Co-opted Democrats

In a column in The Washington Post on Friday, Bill Gross, who runs the giant bond-trading firm Pimco, lashed out at Republicans and “co-opted Democrats” for setting aside widely accepted economic theory.

“An anti-Keynesian, budget-balancing immediacy imparts a constrictive noose around whatever demand remains alive and kicking,” he wrote. “Washington hassles over debt ceilings instead of job creation in the mistaken belief that a balanced budget will produce a balanced economy. It will not.”

For Your Convenience:

• Contact the Broadcast Media
• Contact the US Senate
• Contact the House of Representatives

Sources:

Talking Point: US Government Debt and Jobs

Job, Jobs, Where are the Jobs?

The talking point is simple. Average Americans are not spending money, and the economy is stalled, because they don't have much money. It's no use giving tax breaks and low interest rates to product manufacturers, because the people who would normally buy their products don't have money. People need jobs.

It is debatable whether the American public is responsible for 70% of domestic spending on goods and services, but by sheer number their spending potential is huge. They might make up 70% of domestic spending if they had money to spend, but they don't have good jobs.

Why not? Government policies over the past several decades, supply-side (trickle-down) tax policies and corporate globalization policies, have created a record wealth gap. A study by three Citigroup analysts indicates that the top 1% of Americans earn as much annual income as the bottom 60% and the top 1% possess as much wealth as the bottom 90% of Americans. The analysts concluded “economic growth [in the US] is powered by and largely consumed by the wealthy few.” [1] This is borne out by recent statistics showing that growth in domestic product sales have declined at discount stores and have grown in high-end stores and luxury products.

The Solution:

The government needs to set policies to put money in the pockets of average Americans, and I'm not talking about a $600 check; it needs to be tens of thousands per year, which simply put means temporarily creating jobs. The money for these jobs needs to come from the places that it is being hoarded: The richest 1% of Americans and transnational corporations who have benefited greatly from government policies over the past few decades.

After people have had government-sponsored jobs for several years, they will have the money to buy more products and services they need. This will create a market for private sector products and, in turn, support more jobs in the private sector. Eventually, the government can get out of business of job creation.

And yes, these jobs will require more government revenue in the near-term, but will also generate new revenues. In the long run, we'll be more likely able to pay down the US Government debt.

Agree? Let policy makers know:

• Contact the Broadcast Media
• Contact the US Senate
• Contact the House of Representatives

Update: Listen to a professional, Bill Gross, founder and co-chief investment officer of the investment management firm Pimco. "America’s debt is not its biggest problem", Washington Post, August 10, 2011.

Sources:

1. Can the Middle Class be Saved? Atlantic Monthly, September, 2011.

Democrats Have Little Legitimacy

Some people wonder why others, like me, occasionally say there's little difference between Republicans and Democrats. Both parties have been captured by the corporate scourge blanketing the world. Below is an example reported on Democracy Now.

Study: Lawmakers Invest $196M in Pentagon Contractors

A new study shows members of Congress have collectively invested as much $196 million in military companies under contract with the Pentagon. The Center for Responsive Politics says the holdings could pose a conflict of interest for lawmakers deciding on spending for the Iraq war. More Republicans had military investments than Democrats, but Democrats have more money at stake. The highest stakeholder is Democratic Senator John Kerry. Kerry made at least $2.6 million from his investments between 2004 and 2006. He has up to $38 million invested in companies doing business with the Pentagon.

Graphic Credit: RedRainFlies

Romney: Democrats Surrender to Terror

When announcing the termination of his presidential campaign, Mitt Romney intimated that a Democrat Party president would be a "surrender to terror."

If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

Sounds like Karl Rove, and the rabid right, was whispering in Romney's ear.

Rightwing Propaganda

Sources:

Associated Press, Romney suspends presidential campaign, LIZ SIDOTI, February 7, 2008.

No-Legislation Alternative to End the Iraq War

It's a simple premise: Don't send any legislation on funding the Iraq war to Bush, and he can't veto it. It's the no-legislation option, and the Democrats have the power to do it.

The Democrats, who seem to believe the establishment media matters, repeat the false logic that "funding the war" equals "funding the troops." These are only words that serve as a cover. They want to give the impression of "trying," but don't really want to succeed in asserting their power to influence the Iraq war.

The Democrats do not want to take any meaningful action on the Iraq war for fear they will be blamed for the outcome, which will be chaos in the near term. The Democrats have power now. They simply don't want to use it in regard to the Iraq war until after the 2008 election. THEN, the Democratic Party establishment's dilemma will be, "should we use our power and risk the 2012 second term?"

More Make Believe from the Democrats: Benchmarks by which to Blame the Iraqis

Democrats seem to understand that they have public support to extract the US from Iraq. They're getting some good press today with Associated Press reporting, "Democrats not backing down on Iraq Bill." They also seem to be considering Congressman John Murtha's idea of limiting the duration of funding through July, contingent on "benchmarks" that the Iraqi government is to achieve.

It's the later part that is generally suspect. True enough that Iraqi's aren't showing the "resolve" necessary to solve the "problems" in Iraq. But the unraveling of Iraq's society is due predominantly to US policies. Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin knew in advance we were going to war on false pretenses, and now hides behind false notions that he was sworn to secrecy and couldn't divulge that fact:

I was angry about it. [But] frankly, I couldn't do much about it because, in the intelligence committee, we are sworn to secrecy." Durbin went on to say "We can't walk outside the door and say the statement made yesterday by the White House is in direct contradiction to classified information that is being given to this Congress.

That, as we all know, is BS. Durbin is also sworn to protect the Constitution against all foes, external and internal. Ray MacGovern, who's getting a lot of air play on this blog reacted to the Durbin blather as follows:

Classification is to protect sources and methods. It’s not to protect presidents, OK? And so, he should have come out and said, “Look, this is not what I’m hearing in the Intelligence Committee. Hold the presses. We’re not going to go to war until I get satisfaction.” He didn’t do that.

And now we're in a war, and Iraq is taking the brunt of it, and these same Democratic politicians are saying Iraq needs to meet benchmarks? As predicted predicted by Robert Fisk and Gary Younge, the US Iraq exit strategy is going to be "Blame the Iraqis." "Oops. They didn't meet their benchmarks for resolving their problems. We gotta go. Sorree." It's pathetic. More make believe by the Democrats.

Sources:

References to Durbin and McGovern from DemocracyNow, May 1, 2007.

misspellings: Durban, bench mark, ray macgovern, secracy
~

Do the Democrats Want their Iraq Legislation to "Succeed"?

The Democrat's legislation on Iraq funding exemplifies the adage that politics is the art of the possible. The non-binding, do litte or nothing legislation is summed up by the Associated Press as:

Troops could remain in Iraq after the 2008 date but only for limited non-combat missions, including counter terrorism operations and training Iraqi forces.

In other words, it's not a proposal to withdraw troops, because everyone knows that "counter terrorism operations" can mean anything (typically a dirty war), and that "training Iraqi forces" includes joining them in the field. Recall the Vietnamization policy of training South Vietnamese began in 1969 and US troops didn't finally leave until 1973 or 1975 depending on what you mean by "leave" (See Timeline).

Ironically, we are hearing reports from the McClatchy newspapers, via DemocracyNow! that:

the U.S. military has quietly made a major policy shift in the war. Military planners have abandoned the idea that training Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon. The military believes that U.S. troops will have to secure the country largely on its own. The Pentagon has not announced the change but evidence has been building for months that training Iraqi troops is no longer the focus of U.S. policy.

Difficult to know what to make of that...

... and by now everyone has also pondered the thoughts that 1) "enduring" US bases will remain in Iraq (enduring is a new term being used by the US government in place of "permanent"), and 2) Bush and the oil men are seeing victory in Iraq in the form of the immanent petroleum legislation pending in the Iraqi Parliament.

My prediction of when the US will leave Iraq is about six years from now, based on comparing the Vietnam War timeline with the Iraq War timeline. I'm not sure I believe the prediction myself, but the timeline comparison is interesting.

Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern has his own predictions. On the April 23, 2007 Flashpoints radio program, McGovern said not to worry about "enduring" US military bases. "We may be able to have permanent military bases for a year or two, it's not going to be possible to keep them. It's just not possible in this day and age to invade an occupy a country the size of Iraq with 140,000, or if you put in 500,000 it still wouldn't work." He cites 1.3 billion "ticked off" Muslims, porous boarders, General Petraus's book on counter insurgency.

We keep hearing the Democrats say that this is Bush's war. True, politics is the art of the possible. But, if McGovern's prediction is right, that the situation will unravel on its own, the Democrats probably don't want their withdrawl proposal to "succeed." If they got their way, then, when the whole thing unravels, the right wing noise machine, and compliant corporate media, will pin the blame on the Democrats.

Prediction: Quagmire conditions in Iraq will continue for a long time.

Sources:

1. Associated Press, April 25, 2007, Democrats predict they can win Iraq vote

2. DemocracyNow! Headlines for April 20, 2007

3. Flashpoints Radio, April 23, 2007.
~


~

Stop Blaming the Iraqis for US Crimes Against Peace

.
The right wing noise machine has gotten to a lot of people. The machine wants us to believe Iraqis are barbarians, and despite US good will, they are destined to fight with each other. This is the foundation of the US exit strategy; "It's OK to abandon primitive, dark-skinned Arabs that don't want democracy. We tried, but these uncivilized people don't appreciate our sacrifices."

No mention of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) undermining Iraq's civil and security structure, no mention of the CPA opening Iraq's economy to looting by transnational corporations (as if there could be fair competition when 12-years of sanctions made Iraqi company's weak), no mention that the US created a power vacuum, no mention that Ambassador Negroponte and Colonel James Steele introduced the Salvadoran death squad model in Iraq, no mention that the US aggressive war of choice triggered this chaos and constitutes a crime against peace.

No mention that the US is responsible for the chaos and for reparations to Iraq, but that the US is in such deep debt that it will be hard to convince US tax payers to fund reparations. Instead, the so-called "leaders" on both sides of the political spectrum would have us believe that the Iraqis are to blame, so we don't owe them anything.

My experience in Washington suggests that the heads of most people in Washington are spinning with day-to-day deadlines. They have not stopped to think about what I've written above. If they took the time, they might realize that imposing benchmarks on the Iraqis is unfair. Granted, the Iraqis must take the lead in solving the problems facing them; however, the US is responsible for creating many of the problems and is thus responsible for the financial support to enable a process to resolve them.

Update: Unfortunately, the "blame-the-Iraqi" framing of reality has been adopted by the Democratic leadership: "Meet our benchmarks or else."

During the Nuremberg trials, the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, stated:

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

[2]

In other words, Bush and the US citizens are responsible for "the accumulated evil of the whole."
~

No Honeymoon with the Democrats

Steve Benen, of the Carpetbagger Report, wrote a good critique showing there was "No Honeymoon" between CNN and Democrats even before Democrats took power.

It stuck me as paradox. I agree with Benen's critique, yet I also feel it's appropriate that there be "No Honeymoon with Democrats." I feel that the stakes are so high, and the issues are so time-sensitive and fluid, we need to hold their feet to the fire immediately. I'll say a bit more on this after addressing the apparent paradox.

Honeymoons are defined between two amicable partners who are celebrating a union. So, it isn't appropriate to apply the term to the Democratic leadership and the corporate media. Upon reflection, I was agreeing with the Carpetbagger's critique of CNN's misuse of their FCC license, not the notion of a truncated honeymoon. Yet there's nothing new in Benen's critique, just another example of many. Cable TV's abuses of their privilages are actually far worse than most people think, as documented in Jeff Cohen's "Cable News Confidential."

The paradox is resolved by recognizing that Cable TV and the Democratic leadership don't have a relationship that could involve a honeymoon; however, the voting public, who helped bring the Democrats to power, could have a honeymoon.

Some people, about 70 activists including Cindy Sheehan who shouted down Democrat Rahm Emanuel the day Democrats took power, feel "no" honeymoon is appropriate at this time. An aside, I felt Barbara O’Brien, of Mahablog, carried on longer than necessary questioning the wisdom of Cindy Sheehan's demonstration directed toward Emanuel. Scroll Down to see the Thread. My primary criticism of O'Brien's perspective, that Sheehan's tactics were unconstructive, is that Sheehan is a symbol defined in great part by the corporate media. Focusing a critique on Sheehan plays into the corporate media framing of the peace movement, and isn't fair to Sheehan.

Back to the subject of justifying "No Honeymoon with Democrats." I'll be brief, recognizing more could be said. First, the Democratic leadership are part of the Discredited American Political Elite. Our society is sick and disfunctional. Democrats operate in a context of disfunction so deeply rooted in our culture that even good progressives are guilty of its perpetuation. We need to do everything we can to splash cold water on our collective faces and start breaking out of the grip of this downward spiral.

Second, we know the Democrats have increadible pressure from the commercial sector of society. We need to overcome that with pressure from the unwashed masses. The governing system is geared toward the interests of the plutocrats. I can say this having worked on the inside. Those on the inside absolutely need help from those on the outside. The Democratic leadership doesn't need a frigg'n honeymoon. Democratic politicians need the people to rise up and give them political cover. This will enable the politicians to take bold actions.

To that end, my recent essays have ended with contact links to Congress and the commercial mass media outlets. I'll continue that pattern here:

Congressional Contacts:

Write the US House of Representatives
Write the US Senate

Then, voice the same opinion to local and national media outlets.

Media Contacts:

Write the Major Media Outlets
.

We're Heading for Surge and Iran Unless the Public Speaks Out

Last night as I watched the president's address, I took a couple notes.

Seek out networks in Iran and Syria

Limited diplomacy surge with Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, omitting Iran and Syria.

Glen Greenwald was struck by the same point. He urges everyone to pay close attention to Bush's intentions toward Iran in the days and months ahead. Aside from Bush's argument of "disrupting networks" and pre-empting potential Iranian nuclear ambitions, there is pressure to attack Iran.

In short, Busch can't continue occupying Iraq, because it incites unacceptable violent resistance. Bush can't leave, because his failed mission would increase Iran's power in the region with great influence over a Shia-dominated Iraq. So, where does this leave him? It leaves him with the option of attacking Iran to weaken that nation before leaving Iraq. Unfortunately, the Democrats face the same reality.

Another point struck me:

Bush committed 4,000 more troops to Anbar Province.

My count was 20,000 in Baghdad and 4,000, but today's papers cited 21,500. I had expected Bush to focus solely on Baghdad, but he at least has the "sense" to recognize the troubles extend beyond Baghdad.

Another point struck me:

Capital investment funding for jobs

Bush been one step behind at every turn of this war. He commits more troops, when it's too late. He adopts a socialist job-creation policy, when it's too late. It's too late for reconstruction projects because it has become too dangerous to do the work. How long will it be until we hear "A bomb blast ripped through a line of people applying for jobs....." "The Iraqis were killed by small arms fire while working on a....." "A mini bus with eight Iraqi reconstruction workers was riddled with gun fire...." as if this isn't already happening.

Another political reality is that the Democrats have nothing to gain from withdrawing support for a troop surge. If Democrats withdraw funds and authority for troops, they can be blamed for what ever happens there after. Thus, it's in their political interest to let Bush have enough surge-rope with which to hang himself.

Given these "realities," the US is almost certain to surge the troops, and attack Iran, beyond the covert military operations already underway in Iran.

The only way to avoid this is for the US public to demonstrate a historically high amplitude of opposition to these two acts. The first step is for everyone concerned to immediately write and call their elected officials. I've done it, and it feels good to talk to a human. Ask them if they're receiving similar calls. If so, ask from which side of the issue they're receiving more calls.

Congressional Contacts:

Write the US House of Representatives
Write the US Senate

Then, voice the same opinion to local and national media outlets.

Media Contacts:

Write the Major Media Outlets
.