(This was written originally as a comment, but is re-posted here)

At least our pols in Washington allow us to PRETEND we operate in a democracy. They go through the motions and try (Really, really try, they do! Honest!) to pass reforms that their owners don't like. It's just that - in the end - the Repubs (or the Blue Dogs, or the boogey man, or whoever) gets in the way and they then have to settle for what they can get, dang it!

How long do you suppose it is before our government simply quits with the pretext, incorporates in the Cayman Islands or some other tax haven, and becomes a legitimate business concern managing us all for fun and profit?

On a related note, my money sez that Christopher Dodd may be retiring, but Washington certainly hasn't seen the last of him. Watch him as he becomes one of the most highly sought lobbyists on the Hill. What a masterful piece of work, Mr. Dodd, and I'm sure your reward awaits. Champaign and backslaps all around, to be sure!

(Cue the music: "Happy Days Are Here Again" - played as a dirge.)

Last night, songwriter Chris Rea channeled for me the ghosts that have been haunting us all in the weeks since the Deepwater Horizon blew sky high and then sunk to the depths of the Gulf of Mexico, taking 11 men with her to its despoiled, watery grave.

I don't watch much television. I have especially avoided watching the news reports from the Gulf that show clips of the Deepwater Horizon exploding into hellfire and brimstone before collapsing into the sea. I likewise cannot bear to see video of the consequences of that horrific catastrophe as played out in the tidal flats and the bayous and the beaches and the oyster beds and the rest of our beautiful Gulf. There's only so much anger and sorrow I can accommodate at any one time.

I grow angry - nay, furious! - because so many of the disasters I could foresee on the horizon have now come together in this one senseless tragedy of epic proportions. Corporate greed, a failed energy policy, politicians in the pocket of campaign contributors, corrupt regulators, short-sighted consumers, arrogant Exceptionalism - all these and more expressions of our collective disease have triggered an environmental calamity that is as unprecedented and irreversible as it was predictable and preventable.

The gods are punishing us, and they have turned loose Satan himself, it seems, from the bowels of the earth to drive home their point.

Read more »

"This bill is short of what Congress should do, but it moves in the right direction, although it moves less aggressively than I would like to see it move." Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), after caving to pressure from Wall Street to cast the deciding vote.

Please inscribe the above quote on the headstone for today's Democratic Party. The translation reads "This is all the reform that Wall Street (or the Insurance Industry or our other corporate owners) would allow us to pass."

I want my Democratic Party back.

Maybe it starts with a movement that promises a boycott of ANY company that hires Chris Dodd as a lobbyist. If the bastard wants to feather his nest for his "retirement," then let him. Just make it plain to him that we are going to set it afire once he makes his move to lie down in it. It just might send a message to the rest of these asshats, reminding them who it is they are supposedly working for. (hint: WE the PEOPLE)

I WANT MY GOVERNMENT BACK! We NEED Campaign Finance Reform, and we need it now!

The dilemma, of course, is that we will get all the campaign finance reform that the corporate owners will allow; that we will perhaps "move in the right direction" at best. In this lies the most pernicious, existential threat we have ever faced in this Democratic Republic - something even more substantial than the most wild-eyed terrorist might inflict upon us.

President Obama recently announced his new Trade Policy in which he promises to double exports in five years and to create two million jobs.

It looks like a continuation of the globalization of our economy that gave us such stellar successes as NAFTA and CAFTA and other efforts to strengthen our domestic economy Wall Street.

The news of this initiative raise a few questions, however:

1.) Doubling exports in five years sounds highly ambitious given the success of exporting we have seen to date. Just how many jobs do we have left to export? Or do we now begin exporting workers to match them up with the jobs we've already exported?

2.) Creation of two million jobs sounds like an admirable goal. But in which country do "we" propose to create these jobs?

Just wunnerin', is all.

SleepinJeezus
Jobs Reporter
Dissociated Press
March 3, 2010


(Washington, DC) Two of the GOP's leading Jobs Reform advocates in Washington have joined forces in presenting a bi-partisan Jobs Bill that the Congressional Budget Office says could drastically reduce unemployment.

John Kyl (R-Uranus) and Jim Bunning (R-Mars) have submitted a comprehensive Jobs Bill they are calling "NAFTA-II." The proposed legislation builds upon the highly popular free trade agreement passed by the Democrats during the Clinton Administration.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) successfully mitigated our trade deficit by encouraging the export of jobs overseas in exchange for increased corporate profits that have strengthened our domestic economy. It is widely credited by economists with creating an extended run-up of stock prices and corporate profits unlike anything seen since the glory years leading up to the Great Depression.

Kyl and Bunning now call upon their Democrat counterparts to join with them to help further develop NAFTA as a means to tackle "our nearly intractable unemployment problem that threatens to undermine our economy."

Kyl and Bunning both spoke with reporters at a press conference convened at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce headquarters in Washington.

"In this last year, we have seen unemployment rise past 10% and stay there," said Kyl. "The numbers offer very little hope for the millions who try to find a job in this market and who instead lay around getting fat on unemployment compensation."

Kyl says that tax breaks for small businesses have had considerable positive effect on the small businessmen, but says we are still falling short on creating the number of jobs that are needed.

"What we are finding is that there are only so many jobs that can be created for barristas and sous chefs and work-at-home data entry technicians." say Kyl. "What we need instead are manufacturing jobs of the kind we used to have here."

Kyl points out that "It used to be that we could count on American workers to actually support themselves instead of relying upon the government to give them food stamps and rocking chair money. We need to get back to our principles and encourage our entrepreneurs to step forward and get these people back to work. NAFTA-II is created to assist our businesses as they once again put American workers back on the job in American-owned factories."

In releasing the two-page comprehensive NAFTA-II Jobs Bill plan, Kyl indicated that there are two main features that will reduce unemployment and strengthen our economy.

"First, we have included tax cuts to at last get our budget under control and reduce the Federal deficit." When asked which taxes would be cut, Kyl responded "All of them."

But it is NAFTA-II's second provision which promises to have the most significant impact on the economy and the deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office. And Kyl showed no lack of enthusiasm in introducing what is certainly a revolutionary approach to reducing high unemployment.

"With NAFTA, we successfully exported jobs overseas in an effort to streamline corporate profits. Labor costs were reduced exponentially, and our economy soared as the extra profits that were realized were redirected to investments in Credit Default Swaps and other creative instruments that provided great wealth to Americans on Wall Street."

"NAFTA-II will extend this successful trade policy by now exporting workers themselves overseas to once again gain employment in the manufacturing sector making the consumer goods we all know and love."

The plan allows for bus ticket reimbursement to allow for a worker and two family members to travel one-way to the maquiladoras on the border with Mexico. For those wishing to be exported to Taiwan, the Mariannas, or any of the other more distant jobs, the government will arrange for contracts to be negotiated wherein the workers can receive loans from their employers to cover all moving expenses. These loans will subsequently be paid from their wages.

"Many of these countries have a long history of indentured servitude," explains Kyl, "and such loan arrangements will help our American workers become more comfortable with the local culture and traditions. In addition, the American owners of these factories indicate that such loan programs greatly encourage worker retention, and so they graciously accept the cost of this program that will spare any tax dollars being spent."

NAFTA-II contains other provisions such as a three week extension of unemployment benefits that are designed to aid in the transition to offshore employment. In addition, Kyl proposes the establishment of a federal 401k entitlement program (managed by Goldman Sachs in conjunction with the U.S. Treasury) wherein these employees will be allowed "to contribute excess wages to a stock portfolio so they, too, can be full participants in this economy."

"We are prepared to invest in our workforce to get them back to work and to reduce the ravages of unemployment in this economy. As you can see, this program presents a win-win for all involved. It gets our workers back to work and off the dole. It creates an educated labor force for our American companies who complain now that foreign workers are unappreciative of the jobs they are being offered. And it will greatly reduce our deficit by eliminating the costs of unemployment and other socialist programs while ensuring a steady stream of goods and services are provided at low cost to our domestic economy."

In questions that followed, Rep. Bunning was asked if the Bill was indeed deficit neutral as indicated by the CBO.

"What?" he said. "Get off my lawn!" He then flipped the reporter the bird.

When GOP leadership was contacted later for their opinion of the proposed program, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Bunningville) said that "We of course are always in favor of anything that will cut taxes and reduce the deficit. As to whether we can support this specific legislation, our Republican rules of the Senate say we will have to first wait and see if Obama comes out in favor of it or not. I hope he opposes it so we can get fully behind the effort."

In Josh Marshall's back-and-forth with The National Review's writers Thiessen and McCarthy, Marshall credits McCarthy for making a more coherent argument in favor of trying the "Underwear Bomber" in a military tribunal rather than in a civilian court.

Theissen argues in favor of a military tribunal for Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and Marshall rightly discounts it for reason that Thiessen attempts to make a distinction between the Underwear Bomber and the Shoe Bomber where no such distinction exists.  If our system of civilian justice was capable of serving our needs in the Reid case, then it most assuredly should be available to us in the case of Abdulmutallab. Thiessen is shown to simply be stretching the facts and his rhetoric to match GOP talking points and thus ignominiously achieve nothing more than an attempt to score political advantage from this terrorist act against the United States.

Marshall then shows that McCarthy takes a more rhetorically defensible tack in first asserting that we were wrong in trying Reid in a civilian court.
 

"This is all a perfectly consistent, reasonable argument. Not one I agree with, I think, for a number of different reasons. But still one that can stand on its own two feet and have its tires kicked without toppling or falling apart. What you really can't do is claim that the Reid decision was the right one but that Abdulmutallab has to be treated differently -- or that President Bush didn't have the ability to treat Reid differently than he did. The whole question can be smashed to pieces, which McCarthy clearly gets, if you're just willing to say: Bush made a mistake. But that seems to be beyond Thiessen's reach."

Marshall correctly identifies the distinction between Thiessen's intellectual cowardice and the more defensible argument presented by McCarthy. But Marshall's troubling waffle ("I think") about the depth of his opposition to McCarthy's argument is itself quite troubling.

Read more »

Perhaps creative marketing is the answer to address the separate payment contortions now apparently made necessary to receive abortion coverage from our insurance companies.

Under this present proposal, methinks if I was an insurance company looking to capture over 50% of the market I would offer a health insurance package that included abortion coverage as a "free bonus" (perhaps "for anyone who signs up before Midnight, 2050! Operators are waiting for your call!") 

I would also offer the "free bonus" abortion coverage for men and for Catholic Priests, with maybe an additional "enticement": "For you men - especially you Ordained Men of the Cloth! - act today and receive - in addition to this abortion coverage - free pregnancy coverage that includes 100% reimbursement for all services provided relative to your next pregnancy!"

As much as I detest this "Health Insurance Industry Profit Enhancement & Protection Act" that has been presented in place of legitimate Health Care Reform, I will nevertheless be compelled to purchase product from these private industry enterprises to gain health care coverage. Given this unfortunate reality, I would be inclined to respond favorably to such a "free market" opportunity to stick it in the eye of those religious zealots who would now abort health care reform altogether to further promote their political agenda. 

Best of all, it would provide opportunity for women to acquire abortion coverage without the onerous task of writing separate checks to secure their right to an abortion should such a medical procedure ever be deemed necessary in consultation with her physician. 
---------------------------

On a related note: I would suggest that the next Member of Congress who receives a visit from a lobbying contingent of the Council of Bishops present to these same bishops a bill for all the past taxes that were not paid by the Catholic Church in accordance with their tax-exempt status. If they wish to play in the political arena they should be compelled to pay the price of admission, which is the taxes paid by the rest of us.

Jim Sleeper's recent post ("A Republic If You Can Keep It") prompted a vigorous discussion comparing FDR and his New Deal to the actions (or lack thereof) of our present President in addressing this failed economy. This comment thread within the post took a particular look at the role of labor and the rabble and the peasants in triggering the New Deal while considering the relative lack of power these constituencies have today to initiate such a response to the agony experienced by American families. In asking your indulgence, I decided to extend this discussion to this separate blog post to expand upon the thoughts expressed within that thread.

It cannot be reasonably argued that FDR instituted the New Deal solely out of some kind of beneficent concern for the working class who were suffering so extremely in the first throes of the Great Depression. And it is preposterous to expect Barack Obama will champion a recovery that focuses on alleviating the pain felt by the working class in today's "Great Recession" merely as a function of his supposed empathy and concern for our suffering.

FDR in fact acted primarily out of fear that the social fabric of this country was about to be torn asunder as workers took to the streets in rallies and actions that threatened anarchy and insurrection if the injustices of the capitalist system that was so repressive at the time were not addressed. It can be expected that Obama will likewise be moved to action only when he and his capitalist owners come to realize that the cost of doing nothing exceeds the value of simply consolidating the gains that this recession has provided for the investor class.

(Just as an aside on the latter point regarding capitalist gains, look at recent announcements that Harley Davidson workers in PA had to agree to major contract concessions to keep their jobs from moving to KY. Or Mercury Marine workers in WI having to take massive cuts in wages and benefits to keep their jobs from moving to OK. These are only a couple examples of ways in which this recession is manipulated to further increase the disparity of wealth between the investor and working classes, with many other examples to be found. Perhaps none is so transparent as the taxpayer underwriting bad mortgages, thus guaranteeing them for the banks, while the banks continue foreclosing on homeowners without any attempt to reorganize the terms of the mortgages to reasonable, yet still profitable, terms.)

It is also preposterous to pretend that the answer to gaining economic justice and security rests in petitioning our politicians to "lead" us into the legislative promised land. The Halls of Congress are not where the power of the workers has ever resided, especially relative to the big money and the clout flourished by the capitalists and their agents on K Street. FDR, after all, did not act out of concern that he might not otherwise get the Wobblies endorsement for his next reelection campaign. The "politics" of the time, if you will, were instead much more visceral. There was a demand for justice that would not be denied, and there was hell to pay for whosoever might deign to stand in the way of the workers who had aptly defined the enemy - corporate capitalists - and who were willing to fight to gain their righteous place in this economy.

The capitalists in control folded under the challenge they confronted from the workers in the '30's, and the result was a whole "alphabet soup" of programs called the New Deal that provided employment and security for the working class.

But the capitalists took a few lessons from the experience as well, and the decades since have seen a concerted effort to castrate and marginalize the workers to ensure they never wielded such clout again. Union busting and globalization have been only two such efforts that have strengthened the capitalist position and have left workers standing hat-in-hand awaiting whatever largesse the Wall Street crowd deigns to offer. A concerted effort to demonize anything that empowers workers as "socialistic" has also been a major component of an active PR campaign to encourage workers and the middle class to in fact rally against their own economic interest.

Irresponsible Globalization of this economy and the intense concentration of wealth in the investor class has led to near total marginalization of the workers. We are simply considered - if at all - as a function of the ledger to be managed for its cost impact on the corporate bottom line. As an example of just how crazy this kind of thought has progressed, consider the whole move toward "Rebalancing" as discussed recently at the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh.

Rebalancing considers the fact that the U.S. worker/consumer has been pretty much exhausted; can no longer be depended upon to purchase the goods that the capitalists have to sell. Their answer? Abandon the U.S. market and develop China's consumer economy to keep this capitalist show on the road. This was most plainly - and quite horrifically - outlined by Zanny Minton Beddoes, economics editor for The Economist Magazine,in her appearance on NPR's On Point Radio program on the eve of the Pittsburgh Summit (begins @1:25, but the entire program is worth a listen):

"For the recovery to be sustainable and as strong as possible, it has to be based on a different composition of spending in the world. Before the crisis, the U.S. consumer - the over-extended U.S. consumer - was the kind of source for demand for a large chunk of the rest of the world. Chinese exported to us.

"Now, the U.S. consumer is not going to play that role in the future. There's been a huge loss of wealth in the country. People are not going to spend as they used to spend. So in order for the global economy to grow - even moderately - we have to find different sources of spending.

"And that's what this 'rebalancing' means. It means rebalancing away from reliance upon the U.S. consumer toward, for example, greater reliance on China so Chinese spend more at home..."

The Wobblies would recognize such a discussion to be the call to arms that it is to join the class warfare that has long been visited upon us by the Wall Street crowd. And it wouldn't be satisfied in a reliance upon elected pols in Washington to somehow lead us on a legislative battlefield. Civil insurrection and even anarchy would instead be the threat that these pols would confront, and they would be acting out of fear in correcting the balance of power within the economy, not out of some kind of magnanimity.

No, Mother Jones and Joe Hill would not have been registered as lobbyists in Washington. And the revolution that is now required to gain economic justice will involve standing up in solidarity to say this will not stand. As it is, we now present little threat to the ownership class. And should there be any doubt of that, consider who it is Obama turned to when it became necessary to repair this economy. It wasn't the American worker out of consideration for the function we perform in building a thriving, sustainable economy. Instead, Obama turned the repair of this economy over to the Wall Street goons who got us into this mess in the first place. And their solution is more of the same, thus consolidating and even improving upon their ill-gotten gains while accelerating the decline of wealth and standing of the worker in this economy.

"Workers of the World, Unite!" It is time to once again join forces with our neighbors and parlay our mutual pain and anxiety into a strong demand for social justice. We can no longer afford the luxury of hoping others in Washington or elsewhere will serve our interests. Instead, we must recognize that Class Warfare is indeed a reality, and the time has come to identify the enemy and take the fight to them.

Justice will be served, but only if we insist upon it by mustering all the collective force we can to stand up to the wealth and the power accumulated by the other side.

Which side are you on? Glory, Hallelujah!