It is now okay to own up to your obsession with Betty Crocker or Ronald McDonald. As a kid I found myself attracted to the Morton’s Salt young lady. A handful of salted peanuts can bring up memories of days gone by.

Carrying a torch for Sara Lee or Big Boy was never really akin to bestiality but now you are equals. I would caution, however, that some of these attractive ladies are considerably older than they appear. Even Little Debbie is 55 years old.

Though parts of the Deep South held on to their anti-miscegenation laws until the very last gasp, they were not to be found bringing up the rear in jumping into bed with big business.

I need to leave this aspect of the situation. My wife says I am already taken. Besides, in seeing a historical romance novel, I am reminded that, at my advanced age, all romance is historical.

The ruling by the Supremes makes no sense on any level nor from any perspective. I would highly recommend reading, or re-reading, the article I wrote at the time of the Citizens United ruling. Otherwise, I will have to reprint it here. The title of the article was Supreme Stupidity.

One can show how ridiculous the decision is by poking fun of corporations enjoying rights that only make sense for humans or humans trying to enjoying the special privileges and advantages only permitted to corporations. How would you like to be a corporation?

My apologies for bringing up a sore subject but it hasn’t been too long since you sent in your gift to the IRS. It helped to be able to deduct that mortgage interest, didn’t it? Did you deduct all that you spent for the principal? On food and drink? On travel? On vacation? On all of your wife’s clothes? On her trips to the beauty shop? On her lipstick and perfume? You didn’t?

Why would you not deduct everything you spent? Your fellow corporations do. Food and drink are your personal energy sources. Oh, don’t forget to deduct the toilet paper. Corporations are only supposed to pay taxes on their profits – whatever remains after all of their spending. Then they call in the experts to take advantage of the subsidies and other giveaways their lobbyists bought for them.

How much profit did you make last year? How much did you have left over for savings?

Investors in corporate human beings have the protection of limited liability. If someone slips on your sidewalk and incurs an injury costing a few million dollars, your $48,000 average income might not be enough to cover it. But, the court can hold you fully liable. That’s when you need to tell the judge that you are a corporation.

Did you commit a crime? Richard Nixon wanted to know. J. Edgar Hoover wanted to know. Did you think? Tailgunner Joe McCarthy wanted to know. They wanted to get you out of their way. They threw a few in jail. But, those human corporations never came to share a cell. There are no banks in prison for illegally taking your home. There are no health insurance corporations serving time for ripping off the government (you) of billions of dollars. There are no drug companies on death row for lying about the safety of their medications, even when the number of victims is a large multiple of those lost in the Twin Towers.

Our church had nearly 12,800 in attendance to commemorate Easter. Not a single corporation showed up to exercise their rights of freedom of religion. Why don’t they exercise their right?

Corporations fail to exercise their right to trial by jury frequently enough for my taste. I’m referring to the 6^th Amendment right in criminal trials, not the 7^th Amendment right in civil trials. I’d be willing to make a career of serving on juries for the opportunity to play a role in holding my fellow corporations people to account.

The previous paragraph begs the question of how corporations are themselves able to avoid serving on juries.

A question comes to mind. Given, a corporation can own a firearm. How does it bear that instrument? But the real question is, in those states and localities requiring the bearer attend safety classes and/or exhibit a degree of proficiency on the firing range, has their right been abridged by such a requirement?

If a corporation has the right to unlimited free speech, in order to effect the voting, how is it possible to deny them the right to vote? If having more money provides them more free speech, does having more money also translate into having more votes? If not, how is that justifiable in light of the expanded rights regarding speech?

If money is speech, is an impecunious mute denied his right? In a land proud of its political equality, why is political speech powered by a factor that is based on an inequality that we glory in? Would equating money with speech not require everyone to have the same amount of money to ensure equality? Is this just a countervailing stratagem to compensate for the loss of privileges that ensued when ‘one man – one vote’ was enforced?

If logic, common sense and comedy can be stretched to give constitutional rights to corporations, there is no possible legal rationale sufficient to keep the franchise from further extension. I am inclined to think that animate beings would be next. Bunny rabbits do present the possibility of overly diluting the prerogatives of people and human beings unless we can legally restrain their proclivities for procreation. I’m uncertain as to how to handle a case such as Harvey’s.

As corporations are inanimate, my earlier supposition that animate entities would likely be next in line could very well be mistaken. Would it be fair to give man-made, or corporation-produced, objects preference over natural ones? It might be presumptuous to favor items made by humans over those created by God nature.

Perhaps I should have read the Supreme’s decision. Surely they covered all of my questions and concerns therein. After all, they are all educated, reasonable, rational, disinterested diviners of the inner thoughts of the Founding Fathers.

Since those First Daddies readily made known their fear and hatred of corporations, they must have changed changed their minds once they got to heaven. I wish I was also blessed to be privy to the thoughts of those heavenly beings. Absent that, we should count ourselves blessed that the Almighty’s hand ensures the Court is always populated with that ability.

.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

First, let me reiterate my detestation for all ideologies and labels. To the extent that I use them in this post, it seems necessary and is for the convenience of the reader.

The imminent retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens highlights the problems caused by both. Stevens is commonly referred to as the most liberal Justice on the Supreme Court. He hates being so described.

Stevens was, and remains, a lifelong Republican. He was nominated by a Republican president, Gerald Ford in 1975. But, he and his retirement are just the impetus. This post is about far more.

Why is a Republican called the most liberal member of the Court? Well, it seems that terms such as liberal, conservative, left, right, capitalism, socialism, even populism are thrown around willy-nilly by people who think they know what these words mean.

The right of privacy is not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution or its Amendments. However, through the years the Supreme Courts have firmly stated and reconfirmed that it is such a basic right that many other protections that are included would be meaningless without it. They have ruled that it is an implicit right.

Justice Stevens followed that tenet in his opinion in re the Patriot Act. The ‘conservative’ members of the Court just ignored their own claims of conserving the Constitution.

In the recent decision to give corporations free speech, Justice Stevens did something almost unheard of. He not only dissented; he actually read his dissent aloud in the courtroom. He felt that the Declaration and Constitution were clear in their intent when stating “We the People” and “government of, by and for the people.”

As Justice Stevens himself noted, with the single exception of Ruth Ginsburg, every departing member of the Court, since Stevens himself came aboard, was replaced by someone to his or her right.

I have written before of the Founding Fathers’ fear that corporations would destroy their work. Here again, the ‘conservatives’ ignored the Constitution. It makes you wonder if you understand the meaning of the title they claim of being “Strict Constructionists.”

If ‘Constitutional scholars’ have wandered so far away from the Constitution, we common folk may be excused for being less than precise in our usage.

I find it odd that people are so drawn to the label of conservative, given the politicians who claim it today. The original conservatives were the supporters of the king’s prerogatives. The Founders were on the opposite end of the political spectrum.

The king claimed the right of his troops to be boarded in your home. Our Constitution proscribes that practice.

The king preferred that people not criticize him openly. The Constitution says we can criticize George III or George W.

The Founding Fathers not only were progressive, they stated that times would change. They devised a document that allowed for our social and political progress. They were certain that we would improve upon their situation, their conditions and their document. They themselves were no strict constructionists. Oddly, to be a strict constructionist one would have to be against strict construction. One would have to be a progressive. Oooh. There. I said it.

Back in the 1980s a nationwide survey of historians was taken as to the greatest Senator of all time. The winner was Robert “Fighting Bob” Lafollette. He received this signal honor about 60 years after his death in 1925. Lafollette became a Senator in 1906 and died in office. Prior to that he was the Governor of Wisconsin. Prior to that he was a member of the House of Representatives.

Lafollette was a Republican. So, why was he held in such high esteem? Most people credit another Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, with first promoting universal health care in the 1912 platform of the Bull Moose Party. Lafollette did it earlier. He also suggested unemployment insurance, social security and a host of other measures, some which appeared in FDR’s administration, some which have yet to appear.

How could a Republican other than Teddy Roosevelt be so liberal? Well, he wasn’t. He felt that conservative values meant that the benefits of our system should be broadly enjoyed. He felt an (perhaps Christian) obligation toward the well-being of his fellow Amercians.

He felt that America, its democracy, its protections, its potential, should not be denied to his fellow citizens. He thought America was too good, too great to be seen as selfish and stingy. He felt that as more people benefited from America’s system, the easier it was to conserve that system.

Lafollette wanted to conserve the benefits and promise of America. For that, he was fondly remembered and honored by those of the fraternity that keeps the record of our achievements and our failures.

At some point, conservatism became almost solely about conserving the treasure and prerogatives of the wealthiest among us. An article of faith was that government should be small. Why? Because a small government cost less but, more importantly, a small government had insufficient power and resources to interfere with their ‘Robber Baron’ activities and their credit default swaps.

Later, it subsumed the idea that to preserve all of that it was necessary to be isolationist. It also so feared the Bolshevik Revolution that it branded any deviation from laissez-faire capitalism as communist, socialist, anti-American, liberal, union, et al. It wasn’t necessary to understand any of those things. It was only necessary to have a knee-jerk reaction to any word the plutocrats told us was bad.

As this restrictive perversion of conservative began to wane, after the embarrassment of Joe McCarthy, the true believers realized they needed an infusion of bodies and money. They had finally realized that the military-industrial complex could be a goldmine. It could also co-opt the label of patriotism

Have you ever wondered why a Republican President, a 5-star general warned us against that group? Could it be that he still considered himself a real conservative? Did you ever wonder why the John Birch Society and its descendents called Ike a communist dupe; why they questioned his patriotism while advertising their own?

Where to get the people? Lyndon Johnson gave them a present. He was able to get civil rights acts passed. There go the racists.

Then there was Roe v. Wade. Then there was prayer in the schools. That caused the social conservatives to go looking for champions. They now had the numbers to go with their financial resources.

But who was running the show? Was it the social conservatives? No. They just provided the volume. The tune was still called by the ones that paid the piper. The plutocrats and their prosti . . . er, politicians worked in close harmony.

The new conservatives commandeered the Republican Party. They told the social conservatives they would overturn Roe v. Wade. They would put God back in the classroom. They would . . . Well, did they? Not just yet. After all it’s only been about 50 years.

With the Republican ‘conservatives’ enjoying electoral success, why were these promises not kept? If these new conservatives had actually accomplished these things, they would no longer have the means of motivating the troops. If the voters who had been convinced that their leaders were really conservatives felt that everything was right with the world, they wouldn’t need to come down to the polling booth. Those politicians would lose their faithful. They would lose their jobs. Better to keep them angry and going to the polls than actually come across on the promises.

Along came a spider. A part of those controlling the ‘conservative movement’ thought, “Why not control the world?” These were largely macho draft dodgers and other wannabes who thought war was as portrayed in John Wayne movies. We call them neoconservatives.

They believe that everything they dislike domestically can be overrun through bluff, bluster and making up the rules as they go along. They believe that everything they dislike internationally can be gotten rid of by a crude use of America’s supposedly unlimited military might. Unsurprisingly, they think of themselves as realists, as smarter than average.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of conservatism, beyond how it is being used and who is using it. In the form exercised by many in the past it has much to commend it. But, it has been commandeered by the political dregs of the country as a method of fooling large numbers in order to obtain and maintain control.

I can easily identify with many conservative precepts. Similarly, I can do the same with liberal and progressive. I cannot identify with capitalism, communism, socialism and such. They are tools to be used by people who understand them and their limitations. I feel most comfortable calling myself a populist but not in the sense that far too many use it. I see a bifurcation of those whose highest priority is people (Populists) and those whose highest priority is corporations (Fascists).

Take your pick. There are those two. There is room for conservative, liberal and progressive inside populism. There is only room for plutocrats, politicians and dupes among the fascists.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Despite what some may think, I was not around for the Dred Scott decision. That aside, I had comforted myself that the Supremes could not make a worse ruling than the one that gave us Bush the lesser.

I was wrong, horribly so.

We are now the only developed country in the world that allows corporations to legally spend unlimited amounts to control the government. Aren’t we special?

Stay with me a couple of minutes. You will see how stupid and/or corrupt at least five of the Justices really are.

How did we get here and what needs to be done? It is simple but the ramifications cannot be overstated.

First we are dealing with a bunch of hypocrites. The radicals of the Court loudly proclaim that they believe in following the intent of the Founding Fathers. They also maintain that the courts should not legislate, nor usurp the legislative role. Yeah, sure.

No Supreme Court has come close to the activism of the present Court. They have overturned more legislation, by far, than any Court of which I am aware. That tendency alone was sufficient to make all predictions on the latest travesty easy. Commentators from the entire spectrum got it right. This ruling was no surprise.

How about their claimed devotion to what they term ‘strict construction?’ That is also a gross mischaracterization. What was the Founding Fathers’ opinion of corporations? It may not be common knowledge but is far from a secret to any scholar or amateur enthusiast of our founders.

With the exception of Alexander Hamilton, all of the founders hated and/or mistrusted and/or feared corporations and the threat they represented to the nation to which they had given birth. This at a time when corporations were relatively rare and weak compared to the present. Back then one must prove a societal need, a benefit to the public, in order to obtain a charter.

Corporations are not mentioned in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. The last time I checked, the wording was still “We the people . . .” Corporations had only the latitude to function as was delineated in its charter. Where did this idiotic concept of corporations having a legal personality originate? Not from the Supreme Court. It came from an essentially parenthetical couple of sentences by one Justice.

The year was 1886. The case was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company. The doctrine of corporate personhood was included by Justice Morrison Remick Waite before the beginning of arguments. He stated, “The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.”

So, two sentences by a single, junior Justice changed the Constitution, laws and the dictionary definition without argument, without discussion, without any attempt at rationality. It subsequently became the very foundation of corporate law.

Let’s look at this. It doesn’t require looking too deeply. It doesn’t require a degree in Constitutional Law. It does require more intelligence than five of the present Justices. It requires common sense. It requires an absence of devotion to the plutocracy, a jettisoning of ridiculous ideologies. Here we go.

Everyone acknowledges that a corporation is property. It, and/or its shares, not only can be owned, by its very nature it must be owned. If it is a person, it enjoys the constitutional prohibition of slavery. You are not permitted, under any circumstances to hold a person as property. Ask your wife.

A corporation speaks with one voice. Although the textbooks tell you that the shareholders control it, or that the directors control it on behalf of the shareholders, the reality is that management rules. Management’s priorities are rarely the same as the stockholders. Stockholders also are further removed from participation by mutual funds, hedge funds and similar devices. Does anyone believe that corporate lobbying efforts are always (sometimes) consonant with the interests or opinions of shareholders?

While many other legal and logical arguments reach the same, or supportive, conclusions, no serious arguments have been proposed that contradict those arguments. We have no need to pursue any further the irrationality of claims for corporate personhood. Let’s proceed to the ramifications.

The last presidential campaign was easily the most expensive in history. The estimates I saw last year were well over $1 billion but less than two. I haven’t seen your checkbook but to me that is significant change. Actually, I consider that amount obscene. It distorts and corrupts. There is no upside for anyone who values their right to vote.

Now let’s look at real money. The major Wall Street casinos have announced record, or near record, profits. These profits are after record amounts being set aside for bonuses. Have you paid attention? These bonuses total about $150 billion.

If Wall Street decided to redirect only half of that amount to campaign finance, we would never have to watch another non-political commercial in an election year (every other year) again. Although that might seem initially to be an attractive side-benefit, all you have to remember is how quickly campaign advertising begins to pall.

While we know better, politicians owned by special interests insist that they are not swayed by lobbyists’ bribes. Given the amounts now available to them, they likely will not even bother to address such questions. The $150 billion cited above represents only that available from the major institutional players of one corrupt industry. Factor in the insurance industry, PhRMA, agribusiness, energy and a host of others wanting laws that benefit them, to our detriment.

There would not even have been the sham of the healthcare debate with its foreordained outcome. The drug pushers could sell morphine as a toothing medication for infants again, as Bayer did before it became famous for its aspirin. The Department of Agriculture could eliminate all of those pesky areas and become a foundation to channel taxpayers dollars directly to ConAgra, ADM, et al. Exxon and its peers would not have to waste another nickel cleaning up after themselves. There no longer would be a need to debate global warming, or spending any funds on research. Government could really be streamlined.

How much have you ever donated to a political campaign? Look on the bright side. Now there is no need to.

I believe that there has never been a law or ruling which so drastically changes and damages our system.

Many people get upset about the power of the government. Permit me to reminisce. Back in the late 1960s or early 1970s there was a little flap at Delta Air Lines, where I was working. You need to understand that at that time aircraft mechanics were treated like royalty. They were the princes of the industry and highly prized by the airlines.

One of these princes let his sideburns grow to the level of the bottom of his ears. No, they were not mutton-chop sideburns. Though wild hairstyles could be seen everywhere across the country, his could not be considered wild by any definition. He was fired.

Except when I was in military service, I would never expect the government to be so intrusive, so controlling of the minutiae of people’s lives. Corporations are not bound to respect any of your rights, beyond the prohibition of discrimination. The government is constrained by the Constitution. With the Founding Fathers, I have always feared corporations far more than I feared the government – until now.

All is not lost. The Court struck down campaign finance laws, not corporate laws or regulations. The Congress unquestionably has the authority to control corporate behavior through changes in corporate law. It could be done by regulation. You and I are, as people, are not controlled by laws in this area so it cannot be claimed that corporations are being discriminated against or denied that to which people are entitled.

I would ask that you notify me the next time you see a bunch of corporations exercising their right of freedom of assembly or, perhaps, their freedom of religion. I would love to attend a baptismal ceremony for one of these ‘guys.’

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

In a very busy schedule I devote some time and effort to a blog for which I receive no monetary remuneration. Why?

I have a degree of knowledge and experience in some of these areas. My intent is to share the resulting, hard won perceptions on matters I consider important. Others have different backgrounds and differing perceptions.

Admittedly, I derive a measure of satisfaction from providing viewpoints that readers might not otherwise consider. The blog has received as many as 577 visits on a single day. I value each and every reader.

Sadly, I have only two readers who are inclined to provide feedback on a regular, or irregular, basis. These two are highly prized. They are not prized because they always agree. I am a true iconoclast. If someone agreed with me on every matter, one of us would be unnecessary.

Therefore, a recent comment from one of the two disturbs me greatly. To reiterate, my discomfort is not the result of a disagreement. It comes from a misapprehension of my intent.

I feel compelled to respond in a longer format than would be appropriate in the comment area. I wrote what for me was a short blog on areas of disappointment I have with the President. Cheryl’s response was succinct: “Who are you and what did you do with Crawford?” I devoted the next four posts to elaborating on those areas.

Cheryl then sent me the following comment:

I don’t know, but it seems like everyone wants to play arm chair President. My goodness, the country is a mess. He cannot do everything at once. He cannot wave a magic wand and fix everything in one clean sweep. It’s not like the president has authority to just change everything he desires. I am really tired of everything he does getting picked apart by everyone. I am astounded (yeah, I know I shouldn’t be) by how unfaithful people are to others. I voted for President Obama and I, for one, am standing behind him. He has already done much good. Why does everyone think it’s their obligation to trumpet how they believe he handles every matter?

I don’t know how to send this privately, so I’ll just have to send it this way and you can ‘moderate it.’ I am deleting this site from my favorites because I am tired of all the negativity about our president. I really bet there are a couple of things he’s doing well. Thank God we don’t have McCain and that silly traveling ex-governor in the White House. “Bomb bomb bomb Iran?” “I can see Russia from my house so I know how to protect America.” Yeah, that would be much better, huh? Well, keep all the trashing of Obama and we’ll get another 8 years of what we just had.

First, anyone is welcome to send me a private email at crawford@crawfordharris.com.

Cheryl,

As you say, the country is a mess and he cannot do everything at once. I could not agree more and I don’t believe in magic. Many people do expect the President to accomplish matters that are actually the responsibility of the Congress or others. As one who has held public elective office and holds a degree in Political Science, I am not in that group.

All presidents are the focus of the citizenry, and rightly so. That focus is for hopes, dreams and ideals. They are also the focus of criticism. Given that presidents are human, some of that criticism will be warranted. Some will not be justified. Obama has been the target of far more than a fair share of the later. But criticism can be constructive and instructive. I hope that all of mine so qualifies.

I too voted for Obama. But, I voted for what he represented more than for him as an individual. The presidency is not an individual. He is the embodiment of the executive obligations of our system. From my training and experience I see the role of the citizen to require participation in a public dialogue. It isn’t just our right. It is our obligation. That dialogue is, or should be, the energy that drives our system. It makes it possible to improve upon what the Founding Fathers gave us.

We have made improvements: abolition, women’s rights, civil rights and others. But, as you said, the country is a mess and requires considerably more improvement. I would not consider myself a responsible citizen were I to just accept matters as they are.

I don’t see myself as being unfaithful. If a friend had a booger hanging from his nose, I would consider it an act of friendship to tell him. Sure, Obama does many things well. He is an improvement of several magnitudes over his immediate predecessor and several less immediate ones.

Having been a journalist, I have heard the frequent complaint of the dearth of ‘good’ news. News is, almost by definition ‘bad’ news. We shouldn’t stand around waiting to read a news item that a dog didn’t bite a man.

I too get tired of all of the criticism, mine included. It is personally debilitating and enervating. When I began this blog I listed nine topic areas plus the catchall of Whatever. I desperately want to comment on many other subjects but the economy, healthcare and war have dominated the national dialogue.

I have, on too rare occasions, commented on the deaths of two friends, my college English professor, my trip to Scotland, etc. Believe it or not, I have other interests on which I would like to pontificate. I feel acutely that I am becoming Poor Johnny One Note. I would welcome questions from readers on the other listed topics and suggestions for posts that they might enjoy.

I hope that my criticism is more than simple complaining. I intend it to be instructive. I want to provide information and background and a different, considered perspective for readers who must devote their energies to responsibilities and interests that don’t leave them the time and opportunities I have had on the discrete subjects of my posts.

I hope, not that you find my takes always correct. Rather, I hope that they may provide the impetus for the reader to explore their own position in a different, hopefully broader, context.

I do have one special point of appreciation for President Obama. I will be eternally grateful to him for saving the country from McCain and his biggest mistake.

If you need to cut down on your dosage of negativity, I’ll understand but I hope you only reduce it, not eliminate it.

I appreciate the chance to speak to your concerns and hope I assuaged them to some extent.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, claims that he is doing God’s work. Has God retired? Is God not upset with Lloyd for causing his 401K to tank?

Wouldn’t you like to get a peek at God’s portfolio? Such gems of wisdom from one of the Masters of the Universe generates lots of questions.

If Goldman Sachs’ own stock is down 27% and they helped put the global economy in shambles, just why are they giving each other record bonuses? Did the Keystone Cops get bonuses?

Wall Street is congratulating itself that the Dow-Jones has once again reached the 10,000 mark. Since the last time that the Dow surpassed that mark the Dollar has weakened by 25%. That means 10,000 is actually the equivalent of 7,500 back at that time. That gives them even less excuse to bestow record bonuses upon themselves.

No matter how we look at the performances of the Wall Street economists, they are greedy, self-congratulating, ignorant thieves who have never gotten it right. So, who does Obama think can solve the problems created by these crooks? These crooks.

Rubin, Summers, Geithner and the rest, need to be arrested, not trusted.

What is the latest economic news from the Cathedral of St. Greenspan? Various sources are saying that the President will address the need to balance the budget in his State of the Union Address. Really? Are there no history books in the Library of Congress?

Ben Bernanke, our illustrious Chairman of the Federal Reserve has been lauded as the ultimate expert on The Great Depression. He is being considered for another term as Chairman. Since he hasn’t contributed anything of value to our economy to this point, couldn’t he speak to the President about the primary lesson all serious inquirers into that period learned? Did he not understand that lesson?

FDR took several dramatic steps to address the problem he faced. Unlike George W. Obama, FDR put most of the emphasis on employment. But, that was not his big mistake. The economy was improving as a result of his boldness. Then, he lost his confidence and listened to the economic troglodytes. In 1937 he attempted to ameliorate the budget deficit.

The result was a double-dip, another recessionary decline, destroying the recovery from the original downturn. Back to today. What are these Wall Street wizards telling Obama to do? They are telling him that the main problem is a potential for inflation. They are telling him to balance the budget.

Let’s just take a minute to look at our situation. The banks are lending only to themselves. Main Street business is not on a spending spree. They aren’t over-hiring or over-expanding. People have tightened their belts, trying to pay down their debt. The banks can get all of the money they want at a very reasonable interest rate of zero.

So, where are the signs that the inflationary monster is bearing down on us? I can’t hear you.

You don’t stop stimulating the economy until it can sustain itself and is beginning to put more money into the Treasury than it is taking out.

Also, you don’t stimulate the economy by giving tax cuts, the most inefficient of stimuli. You don’t stimulate the economy by giving the Wall Street casinos taxpayers’ money to pay off foreign gamblers 100 cents on the dollar for their derivatives. You don’t salvage the economy buy giving the crooks zero percent loans, after paying off all of their gambling losses.

All of the happy talk from the thieves tries to convince us, or themselves, that the Great Recession is over. When pressed, they will tell you that employment always lags behind the “real” recovery. Does Obama not see a problem? There is a disconnect, a chasm, between the Dow-Jones Average and the economy of Main Street.

How could there possibly be a difference? Isn’t the Dow-Jones the economy? Well, that’s what they want you to believe. As I have been saying all along, the Dow-Jones Average could be replaced with the latest results from Hialeah and Santa Anita with no loss of economic measurement. Some people make money from betting on the horses. Most people lose money from betting on the horses. Wow, that sounds just like Wall Street.

Should the President, any president, invite touts from the major brokerage houses race tracks into the White House, even into his Cabinet, for advice on how to stage an economic recovery? If he did, your first instinct would be to laugh at such stupidity. Then you would realize that his reliance on these denizens of the race tracks was preposterous. You would have to question either his judgment or his intelligence.

There are voices of economic sanity out there. They just aren’t connected to Wall Street. What to do? What should Obama do?

We will not be able to accuse the President of leadership unless he calls Eric Holder to send a few of his minions over to the Executive Office Building, the Federal Reserve, Goldman Sachs, et alia, to arrest the “economic advisers.”

You say I bemoan the lack of leadership. Not exactly true. We have leadership. Obama has leadership. The problem is that the leadership is being exercised by criminals whose expertise is convincing others that they know what they are doing, that they are acting in our best interests and that they should be rewarded for their knowledge.

Our Founding Fathers were very perceptive and correct in their apprehensions concerning the capacity of the bankers to destroy the fruits of their labors.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Change. Change? What change? How about some meaningful change?

Three issues are at the top of the agenda. They share a commonality. They are healthcare, the economic crisis and the impending decision by the Supreme Court on Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission.

The commonality they share is the usurpation of power by corporations and the destruction of a government of, by and for the people.

The Economic Crisis

One year after the economic meltdown came to the attention of the public with the disappearance of Lehman Brothers, what has changed? Several trillion of our dollars have disappeared. The survivors have a little less competition and a lot more profit.

They are not laughing at us and their toadies in Washington all the way to the bank. They are the bank.

New products have been developed on which to make high-risk bets with our money. If they win, they get obscene bonuses. If they lose, they get obscene bonuses. That may qualify as change for some but not for me. They are even returning to the same old derivatives.

Healthcare

As for healthcare, the Gang of Six has delivered a package that even the lobbyists would have been too ashamed to create. It costs the government more than at present. It costs policy holders more. It creates more bankruptcies. Now children, can you guess who gets all of that extra money?

They brag about two features: elimination of the bar for preexisting conditions and the elimination of annual and total dollar limits on coverage. Does anyone really think that the greedy whores cannot find other ways to eliminate you from their customer list?

If the increased costs of coverage drive people to bankruptcy court quicker than when there are coverage limits, what good does it do to have those limits removed? Again, you are likely to be removed from their customer list before you become too expensive for their profit margins.

The coup de grâce

Now we come to the Supreme Court. This case is unusual. It has already been before the Court. This is a case of corporations getting another bite from the apple. It is, at base, a claim that corporations are entitled to “free speech.” The betting is that the Court will reverse itself in favor of the corporations.

The case revolves around their self-serving interpretation of the 1^st Amendment. I am curious as to whether that amendment also gives corporations freedom of religion.

Before going forward with a bit of history, fact and commonsense, I am providing a little respite, a humorous take from Stephen Colbert.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h35C9wzD_Tk

Our Founding Fathers were not exactly fans of corporations. They feared them and what they would do to the nation they had created. Their fears have been largely realized. The final elimination of whatever vestiges of the Founders’ efforts remain seems at hand.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

James Madison said, “There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by . . . corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses.”

James Madison, again, said, “The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived.”

From Abraham Lincoln we have, “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”

William Roscoe Thayer, in his biography of Teddy Roosevelt wrote, “I think that he took the deepest personal satisfaction in fighting the criminal rich and the soulless corporations, because he regarded them not only as lawbreakers, malefactors of great wealth, but as despicably mean, in that they used their power to oppress the poor and helpless classes.”

A Chinese proverb advises us, “Corporations have neither bodies to be punished nor souls to be damned.”

The list is endless.

When first created, corporations were given charters that terminated after 21 years. If I wish to invest a few tens of thousands in a sole proprietorship, I stand to lose that investment but am held responsible for all indebtedness and damage that may result. A group of people may form a corporation and have their responsibility limited to whatever they invested, except financial institutions which are bailed out by our tax monies.

That cannot be justified. Just ask those who lost their retirement or their kids tuition.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

What’s the difference? Well, they are both smiling. They are both wearing suits and ties. They are both using the flag to make people think they care about America. Neither gives a damn about their constituents.

Among the differences is the fact that one is a Senator; the other is a former member of the House of Representatives. One has been convicted; one hasn’t. One took $100,000 from the FBI. The other takes millions of dollars from lobbyists.

There’s really not that much difference. Why don’t they represent us? Why are they allowed to accept bribes? What standards should we hold them to?

William Jefferson was caught in an FBI sting. He was accused of accepting $400,000 in bribes. In the sting, he was video-taped receiving $100,000 from the FBI. $90,000 of the FBI’s money was found in his freezer. He was just convicted on 11 counts.

Max Baucus takes millions of dollars of bribes. He is an equal opportunity prostitute. He accepts money from any lobbyist that can find the Senate Office Building. He has taken millions from the healthcare industry, among others.

I have difficulty appreciating the difference between what Jefferson did and what all of the others do daily. A court says one is a felon. Is there really a difference?

What can we do? What should we do? I have a couple of suggestions.

When a judge has a relationship with anyone involved in a case before him, be it a litigant or their counsel, that judge is expected to recuse himself. Should such a rule not also apply to legislators? If they receive money from a lobbyist, play golf with a lobbyist or play with an escort provided by a lobbyist, I personally think that sufficient grounds for recusal from participating in the vote of any bill that might benefit that lobbyist or his employer. We might begin to see bills winning or losing by a vote of 1 – 0, or something close to that.

Back to the William Jefferson situation. If a legislator accepts money from a lobbyist, why is that considered legal? I realize that the FBI would have to hire substantial numbers to investigate all of the lobbyist-congressman relationships but isn’t that an important area of concern? I may have discovered the reason for the antipathy so many have for big government. It might have sufficient resources to maintain some semblance of propriety and rectitude.

Jefferson’s indiscretion indicates he is motivated by a venal spirit. Is that a rare psychological defect on Capitol Hill? It certainly doesn’t appear to be all that extraordinary. The Founding Fathers probably hoped that those elected to public office would be public-spirited. It hasn’t worked out quite that way.

These people were elected and are paid to serve the interests of their constituents. You would be hard pressed to cobble together a case for them actually working on our behalf.

They obviously like their jobs. They enjoy the perks, such as government-run healthcare and compliant staffers and interns. Their primary focus is to remain in that special bubble of privilege.

Keeping that office for 3 to 4 decades requires lots of money. You haven’t slipped your Representative a couple of hundred thousands lately, have you? My guess is that he is too busy catering to the moneyed people and their toadies to invite you to the country club for a round. You have no voice. You have no representation.

They will never vote term limits for themselves. They will never do anything to choke off their access to bribes. It is possible to hope that they might become a bit less acquisitive if the FBI and courts considered the largesse of lobbyists to be illegal bribes. These bribes corrupt our entire system. They deny the people’s right to expect the government to be on their side. It just isn’t supposed to be government of the banks, by the health insurance companies and for the corporations.

I should end it here but that last part hit a sore spot. The Founding Fathers, with one notable exception, considered corporations dangerous. The fiction that corporations should have legal personalities is ludicrous. Why is limiting an investor’s liability not considered antithetical to the most basic beliefs of capitalism? The concept reeks of hypocrisy.

There is no extra charge for that last bit of wisdom.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites