My occasional resort to language of a somewhat bombastic flavor may lead some to believe that I generally take an aggressive stance on practically every issue. That’s not necessarily so, but in the matter of class war, I am a super hawk.

Oh, am I not being divisive? No. It’s several generations too late for that. The war has been in progress since before Old Hickory was president. And that’s just in this country. It actually began millennia ago.

For those who think that the prostitutes of the elite, otherwise known as politicians and media mouths, are on to something when they accuse the victims of fomenting class warfare, think again. Most people have failed to notice the war because they have not been drafted. The actual war has been deliberately obscured by an extensive, expensive, all-pervasive campaign of disinformation.

Wall Street was bailed out by John Q. Public in order to protect their multimillion dollar bonuses.

College students were not bailed out of their onerous student loans.

You thought you had a right of free speech? You’re getting that mixed up with the Supreme Court ruling that money is free speech. You don’t have enough money. Sorry.

Over 800 people of Occupy Wall Street have been arrested. No Wall Street executives, those creating the problem, have been arrested. Hmmm. How many arrests were made of Tea Party demonstrators that were making threatening statements and even carrying guns on federal park land? Well, anyway, we are all equal.

Homeowners who are victims of mortgage companies or the disappearance of their jobs, or both, are on their own, while the government turns a blind eye as the mortgage companies ignore the niceties and laws of foreclosure.

Have you selected your park bench for retirement?

If you think the country’s economy is the nirvana our beloved leaders and Wall Street guaranteed, go back to sleep. If you want to do something to improve the situation for yourself, your family and your country, get yourself a draft card. How’s that?

Replace your present credit cards and accounts with the Wall Street casinos with cards and accounts from local banks and credit unions. Obviously, there are a wide range of other measures you can take but his has to be a minimum, a first step.

Was the economic meltdown just one of those things? Was it something that periodically besets us that cannot be avoided? Was it an accident? Was it the result of a mistake? No. It was caused by the unbridled greed of simpletons that considered themselves and referred to themselves as Masters of the Universe. They actually thought they had triple digit IQs. If they are so intelligent, why do they worship such a simplistic ideology? How can intelligent people fail to see its absurdities?

Investment banking, if you consider it a necessary evil, cannot justifiably represent more than 3-4% of the national economy. It now represents over 20%. It rakes in 50% of all of the country’s profits. One percent of the people own as much as 90%. Four hundred people have as much wealth as 150,000,000. This represents a gross distortion of the economy. So what?

There was a similar distortion in 1929. In fact, every such major financial meltdown was preceded by this type of distortion. An economy cannot function properly when class differences are so pronounced.

The irony is that the elite are doing themselves a great deal of harm in their pursuit of this folly. They seem satisfied to be oligarchs in a banana republic. For some reason a strong nation with a vibrant economy isn’t appealing to them. By nurturing a large, healthy middle class, the economy is more stable. Business failures decline. Poverty declines. People claim to be more satisfied with their lives – people, not oligarchs.

These intellectual giants appear to be convinced that their happiness can only be based on the misery of the serfs and peons. Strangely, the elites’ happiness goes down as the people’s increases. I guess that’s okay, because the happiness levels of the majority of the elites never are positive.

If you won’t do it for your own benefit, get involved and participate in the class war for the 1%. We don’t want these brilliant people failing in 80% of the businesses they create in only 5 years. It might cause them to have self-esteem problems; problems that can only be remedied by wreaking havoc on the poor and the remnants of the middle class. They can only win the class war if they have no opponents, if you won’t fight back.

Since you persevered, I have a video for you as a reward. Enjoy.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I am not a fan of ceilings. Well, at home is good. Maybe in most any building.

But that’s not the kind that we have as the subject today. We’re talking about the debt ceiling of the federal government. It’s possible one or two people may not be as familiar with this issue as they think.

For instance, we are the only country in the world with a debt ceiling. Another minor point is that a debt ceiling is unConstitutional. Now, are you ready for some football . . . er, uh, facts?

Yes, Virginia, the Congress of these United States, in their infinite wisdom, made us the only country in the world subject to such a nonsensical, unnecessary and useless stricture.

It isn’t merely a matter of embarrassment. It represents a potential threat to this country, and the world, that can only be guessed at. Why would they put us in so precarious position? Why would they so jeopardize us?

The debt ceiling took years to develop. It was intended to help the United States Treasury. The original intent was laudable. Its present misuse as a political weapon is despicable.

Until the time of WW I, ‘The Big One,” Congress would authorize each specific debt that was incurred. For a couple of decades, efforts were made to provide the Treasury an easier way of dealing with debts. Those efforts were formalized into a law in 1939 that provided for a debt ceiling. No good deed goes unpunished; particularly when the good deed doer has no idea what they are doing.

Most debt is incurred by action of the Congress. However, the executive branch can cause some debt. Even the courts can subject the government to debts, intentionally or not, as the result of some rulings.

However debt may be incurred, if it is legal, the Treasury must, by mandate of the Constitution, pay that debt. The Constitution makes no allowance for failure to pay any and all legal debts.

Additionally, while the above is stated quite explicitly, the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. In 1935 the Supreme Court very clearly ruled that Congress did not have the power to cause any legally incurred debt to go unpaid. There would, otherwise, be no way to promise the “full faith and allegiance of the United States” to any obligation.

Those great patriotic worshipers of the Constitution may tell the Treasury that they can’t pay any bills once the ceiling is breached. They need to actually read the Constitution. It would help if they would also read an occasional ruling that the Supreme Court hands down.

While the above is true and easy to understand, there is a political consideration. It is very unlikely that any Secretary of the Treasury would be willing to be seen as defying Congress. It’s a sure bet that Secretary Geithner and any of his predecessors and successors see, or saw, their only option being to bow to Congress and pretend they have the final word.

Hey. We have a president who used to be a professor of Constitutional Law. Surely he’s familiar with the original part of the Constitution. Surely he read all of way down to Section 4 of the 14^th Amendment. But, even though he may know better, he has no more political room for maneuver than the Secretary of the Treasury.

We are stuck under the thumbs of the super patriots who don’t understand most of the Constitution and disagree with everything they do understand.

Now, we hear that there is a certain amount beyond which the Treasury will be barred from borrowing. We are told that once the cash on hand runs out the Treasury will be barred from paying any bills or other obligations. Were that it was that straightforward.

They say that our armed forces personnel, those on Social Security and many others cannot be paid . . . but guess who can. Did you say banks? You are either absolutely brilliant or at least have a realistic perception of the way our system works.

How do they justify that? Ask them. The IRS collection personnel will continue to be paid as you and I will still be required to come up with the wherewithal to keep those bankers bonuses flowing.

Okay, you say. What’s so bad about not raising the debt ceiling? The truth is, we don’t know. I can recall nothing even close to this happening before. We have no real analog for guidance. We must depend on educated guesses.

Some of the guesswork can provide a relatively high degree of confidence. We know the level of greed that guides the majority of players. We know the inane ideology they will use to rationalize their actions. We know that fear mongering will likely set new standards. Put them all together Dr. Frankenstein.

Usually, interest on the debt is one of the largest items in the annual budget. It continues to be while significantly diminished. You may have heard that interest rates are at historic lows. That has allowed us to borrow at very low cost for the past few years. It is obviously to our government’s, and taxpayers’, benefit to extend those low interest rates as long as we can.

That makes sense, you say. Won’t we? Many in and out of Congress are determined that we pay higher rates. How could they be so unconcerned for our country’s economic well-being? Some because they are ideologues. Some for putative political advantage. Some for both reasons.

It is difficult to understand the ‘thinking’ of some politicians. They are owned by the banks. The banks love the essentially free money they can borrow now. The banks have told their representatives not to shut down the government. They likely will obey their orders but for the sake of their ideology and their ever credulous constituencies they want to push it to the brink.

The banks, our creditors and other major financial entities relying on our “full faith and allegiance” will begin to get fidgety at some point before the actual deadline. The automatic, ideologically-based response will be to raise interest rates. Our government, we the taxpayers, will lose those low interest rates ahead of the final due date.

Here we have the true believers screaming that the debt is too large. They threaten massive cuts to every program that helps the middle class and sustains the poor. Though our taxes are the lowest in more than 60 years, they bemoan such an intolerable tax burden on the top 2% and are willing to increase the debt for their benefit.

Now comes the kicker. They are willing to cause the government’s interest rates to increase incurring additional debt in the hundreds of billions. Don’t forget to send these self-described debt haters a thank you note.

Why all of the concern by the banks, China, the Saudis, the Brits and all of the other major players? Because the US Dollar is the currency of the realm. Everyone puts their “full faith and allegiance” into the Dollar. Everything in international trade is denoted in the Dollar. There is the stability required for the financial world to function because there is a common coin.

So, just replace it with the Euro. You may not have heard that several members of the European Community are experiencing even greater financial discomfort than are we. Greece, Ireland, Iceland, Portugal and others. This is putting heavy stress on the stronger national banks of the Community. There is not inconsiderable talk of some members leaving the Euro. Some even talk of abolishing it.

That doesn’t sound to me like a promising alternative. What about gold? Give me a moment. Let me stifle my paroxysm of giggling.

The Washington Monument measures 55 feet on each side at its base. It stands 555 feet high. All of the gold ever gathered by mankind in its entire history would equal about one-third of the volume of the Washington Monument. That doesn’t seem to be all that much. Use that as the basis for finances of the entire world? And that doesn’t even take into consideration how much would be needed for the egos of both the rich and poor in Rolexes and teeth.

Allow me to translate that for sports fans. The playing field for football is 300 feet long and 160 feet wide. This, of course, doesn’t include the end zones. All of the gold gathered in the history of mankind would stack up on that playing field a bit less than 11½ feet high, barely higher than the crossbars on the goalposts.

People usually fail to take into consideration how advantageous it is to have our currency accepted as the de facto world standard. When OPEC quotes prices in Dollars we have both a slight real and a psychological advantage. We are, to a degree, insulted from most of the zigs and zags of currency values. In many cases, the cost and convenience of currency exchange works to our advantage as tourists or direct buyers from other countries.

If the world holds our credit worthiness or solvency in question, the pedestal of world superpower will start to crumble at an alarming rate. Our national strength has always been intimately yoked to, indeed based on, our perceived economic dominance.

It is impossible to quantify the potential damage from shutting down the government, to us and everyone else. The loss of the standard will mean economic turmoil around the world until a new system can be developed. The present system developed in the aftermath of WW II and was possible because the rest of the world was prostrate. I don’t recommend revisiting those conditions.

The politicians, most of them, are presently playing games with this issue for some expected political advantage. It’s time to realize that it isn’t a game and hope some adults come to the fore.

.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Medicare is wonderful. Medicare is terrible. Medicare is in trouble. Medicare is wonderful.

Medicare is also complex. People are always suggesting changes. Some wish to extend it. Some wish to eliminate it.

People are running around predicting bankruptcy for Medicare around 2017 or 2019 or whenever. No, it’s not that bad. There would be a shortfall beginning then, not a bankruptcy. It’s not a case of going from 100% immediately to 0%. As much as the politicians wish to avoid biting the bullet, they must address the problem. They faced the same problem a few years back with Social Security. It seems inconceivable that they didn’t deal with Medicare at the same time but we are not speaking of a group of geniuses here.

The most popular suggestion for changing Medicare is intended to salvage it for an extended period. Will it? Yes, but. But? Yes. Medicare is too complex for any changes to be simple.

The suggestion to which I refer is to raise the age for eligibility by two years. Now that was simple. The problem is that strange things will start to happen. Think about it.

Any 66-year old will not necessarily need more health care than any 64-year old but the statisticians will guarantee that the cost of insuring a 66-year old is more expensive than a 64-year old.

Insurance policies that account for expected payouts until Medicare kicks in at age 65 will cost more.

Health care coverage will cost you and/or your employer more. I’m not speaking of just when someone becomes a geezer. Policies will rise for everyone to adjust to the change. Also, remember that state and local governments are employers, so their costs will also be increased.

There is also the consideration of companies with a mandatory retirement at the age of 65. Will you have to go out on the individual policy market (the most expensive) and purchase a policy covering the most expensive age category the private insurance company offers? You don’t want to be ‘bare’ at that age and your income just got reduced.

The estimate by the Kaiser Family Foundation is that the increase for some individuals will be above $2,000 per year. The following figures are predicated by the foundation on the implementation of the change in 2014. It also assumes that the Supreme Court will uphold the recent changes made in health care insurance. If it doesn’t, the costs would be even higher.

Predictions are that 75% of those aged 65 and 66 will pay $2,400 more. That may have gotten the attention of some people.

The young people will see an increase of about 8% in the cost of health insurance.

The increased costs to business will be in the neighborhood of $4.5 billion. That either will make US companies less competitive or cause them to eliminate health care benefits for employees.

The government would save a ton of money by not covering those 65- and 66-year olds. So, those on Medicare would benefit from lower costs. Oh, no they wouldn’t. What? Why?

Medicare, as any insurance program, is based on actuarial figures. Eliminating the youngest from the pool eliminates the healthiest from the pool. The increase would be 3%. Medicare benefits but no one else does. Wasn’t the premise to save Medicare money so that it would be sustainable? Well, it does that and that’s the way it is.

I gave a passing mention above to an increase in the costs to states. There would be another. Those 65- and 66-year olds no longer eligible for Medicare but too poor to purchase their own policies would add to the states’ financial burden through MedicAid.

There is a better way. The solution is simple. Medicare-For-All. Eliminating the 30-32% overhead we presently pay private corporations would be a good start. Allowing the CMS to negotiate prices with the drug pushers should reduce the costs by at least 50% – same as the Veterans Administration now pays. Taking advantage of other economies of scale.

You don’t think the government should get involved in health care? Eliminate Medicare? Tell that to seniors. They rate it much higher than private policy holders rate any insurance corporation.

Eliminate MedicAid? So, do we force the hospital emergency rooms to absorb the total costs of indigent care or do we just make sure they don’t obstruct the gutters?

Eliminate SCHIP. Those 7 million children will die some day anyway.

Eliminate the VA. Why should we have to pay the health care costs for veterans?

Eliminate health care benefits for government employees, They are being pampered already by getting paid 78% as much as an equivalent employee in the private sector.

Eliminate the Public Health Service. The CDC is always scaring us with new flus, the return of Smallpox, Polio and such. The PHS has to stick their fingers into such things as sewers, water purity and all of those other things distracting us from American Idol.

Eliminate the subsidy the government provides employers who give their people health care benefits.

Put them all together they may not spell M-O-T-H-E-R but they do add up to the government paying 45% of all health care costs already.

No old people were harmed in the writing of this article.

.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Although I have never marched around dressed up funny with a bunch of weirdos, I have studied the Constitution.

I find it amazing how people that haven’t displayed any particular affiliation with government, history, law enforcement, responsibility, weapon use, constitutional law or the English language are convinced of their expertise on all of these subjects.

Perhaps, we should post the 2^nd Amendment before looking into it, our subject for today.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I find it logically difficult to see these staunch “supporters” of the Constitution as such when they insist on ignoring the Constitutional justification of their favorite part.

The only stated reason for allowing people to own arms is for the maintenance of a militia. So, let’s look at what constitutes a militia?

A militia is a military force. A bunch of individuals running around packing heat, shivering in a duck blind or standing watch over a salt lick has nothing in common with a “military force.”

A militia is for the purposes of defense of the community or enforcing the law. While individuals make up the community, one doesn’t organize a militia for the benefit of an individual. That’s another thing: a militia is organized.

There is a small but important consideration to be found in the passage of the Amendment. As passed by the Congress, the word people is not capitalized. As ratified by the states, it is. Meaning? The final version reflects with very specific intent that the Amendment is for “the People” not a bunch of individuals

That part about enforcing the law is interesting. The rabid supporters fear the government and feel the need of protection from it. I always thought it was the government that established the laws that need to be enforced. That would seem to require that the militia act in concert with, and for the benefit of, the government, not as an antagonist.

The second half of the introductory phrase gives further support to the logic of the above. It states that a militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

There is the justification. There is no room for additional, paranoia-inspired, extraneous, verbal contortions to make the Constitution support its enemies.

I have heard some of the new members of Congress and others claim that the Founding Fathers gave us the right to bear arms because they were sufficiently prescient to realize we would one day need to fight the government. Wow!

Accepting that really puts the Founders in a weird position. Instead of the obvious explanation that they wanted to protect the system they were laboring so hard to develop, they were really providing a way of arming its enemies. Is it possible that the people in tin hats today see something the Founders intended but forgot to include? Did the Founders really expect their handiwork to become the enemy?

What if the Founders really did expect the Amendment to be needed by a group individuals, who are smarter than the rest of us, for the purpose of carrying on a war with our government? Will they repel the government with a Colt 45, a Glock, a shotgun or even an Uzi? I can’t figure out how.

To take on the most powerful military force this world has ever known, I would recommend a few tanks, bazookas, helicopters, attack submarines, missiles and thermonuclear devices. Could they get by without satellite support for their GPS-guided weaponry?

Rambo, Dirty Harry and the former Governator will not be able to provide much help. More than celluloid and duck tape will be necessary to take on the Pentagon.

The biggest problem with an unlimited interpretation of the Amendment may be the very ones who consider guns so important. How is that? They may have become excellent marksmen. They may be able to impress you with their mastery of the nomenclature of these weapons. Still, they don’t understand the most basic aspects of handguns.

As a former commissioner of police, let me make certain that people know that both the national organizations of police commissioners and police chiefs are strongly in favor of fairly stringent gun control laws.

An idiot congressman from Arizona refuses to retreat from his public statement that he wishes there had been one more gun at the recent shooting aimed at his fellow congressperson. There was another gun in the crowd.

Think about it. A handgun is for the purpose of getting the drop on one or more others. If someone already has the drop with his weapon, bringing another handgun into the situation is more than likely to increase the body count. A weapon used in a robbery, for instance, may be intended only for intimidation. Introducing another weapon significantly increases the possibility of gunfire.

The man in the aforementioned crowd pulled his gun. He says he was within a second of firing at the guy holding the gun. Fortunately, he realized that the person he was aiming at was holding the gun because he had just disarmed the shooter. In such a confusing situation, it is possible for such mistakes to happen.

Another consideration is that more than 90% of the shots fired by police miss their target. That does not mean they don’t hit someone. It only means that they don’t always hit the right someone. Remember, that accuracy rate is from trained, experienced police officers.

Almost all of these “supporters” of the 2nd Amendment received their understanding of weapon application from television, movies and comic books. For some reason, I don’t find that overwhelmingly reassuring.

There is the matter of self-protection, of course. The death rate in homes with guns is far, far higher than in those without a gun. We too frequently see a news report of a child accidentally killed in a home with a handgun.

A domestic disagreement often escalates to homicide simply because a handgun was available. The problem there is that such events are only local news. On average, several of these incidents occur daily across the country.

Now these yo-yos want to carry handguns in bars, in churches, even the floor of Congress. That should give you a good indication of how far they reside outside of reality.

Keep in mind, whenever you hear someone advocating the absence of gun control, you are likely hearing the absence of sense. Even when written in an opinion of the Supreme Court, it is probably the result of ignorance of handguns, ignorance of history, paranoia-based excursions from the real world or a dupe of those people.

These people have no concern for your freedom or your safety. Their concern is for their deluded desire for power and/or their other political agenda.

With few exceptions the people constantly campaigning against handgun control are your enemy. My hope is that you never become their victim.

Puzzle Me This

I’ve heard it ad nauseum. You’ve heard it too.

They say that guns don’t kill people. They say that people kill people. Is that really true? If so, why do so many people spend all that money buying guns? It just seems redundant and wasteful to me.

Guns may be used for target practice. They may be used as paperweights. They don’t work very well as flower pots. Whatever, they are designed to kill.

People may kill but if they were designed for that purpose I would guess that someone expurgated that from Genesis.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

First a little quiz.

It is said that there is a tradition at the Supreme Court where every Justice shakes the hand of every other Justice prior to entering the courtroom to take their seats.

The question is: how many handshakes are involved? Do you think the answer is obvious? Not once has anyone answered me correctly on the fly. A few get it right if given some time for reflection and figuring.

Send in your answers as comments. I promise to provide the correct answer and not embarrass those who didn’t get it.

Some of you may have discerned a troubling lack of civility of late in our public discourse. I would like to recommend a possible antidote.

We should hold off in implementing it, so as to not change the election results.

Seriously, the time needed to put a campaign together doesn’t make it possible quickly enough. There would also be someone seeing it as partisan. So let’s see if we can get it in gear in time to effect the tenor and tone of the new Congress when it meets in January.

The idea may have been spurred by the upcoming Rally to Restore Sanity. I wanted to keep it simple. I wanted to keep it noncontroversial. I wanted to keep it easy and inexpensive. It does not require riding a bus to the National Mall.

Can we just shake hands? It doesn’t require a long-term commitment. It doesn’t require extensive agreement. It doesn’t require elaborate training.

There are a couple of potential problems, however. I want to say this with due regard for everyone’s feelings.

When you shake someone’s hand, it is common to make a brief comment. It may be something as innocuous as “Good morning.” It may be unintentionally loaded for some people, as with “God bless you.”

The idea behind this being to bring us a few degrees closer together, not to accomplish the impossible of actually uniting the United States, we need to be as considerate as possible. A simple “Thank you” will be appreciated. Some people, myself included, may be tired of “Have a nice day” but I promise not to retaliate with “You have some food stuck in your teeth.”

Those working in Manhattan may prefer not to shake every hand on their way to work. It might cause them to run late. There may even be other situations that call for a measure of restraint. However, it might be a good idea to make an extra effort to shake hands with those obviously different than you; a different ethnic group, a homeless person, a short person, even one of a different gender.

How can we get there? It would be wonderful if someone could quickly come up with a video that goes viral on YouTube. A modicum of funding would help provide a staff to work on promotion. A few celebrities could give the effort a high profile. Remember though, any celebrity or funder needs to be seen as nonpartisan or pair up with someone perceived as an appropriate balance.

If you have any ideas, let me know. If you know a celebrity, send this to him or her. If you are on speaking terms with your local politician, suggest it. If you are Bill Gates, let’s talk.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Yes, class warfare has been waged against those of the middle class and the poor for decades. No, the middle class and poor have not been fighting back, at least not yet.

I am suggesting a new and different strategy for at least the first significant counterattack. The plutocrats have handed us the weapon we need. They and their toadies have maimed the economy. Would you believe that can be turned into a weapon?

While they are somewhat cushioned from the results of their mischief, I have found a way to turn their weapons against them. Jujitsu is a method of using your opponents force against him rather than directly confronting that force. Everything old is new again.

I don’t know if you’re familiar with the World Justice Project. It is an organization dedicated to “lead a global, multidisciplinary effort to strengthen the Rule of Law for the development of communities of opportunity and equity.“ It’s honorary chairs have included a range of Supreme Court justices from Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Sandra Day O’Connor. Others are Desmond Tutu, Colin Powell and Jimmy Carter.

Recently, they published the results of a study, called The Rule of Law Index. It evaluates and ranks how laws are implemented and enforced around the world. Countries are ranked on such factors as whether government officials are accountable, whether legal institutions actually protect rights, and how ordinary people fare in the system. The index ranks 35 countries but will double that next year.

Of the 11 industrial countries, we were at the bottom in accessibility and affordability. We fell below such countries as Mexico, Croatia and the Dominican Republic. When polled, the responses were telling. “For instance, only 40% of low-income respondents who used the court system in the past three years reported that the process was fair, compared to 71% of wealthy respondents. This 31% gap between poor and rich litigants in the USA is the widest among all developed countries sampled. In France this gap is only 5%, in South Korea it is 4% and in Spain it is nonexistent.”

I’m inclined to believe that the reason for the rich litigants’ satisfaction being only 71% is a matter of spoiled brats not getting everything they want even when they win. The system does at least occasionally recognize the need to provide the gloss of fairness.

You and I suffer a disadvantage in our courts system. Other studies prove that perception of a disparity is real. Obama has appointed the acknowledged leading legal mind, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, to address this problem. Less than one in five poor people with a legal problem obtain legal services of any kind.

Is this really a serious problem? Mr. Tribe says, “The truth is that as a nation, we face nothing short of a justice crisis. It is a crisis both acute and chronic, affecting not only the poor but the middle class. The situation we face is unconscionable.”

Bernie Madoff went to prison for ripping off a relatively few. The Wall Street bankers and mortgage brokers ripped off millions. How many will Bernie ever get to see again? When the Dow dropped from around 14,000 to the neighborhood of 7,500 many IRAs, 401ks, pension funds, university endowments and such, many people experienced a sleepless night or two.

But, apparently, the consequences of destroying several trillion dollars of other people’s money do not include any perp walks. Actually, this year the result was $144 billion in bonuses.

Let’s step back and assess where we are. The poor and middle class, quickly merging, have little access to the courts and less satisfaction. The elite does have access. The parasitic plutocracy avoids paying the price and ends up profiting from their greed.

The problem is actual criminal activity. Fraud was committed when sub-prime mortgages were rated and sold as AAA investments. Any lawyer worth his three-martini lunch can come up with a dozen collateral charges. If some of these bad people were sentenced to a year for each offense, they could watch the dying of the Sun through the bars on their windows.

The pension funds and others managing large amounts of investments suffered major financial hits. They do, however, have the wherewithal to pursue legal remedies. They also need to fear action charging them with failure to do due diligence and fulfill their other responsibilities. They should be harassed, poked and prodded until they seek redress for their clients. Use one pack of parasites to squeeze another pack parasites. Some activity in the civil courts, with concomitant publicity, will make it easier to pressure the authorities to bring charges in the criminal courts.

Additionally, there needs to be a constant drumbeat for accountability. That accountability should be for those handling those huge amounts of your pension money. It should be extended to include government officials, politicians, anyone culpable. This will not be something that comes quickly. This will not be something to which the plutocrats and their lackeys will easily acquiesce.

We have a justice system that puts one of every four prisoners in the world in our prisons. We have the longest sentences in the world. Yet, a financial heist that dwarfs anything we could have imagined fails to stir our justice system to punish even one malefactor.

We can’t directly force the system to act. It is possible, however, to get those financial geniuses to face off against each other. We might benefit as a side effect. Some of you may get a bit of your retirement back . . . or maybe a little revenge and a justice system we deserve.

Let’s begin a class war by proxy.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Have you ever been angry? Surely you have experienced it at least once.

Would you consider that time of anger the optimal time for making consequential decisions?

The two definitions of mad often get so close to each other that they actually become entangled. There may be occasions when that serves a purpose but probably not while you are standing in the voting booth.

The fact that you may be justifiably angry doesn’t mean that you should cast your vote for a candidate that is venting his spleen.

There are several candidates that seem to be foaming at the mouth. They are saying things that may rev up their core constituency but should be embarrassing in the light of day.

What do you think of a politician calling unemployment insurance unconstitutional while another calls it an entitlement program? Both statements are ludicrous but they come from two candidates for the Senate who are leading their opponents in the polls. This seems strange as 80% of the people support Unemployment insurance.

How are they ludicrous? The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. They say that unemployment insurance is constitutional. Further, unemployment benefits are a part of what one works for. It’s part of the package. You are paying for it. That means it is insurance, not an entitlement or welfare.

Interestingly, the winners of the Nobel Prize for Economics were announced today. Of the three winners, one is a professor at MIT. A part of his work that is being honored centers on unemployment insurance. What does he have to say on the subject? He says that it is a beneficial program for our overall economy.

It seems that, if there is some income available to an unemployed person, a person will take slightly longer to return to the domain of the gainfully employed. The income provides a greater opportunity to find the best fit for his or her talents, education, training and experience. This, according to prospective Nobel Laureate Peter Diamond, helps make the economy more efficient.

Beyond his arguments, that income has a couple of other benefits. It acts as stimulus to the economy. People rarely do anything with their unemployment benefits except spend it.

We are fortunate that this, Social Security and other programs were enacted during the Great Depression. They keep a flow of money coursing through the economy. They put a floor under us, limiting how far the economy can slide.

Were it not for the monetary flow, the fundamentals of our present economic mess strongly suggest that this would have been a deeper depression than was experienced during the 1930s. If unemployment insurance were unconstitutional, we would be well-advised to amend the Constitution in record time.

I left out the argument that the Constitution makes the government responsible for aiding the general welfare of the people.

Anger does not justify putting people in positions of power who have such unbelievable ignorance about economics and the Constitution. They represent a real danger. That danger isn’t to Democrats. That danger is to the entire country.

Where do these people come from? They have been recruited by Dick Armey, Karl Rove and a bunch of miscreants that put us and our nation in jeopardy.

Do the people of New York really want a governor that threatens to “take out” the leading reporter in the state on the state political beat? Do they want a governor who delights in sending emails with bestiality pictures attached? What is his primary qualification? He has become a multimillionaire as an attorney for mobsters.

Is politics no longer a serious matter? Does it not matter who we elect? I am as critical of the scum that rules this country as anyone. That does not mean that I want to deliberately cripple the country for the gain of those parasites.

I want our country to succeed. Do I have feelings of anger? Naturally. Am I willing to vote for people who are ignorant of history, the Constitution, economics, Christianity and the misery that persists? If you break down their rants, you cannot avoid the anger that they direct towards the people, the nation itself. Calling oneself a Christian and a patriot does not make it so.

Be angry. It is justified. But, don’t lose your cool.

.

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

Back in September of 2008 I posted an article that has special pertinence this week. Stay with me. We will get to that after a few facts concerning this present explosion.

I’m sure you have heard of the mining disaster in West Virginia. It is the worst we have experienced in over two decades.

It is a regrettable situation, particularly as experts say all such accidents are preventable. If that’s true, why did it happen? Would you believe pure, unadulterated greed? Would you believe that the state’s supreme court played a role?

The mine is owned by the Massey Energy Company. This company was cited for 495 violations last year. During that same period production more than tripled.

Back to these accidents being preventable. Almost all of the deaths in coal mining are at nonunion mines. Why? Because union mines, by contract, have safety officers.

The coal industry is fond of telling us how cheap it is compared to other fuels. I guess it depends on how one calculates the price. What is the cost of 1,000 miners’ lives lost to explosions?

What is the cost of 50 miners coming down with black lung every week? What about the eventual deaths of these people with black lung after years of suffering? What is the cost of treating them? How much does coal really cost?

All coal mines produce methane. It has to be vented. Massey told its supervisors to not bother checking methane levels. Methane is the primary explosive material.

In 2000-1 this mine had 501 violations. Their three largest competitors combined had 175, while producing twice as much coal. Record numbers of violations don’t automatically translate into more money. It did last year because of the types of violations. They became more serious.

Massey’s CEO is Don Blankenship. He makes certain to keep his salary under a million. That is for show. It’s difficult to get a fix on his actual compensation. Forbes put his 2008 number at a little more than $11.2 million. The Associated Press put it at $19.7 million for the same year. Whatever, he is the highest paid executive in the industry. It is somewhat more than he pays his nonunion employees.

Mr. Blankenship has been described as a right-wing nut. He thinks Both Democratic and Republican politicians are out to destroy his America. You know, the America that stays out of his way with all of those ridiculous ideas about safety and taking the well-being of people into consideration.

Back to the Past, Present and Future

As I began this post, I recalled one from September 2008 that involved this same company and its CEO. Remember that West Virginia may be the only state that elects its supreme court. The episode memorialized in my post long predated this year’s U.S. Supreme Court’s travesty of monetizing free speech. Why did our Civics teachers lie to us? Anyway, here is the link to that other post, Free Speech – In Remembrance. Maybe I’ll look more prescient now.

What is the present-day significance of the event described in that former post? Just that if you get away with bad behavior once, you have less reason to behave after that. Calling the deaths of 25 human beings the result of bad behavior seems far too restrained. It should be treated as criminal homicide but that will eventually involve the court that Mr. Blankenship has already purchased.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Thirteen states have filed a lawsuit claiming that the healthcare bill is unconstitutional.

Will they win or are they just wasting taxpayers money in an attempt to look good to their political bases? If you guessed the later, you didn’t require anyone to read this to you.

Given that we have five Supremes who can’t differentiate between human beings and things that human beings create, anything is possible. By the way, since voting is the most important form of free speech, why have corporations never voted? Sorry, I didn’t mean to give them any ideas.

Even if the courts were to rule in the favor of these thirteen grandstanding attorneys general, they can’t win.

They claim that it is unconstitutional to require people to purchase private health insurance. If someone doesn’t have health insurance, others must pay for it out of their taxes. The requirement is a protection measure for the rest of us.

Don’t get me wrong. I have no desire to see people forced to give these private monsters more money. This law, as presently configured, gives these corporations an additional 31 or so million customers. That is estimated to increase their bank accounts by some $70 billion annually. No. I definitely am not pleased with that.

Having the public option is less rational than Medicare-For-All but it would at least provide an alternative for many of this 31 million and others. Most of that $70 billion would not go to the leeches. We have been promised that the Congress will amend the law to include the public option.

So, there is a possibility that the courts could rule in their favor. What happens? This law, as with most others of any complexity, includes a separability clause. That means, if the courts rule against any part of it, the entire law is not scrapped. The remainder remains.

Interestingly, the suit cites no case law or precedent. Why? Because there is none. Federal law overrules state law.

Under the commerce clause of the Constitution the government has broad, unchallenged power to regulate interstate commerce. Interstate commerce has historically been interpreted very broadly. Also, the right of the government to tax has been firmly established.

Even given the present makeup of the Court, there is almost no likelihood that the attorneys general can prevail with this suit. A few may prevail in their races for the governor’s seat in their state based on the publicity they will garner.

The solution, should the courts rule in their favor, is to offer the public option, or make a public program mandatory. All the former would do is offer a better deal at less cost by eliminating about 30% of the costs that unnecessary overhead represents. Making it mandatory simply means reducing the amount one pays for coverage and calling it a tax rather than a premium. The courts have already ruled that Social Security, Medicare, et al., are constitutional.

So, if they win, and their win brings a public option or Medicare-For-All, what have they won?

America’s Favorite Loon, Michelle Bachmann, or as she calls herself on her web site, Amaricas Congress Woman, has introduced a bill which calls the healthcare bill unconstitutional. If she can’t spell America’s correctly or punctuate it correctly or doesn’t know that Congresswoman is one word, her bill may need the services of an editor.

Were it anyone else, save Sarah, we would consider her to be doing this only for its symbolic effect. She, however, seems convinced that the bill will succeed. How she will attain majorities in either house no one can explain. Then, either the President must sign it or his veto must be overridden by a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress. I would be hesitant to put too much money on any of those possibilities.

Then we have the Republican leadership saying that the passage of this bill is the death knell of the Democratic Party. Before passage they were exhibiting great concern for the welfare of the Democrats (pun intended). Their solicitude was impressive and heartwarming. Despite their concern for the wellbeing of their compatriots they intend to take advantage of this misstep by the Democrats by running on the position of repealing the healthcare bill.

I can see their logic. The people will swarm to their standard in order to reinstate the bar by the insurance companies of preexisting conditions. Their support will be overwhelming for reimposition of annual and total limitations of coverage.

Kids up to the age of 26 want to be independent. They will flock to the sides of the Republicans freeing them from sharing their parents coverage. Geezers like me will truly appreciate their efforts if we don’t have to worry about what to do with all of our money. We can just luxuriate in the do-nut hole and let the drug companies do all of that worrying.

I think those cagey Republicans have discovered the magic talisman of electoral politics.

Silly suit? Of course. But look to the source. To paraphrase Forrest Gump, “Silly is as silly does.”

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites