of congressional correspondence from the American people was against it. The credit card industry took a minor slap on the wrist, but faces no limitation on the egregious interest rates it can charge its customers. Pharmaceutical and hospital corporations are fighting hard to keep Americans from having a public alternative to their healthcare, and right now are winning that fight. The transportation industry is at the government trough trying to pass a $500 billion windfall. The AARP prevents any meaningful reform of Social Security; the teachers' union does the same for education reform. Is it crazy to think that defense companies like Dick Cheney's Halliburton (which saw its stock price increase 700 percent during the Iraq war, thanks to no-bid contracts) may be promoting U.S. aggression around the world?

Go read the whole thing.

Why no investigations and prosecutions? Is the Justice Department again operating under rule of law or not?

Posted by Dave Johnson at 4:47 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

$100 Million Bonus For ONE PERSON At Citigroup

Citigroup is one of those huge companies that was "too big to fail." So our taxpayer dollars propped them up. We have so far given them $45 billion dollars. And what are they doing with the money>

Well ONE person is getting a $100 million bonus. See Clash Brewing over $100M Citi Bonus, They say it is because he "has a contract."

Posted by Dave Johnson at 3:50 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

July 28, 2009

Should We Ban Manipulative Marketing?

This post originally appeared at Open Left.

You may have heard that some European countries have banned models that are underweight because seeing them has a harmful effect on teenage girls.

Should we be thinking about the negative societal effects of marketing? Should we ban marketing that is based on manipulating people by harming their self-esteem or encouraging them to do unhealthy things? Should we ban advertising that utilizes techniques that effect how our brains work? Should we demand that ads stop distracting us from our thoughts? I have been wondering about this.

Marketers today are learning how to reach down into the wiring of the brain itself, to manipulate us at a level that we do not consciously perceive and cannot control. Science has come a long way in recent decades. There is a new kind of marketing called neuromarketing that actually uses brain scans to measure how our brains react to certain stimuli. We are in danger of marketers using the information gained from these new techniques to come up with ways to sell us things and make us do things and we may in many cases be literally unable to resist.

It is not unprecedented to think about restricting marketing, even in the "free market" United States. We have confronted the problem of people being harmed by marketing in the past, with tobacco advertising and false claims of medical benefits. It used to be against regulations to make false claims in TV ads. But by and large companies have free range to manipulate people as they see fit.

But today we have an epidemic of obesity, the result of food-company marketing. The companies have learned to literally manipulate our metabolisms to the point where many of us cannot resist overeating. When you have a third of all of our people obese and another third seriously overweight it is obvious that the problem is not "self-control." The problem is systemic and beyond an individual's ability to control. Don't we as a society have an obligation to step in and correct this?

Obesity is just one example of what I call "marketing diseases." What about marketing that hits at our self-esteem? Makes us think we are ugly, undesirable, stupid, etc? Is this good for us?

Another kind of marketing is aspirational. Don't get me started about people who live fantasy lives, thinking they are starring in a James Bond or Marlboro Man movie, because of the harmful effects of unrestricted marketing on our human psychology.

Here is one more reason I think we should step in and regulate marketing and advertising. Advertising is the science of getting our attention. The most effective advertising gets us to stop what we are doing and pay attention to the ad.

But have you considered the extent to which such advertising is a distraction from our lives? We have public nuisance laws that prevent people from disturbing the peace. So what about advertising? At what point does advertising rise to the level of attention-grabbing distraction that we have a right to take control and prohibit? Good advertising gets our attention – and our attention is OURs.

I think we have the right to think about the things we want to think about. A concurrent right then would be the right not to have our attention distracted -- not to have things shoved in our face.

So suppose that we require companies to get our permission to expose their advertising to us? Suppose we charged a fee for the right to promote products and services to us?

So even when legitimate, there must be regulation of advertising and marketing to be sure that it is being used legitimately and that we are being fairly compensated for the use of us as a market for the products.

I hope this gets us thinking about our rights as people, vs the rights of companies to project marketing at us regardless of the effect.

What are your thoughts?

Posted by Dave Johnson at 11:16 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

Why I Am Pro-Corporate

This post originally appeared at Blog for OurFuture. It was written for the Making It In America project.

I am pro-corporate. I’ll go a step further with that and proclaim that I believe that there are no bad corporations, and that I haven’t seen any corporations do anything wrong.

I see the way you are looking at me. I’d better explain.

The reason I say there are no “bad” corporations is because corporations are not sentient beings that can “do” things or that can be good or bad. They can’t make decisions. Corporations are just a bundle of contracts that allow groups of people to more easily raise capital and amass resources. Corporations are things, like chairs, and things do not make decisions, any more than a chair does. Corporations are tools and tools are neither good nor bad.

When I say I am pro-corporate, this is what I mean: The things that the corporate legal structure enables people to do are good for society. This is why We, the People decided to enact the laws that created corporations. If we want to be able to accomplish things on a large scale, like build a railroad or airports and airplanes or skyscrapers – or solar power plants to replace coal power plants – we want to enable people to more easily raise the necessary capital and amass the resources needed to get the job done. The legal structure of the corporate form of a business accomplishes this.

Corporations, a bundle of contracts, don’t “do” anything, people do. And that is why this discussion is important right now. We are looking here at how to restructure our economy, but before we can do that, we have to correctly identify what went wrong. We have to understand who the good and bad actors were.

So what are some of the things that companies have been doing that we as progressives think should change? Let’s use the highly-publicized example of Wal-Mart and their low wages and benefits and Chinese imports. Wal-Mart always complained about being cast as the bad-actor. They said that if Wal-Mart raised wages and benefits and their competitor Target didn’t, then they would be at a competitive disadvantage and Target would take over the business. And, by extension, any company that tries to “do the right thing” is immediately at a disadvantage to a company that does not.

Looked at this way, if we make Wal-Mart raise wages and Target doesn’t, then not only is Wal-Mart in trouble as a company but now we’re starting all over again trying to get Target to raise wages. And if THEY do so, then along comes K-Mart or Costco or a new company X-Co to pay the low wages, charge lower prices and take away the business. This feels like it is going around in a circle, trying to fix a problem in one place and the pressures of the system immediately make the problem appear somewhere else.

I think blaming companies for the things they "do" also places a lot of stress on people inside of them who might agree with us, and even can alienate them from otherwise supporting progressives. People in the corporate world often feel trapped because the rules of the game require them to engage in what we think of as bad behavior. These are good people who would be very helpful to us in making the correct changes but they feel forced by the system to do the things they do. They are pulled two ways. Executives at Wal-Mart on the one hand can be want to raise wages, and on the other hand have a responsibility to compete with Target.

So what am I getting at here? The companies are not the problem, the rules we set up for them are. Companies operate on a playing field on which the rules of the game are supposed to be decided by US. We, the People are supposed to set up the ground rules and then the companies are supposed to follow those rules. Wal-Mart followed those rules. If we didn’t like the wages and benefits that companies pay, why don’t we change the rules and tell them they all have to pay higher wages and provide better benefits?

Now we’re getting somewhere. Many progressives have been trying to get companies to "behave" in better ways, and haven't been getting much done -- I think due to not correctly identifying the problem. The real problem is that we haven’t set up the rules of the playing field to require these companies – all of them – to provide good wages and benefits, etc. It is our job to regulate what these corporations do. So why didn’t we, through our government, change the rules for all the companies, so they all had a level playing field and clear rules? Identifying why we have not fixed the rules is the path to fixing the larger problem.

What has been happening is that a few people in the bigger companies have been using the resources of those big corporations to influence our system and set the rules of that playing field to give an edge to their companies. They do this so they can personally gain.

This is where we need to focus to fix the corporate system. There should be no way for people in companies to have any say whatsoever in how the playing field on which they operate is set up. How to accomplish this is a subject for future posts.

As I said above, corporations are just a tool, like a hammer. But a hammer can do a lot of damage if a person hits you upside the head with it. That is what we have to stop: a few people using corporate resources and hitting us upside the head.

Oh, and for the record, I am pro-chair, too, though my wife will probably insist I am a pro-couch partisan.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 8:20 AM | Comments (2) | Link Cosmos

July 22, 2009

When They Say Government They Mean You

This post originally appeared at Open Left.

I'd like to talk about government. The conservative/corporate propaganda machine has turned "government" into a bad word. Conservatives portray our government as some kind of enemy of the public. We have all heard the scare stories about the harm done by meddlesome regulations from intrusive big government programs run by government bureaucrats.

Let's step back from reacting to the word as we hear it today and think about what the word really means.

In America government is us. It is, by definition, "We, The People." Our Constitution is the defining document of our government and it couldn't be clearer, declaring that We, the People formed this country "to promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves"... In other words, watch out for and take care of each other; "We, the People" have banded together to watch out for each other, take care of each other and build institutions to protect and empower each other.

With this in mind let’s try an experiment. Try substituting some variation of the words, "We, the People," "us" or “the people making decisions for ourselves” every time you read or use the word "government." Or use the word "our" instead of "the" when you say "the government." Our government, us, we, the people, working together to take care of and empower each other.

My favorite use of this experiment is to apply it to Reagan’s keynote statement, “Government is the problem, not the solution.” Reagan is making a profoundly anti-democratic statement here. He is saying that “The people making our decisions for ourselves and watching out for each other is the problem.”

With statements like these, Reagan and the conservatives are advocating a different system of government than democracy. They are saying that we should hand those decisions and responsibilities over to the "private sector" - the corporations - and let others decide how things are going to be done and how our money and common resources will be used.

Another example is when conservatives repeat, “Don’t let the government tell us what to do.” That becomes, “Don’t let us tell us what to do,” or a little more broadly, “Don’t let us decide the rules that we will live by.” If WE aren’t the deciders, then who is? What about the conservative pejorative, “big government?” They are complaining about “big We, the People.” They want “limited government.” So they have a beef with US having more power over ourselves! Of course, if WE don’t have this power, who do you think will?

Conservatives complain about government as a meddlesome, intrusive problem. But just who is government a problem for? If you are a top executive in a large chemical corporation and your bonus depends on lowering the cost of discarding toxic wastes, government stands between you and the river into which you want to dump the wastes. It costs the company less to dump the waste into the river, you will get your bonus, but We, the People don't want that stuff in our water. So for you, government is the problem. And that is a good thing. But our government is us. Our government protects us.

How about the refrain that people shouldn’t rely on government, but instead should rely on themselves? That sounds good, somehow. But try it with “each other” and a small adjustment to “themselves,” and what they are saying becomes, “People shouldn’t rely on each other they should be on their own.” This is a variation on their “personal responsibility” mantra. They want us alone and defenseless. (This is also why they hate unions.) Is alone and defenseless really such a good way to live, especially in a world dominated by big corporations always trying to trick us and get our money? Wouldn’t it be better if we were working to protect each other from the big corporations?

Spending: When conservatives complain about government spending they mean empowering and taking care of each other. They don’t like us doing that. We as a species learned from the beginning to band together, take care of each other. And now they want us separated and on our own.

Government taxing and spending is what empowers us. In the 1950s President Eisenhower proposed building the interstate highway system. That was an example of government spending, and as I wrote the other day, the top tax rate was over 90% on income above a certain amount. So after executives and owners of big companies made several hundred thousand dollars additional income was taxed at a very high rate. They could still become very, very wealthy, but more slowly. This taxation meant that the major beneficiaries of our government helped us pay for our government.

It paid off. The interstate highway system triggered a surge of economic growth, new industries, new products -- and even greater income for the very people who were taxed to help pay for it.

We also spend money protecting each other. Let’s talk about the distortions in military spending another time. What about our spending to regulate corporations and enforce those regulations? Or spending on education or health care or parks? Conservatives just hate that. They have convinced much of the public that government spending - the people taking care of each other - is bad. And the way to disempower us is to cut taxes, the ability to gather the resources we need to fight the battles we fight with the rich and powerful.

Try these experiments, substitute "us" and "We, The People" when you hear conservatives complain about government. Substitute "the resources we need to empower each other and fight the powerful" when you see the word "taxing" and substitute "taking care of each other" when you see the word "spending." This can be very powerful and empowering. It helps us see what kind of world the conservatives are really advocating.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 9:34 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

July 20, 2009

It's The Economic Paradigm, Stupid!

I am happy to announce that beginning today I will be working as a Fellow and blogger with Campaign for America's Future. This post introduces the areas I will be pursuing.

The economy is terrible. There aren't enough jobs. Most of the jobs that are still there are not paying enough for people to keep up, and people are afraid they could lose them tomorrow. So we all have too much debt. We have too little health care. We have too much stress. And in the bigger picture we have too little power to do anything about it.

They say we're reaching a "bottom" and that there are "green shoots." But I am afraid that this isn’t your father’s recession. I'm afraid this economy isn’t a pendulum that has swing too far in one direction, ready to be pulled by natural forces back to the other side. I am afraid that this isn't a "business cycle" pattern with a fall, then a bottom, then a recovery where all the shoppers return to the stores, all the jobs come back and growth picks up where it left off. Even "green shoot" optimists admit there will be few new jobs if there is any recovery.

It may be that we are not in a period of waiting for things to "get back to normal." Many people think that this economic collapse IS the return to normal.

For decades concerned observers have warned about problems with the "sustainability" of our economic paradigm. If you look at charts describing changes in the economy, environment, population - all kinds of things - you see that in recent decades they all change and start to move, often exponentially, in directions that obviously cannot be sustained. They look like this:

A wise man once said that when something is unsustainable it can’t be sustained. And here we are. A very good explanation of the problem of unsustainability of our economic paradigm is The Story Of Stuff. "It's a linear system and we live on a finite planet."

It is not just the economy out of whack. The business practices that brought us here -- overextraction, overextension, overleveraging, overconsumption -- have also whacked the planet’s resources. The fisheries are increasingly depleted. The aquifers are increasingly drained. The forests are increasingly logged. The landfills are increasingly full. And, of course, the planet is increasingly hotter.

Our economic system has also taken a toll on the people. Too many hours at a stressful workplace with too little sleep have burned many of us out. Our thinking and identity are about our jobs, not our spirit and character. Our values are devoted to markets with many of us placing making money over loving and caring for families and others. And there's no time for that stuff anyway. We have become consumers instead of citizens and humans. Decades of falling wages, decreasing savings and increasing debt have tapped us out. Consumption has used us up. And we’re fed up.

So things reached a breaking point and broke down. This has been coming at us for decades. And here we are.

If this economic collapse was the consequence of decades of an unsustainable economic model, then what do we do?

The government, of course, has been working to fix this problem within the context of the current failed economic system. And in that context they have been doing a good job. They lowered interest rates to encourage even more borrowing. The stimulus pumped borrowed money into the economy to cover the loss of demand from people and business. They raised the FDIC protection levels so we're not all wiped out if banks fail. They bailed out overleveraged financial institutions so they could again provide credit.

Of course the stimulus is better than none. We need unemployment benefits and infrastructure investment. And investment has a longer-term payoff.

But what happens after the stimulus? What do they think will drive our economy back to what they think of as normal? Will it be renewed manufacturing of cars? If we don't bring back the good-paying jobs, who will buy them? Same for houses. Same for TVs and appliances and furniture and jewelery and expensive shoes and all the rest.

In a June interview on the Lehrer News Hour, Treasury Secretary Geithner said that they are doing what they need to do to "get growth back on track."

Back on track? Does he mean we will fish out the remaining fish? Cut the rest of the trees? Drain the rest of the aquifers? Take the tops off the rest of the mountains? Does he mean that we will run up the rest of the credit cards? Will we cover the rest of the land with even bigger houses and subdivisions and strip malls? Will we export all the rest of the jobs? Will we hand the rest of the nation's income and wealth over to an elite few?

I don't think they are going to get things back "on track" by applying more of the same "solutions" that got us to where we are today. Will they bail out more companies, making them even too bigger to fail? None of the fixes will work if the problem is that we have reached the limits of sustainability of the economic model we have been following for decades.

So what can we do to change the system itself? How do we restructure the model - the economic paradigm - in ways that let We, The People enjoy and share the benefits of our economy? There are a number of clues that I will be writing about in my work with Campaign for America's Future. Maybe we can follow the clues and find answers.

One obvious part of problem is that we have an economic system in which we tolerate a few people controlling –- and thereby getting most of the benefits from –- things that should belong to and be controlled by all of us. Aren't We, The People supposed to be making the decisions here? And shouldn't we make decisions that benefit all of us instead of just a wealthy few?

At the center of this problem is the role of the corporation in our society. Corporations have amassed immense power and that power is used to control the country's decision-making processes, always to the benefit of the wealthy few. Getting a grip on this problem requires us to regain understanding of why we have corporations in the first place. We, The People enacted the laws that allow corporations to exist because we felt that it would be to our benefit to do so. And to the extent that they are now benefiting a few at the expense of the rest of us, we can change the laws. Let that sink in.

Another thing we have to get control over is the concept of externalization. Why do we allow companies to externalize their costs while internalizing the profits? In other words, companies are allowed to push costs onto the rest of us, but are not asked to share the resulting profits with the rest of us. We even let them see and treat people (us) as "costs" -- a layoff pushes the responsibility to support a worker onto the community while the company keeps the wages they were paid.

When a company replaces a worker with a machine, the company pockets the wages that would have gone to the worker and the worker is discarded. But now we are learning that eventually enough workers are discarded that there is no one to purchase what those workers replaced by machines were making. So the company and the economy lose, too. This just doesn't work.

Here is a big one: We need to understand that actually making things is what drives an economy. America became an economic powerhouse because we made things here. China is an economic powerhouse because they make things there. I'll be writing about that a lot.

These are just a few of the things that I will be exploring in the coming months. Let's see where it goes.

*About the title.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 8:49 AM | Comments (3) | Link Cosmos

July 17, 2009

Pay for Play

This post originally appeared at Open Left

How much of what we see on TV, hear on the radio and read in newspapers or online as "conservative" or "centrist" opinion is actually paid for by corporate interests? In fact, how much of what we think of as "conservatism" itself is actually just paid corporate PR?

A story about "pay for play" is surfacing today in Politico. And to reward good behavior: I say good for them.

The American Conservative Union asked FedEx for a check for $2 million to $3 million in return for the group’s endorsement in a bitter legislative dispute, then flipped and sided with UPS after FedEx refused to pay.

For the $2 million plus, ACU offered a range of services that included: “Producing op-eds and articles written by ACU’s Chairman David Keene and/or other members of the ACU’s board of directors. (Note that Mr. Keene writes a weekly column that appears in The Hill.)”

This follows the story the other day about the Washington Post and then reports of other media outlets selling “access” to lobbyists.

I have followed this stuff for some time, and I venture to say that most -- not all but most -- of what I see coming out of the so-called "conservative movement" appears to have been little more than corporate pay-for-play for many years.

I started thinking about this back when the "conservative" position was pro-logging. Remember how they mocked the spotted owl? (The spotted owl is an "indicator species," or a shorthand way to judge the health of an entire ecosystem.) I wondered why the logging industry was a cause for conservatives, but not the fishing industry, which was greatly harmed by the logging practices advocated by conservatives. The answer turned out to be that a guy who ran a corporation that had made a ton of money looting S&Ls (how come no one remembers the S&L Crisis?) had bought a lumber company and was destroying all the old-growth redwoods was hooked into (i.e. paying) the conservative movement. (Please read the links and follow the links there!) And so the "conservative" opinion became that logging old-growth forests was a good thing. Cash payment was the reason for this core pillar of conservative ideology. (The whole thing ended up paying off even more handsomely, probably thanks to more conservative movement backscratching.)

Over the years I have seen one after another example of this use of the so-called "conservative" movement to drive the interests of particular corporations, in exchange for money. We used to see it serving tobacco interests. Now we see it serving oil and coal interests -- and right now insurance company interests.

A few years ago I said at a YearlyKos panel, Ethics, Corruption and Movement Politics,

So, like I said the conservative persuasion machine and media echo chamber quickly moved past that initial far-right funding to also take in big corporate money. But corporate money is “interested” money – it necessarily has strings or it would not be given. And the strings necessarily go back to the interests of the corporation – not the public or the country – or even the conservative movement.

The movement followed the money and started to change from pure ideology to lobbying for the interests of the corporate backers. The think tanks began making arguments in support of what were little more than paying customers.

The corporations saw an opportunity and took over the so-called "conservative movement" and big, big, big money started flowing in.

As i said at the start of this piece, "How much of what we see on TV, hear on the radio and read in newspapers or online as "conservative" opinion is actually paid for by corporate interests? In fact, how much of what we think of as "conservatism" itself is actually just paid corporate PR?" I think the answer is pretty clear at this point, and that is most of it.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 1:10 PM | Comments (1) | Link Cosmos

July 14, 2009

Republican Myth: Businesses Leave California Because Of Taxes

This post originally appeared at Speak Out California

Republicans like to claim that businesses leave California because of having to pay taxes.

I used to own and run a business, and I have some news for Republicans: Businesses only pay taxes on profits. You don't pay taxes unless you are making a profit. Paying taxes means you are making a profit. Making a profit is a good thing, and California businesses pay a small percentage of the profits to the state to help cover the expenses that enabled you to make that profit.

I'm not sure how many different ways I can say it. You pay taxes after you make a profit. At the end of the year you add up your revenue and you subtract your expenses and other deductions and then you know what your profit is.

Oh, one more thing for the slower-thinking Republicans out there: profits are a good thing, not a bad thing. And when you are making a profit the last thing you do is pack up your business and leave behind the circumstances that enabled making that profit.

I understand that Republicans hate government and are enraged by the idea of actually giving something back to the community to help pay for the roads, bridges, courts, police and fire protection, educated citizenry and the other parts of the state's infrastructure that created the environment that led to the ability to make a profit. Yes, they hate that. I understand.

But the fact is that businesses do not pack up and leave when they are making profits. So if Republicans want to trick people into supporting tax cuts for the big companies that shelled out so much cash put them in office they really do need to come up with better stories than trying to claim that businesses pack up and leave the state because they are making too much profit.

Click through to Speak Out California

Posted by Dave Johnson at 1:47 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

Bill Moyers

Bill Moyers writes about the influence of money at the Campaign for America's Future blog: Some Choice Words for 'The Select Few' | OurFuture.org,

...the serious business of Washington – happens in the shadows, out of sight, off the record. Only occasionally – and usually only because someone high up stumbles -- do we get a glimpse of just how pervasive the corruption has become.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 11:52 AM | Comments (1) | Link Cosmos

June 30, 2009

Who Is Our Economy FOR, Anyway?

The Seeing the Forest question: Who is our economy FOR, anyway?

If the government provides good, low-cost health care to citizens it reduces the profits of the big insurance and drug companies. This health care battle lays down a clear choice of who benefits: citizens or a wealthy few?

Republican Senator Snowe of Maine announces her choice. See Open Left:: The Problem With The Public Option Is That It Lowers The Cost Of Health Insurance,

In an Associated Press interview in Portland, Snowe said it would be unfair to include a government-run health insurance option that would take effect immediately.

"If you establish a public option at the forefront that goes head-to-head and competes with the private health insurance market ... the public option will have significant price advantages," she said.

Well, duh. That is the whole point. You can't lower the price of health insurance unless you start offering lower-priced health insurance. It's a tautology.

So, naturally, during the fight to lower the price of health insurance, so-called moderate Senators think that the problem with the public option is that it would... lower the price of health insurance. While it may be news to so-called moderate Senators, protecting the crappy products of large corporations is not their job description.

Yes, this health care battle is stripping some of the camouflage from the real fight: do the people benefit from our government, or do a wealthy few benefit?

Who is our economy for, anyway? I first asked that question here just about seven years ago, and it became the blog's tag line. I think the financial crisis and now this health care battle allow people to clearly see and understand which choice their Washington representatives make. And I think the way these twin crises are unfolding helps people to understanding the choice their own elected representatives make. I think will make a big difference come election time.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 11:10 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

June 21, 2009

Your Tax Dollars At Work

Hey, suckers, take a look at where your money is going: Goldman to make record bonus payout,

Staff at Goldman Sachs staff can look forward to the biggest bonus payouts in the firm's 140-year history after a spectacular first half of the year...

The bailouts were a wonderful corporate feast. They thank you.

See this chart showing how the bailouts cost more than all the wars, the New Deal, etc. combined. in our history

Up next on the corporate agenda: a law requiring you to buy health insurance from the big insurance corporations. Yes, the same ones who then don't even cover you when you get sick.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 9:42 AM | Comments (1) | Link Cosmos

June 20, 2009

Corp Media Wont Report On Health Insurers

Do read this by dday and then watch the video below. Health insurers refuse to stop denying coverage to people after they get sick. Testifying to Congress they said, "No" they will not stop this. Watch the video.

If you know about this at all it is because you read blogs. The corporate media outlets refuse to let the public know about this. You can come up with a number of reasons, but the fact is that they are not reporting on this story.

So go read Daily Kos: Paul Begala calls out the media: expose the insurance industry!

Since the media will not report on this, you have to. Send the video to people and explain to them what it means. Health insurance companies refuse to stop "rescission" which is denying insured people the coverage they have paid for -- after they get sick. This is why we need at the very least a "public option" in health care coverage. Demand this.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 10:28 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

June 17, 2009

Why A Public Option In Health Care Plan Is Necessary

In the discussion over health care reform the big debate is over whether to have a "public option" that lets people buy health care from the government instead of private companies.

Read about one reason this is necessary: Healthcare CEOs Shoot Themselves in the Foot | Mother Jones,

A Texas nurse said she lost her coverage, after she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer, for failing to disclose a visit to a dermatologist for acne.

Of course a Medicare-For-All national health care plan is the best approach, and the only one that will work. But due to the power of large corporations over our democracy that is "off the table" and not even allowed to be discussed. So we are instead debating whether to let people buy a reasonable policy or just force them to give money to big companies.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 1:00 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

June 11, 2009

Naming Dems Who Are In It For The Money

Common Cause released a study of the recent vote on the legislation to allow bankruptcy judges to change the terms of mortgages (known as :cram-down") so people don't have to lose their houses. As you already guessed the Democrats who kept this from passing received money - a lot of money, an average of $58,894 in the 2008 election cycle - from the banking and finance special interests, while the rest of the Democrats did not. This vote was a strictly pay-for-play bribe and we need to do something about Democrats who take money from big corporations and then vote against the public interest. (All the Republicans voted with the big corporations, by the way.)

An article about the study t r u t h o u t | Study Follows the Money on Cram-Down Vote names the names:

[the] 39 Republicans needed Democratic help to kill the bill. And they got it.

The 12 Democratic senators who crossed the aisle to vote with Republicans were Max Baucus (Montana), Michael Bennet (Colorado), Robert Byrd (West Virginia), Thomas Carper (Delaware), Byron Dorgan (North Dakota), Tim Johnson (South Dakota), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas), Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Mark Pryor (Arkansas), Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania) and Jon Tester (Montana).

If you live in a state with one of these Senators, call their office and let them know how you feel about them taking money to vote for big corporate interests. This money-taking is nothing less than bribery, corruption and is an affront to democracy.

Also, more votes backing financial industry rip-offfs of the public:

Many of the Democrats who sided with the financial industry in the "cram-down" vote were instrumental in blocking a proposed 15 percent cap on interest rates that credit card companies can charge. Senators Baucus, Byrd, Carper, Johnson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Specter and Tester joined with Senators Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Evan Bayh (D- Indiana), Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico), Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), Kay Hagan (D-North Carolina), Ted Kaufman (D-Delaware), Patty Murray (D-Washington), Bill Nelson (D-Florida), Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas), Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire), Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) and Mark Warner (D-Virginia), in opposition to the anti-usury bill sponsored by Vermont's Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 6:42 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

Holocaust Museum Shooting Demostrates Need for Employee Free Choice

Security guards at the Holocaust Museum, members of the Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America, had tried to get protective vests from the company that employs them. The company didn't want to bother with this "cost" and wouldn't provide vests. Now one guard is dead.

Employees need to be able to have a say in their workplace. The "security" company was concerned with profits. The employees were the ones concerned with security. The company won out.

This is one more reason why we need the Employee Free Choice Act.

From page 2 of Grief, Shock After 'Outstanding' Guard Loses His Life in the Line of Duty - washingtonpost.com,

Faye said that during contract negotiations with Wackenhut two years ago, the union pressed for company-issued protective vests. Although Wackenhut seemed open to the idea, vests have not been issued, Faye said.

"I hammered this in our negotiations two years ago because of how sensitive that museum is," he said. "Our guards needed more protection." He said that one of the guards at the museum was "verbally assaulted by one guy walking by, saying anti-Semitic remarks. For that reason, I made that the center of the negotiation."

Posted by Dave Johnson at 9:41 AM | Comments (1) | Link Cosmos

June 8, 2009

The Health Care Reform Question

I think the health care "reform" debate boils down to a simple question: Is this about delivering for the people, or about delivering for the big corporations? Or really I should say for the few wealthy people who benefit when big corporations get their way.

Really, as always it just boils down to a raw, naked fight between these competing interests. We, the People, or the wealthy few.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 9:46 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

Health Care Reform Lost At Start

The current health care "reform" plan is that we will all be required by law to give our money to big insurance corporations who might or might not provide or deny some amount of good or not-so-good health care.

The only debate is whether to include a "public option" to let us pay to buy into a Medicare-type plan. But this isn't about taxing g corporations and the rich so we can have the health care that every other country provides. No, this is about making us pay instead of our receiving the fruits of our economy.

The original hopes for a system like what every other country in the world has, where our government - We, the People - provides some form of health care for us disappeared even before any debate began. Government-paid health care for all, the same as Medicare for those over 65 (sometimes confusingly called "single-payer"), is not even allowed to be discussed in the Congress. From this we can clearly see that the power of a few wealthy people who have access to corporate resources currently is greater than the power of all of the rest of the people of the country.

What we should learn from this is that we have reached a point where the only players in the national legislative process are big corporations and the wealthy. The interests of the public are no longer even a consideration. Right now it has reached the point where we have no voice at all.

The answer is to organize. If we organize we can fight this. Get connected, respond to calls to action, give money, and learn that you have to get off your butt and make noise or nothing will happen.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 7:43 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

June 6, 2009

Name The Enemy

I've been thinking lately, are conservatives the enemy, or are they just a front for the enemy? Please read Naming the Enemy

I've believed for some time that the big money interests just use the conservatives as a tool to enact their agenda (sort of like how Iran got them to invade Iraq...) and their money is what provided the conservatives with their power. It's not personal - just business. But now that support for the conservative movement might be waning, and the conservatives' ability to get things done for the money agenda is diminished, where will that money and power go to work next?

Read Chris Hayes' article, which has some ideas on that.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 8:42 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

Health Care: Public Option Is A Must

I just want to go on the record here that any health care reform must include a "public option." This is an option for insurance that comes from the government, not from for-profit companies. Without it there really is no "reform."

This is a deal-breaker: no public option, then no anything, and we keep trying to get health care that works for the public instead of just taking our money to benefit a few.

Conservatives like to say that government is inefficient, incompetent, cumbersome, wasteful and can't compete with "the private sector." But NOW they're suddenly all worried that private businesses can't compete with government. The ONLY reason there is consideration of continuing the failed, greedy, destructive corporate insurance system is because the few who get rich off of it are paying off politicians to keep things they way they are.

This is about providing what is best for the people, not about watching out for corporate interests and the profits that get funneled up to a few people at the top. If business can serve the people better than the people (government) can, let them prove it by including a public insurance option in the health care reform.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 1:30 PM | Comments (2) | Link Cosmos

June 4, 2009

Think Tanking For Bucks II

There's big bucks out there for those willing to claim global warming isn't real.

I wonder who is putting up all that money?

Here's another: The Cato Institute's Generous Funding of Patrick Michaels | Center for Media and Democracy,

Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow with the the Cato Institute, a Washington D.C. think tank, is one of the leading global warming skeptics. Back in 1994, when his media profile as Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Virgina and a global warming skeptic was taking off, Michaels founded New Hope Environmental Services.

The firm, which he wholly owns, describes itself as "an advocacy science consulting firm." These days, New Hope's main activities are publishing the firm's blog, World Climate Report, and helping anonymous clients to publicize "findings on climate change and scientific and social perspectives that may not otherwise appear in the popular literature or media."

While both Michaels and New Hope Environmental Services are secretive about who their clients are, a little piece of their funding jigsaw is tucked away in the backblocks of the 2006 and 2007 (pdf's - see page 10) annual returns of the Cato Institute. In its returns, Cato reports that since April 2006 they have paid $242,900 for the "environmental policy" services of Michaels' firm. (In preceding years, New Hope Environmental Services was not listed amongst the five highest paid independent contractors supplying professional services to Cato.)

Go read the rest.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 3:17 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

Think Tanking For Bucks

The Heartland Institute's Quest for "Real Science" on Global Warming | Center for Media and Democracy,

The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-headquartered think tank that has taken on the role of trying to coordinate the disparate global warming skeptics, has organized yet another conference to be held in Washington this week disputing the reality of global warming. "The real science and economics of climate change support the view that global warming is not a crisis and that immediate action to reduce emissions is not necessary," they claim.

But when the Heartland Institute talks about "real science," it is hard to ignore the fact that for years they have defended the policy agenda of the tobacco industry without disclosing that they were funded by Phillip Morris. Indeed, Heartland still claims to defend the rights of smokers, a ploy long used by the tobacco industry to keep themselves out of the spotlight.

Go read the rest.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 3:02 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

June 2, 2009

American Manufacturing

I am at the America's Future Now conference in DC (formerly Take Back America). I had a conversation today with people from the Alliance for American Manufacturing. This is an alliance of companies that make things in America, and the United steelworkers union. They have an interest in making things in America, and I'll likely be writing about this more and more.

The owner of a company that makes wind turbines for generating electricity talked about a wind farm his company is helping build. They need a special transformer -- and we don't make them in America anymore. So they have to go on a 52-week waiting list to get the transformer. This is just one example of the cost to us of giving away our manufacturing capabilities.

This loss of manufacturing capabilities comes from the increasing dominance of our economy by financial firms. They buy companies, strip things that have "costs," like pensions, and outsource what they can, then sell the company to the next financial firm.

More coming.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 1:20 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

May 27, 2009

Why Is Welfare A Bad Word?

"Welfare" has been turned into a bad word in the U.S. Like "liberal." How many people even know what the word really means, reacting instead of the negative spin it has? Many of us are so conditioned by propaganda that we can't even think about the meanings of words.

Merriam-Webster:

1: the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity
2 a: aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need b: an agency or program through which such aid is distributed

Oxford:

• noun 1 the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group. 2 action or procedure designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need. 3 chiefly N. Amer. financial support given for this purpose.

"the state of being or doing well; condition of health, happiness, and comfort; well-being; prosperity" OOH - Bad!

So what about "welfare state?" Wikipedia on "welfare state": "A model in which the state assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens."

Your government watching out for your welfare. Imagine that.

Bad, bad, run away, run away.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 7:06 AM | Comments (3) | Link Cosmos

May 24, 2009

Big Ag Forces University To Stop Distributing Book To Students

It seems that books criticizing the actions of big corporations are too "controversial" for some universities. Washington State University dropped the book "Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals" from their "common reading" program -- in fact dropped the whole program -- after a complaint from an agri-business-associated member of the board of regents of the University. Even though the university had already purchased 4,000 copies.

Big money makes the decisions these days. Apparently even about which books can be distributed at universities.

Through La Vida Locavore

Posted by Dave Johnson at 5:52 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

May 16, 2009

The Cayman Islands Is Part Of Why We Don't Have Health Care

The Cayman Islands is part of what we don't have health care. Does that sound like a bizarre statement? Well, read this: A Lot of Our Money Is Buried in the Cayman Islands -- Let's Get It Back,

The Senate Permanent Investigations subcommittee puts the annual tax loss at $100 billion; Treasury sets the figure at $123 billion. Collecting those lost billions could mean that Americans could pay no withholding tax from November 15 to December 31; it could pay for healthcare for about 20 million of the roughly 50 million Americans without health insurance.

. . . Congress should pass a law funding pursuit of every major tax cheat, just as we pursue every killer, rapist and drug dealer. Using offshore accounts to cheat the government out of $50,000 or more for two or more years should be made a felony per se. Then let's provide an escape hatch, which would spare prosecution of anyone who fesses up and fully pays taxes, penalties and interest. The same law should make public the name and details of every person or company that skips the opportunity to make things right.

Why do we tolerate these offshore tax and corporate scams? Why don't we just put an end to it -- and get better schools, health care, etc. out of the deal?

Posted by Dave Johnson at 7:22 AM | Comments (2) | Link Cosmos

May 15, 2009

The Bailouts and Democracy

(This post appeared as part of the Issues Now! series leading up to the America's Future Now conference from the Campaign for America's Future.)

I have questions about the bailouts and I can’t seem to get answers. This by itself means there are big problems with the bailouts and the rest of this effort to restore the economy. I am a citizen in a (supposed) democracy and I am not getting enough information to allow me to do my job. As a citizen I’m in charge of all of this, yet I don’t know where my money is going, how it is being used, what alternatives were considered, who is profiting, who is gaming the system, and I can’t find out.

Like the old Soviet Union, when the institutions that are supposed to provide information are not trusted – or are not there – rumors and alternate explanations (read: “conspiracy theories”) abound. And so it is with the national discussion of the bailouts. Ask anyone on the street about the bailouts, read almost any blog, op-ed page, letter to the editor: people do not understand why these particular corporations are so special that they should get this special access to our money after they got themselves into trouble, and no one is doing a good job of explaining to the public-at-large just what is going on. “Trust us” is not democracy.

Take a look at this short video clip of Representative Alan Grayson (D-Fla) asking the Federal Reserve Inspector General what she knows about the trillions that the Fed has put up and the IG saying she doesn’t know:

Q: “You’re the Inspector General … do you know who received that one trillion dollars plus…?”

A: “I do not know.”

And there are reports that the Congressional Oversight Panel headed by Elizabeth Warren is having trouble getting sufficient information from the Treasury Department. So as far as I can tell, no one is getting sufficient information and reporting back to us citizens what is being done in our name and with our money. And it is a lot of money. Right-wing radio and blogs are certainly taking full advantage of this information gap to stir up anger and trouble. As David Sirota wrote the other day,

According to Bloomberg News, the White House, the Congress and the Federal Reserve have committed almost $13 trillion to the financial industry in one bailout form or another. If even more resources continue to be devoted to bailing out the same financial con artists who got us into this economic mess, that means far less resources will be available to tackle all of the nation's other challenges (health care, infrastructure, education, etc.). And when those challenges aren't met, conservatives will have a set of failures to cite as a powerful rationale for their own political revival.

So let me ask a few of my questions:

Are the stress tests being gamed as rumored? If so, why? They used 8.9 percent unemployment as their “worst case” and, as Dean Baker wrote, “The unemployment rate hit 8.9 percent last week and it is undoubtedly going higher.”

Is the Public/Private Investment Partnership (PPIP) plan being gamed as rumored with big banks using bailout funds to trade toxic assets at inflated prices and again fraudulently boost their balance sheets (BBuBfBBs)? (The dual-alliteration test might be just as valid as a stress test that used a sure-to-be-topped unemployment number as its worst case.) But seriously, is someone looking into this and stopping it if true?

Is it true that, as rumored, individuals at AIG are offering sweet deals (backed by taxpayer dollars) in exchange for very-high-paying jobs down the line with the recipients of those deals? Again, is someone looking into this and stopping it if true?

Why was it essential that those particular corporations be bailed out to get credit flowing? Couldn’t other banks take over their lending subsidiaries or departments with government help? Instead we’re giving billions to already-too-big corporations followed by rumors that they are using the money to acquire other companies and get even bigger. Are we making too-big-to-fail corporations into too-bigger-to-fail corporations?

Why do Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and others in the Obama administration appear (at least from the information I get) to think their employer is the financial sector instead of the People of the United States? For example, in the restructuring of GM they are allowing jobs to be outsourced. How does this match up with the idea that in our democracy those workers are their employer?

Along the same lines, why didn’t the legislation authorizing the bailouts prohibit the companies receiving taxpayer money from lobbying? Why didn’t it limit pay and bonuses at all levels to the amount earned by the President of the United States? Why did it have so many loopholes that allow these companies to game the system with our money? In other words, why does it seem like the people writing the legislation felt they worked for the banking industry instead of the people?

And here is a big question: Didn’t we go through something just like this with the S&L crisis not that long ago? What lessons did we learn from that? The causes of the S&L crisis were deregulation, “unsound real estate lending,” and connected insiders (with names like Neil Bush) gaming the system. I wrote about the connection between the S&L crisis and this one the other day,

People got really, really rich looting financial institutions, and then when the taxpayers came in to fix it connected insiders got really rich from that, too. … Valuable properties were sold to connected insiders for pennies on the dollar. Pretty much everyone was allowed to keep what they made from what we think of as bad practices.

So look at the results of the current crisis. A few got really rich by looting financial institutions, taxpayers on the hook to bail everyone out, and the cleanup looks like it involves connected insiders getting really rich. ...

So maybe the lesson WAS learned. For example, we think Lehman was a failure? But a few people made millions, even hundreds of millions from those decisions. ... And they were all allowed to keep the money.

So the lesson for US to learn is that this stuff works out really well for the people making the decisions. If we want these things to stop we need to get the money back … and put enough of them in jail. Otherwise the incentive structure guarantees this will happen over and over. It is set up that way.

Yes, these are a lot of questions.

And one last one: Do we want to “restore” our financial system, or change it? What we had didn’t work. In fact what we had demonstrated the most extreme example of “didn’t work” that any of us have experienced in our lifetimes. So why do we want to “restore” it? The words imply a wish to return to the way things were. Ryan Avent writes,

Many progressives want to use the actual process of crisis resolution to reshape the financial system, but this is like trying to install a sprinkler system while one’s home is on fire.

Ryan, this fire burned down the whole town. What I want is a complete investigation of how the fire started, who started it, why there wasn’t a sprinkler system, why the fire department wasn’t making them install a sprinkler system (and was someone paid off), and how much the fire department is spending on fighting the fire. And then I want complete accountability: who will go to jail for starting this fire and who will be fired because there was no sprinkler system. And when all that is out of the way I want new management at the fire department and a completely overhauled fire code that protects the public and never lets this happen again.

Shouldn’t we instead learn from what happened and make some fundamental changes to bring it more in line with our ideas about democracy and who is supposed to be in charge here? As I have been asking for years, who is our economy for anyway? Shouldn’t we see that too-big-to-fail is too big and limit by law the size of corporations – as well as limit the allowed percentage of ownership any person or entity can as they grow larger? Shouldn’t we realize that corporate money should stay in the corporation and not be allowed to influence our decision-making? Shouldn’t we all be asking more questions and getting answers?

If anything needs to be “restored” it is the understanding that We, the People are in charge here and have a right to all the information we want and need from our government and our elected officials. They work for us. Under our system We, the People are supposed to be telling the corporations what to do, not the other way around.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 12:02 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

May 8, 2009

Wall Street Lobbying

How much of the anti-government, anti-Obama hysteria being pumped from the lobbying PR firms is funded by Wall Street?

Posted by Dave Johnson at 7:33 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

May 4, 2009

Accountability

Is there any accountability yet? Have any major financial thieves been put in jail and/or made to give the money back yet? (I don't mean the Madoffs, I mean the ones who talked people into mortgaging their houses so they could sell CDOs.) Have any corrupt government officials from the Bush years been prosecuted yet? Have any lobbyists been indicted for giving bribes - or politicians indicted for taking them? Have any government officials been prosecuted for doing bug companies a favor and then leaving the governemnt and taking huge-paying jobs from those companies?

How about has anyone been held accountable for torture people and launching wars that killed tens of hundreds of thousands? Or how about just having pallettes of money shipped to Iraq for distribution?

How about something simple, like getting bonuses back from people who made millions and millions defrauding people and ruining the economy and destroying millions of people's retirement? Or maybe even just making them pay their taxes? Or how about just asking people making tens of millions to pay at least the same taxe rates that the rest of us pay?

Nope. Nada. Not that I have seen. No accountability yet. Nothing. The rich and the powerful can get away with anything. Anything. We have a two-tiered justice system in America now and no one bothers to deny it.

Is the new boss same as the old boss? Or will things change?

Posted by Dave Johnson at 8:49 PM | Comments (1) | Link Cosmos

Why Is This Company Allowed To Operate?

Why is Merck allowed to continue to operate?

Merck Makes Phony Peer-Review Journal -

Merck cooked up a phony, but real sounding, peer reviewed journal and published favorably looking data for its products in them.

From the linked article in The Scientist, Merck published fake journal,

Merck paid an undisclosed sum to Elsevier to produce several volumes of a publication that had the look of a peer-reviewed medical journal, but contained only reprinted or summarized articles--most of which presented data favorable to Merck products--that appeared to act solely as marketing tools with no disclosure of company sponsorship.

. . . The issues contained little in the way of advertisements apart from ads for Fosamax, a Merck drug for osteoporosis, and Vioxx.

. . . The claim that Merck had created a journal out of whole cloth to serve as a marketing tool was first reported by The Australian about three weeks ago. It came to light in the context of a civil suit filed by Graeme Peterson, who suffered a heart attack in 2003 while on Vioxx, against Merck and its Australian subsidiary, Merck, Sharp & Dohme Australia (MSDA).

They invented a phony "scientific" "peer-reviewed" journal to public marketing articles promoting their products, making it look like "science" validated them!

How many people did Vioxx kill? Question: Does this "pharmaceutical" company, like others, refuse to develop antibiotics - even though we (humanity) are running out of effective antibiotics - because they don't make enough profit?

Why are they allowed to call themselves a pharmaceutical company? Why are they allowed by our laws to be a corporation?

It is time to put a stop to all corporate lobbying of all types, and get a handle back on control of our own government!

Posted by Dave Johnson at 11:52 AM | Comments (1) | Link Cosmos

April 26, 2009

On Jerry Brown’s Campaign For California Governor

He was called “Moonbeam” and mocked, but he was right, and we were right, and the country needs to come to terms with this this so we can move on and finally DO right.

Jerry Brown was Governor of California from 1975 to 1983. He was a symbol of “the 60’s” even though it was the 70's, because he came from the times, cared about the issues of the times, spoke the language of the times and governed for the people, from the times. He opposed the Vietnam war. He talked about protecting the environment and conserving energy and providing education and "Buddhist economics." He fought corporate power and sued large corporations, particularly in the area of campaign finance. He was right.

For taking these positions Jerry was called "Moonbeam" and mocked for advocating things that we now all understand were correct and necessary. It is 30 years later and the country needs to get past that mocking of the people who were right. But the mocking and obstruction by entrenched interests are still in the way of letting us move on and do the things we need to do for the economy, the country, and the planet.

Now Jerry is again running for Governor of California and I think this is important to our current national conversation at a time when we must come to terms with the reasons that we have waited 30 years to start doing something about major problems. Jerry’s campaign will force a conversation that will clarify for the country that the "dirty hippies" were right, that we need to learn to ignore the mocking that is a primary weapon of the corporate right, that we need to take care of the planet, that we need to take care of each other, that we need to be in charge of the corporations, not the other way around.

In his speech to the California Democratic Convention he talked about how 30 years ago he changed California's energy policies, and how the result has been that California has barely increased its energy use since while the rest of the country has. He talk about a number of things like this, but what most resonated with me was when he talked about how we educate kids. The current emphasis on testing is stifling the creativity of kids. He says we need to bring back education that stimulates creativity. Wow -- how long since I have heard "60's" talk that's so right?! Talk that recognizes our humanity and says that we are not just cogs in a corporate machine. Who talks about these things today?

A few years ago, when Jerry was running for Attorney General, I wrote,

I've loved Jerry Brown since his 1992 campaign for President. During that campaign he proposed boosting the economy and helping the energy/pollution/Middle East problem with a national program to hire unemployed people to retrofit buildings to be energy efficient. Imagine if we had done that! So now 13 years later we have the Apollo Alliance but Jerry doesn't seem to get much credit for being so far ahead on this.

A few years before that I wrote,

In the 1992 campaign Jerry Brown made a suggestion that I haven't forgotten. He suggested putting the unemployed to work retrofitting buildings and homes to be energy efficient. It requires an up-front investment but it returns a more efficient economy (everyone paying less for energy) and national energy independence as a foreign policy bonus. Meanwhile all those unemployed people are getting and spending paychecks, boosting the economy. It helps everyone but the oil companies. Oh. I guess not, then.

I don’t know right now if Brown can or should win and this is not an endorsement. But I think this is a conversation that we all need to have and learn from.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 8:03 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

April 24, 2009

Prosecuting Wrongdoing

Do they just get away with it, thereby setting the baseline for future conduct?

Will we investigate and prosecute government officials who, for money, delayed the effort to fight global warming?

Will we investigate and prosecute government officials who, for money, stopped enforcement of the country's labor laws?

How many hundreds of examples can we think of from the last few years, where lobbyists were put in charge of agencies, or where officials did a corporation's bidding and then left to take a very-high-paying job in that corporation?

And, of course, launching illegal wars and ordering people tortured.

How else do we prevent things like that from happening again, the next time a paid-off political party gains power?

Or do they just get away with it, providing the incentive to do it again?

Posted by Dave Johnson at 9:46 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

April 19, 2009

America Was Created To Fight Corporate Power

Americans should all understand the reasons behind the formation of this country. We formed this country because a wealthy elite, called royalty, controlled the economy and set up legal monopoly operations for the benefit of their cronies, called corporations, and then set up the laws and tax structure to benefit those corporations and their owners at the expense of the rest of us.

We fought a revolution to change this. We set up a governement and economy that is supposed to be controlled by We, the People. Think about the meaning of that the next time you hear corporate-funded voices complain about "big government." They are complaining that the people make the decisions instead of the corporate elite -- once known as royalty.

PLEASE read The Real Boston Tea Party was Against the Wal-Mart of the 1770s

The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the BEIC pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.

They covered their faces, massed in the streets, and destroyed the property of a giant global corporation. Declaring an end to global trade run by the East India Company that was destroying local economies, this small, masked minority started a revolution with an act of rebellion later called the Boston Tea Party.

Later in the piece,

The citizens of the colonies were preparing to throw off one of the corporations that for almost 200 years had determined nearly every aspect of their lives through its economic and political power. They were planning to destroy the goods of the world’s largest multinational corporation, intimidate its employees, and face down the guns of the government that supported it.

A link to this was posted at Atrios' blog, by Avedon of The sideshow.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 7:51 AM | Comments (1) | Link Cosmos

April 18, 2009

Where Is Anger Over AIG Tax Scam?

Does everyone have bailout fatigue? Are we burned out from being angry about our tax dollars being used to help a few "too big to fail" operations?

How else can we explain that almost nothing is being said about revelations that AIG -- one of the biggest recipients of tax dollars in history -- was helping big corporations and the wealthy avoid paying their taxes?

WE - the ones who did pay our taxes - are bailing out a huge operation that got rich partly from helping the rich and big corporations avoid paying their taxes.

A few days back I wrote about AIG's Tax Dodge Business,

AIG FP was one of the biggest players in the business of engineering offshore tax shelters for corporate and private clients that resembled a multibillion dollar tax evasion scheme called Son of Boss (we don't have time to figure out why) that thousands of corporations and wealthy individuals used to book phony capital gains losses and evade most or all of their income taxes in the late nineties and early 00s.

When are we going to start talking about getting the money back? When are we going to start talking about accountability for the people responsible for all of this?

Why is Obama surrounding himself with people who come from Wall Street - Goldman Sachs in particular - whose solution is to pump all of our money into the Wall Street they come from and not even tell us how it is being used? When are we going to start demanding that Obama bring in people who will hold people accountable? (That applies to holding torturers accountable, as well.)

Posted by Dave Johnson at 8:30 AM | Comments (4) | Link Cosmos

April 13, 2009

The truth about the Fox News Tea Parties

Save the Rich | The truth about the Fox News Tea Parties

Open Letter to Media: This is What Astroturf Looks Like 04/13/2009 - 21:04

"Astroturf." Fake grassroots. It's what you get when big business and rich zealots hire pricey consultants to manufacture public outrage.

With big budgets, limitless manpower, sophisticated targeting, and a sympathetic media channel, it's not difficult to generate anger.

Please go read the whole thing, and FORWARD the site to others!

Posted by Dave Johnson at 8:15 PM | Comments (5) | Link Cosmos

Teabagger Parties - Remember The Seeing the Forest Rule

The Seeing the Forest Rule: When right-wingers are accusing others of something it is usually a cover for something THEY are doing. Today's variation is when they claim they are doing the honest, innocent thing it usually means they doing are the dishonest, conniving thing. The promoters of the upcoming anti-Obama "tea parties" claim that they are "grassroots" but really they are one more corporate-funded, lobbyist-organized Republican bait-and-switch operation, tricking their supporters into supporting even more corporate tax cuts and tax cuts for the rich.

Here is what I am talking about. The NY Post is owned by the same company as FOX News. SO take a look at this: TEA PARTIES: REAL GRASSROOTS - New York Post,

...these Tea Party protests aren't the same old rituals with the same old marchers.

These aren't the usual semiprofessional protesters who attend antiwar and pro-union marches. These are people with real jobs; most have never attended a protest march before. They represent a kind of energy that our politics hasn't seen lately, and an influx of new activists.
[. . .] Instead of the "astroturf" that has marked the ACORN-organized AIG protests, this movement is real grassroots. So if you've had enough, consider visiting a Tea Party protest in your area -- there's bound to be one.

It's your chance to be part of an authentic popular protest movement, one that just might save America from the greed and ineptitude of the folks who have been running it into the ground.

There are numerous posts and articles like this one, all claiming this is a "spontaneous" and "grassroots" event. In fact, as Jane at Firedoglake points out, the tea parties are organized, funded and promoted by a big lobbyist organization. Think Progress also writes about this and Media Matters writes about how these anti-Obama events are receiving exhaustive on-the-air promotion from FOX News, to the point of calling them "FNC Tea Parties." (So does Think Progress.)

Also be sure to read Oliver Willis, The Seminal, Crooks & Liars, Washington Monthly, Newshounds and DownWithTyranny writes about the calls to violence associated with the tea parties.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 4:48 PM | Comments (1) | Link Cosmos

Stop The Corrupting Corporate Money At The Source

The way to stop corporate corruption of our political system is to stop the corporate money from leaking out of the corporation.

We can pass laws to prevent corporations from using money for anything other than the operation of the company. We can impose a regulatory structure that works, and stops them from using funds for lobbying, funding front-group "think tanks" and anything else that WE decide is corrupting our system. We can track the money, and punish executives who allow it to leak out of the corporation.

We can stop it at the source. Much easier than trying to patch hundreds of little loopholes that pop up to capture the flow of money after it has left the corporation. It is so much easier to spot money as it leaves the company, and plug that leak, than it is to try to control it after it is out. One law, one set of accounting rules, and it all stops.

We, the People grant corporations a charter to operate, within certain rules. We allow them to amass significant resources because it enables large-scale projects. But these resources are supposed to be used to run the company, not to corrupt our political system. This money is supposed to be the property of the shareholders and is supposed to be used ONLY to run the company. It is theft for executives to use it to fund anything that influences public opinion or policy to enrich themselves...

Posted by Dave Johnson at 10:32 AM | Comments (1) | Link Cosmos

April 11, 2009

AIG's Tax Dodge Business

AIG was running a scam that enabled companies to dodge paying taxes. Yes, the same AIG that is now sucking up our tax dollars - and paying out million-dollar-bonuses - was in the business of helping companies not pay their taxes.

At what point do we feel completely harvested, bled, scammed, and done with this? Why aren't we raising taxes on high incomes -- the beneficiaries of all these scams that brought down the economy -- to pay for all of this?

WSJ: AIG's Tax Shelter Business Was 'Even Bigger' Than Their CDOs; IRS Calls At Least One Of Them A 'Sham' | Crooks and Liars

An attorney and tax shelter expert we spoke with today says AIG FP was one of the biggest players in the business of engineering offshore tax shelters for corporate and private clients that resembled a multibillion dollar tax evasion scheme called Son of Boss (we don't have time to figure out why) that thousands of corporations and wealthy individuals used to book phony capital gains losses and evade most or all of their income taxes in the late nineties and early 00s.

Go read.

So I found this from 2005: Court Papers Say A.I.G. Played Role in Tax Shelter,

New court papers indicate that the American International Group helped dozens of wealthy individuals make use of questionable tax shelters intended to shield hundreds of millions of dollars in profits from federal taxes.

A.I.G. is under scrutiny by federal and New York investigators looking into questionable insurance transactions that the company used to dress up its financial strength.

How much of this economic mess is because We, the People didn't demand that this company be broken up when this news came out?

Why haven't We, the People taken control and broken these "companies" up into little bite-sized chunks yet?

Posted by Dave Johnson at 10:07 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

April 10, 2009

FOX News -- PROMOTING, Not Covering Tea Parties

FOX News has become nothing more than an advertisement for anti-government activities like the "tea parties." Watch this compilation of FOX "coverage" of the anti-Obama tea parties and see for yourself. This is not a "news" network, this is an advocacy network, advocating for anti-government, anti-democracy, pro-corporate policies that benefit a wealthy few.

Go read Fox News Signs On To Tea Party Agenda, Aggressively Promoting Anti-Obama Protests,

Fox News isn’t the only right-wing organization involved in building up these so-called “grassroots” events. The tea parties have been heavily backed by corporate lobbyists. The principle organizers of many of the local events are actually the lobbyist-run think tanks Americans for Prosperity, Freedom Works, and Newt Gingrich’s American Solutions. The groups are heavily staffed and well funded, and are providing all the logistical and public relations work necessary for planning coast-to-coast protests.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 1:39 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

April 6, 2009

Corporate Corruption: So Obvious - How To End It

A company (or industry) makes a tremendous amount of money by scamming us, screwing us, stealing from us, killing us, poisoning us, destroying our environment or some other thing that one way or another a working democracy would stop immediately. But the company uses a portion of the money they are accumulating to pay off legislators, regulators, inspectors -- someone in the government -- to keep them from stopping the company from what they are doing. And they pay off others in the government to stop the rest of the government from doing anything about that. Meanwhile they spend a bit more of that money on marketing/propaganda/PR/trickery to make us look the other way.

So it continues. And we all get poorer while they get richer. And each year this continues they have even more money and power to use to keep us from stopping them.

We see it over and over again. It is becoming the primary path to wealth here. Companies and industries getting rich from corruption, bribery, buying elections, buying legislators, purchasing government subsidies or tax breaks or handouts or bailouts... It is so much more cost-effective than actually making something worthwhile and slowly building an industry based on quality and good service to customers that it is replacing the old, more honest business model.

How many examples can you think of just off the top of your head?

Of course we start with the tobacco industry, killing what, 400,000 Americans each year? But if I start writing about all the ways the tobacco industry has paid off legislators and others to ward off accountability I won't get anything else written for weeks...

And then there are the health insurance companies, reaping their fortunes off of keeping us from health care and from having a health care system like the rest of the modern countries of the world.

The pharmaceutical industry actually got the Republican Party to pass a law prohibiting the government from negotiating better prices for the drugs Medicare buys!

The military armament industry, grabbing one of the largest chunks of the US budget, continues the taxpayer gravy train by marketing fear and marginalization... Look what happens to anyone who suggests we shouldn't continue handing them more money than every other country in the world combined spends on their own military. Suggesting we cut this brings down the hammer.

The oil industry, what can I say? An industry that exists to take a resource out of the ground and sell it back to us -- as if the resources of the planet are not the property of the people of the planet -- paying off legislators to keep us from taxing them, all the while poisoning the planet, preventing alternatives...

Wall Street, hedge funds and the banking industry -- what do I need to say? They paid to get a law passed prohibiting the government from regulating credit default swaps. And now they pay to get the government to bail them out from the inevitable consequences!

How about the food industry -- paying to get the government to stop food inspections? Paying to be allowed to continue to sell food proven to makes people obese and give us diabetes - even children?

How about industries that market anorexia and self-hatred to women in order to sell clothes and makeup?

How long could I go on with this list? Leave a comment with an example of your own.

What do we do about it? It really is a simple answer. All we really have to do is remember that the first three words of our Constitution are "We, the People." WE are in charge here, not them. We are the boss of them. We own the country (and its resources), not them. We make the laws, not them. We are a one-person-one-vote not a one-dollar-one-vote country.

So it's very simple, really: We change the laws. We stop them from corrupting us with the money that our laws allow corporations to accumulate. We prevent companies from spending even one cent on anything other than what that company does. It is not their business to tell us what to do, it is our obligation as citizens in a democracy to tell them what to do. We need to say: not one cent can leak out of a company to influence the rules we set for how companies operate. No lobbying whatsoever. No propaganda. No funding "think tanks" that are just front groups for corporate PR. No astroturf, no PR, no influencing public opinion in any way whatsoever. Not one cent used for anything that even hints at telling us how to run our country. Not one cent for anything other than the operation of the company, and while we're at it that includes predatory marketing of their own products, marketing that influences our culture, marketing that makes us feel bad about ourselves, marketing that makes us feel bad about others, marketing that insults us and marketing that makes us think we should want things that we shouldn't!

And jail for anyone who breaks these rules. Because we are the boss in this country and they have abused that idea and in so doing have ruined our economy and harmed our planet.

We are the people, we are in charge. All we have to do to get this done is do it. Once you believe that you have the power, you do.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 8:18 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

April 4, 2009

Who Do You Think Paid For This? - Episode XXII

Down With Tyranny has the story: The End Of Tax Havens? Not Until The Far Right Is Wiped Off The Face Of The Earth

OK, this video is from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation featuring Dan Mitchell from Cato Institute who it also turns out is Chariman of the CFPF, and Down With Tyranny swears it isn't a spoof:

Billionaires and the shills who make a living by scraping and bowing before them and faithfully serving their interests-- like the Republican Party and GOP front groups like the American Heritage Institute, Fox News and the Cato Institute-- are hardly giving up and will fight a battle to persuade gullible Americans that tax cheats are true patriots. This video by Republican Party astroturf group, the Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation explains, with a straight face, how absolutely fabulous tax havens are. This isn't a spoof; it's real (I swear):

The guy actually keeps a straight face while he says this stuff about why rich people and companies should be able to avoid taxes using tax-scam secret offshore accounts. (I'll bet they also complain that Obama's budget increases the deficit.)

So where do you think this "institute" gets the money to put out stuff about how really, really rich people (who got rich off of the infrastructure that We, the People built) shouldn't pay taxes?

Posted by Dave Johnson at 2:00 PM | Comments (1) | Link Cosmos

March 31, 2009

Teachers Fired To Pay For Huge Corporate Tax Cut -- Why?

This post originally appeared at Speak Out California

I've been asking around and it seems that most Californians don't know that the budget deal that fires so many teachers also has a huge tax cut just for big, multi-state and multi-national corporations.

But it's true. Last month's budget deal that fires teachers, cuts essential government services, and guts the investments that bring future economic benefits also has a huge tax cut for the largest of corporations. While this part of the deal has been kept pretty quiet, the LA Times had a story, Business the big winner in California budget plan. From the story,

The average Californian's taxes would shoot up five different ways in the state budget blueprint that lawmakers hope to vote on this weekend. But the bipartisan plan for wiping out the state's giant deficit isn't so bad for large corporations, many of which would receive a permanent windfall.

About $1 billion in corporate tax breaks -- directed mostly at multi-state and multinational companies -- is tucked into the proposal.

But wait, won't a big corporate tax cut cause companies to come to California, creating jobs? No, they are already here and it will drive them away, because it is paid for by firing teachers.

A study by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, released in 2005, found that most companies decide where to locate based not on tax breaks but on factors such as the availability of a highly educated workforce. California's proposed plan would cut spending on higher education by hundreds of millions of dollars.

So how did this happen? This was part of the deal to get a few Republican votes. And why did the Republicans want this so bad? Because they understood who really elected them.

If you look at the independent expenditure reports for the 2008 California election you'll see a massive amount of last-minute money. For example, in the 19th Senate District, a political action committee (PAC) named "Californians for Jobs and Education" put almost $1 million into just one race: $570,653 into defeating Democrat Hannah-Beth Jackson, and another $373,778 to help elect her opponent, Republican Tony Strickland. When you look this group up on ElectionTrack you learn that this money came from corporations like Arkansas' Wal-Mart, Blue Cross of Ohio (Ohio?), Reliant Energy, major real estate companies, and from other PACs.

Now it gets interesting. Many of the contributions to that PAC came from other PACs, especially one called Jobs Pac. When you track down Jobs PAC you find that it is a conduit for huge, huge amounts of money coming from large corporations like Philip Morris, ATT, Chevron, Safeway, Sempra Energy, Verizon, big insurance companies, big pharmaceutical companies, big real estate companies ... and other conduits like the Chamber of Commerce.

Why did these huge corporations put so much money into California state elections? Because we let them, and because of the return on investment they receive from tax cuts like the one that is forcing us to fire so many of our teachers.

There is a key lesson to learn from this. When it comes time to choose, that is when you can really see who is for or against something -- where their priorities really are. And in this case, when push came to shove, in the end who did the conservatives come through for? The large corporations. They danced with the ones that brung them.

Click through to Speak Out California

Posted by Dave Johnson at 8:03 AM | Comments (2) | Link Cosmos

March 29, 2009

What Happened To The Economy

Go read what happened. It's kind of long, but good and explains it pretty well. The Big Takeover : Rolling Stone

People are pissed off about this financial crisis, and about this bailout, but they're not pissed off enough. The reality is that the worldwide economic meltdown and the bailout that followed were together a kind of revolution, a coup d'etat. They cemented and formalized a political trend that has been snowballing for decades: the gradual takeover of the government by a small class of connected insiders, who used money to control elections, buy influence and systematically weaken financial regulations.

The crisis was the coup de grace: Given virtually free rein over the economy, these same insiders first wrecked the financial world, then cunningly granted themselves nearly unlimited emergency powers to clean up their own mess.

basically, after deregulation, the big investment banks couldn't find "enough unemployed meth dealers willing to buy million-dollar homes for no money down" tokeep the mortgage racket going.

And yes, what it comes down to is that all this means that housing prices still have a loooongggg way to fall. Every single house that sold for more than it should have, for all those years, to all those suckers, who took out all those mortgages -- they all have to go back where they should be. Bubbles unwind ALL the way down, every time, and you can't "reignite the housing market" or "stabilize" prices or anything else.

Go look at the trend line of house prices for the last hundred years, and that is where prices have to be -- where housing is relatively cheap, never more than 25-28% of your income (and that is the UPPER limit), and a mortgage plus taxes plus insurance plus maintenance is lower than rents by enough of a margin so that people can make money buying a house and then renting it out.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 2:40 PM | Comments (3) | Link Cosmos

March 27, 2009

'Centrist' And 'Moderate' Always Means 'Corporate'

Evan Bayh gets programs and legislation that people need killed and is called a 'centrist' and a 'moderate.'

It seems to me that whenever a legislator is getting tons of cash from corporations and then does that corporation's bidding, the action is always called 'centrist' or 'moderate.' Or when they kill things that people, regular people need, it's 'centrist' or 'moderate.'

Posted by Dave Johnson at 7:54 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

March 25, 2009

The Latest Scam From The Banks

Do I have this right? Instead of lending with that taxpayer money to get the economy going, Citibank and Bank of America are using TARP funds as their "at risk" portion of the "public/private partnership" announced Monday to buy up each other's toxic assets. So it's Wednesday and the program is already corrupted.

The idea is that a portion of any loss investors take will be covered by the government, but because they put their own money into the deal there is still risk. EXCEPT these banks (and how many others?) are using TARP money as the "at risk" portion of the investment.

Crooks. Smart crooks, but still crooks. Enabled, of course, by a governing ideology that just can't bring itself to stop them.

Economist's View: "Has the Gaming of the Public-Private Partnership Begun?",

It certainly looks as if Citigroup and Bank of America are using TARP funds, not to lend, which was one of the primary goals of the program, but to scoop up secondary market dreck assets to game the public private investment partnership.

So not only are they seeking to extract far more than was intended even with the already generous subsidies embodied in this program, but this activity is also speculating with taxpayer money.

This sort of thing was predicted here and elsewhere. Welcome to yet more looting.

Why would a bank that is receiving TARP funds because they hold toxic assets be buying any toxic assets anyway?

Nationalize the insolvent banks, please. And fire Geithner for this, if it turns out to be true. At first I thought it was a creative idea, but maybe it's just more ideological blindness.

Update - Ian Welsh has more

Posted by Dave Johnson at 10:23 PM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

March 19, 2009

Stop Corporate Lobbying With Taxpayer Money

This post originally appeared at the Commonweal Institute's Uncommon Denominator blog

Why are recipients of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) – better known as the Banking Bailout – allowed to continue to lobby? Taxpayer dollars should not be used to influence our government. We, the People should be telling them what to do, not the other way around.

TARP recipients spent $114 million on lobbying last year as the financial crisis emerged. In just the last quarter of the year eighteen bailout recipients spent $14.8 million to influence the government, as the TARP funds were distributed.

The lobbying has paid off. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, “The companies' political activities have, in part, yielded them $295.2 billion from TARP, an extraordinary return of 258,449 percent.”

TARP recipients are currently lobbying against compensation caps at companies receiving TARP, against increasing bank regulation – and even against increased oversight of the use of TARP funds in the TARP Reform and Accountability Act! They are also lobbying against the Arbitration Fairness Act, the Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act and the Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act, Credit Card Holders Bill of Rights and the Stop Unfair Practices in Credit Cards Act!

But these companies are not just lobbying in favor of their own(ers) interests; they are lobbying against those of the rest of us. Recently it has come to light that Bank of America, Citigroup and other TARP recipients are organizing efforts to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act – federal legislation that would enable workers to organize unions, which results in increased income and benefits for working people, thereby enabling them to make their credit card and mortgage payments.

Use of corporate funds to influence our government is a larger problem than just this current misuse of TARP. In fact, this BofA and other companies’ use of TARP funds to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act supports an argument that the current economic crisis is a result of corporate lobbying. A corporate-funded assault on government has resulted in de-legislation and deregulation, enriching a few at the expense of the rest of us, while eroding the foundations of our economy and our democracy. Now the public has been harvested in one scheme after another, plundered for every dollar as incomes stagnated, debt skyrocketed and savings fell. Consumption fell off the cliff as the work- and debt-load tapped out people’s ability to participate in the economy. The resulting crisis has led to taxpayer dollars propping them all up.

And now millions of those taxpayer dollars are being used for … even more lobbying.

Whether or not this collapse occurred as a direct result of lobbying and other influence buying, it was not a grassroots movement that led to repealing the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, allowing financial giants to trade mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations. It was not citizens holding politicians’ feet to the fire that killed the Financial Services Antifraud Network Act. At the same time the lobbying-bought deregulation and suspension of oversight allowed these companies to sell trillions in credit default swaps without the necessary reserves to cover the potential downside. And here we are.

Companies understand lobbying as a way to profit, not to advance policies that serve all of us. A 2006 New York Times article discusses how Google felt it had “no choice but to get into the arena” to start “spreading its lobbying dollars” around to politicians and quotes a Google lobbyist saying the “policy process is an extension of the market battlefield.” According to the Washington Post, a lobbyist explosion occurred in the last decade, doubling to 34,750 between 2000 and 2005, the result of “wide acceptance among corporations that they need to hire professional lobbyists to secure their share of federal benefits.”

This lobbying does not bring We, the People any benefit, it only boosts the financial interests of certain individuals. This is not competition to improve a product or service or the efficiency of the company. It is paying off politicians to gain unfair competitive advantage or to receive subsidies or tax breaks.

Clearly it is time to demand that TARP recipients stop using corporate funds for anything other than operating their companies, and get their noses out of our business.

Lobbyists say they serve a necessary function, providing information to legislators. But corporations can’t have it both ways. If lobbying is purely informational and not intended to sway favor for particular corporations, then the funds are not being used to generate profit for the shareholders and the use of funds and resources is theft from the company. But if the lobbying is intended to tilt the playing field and gain benefits for a company over others it is really just bribery, an affront to our democracy and laws, corrupting our system. If the use of corporate funds to lobby is for the financial gain of a few executives, this is also theft from the company by those few for their personal gain.

We should immediately prohibit companies from engaging in lobbying while accepting taxpayer dollars. Restricting lobbying by TARP recipients would be a bipartisan solution, as Republican lawmakers have called for exactly this approach in the past. The 1981 Heritage Foundation Mandate for Leadership called for a ban on lobbying by recipients of federal funds, as did the 1995 Republican “Istook Amendment.”

And it is time to open a discussion about whether any corporate funds – whether the company is a recipient of TARP funding or not – should be used to influence our government. We should be telling them what to do, not the other way around.

Click through to the Commonweal Institute's Uncommon Denominator blog

Posted by Dave Johnson at 2:29 PM | Comments (2) | Link Cosmos

March 18, 2009

Democracy?

Watch a representative of the People of the United States trying to get a corporate leader of a company that the taxpayers have given more than a hundred billion dollars to just answer a question:

Who is the boss of who here?

Posted by Dave Johnson at 4:46 PM | Comments (1) | Link Cosmos

March 6, 2009

Corporate Tax Trickery

This post first appeared at Speak Out California.

Here we go again with the "corporate taxes are passed along to the consumer" lie. Instead of telling the public about harm to the public interest from budget cuts, teacher layoffs, privatizing public resources, police cutbacks, etc., instead we hear about how taxing the rich is a terrible thing.

What am I talking about? See The Tax Foundation - Tax Foundation TV, Radio Ads Show That Corporate Income Taxes Cost the Average American Household $3,190. They have a couple of ads their corporate funders are paying them to run.

And of course there is the usual scholarly proof that we should all give ever more money to the corporate rich,

"Research from the Congressional Budget Office shows that in a global economy where capital is highly mobile but workers can't easily move abroad, workers end up bearing the brunt of corporate taxes. In 2007, Economist William Randolph found that 70 percent of corporate tax burdens fall on employees through lower wages and productivity, while the remaining 30 percent fall on company shareholders."

Taxes are not a cost that can be "passed on to the customer." Taxes are calculated as a percentage of profits, after all costs are figured in. A well-run business charges the most it can get for its product or service. If the business has competitors it has to price its product or service in some relationship to competing products or services. Were a business to add to to prices to cover taxes this would increase the price above what had been determined to be the optimal price! If a company were able to raise prices to cover taxes the it would mean the company was previously negligent in not pricing as high as the market would bear.

And if the company was negligent, then increasing prices to cover taxes would increase profits, which would increase taxes, which would require an additional price increase, which would increase profits which would increase taxes. Etc. - you get the picture. It's a silly idea.

In the same way, a properly-run business has as many employees as it needs. When profitability caused them to apy taxes, it means they employed the correct number of people to realize that profit, and certainly are not going to lay someone off because they made a profit that was taxed.

But one step further on this. A corporation itself is neutral on taxes. After all, a corporation is just a bundle of contracts, and doesn't really have interests any more than a chair has interests. It is the owners who have interests and it is a good idea to think about any "passing on" involving corporate taxes is that it can lower the amount of money that is "passed on" to those people at the top of the economic ladder. Realizing this changes the way the brain understands the problem here. The fundamental question then becomes WHO is benefiting from our economy, and our legal infrastructure that creates and protects corporations. It really is about which people are getting the cash, and seen in this light, this idea of lowering or elimminating corporate taxes takes on a new meaning.

This ad plays on public misunderstanding of taxes - a misunderstanding previously created by the same crowd. (Similar to the idea that if you earn a penny over $250K all of your earnings are taxed at the higher rate.) So it is like a further step in a strategy of creating increasing ignorance, so that you can further harvest the public... (Why can't WE think in terms of multi-stage strategies, but to instead increase public understanding and appreciation of democracy?)

So, when will we start hearing about the harm caused to the public interest by reduced taxes on corporations and the rich causing us to lay off teachers, cut police and firefighters, defer infrastructure maintenance, etc.? When do we hear about how this hurts, instead of always about how taxes hurt the rich?
Click through to Speak Out California

Posted by Dave Johnson at 9:10 PM | Comments (2) | Link Cosmos

March 2, 2009

Watch Out For Wikipedia

Try this: start or edit a Wikipedia article that includes information that might be unfavorable to conservative corporate interests, perhaps in the area of tort reform (incl medical malpractice, etc) or trade/protectionism, etc. Try adding citations to studies that show that tort reform is a corporate-funded effort to keep people from being able to sue companies that harm them... I tried it and it was removed in a few minutes.

Or try to edit the entry on Protectionism, perhaps adding something like the words "unfair competition" as in protecting America jobs from unfair competition from countries that exploit workers. Someone did this the other day and the edit lasted a few minutes before it was removed because it changed the "long accepted definition of protectionism." In other words, the idea that our standard of living should be protected from competition using exploited workers is unfair goes against the corporate-interest meaning of the term.

Try editing entries covering other issues around trade, economics or corporate issues. See how long it takes before a pro-corporate viewpoint is returned to the article. Or add an article about a progressive organization. I added an article about the Commonweal Institute, and it was immediately removed, so I put another up and it was immediately flagged for removal. (I am working to save it...) An article about me - put up and edited by others - was also removed twice. The circumstances involved a professional "leading tort-reform advocate" -- while I'm the person who wrote this report about how the tort reform movement is involved with the corporate/conservative movement. Go figure.

This is a problem at Wikipedia. It is quite possible that there are people who are paid to show up and push Wikipedia to reflect a conservative, pro-corporate viewpoint. And why wouldn't this be the case as it is in so many other areas where corporate interests are affected? (I know of one corporate-funded conservative movement insider who spends much of the normal workday and evenings editing Wikipedia.) So it seems the Wikipedia organization may be unable to sufficiently police the site to keep this from happening, and to keep new people from having unpleasant experiences and being shouted down and driven away. There are so many areas of political life where conservatives shout down or intimidate everyone else until they give up and go away. Wikipedia is fast becoming one more.

This has real-world implications. Wikipedia shows up at the top of many if not most Google searches, and people tend to believe this means it is a reliable source. This positioning implies a public-interest responsibility for accuracy and objective presentation of material. On non-controversial topics Wikipedia is a very reliable and possibly the best source for information because over time the "wisdom of crowds" effect brings increased expertise to bear.

But like so many things today, in areas where corporate resources can be focused, the subject matter increasingly reflects the viewpoint that serves the interests of the few at the top. Wikipedia's prominence is the likely reason this conservative information-purging occurs. It is also the reason Wikipedia has a responsibility to do something about it.

(Edited a bit for clarity, focus.)

PS also see this about article deletions.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 9:59 AM | Comments (1) | Link Cosmos

February 26, 2009

How They Win

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy on use of the broadcast airwaves that said that since the public owns the airwaves we have a right to demand that companies we license to profit from them support democracy by presenting news and information that is in the public interest and present a diversity of opinion. The idea was that big corporations cannot buy up and use the public airwaves to spew right-wing corporate propaganda.

In 1969 the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Fairness Doctrine.

Ronald Reagan got rid of the Fairness Doctrine, saying that "markets" should decide what information, news and opinions people are presented with. The Congress immediately voted to bring back the fairness rules, but Reagan vetoed this.

Under George Bush the Congress again voted to restore these rules, but Bush vetoed it.

Under Clinton a majority of the Congress again voted to restore these rules, but the Republicans in the Senate filibustered.

So today they had a chance to bring back rules of fairness and democracy. What happened? DEMOCRATS cut their own throats and overwhelmingly voted to back corporate control of what we are allowed to know. "Democrats cave again." Does this sound familiar?

Do they think the corporate media is now going to say good things about Democrats and unions and democracy? Do they think Rush Limbaugh is going to praise them for backing him?

Senate Backs Amendment to Prevent 'Fairness Doctrine' Revival,

The Senate approved an amendment Thursday that would outlaw the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," an off-the-books policy that once required broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.

Republican Sen. Jim DeMint's amendment passed by a wide margin of 87-to-11.

THIS is how Republicans win. They don't give up. They deny the popular will. And eventually they wear down the Democrats until they just cave.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 12:22 PM | Comments (6) | Link Cosmos

Unions

I asked a friend if she thought people would join a union where she works. She said "I think everyone would be too scared." But a recent survey found that 60% of all workers would choose to join a union if they could.

The Employee Free Choice Act is coming to the Congress one of these days. Keep that name in mind for when it comes up. This law would protect workers from being fired for talking about unions, and would allow workers to organize without the boss finding out using a method called "card check." Once a majority of workers in a company or at a location sign up for a union, the union is recognized as the bargaining agent and laws protecting organized workers take effect.

The current methods of organizing a union, where the workers have a day when they all vote in a secret ballot,will also still be available. The Employee Free Choice Act, though, lets them choose to have card check instead. The problem with the current method is that it happens entirely on management's terms, often delayed and delayed, and with the manager calling workers into the office one at a time to "explain" what will happen to the worker if a union comes in.

It would be nice if our economic system didn't have the kind of outcomes that make unions so necessary. But they are.

Posted by Dave Johnson at 9:54 AM | Comments (0) | Link Cosmos

February 24, 2009

Who Is Our Government For?

This post originally appeared at Speak Out California

dday, writing in Giving Away The Tax Argument at Digby's Hullabaloo blog, asks why so many California newspapers have "tax increase calculators" but no calculators that show people how much the budget cuts affect them.

In my life, I have never seen a "spending cut calculator," where someone could plug in, say, how many school-age children they have, or how many roads they take to work, or how many police officers and firefighters serve their community, or what social services they or their families rely on, and discover how much they stand to lose in THAT equation. Tax calculators show bias toward the gated community screamers on the right who see their money being "taken away" for nothing. A spending cut calculator would actually show the impact to a much larger cross-section of society, putting far more people at risk than a below 1% hit to their bottom line.

[. . . The media already highlights the tax side of the equation over spending, dramatically portraying tax increases while relegating spending cuts to paragraph 27. It feeds the tax revolt and distorts the debate. And it's completely irresponsible.

In Why Are Public Assets Being Cut Right When We Need Them Most? Jay Walljasper, of OnTheCommons.org wonders why public transit, libraries and other things the government does for us are all being cut at exactly the time people need them? As the economy turns downward more people need to take the train or bus, or use the library. Jay makes the connection,

Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, one of the leading contenders for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, proposes closing the state's budget gap by reducing corporate taxes and slashing state aid to local governments. This will mean painful cuts in public assets, such as transit and libraries.

. . . This loss of our public assets is an alarming threat to our society. The things we all own in common and depend upon--libraries, transit, parks, water systems, schools, public safety, infrastructure, cultural programs, social services--are being gradually but steadily undermined.

For many years I have been blogging at Seeing the Forest, often coming back to a question, "Who is our economy for?" For some time now regular incomes have stagnated, while incomes at the very top just go up and up. The GDP keeps rising, productivity keeps going up, but regular people see less and less of the benefit of this increase. In fact, if you look at charts and data, the stagnation of incomes started almost exactly at the same time as President Reagan took office and started implementing the corporate agenda of anti-tax and anti-government policies. So is this a coincidence?

Throughout human history we have seen one scheme after another wherein a few people seize power and devise a system to hold it and use it to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. This is human nature and through histor