Showing posts with label Congressional Uselessness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congressional Uselessness. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 1, 2014

Let Us Reason Together -- New Year Edition (2)



The Obamacare Clusterfuck is perhaps the second most media-watched and driven story of 2013, but the realities of it will only start hitting home this year (Happy New Year!!!), and as they do, the horror of it all is liable to mount exponentially. Which is not to say that things were so much better Before Obamacare. They weren't. For millions, they were worse. Now, for other millions they're getting worse.

First of all, this thing costs a fortune in diamonds, rubies, emeralds and pearls to deliver essentially nothing more than "peace of mind." That is to say, those who get "insurance" through this boondoggle will receive in return the joy of knowing they have "insurance" that pays for approximately nothing until they have already spent every dime they have or are ever likely to have; and the joy of it is that hundreds and hundreds of dollars a month go to the "insurance" companies for each and every one of these essentially worthless policies, month in and month out, year in and year out. It's one of the most astonishing domestic scams ever pulled on the public of this country, and everyone involved in its creation and implementation knew exactly what they were doing.

As Americans recognize just what a scam this is, I wonder what sort of fallout there will be.

By now everyone knows that the correct, final and only real answer to the health care issue in this country is what eventually came to be called "Medicare for All." In other words, everyone qualifies for Medicare the instant they are born, and they never lose it throughout their lives. If they or their parents wish them to have additional coverage, they are free to obtain it on the insurance market, but at the very least they will be covered for most medical expenses from the time they are born until they die. This is not rocket science. It's simple, straightforward, and to the point.

We are told over and over again that such a thing is "politically impossible," but we're never told why. We're just supposed to believe there is no way in hell that We, the Rabble, will ever get out from under the insurance industry yoke, so better just get over it.

Once the full impact -- and expense to the individual -- of Obamacare starts hitting home, I doubt our political class, for once in their useless lives, will be able to resist the backlash, but you never know.

They say that 2014 could well result in a worse "shellacking" for Dems than 2010 did. Could be. On the other hand, the whole political class needs to be shellacked this election year, from top to bottom, red and blue alike, as do their pestiferous funders and owners. We may reach the tipping point.

Happy New Year.

Saturday, October 19, 2013

On the Potential Disintegration of the Republican Party

Ordinarily I don't comment on the Republican Party and its antics much because to do so -- as almost all the so-called "lefty" blogosphere has been doing for many long years, obsessively -- is to highlight their policies, programs and memes, and subconsciously to promote them. It's a very effective form of propaganda when your supposed opponents focus on almost nothing but what you and your party are doing. Markos, Arianna, Aravosis, Digby and Jane among others have long been pretty nearly totally obsessed with spreading the Republican Party message for as long as they have been on the intertubes. Strange, isn't it?

But recent events (oh, you know what they are) have led to the practically universal belief that the Republicans are splitting apart -- thanks to the TeaBaggers and their obsessions -- and that by this time some year soon, there won't be a Republican Party any more.

Years ago, I advocated for RICOing the bastards, because I saw the Rs as a criminal enterprise, bent on war and bloodshed around the world and pillage and plunder at home. Oh my, the reaction was fierce and fast:
"You can't DO that!!! The Republicans are NECESSARY!!!! If any political party should be destroyed it's the DEMOCRATS!!!!" Etc.
And this went on for quite some time. The issue was ultimately focused on that last bit: literally destroying the Democratic Party by infiltration, subversion, and when needed, scandal and prosecution.

Thursday, October 17, 2013

The Correct Understanding of What The Debt Crisis Crisis is All About

Via WSWS:

US budget deal sets stage for intensified assault on social programs

By Andrei Damon and Barry Grey
17 October 2013
The bill passed by Congress late Wednesday reopening the federal government and temporarily lifting the debt ceiling establishes the modus operandi for a bipartisan deal to deepen cuts in social spending and initiate an historic attack on the core social programs dating from the New Deal and Great Society periods—Social Security and Medicare.


The WSWS needs your support!

Your donations go directly to financing, improving, and expanding the web site.
Donate


The outcome of the 16-day government shutdown and threat of a US default was entirely predictable, following the pattern set in previous artificially created budget and debt crises in 2010, 2011 and 2012. Once again, the most right-wing elements in the Republican Party took the initiative and set the tone for a shift further to the right by the entire political establishment.
Behind the appearance of partisan gridlock and mutual recrimination, the crisis provided the means for the Obama administration and the Democratic Party to move ahead with their own agenda of savage cuts in social programs upon which tens of millions of working people depend. To the extent there was a conflict, it was over means and tactics, not goals. At issue was how best to escalate the onslaught against the working class.
The Democratic-controlled Senate voted 81 to 18 to accept a deal that raises the debt ceiling through February 7, 2014 and funds the operations of the federal government until January 15. The bill mandates the formation of a conference committee headed by the chairs of the budget committees in the Senate and House to forge a bipartisan budget agreement by mid-December that will reduce the deficit and the national debt. This is to be achieved by implementing long-term “reforms” in basic entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and extending cuts in “discretionary” social programs such as education, housing, nutrition, the environment, health and safety and infrastructure maintenance.
At the same time, both the White House and congressional Republicans are insisting that any budget agreement include sweeping cuts in corporate tax rates.
Later Wednesday evening, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed the bill by a vote of 285 to 144, with 87 Republicans joining all 198 Democrats in voting to approve. President Obama signed the bill into law early Thursday morning.
Significantly, the bill extends the automatic across-the-board “sequester” cuts that began last March into the new year. This means the $85 billion in cuts enacted in 2013 will not be restored and the budget negotiations in the coming weeks will take as their starting point the $1 trillion in cuts over the next eight years mandated by the sequestration process. It is to be expected that the Democrats will, in the name of “ending” or “reforming” sequestration, seek to continue the cuts in discretionary social programs while restoring funding for the military, the intelligence agencies and the Homeland Security Department.
Obama has already made it clear that he favors unprecedented cuts in Medicare and Social Security, including raising the eligibility age and introducing means testing for Medicare and slashing cost-of-living increases for Social Security beneficiaries.

More at the link.

And so it goes. No matter what, We the Rabble get screwed.


Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Armageddon Delayed

Or so it seems. The Congress is still styling for the cameras, but for all intents and purposes, the latest Debt Crisis Crisis is put off for another few months, the government will limp along somehow on austerity rations thanks to the continuing sequester, and Football will once again become the highlight of the season.

The attempt to fund government services one by one depending on their notoriety or popularity didn't get very far, but I have no doubt the tactic will be revived sooner rather than later. And we'll see the "reorganization" of government that the Kochs and all the other plutocrats and mountebanks have been angling for.

Sigh.

We did see sandhill cranes wheeling in the sky a little north of our place today, so there is that.

Monday, October 14, 2013

'Money for Nothin' and Your Chicks for Free'

 


When the Default comes -- which may be this week, maybe next -- some of the Highest of the Mighty will be rolling in money, more money than they ever imagined was possible back in the '80's when Greed turned into their religion.

They've commodified everything in the interim, including what passes for the US Government, and they fully intend to take advantage of the looming Default. Shorting is one of the biggest money makers there is.

What the rest of us lose in the process is none of their concern, how does the old song go? "It's your misfortune and none of my own?" Something like that. That's their world. Take whatever they can grab from anyone who doesn't get out of their way fast enough. They've been stealing from one another for years, now it's time to steal everything that's left from the rest of us.

The Default, along with the continuing Shutdown, has already had the effect of reprioritizing government function and spending, and the way it works is, there's no going back. We're on a different path than we were. Permanently.

"It's Your Misfortune and None of My Own..."

"I want my, I want my, I want my.... MTV... Boo-ah, boo-ah."

Saturday, October 12, 2013

Why Did The Rs Drop the 'Defund Obamacare' Ransom Demand?

No doubt their insurance industry paymasters told them to desist. Or they never intended to follow through on it in any case, it was just red-meat for their ravening base.

Look, Obamacare is practically pure hyper-conservative Heritage Foundation Neo-liberal profit preservation, intended to bulk and perpetuate the profits of the insurance industry, to force purchase of insurance by the multitudes of uninsured, and to place the burden of health care costs squarely on the consumer.

It is neither a universal health care coverage scheme -- there will still be 20-30 million uninsured even with full implementation -- nor is it in any way intended to reduce health care costs or improve health care outcomes.

It is primarily a means of ensuring profits -- forever -- to favored sectors of the industry.

In that, it is perfectly shameful.

But as so many have declared, "It's better than nothing."

Well, maybe. We'll see.

Meanwhile, there could hardly be a more "Republican" version of so-called health care reform, so the whole notion that the Rs would actually repeal it or defund it was absurd. If anything, what they will do -- probably with the connivance of the Dems -- is defund the premium subsidies so that only a very few will qualify. This is not unlike the elimination of community clinics.

The point is to make it slightly less difficult than it was to obtain health insurance -- and to boost the cost to consumers for insurance as far as possible while requiring purchase.

There's an internal logic to the shameful scheme.

But there was never any intention by the Rs to actually interfere with it. No, they just want to ensure that its implementation is as cruel as possible.

It is their way.


Monday, October 7, 2013

Regarding the House Gerrymander

It's been pointed out many times lately that the TeaBaggers in the House are running the show because they are all in safe seats and nothing at all can dislodge them short of revolution -- something that's not going to happen, at least not from the left.

Their districts were gerrymandered by Republican legislatures following the 2010 census; at this point, there's no way to rearrange the district boundaries until after the 2020 census. Isn't that special?

But the political failure, which isn't generally noted, goes back to the 2010 election, not the census, in which the Democrats basically ceded state level and many local level elections by not contesting seats or not contesting them vigorously (like funding Democratic candidates). This was one of the starkest signs that the Dems -- who had gained such majorities in the 2008 elections -- were simply giving up.

We may want to consider one day why the Big Wigs and Pooh-Bahs of the Party did this. From my perspective, it was a calculated and deliberate move, with full knowledge aforethought what it would lead to -- exactly where we are, with a government shutdown and looming federal government debt default, both engineered and implemented for one main reason: to have the ability and wherewithal and reason to "restructure" government along the lines of and in the interests of the corporate owners and rulers.

This is the End Game of the sequence of actions that became clear when the Supreme Court lawlessly intervened in the election of 2000, following, of course, the ridiculous spectacle of the Clinton Impeachment.

The High-level Dems in my view threw the election of 2010 for the purpose of enabling the Rs to manage their minority take-over gambit as smoothly as possible -- and as soon as they were able.

Here we are.

Friday, October 4, 2013

Furloughed

New Mexico relies heavily on Federal spending, and before the Shutdown, there was a lot of speculation about how bad it was going to be. Of course, being out in the Empty Quarter as we are, it doesn't seem like the Feds are either welcome or ever-present, but then there is an Air Force base just over the spine of the mountains to the west, and we hear that almost all their civilian employees are furloughed, and the essential civilians are not being paid. I guess the uniformed personnel are being paid, though, so that's good. I guess.

IHS is operating, they say, but with a skeletal staff, and with many routine services unavailable. The Indian Health clinics will continue to operate until the Service runs out of money to pay them, and then... who knows? They have contingency plans in place and ready to go. It's not as if health care is readily available to rural residents of New Mexico in any case.

Bosque del Apache is closed -- well, anything you might need there, like the visitors center and such, is closed, but you can still drive through much of it. They're getting ready for the Crane Festival in November, but the Shutdown has made it difficult to do preparation work.

Trinity Site has announced the cancellation of their October Opening, one of only two Openings they have a year, so thousands of people from all over the world who were intending to make pilgrimage to the site of the first nuclear bomb explosion will have to make other plans. Oh well.

It's not really clear how the nuclear labs are faring, but I'm sure the furloughed employees are pretty antsy about their projects and all. On the one hand, putting some of those projects on hold might be a good thing for all mankind as they say; on the other hand, the labs are not exclusively dedicated to blowing shit up. So there is something to ponder there...

IAIA is canceling/postponing some of its scheduled programs apparently due to the Shutdown; but there have been financial problems for some time thanks to the Sequester as well. The Sequester has sort of faded into the background of consciousness, but there are real and ongoing consequences from it as well.

Chaco Canyon is closed. As are all the other National Monuments in New Mexico. We were planning on going to a Night Sky Party in Chaco Canyon this October, but maybe not. Well, I'm sure one can still drive that washboard dirt road out to Chaco, maybe even make it to the edge of the Monument (I believe there is a gate where the dirt road changes to pavement at the entrance) and so see the stars from there, but the Night Sky programs they present are really good, and they have very nice telescopes to peer through. But not for now.

I could go on and on, because there are so many things people in New Mexico have taken for granted that simply aren't functioning or available right now thanks to the Shutdown, and many things were suffering thanks to the Sequester.

I was kind of flip in saying "no one would really notice" the Shutdown, just as they haven't really noticed the consequences of the Sequester (unless they're Federal workers or their work is funded by the Feds), but in this case, it's really not so. People are noticing, and thousands are sitting home wondering when they'll go back to work -- or of if they will.

I don't know how to explain it, but there is a growing sense of finality regarding this Shutdown, as if many of those furloughed suspect they will never go back to work, at least not at their former jobs. Could be, I don't know. I have long sensed that the makers of this mess are intent on transforming the government come hell or high water, and they will do it by any means necessary, whether it be by coup as in the SCOTUS usurpation of the 2000 election, or by compression through the Sequester, or by what they are doing now, simply cutting off a fifth of the government through the Shutdown. There is an obvious intent to re-make the government entirely, to serve only the interests of the Highest of the Mighty. The Shutdown serves those interests just fine.

The piece-by-piece restoration of funding the Rs are attempting on behalf of favored interests is an example of how they and their puppetmasters see the situation resolving. The government will be "destroyed" and then those parts of it which serve the Interests will be restored piecemeal, and no one can say a damned thing about it.

Whether this is the End Game or not, I can't be sure. But it is obvious to me that the current engineered crisis is being used as yet another opportunity to further those Interests at the expense of everyone else.

We live in interesting times...

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

On the Wreck of the US of A (2013-2014)

The Shutdown is proceeding apace, and it looks fair to be... accommodated, or rather hardly noticed, by the multitudes, much like the Sequester. Ah, glory!

Well, given the fact that the Shutdown was more important than even having another War! we have to give Our Rulers some credit here. If there is a semblance of Peace breaking out in the Middle East (let's not count on it) and for the moment the missiles aren't flying at Damascus from either the Mediterranean Fleet or that nasty little state of Israel, we can ponder the fact that Those In Charge have their Priorities.

First Things First.

And the first thing, right now, is the take down of the Federal Government. One assumes that there will be a subsequent "rebuilding" phase, as there have been some piece by piece restoration bills hammered out between the Congress That Says No and the White House over the last few days.

They say this is all over Obamacare and the necessity to get rid of it. If it were, I'd almost be a happy camper, but it's not. Obamacare is a pig in a poke as those of us in favor of Single Payer/Medicare for All have known since kick-off day to get 'er done back in 2009. Let's not fool ourselves; this semi-universal health insurance program is first and foremost a profit-guarantee for major insurance companies and major health care providers essentially in perpetuity. The radicals in Congress agitating the Shutdown don't want to stop that, not on a bet. What they want to stop is any requirement imposed on Health Care Insurance and the Industry to provide service in exchange for their guaranteed profits and to stop the subsidy payments to the Rabble to help cover the health insurance premiums they are compelled to pay.

That's all.

No, this isn't really about Obamacare at all, it is about gaining full control of the Federal Government and re-making it into what the Radicals think it should be: an invasive and controlling force on behalf of favored segments of the Powers That Be. Nothing more, nothing less.

And they are nearly there.

By taking down the discretionary portion of the Government (some 20% of the budget), then restoring it piece by piece over an extended period, they demonstrate their power as a minority to eventually control everything. That's what the Debt Ceiling battle will be about. The Debt Ceiling battle will involve mandatory spending like Social Security, etc., and it will likely be resolved much the same way: there will be a default on those portions of the debt the Radicals want repudiated, such as the SS Trust Fund, and there will be a restoration, piece by piece, of what they want to preserve.

Of course, it's obvious by now, or at least it should be, that despite all the huffing and puffing and bombast on both sides of the Congressional aisle and at the White House, and despite all the breathless "news" we get through the propaganda media (unfortunately now including almost all the so-called "New Media"), this sequence was laid out long ago, and it became all but inevitable shortly after Obama was re-elected. It has not been a mystery -- except to the Public, of course, who are deliberately kept in the dark about what is really going on and to what object this shit is happening.

Everything's going according to plan.

Evil though it may be...

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

So the Government Shut Down and the Coming Debt Default Were Planned In January

Interesting.

At least according to Chait in New York Magazine, this series of crises was plotted out by Republican strategists shortly after the 2012 election in which they failed to remove the President and replace him with their own simulacrum of Imperial Majesty. 

This might help to explain why the Syria Thing didn't get off the ground; the Rs couldn't pull a stunt like shutting down the government or defaulting on the debt if the Nation was embroiled in yet another war in the Middle East. At least you would think they couldn't, but stranger things have happened...

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy...

"The Williamsburg Accord," eh?

Well, why not. Makes a kind of warped and perfect sense, and what it tells us is that literally nothing of politics in this country is as it seems because nothing is moored to reality. It's all a show, a game show in a sense, in which Our Rulers posture and roar for entertainment purposes, but which is operating according to a plot and a plan laid out well in advance, according to a "script" if you will, that we -- the onlookers, the audience, the Rabble -- have no effect on at all.

Of course, the Show has an effect on us as it is meant to. This is a government of taking, and we're finding out more and more every day what is being taken, by whom, and how. But we are -- of course -- powerless to do anything about it. That's the whole point. The people we are allowed to choose from at election time all share the same theories of government. They will instinctively follow the same script.

For what it is worth, the "Williamsburg Accord" along with all the other plots and plans we've been subject to lo these many years come out of Republican strategy shops; there is no functional equivalent among the Democrats, and the idea of a Democratic Strategist is an oxymoron anyway. The party functions -- when it functions -- as a foil to the Rs who are in actual control of the government at all times. Even when -- or especially when -- they are crazy-seeming like now.

If Chait knew about the plot and the plan that the Rs came up with in January, then everybody who matters knew, too, yet it is the convention in politics and the media to play dumb while playing along with the script. As if everything that happens is somehow spontaneous, driven solely by the Public Interest. Or something.

To be clear, the Dems knew this was the Plan, too. So did the media. It has not been a secret among those who matter. It has been well publicized for their benefit. But the public, the Rabble, has been left out of the knowledge equation as always. They only see the results of the latest gambit, not how we got here, and they rarely if ever realize that the whole government/propaganda structure is in on the game.

Once again there will be the appearance of a protracted struggle over "principle" or what have you, and once again, because the protagonists are in on it together, they will get what they want -- and what's been planned -- bugger the rest of us.

Sigh.

No, it was not ever thus. But this is how governance has devolved in this country. As some wags have pointed out, the end game is nigh, and it will probably result in the irrelevance of Congress and the institutionalization of a straight-out Imperial (Fascist) Dictatorship. Lucky us.

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Permanent Deficit Hysteria --> Permanent Recession

That's the way it is.

I'm not one to accept the notion that Deficits are somehow Apocalyptic Now when they Didn't Matter At All a decade ago during the Bushevik Gung Ho Period. Government spending deficits are now what they have always been, useful and necessary for the conduct of private and government business. In fact, the United States Government has nearly always run a deficit, and when state governments are forced to run deficits contrary to their charters (more and more common thanks to the lootage they've experienced at the tender mercies of the financiers and plutocrats) somehow the sky doesn't fall.

Deficit hysteria is a crock, but it has become a permanent fixture of our Ruling Class, and the permanence of deficit hysteria ensures that Americans will endure a permanent recession.

It's the strangest recession, though, isn't it? Corporate profits and the remuneration of the High and the Mighty have never been better, ever, in the entire history of greed and capitalism -- so they say. Yet the puny salaries and benefits of the workers whose toil ensures the privileges of their masters continue to fall. Tens of millions of Americans are forced into poverty. Homelessness and hunger stalk the land.

Hm. Maybe there is a connection of some sort? Ya think?

From appearances -- and from hearing the rhetoric of doom all the time -- Americans are coming to recognize that there will probably never be a return to a growth economy. The Powers That Be are intent on asset and wealth stripping from what remains of the middle class -- the working class and the poor having already long ago been looted of anything of value they once may have been able to accumulate.

The major mass media (and much of the new media) is practically giddy at the imposition of the latest kabuki, the so-called sequester, and they look forward to the re-allocation of the sequester cuts from the defense ledger to the social spending side. This makes them so happy, they can hardly stand it.

The high-stepping and baton twirling has only just begun.

THIS is what they have been waiting for.

Sunday, March 3, 2013

Republicans All The Way Down



Shipoopi-Kabuki
The Dreaded Sequester is now upon us. Apparently. Well, given the Kabuki that is Washington Theater, we never really know whether anything is ever an actual yay or nay -- or even whether it matters -- in that otherworldly realm. They will do what they want and when they want to screw the rest of us, and if that screwage is most effectively accomplished through Sequestration, then so be it.

Now of course in Washington Theater, everything is always the result of Republicans doing something nasty to the Democrats -- who are always, of course, being entirely reasonable and completely powerless.

This has been going on for decades now. The actors and the victors are always the diminishing handful of Republicans -- such as Dame Mitch McConnell, or everyone's least favorite Munster-cousin Paul Ryan. The hapless Dems just take it, whatever "it" may be at the moment, and then when they are not being hapless, they're totally feckless. When their fecklessness fails, they are simply craven.

It is now Iron Law. It was not ever thus, nor need it be thus, but it is thus, and for whatever reason,  the plot cannot be changed. Republicans are the actors in our play. Dems react. If they aren't simply cowering in the corner.

The notion of cutting the federal budget during a now essentially permanent recession seems slightly, somewhat, just a teense counter intuitive, especially given that it is relatively obvious -- even to Republicans and the media who serve them -- that continuing reductions in government workforces are a major drag on economic recovery. Republicans make clear they understand this full well when they scream and fuss about all the military budget cuts and all the military contractors who will be forced to cut back their work-forces because of the Dreaded Sequester. They know full well that their rhetoric about the Government Never Creating A Job is bullshit, but they figure that the Dems are too feckless and craven to counter these lies effectively, and they're too hapless to point out the glaring hypocrisy of paying for endless military spending (on top of the bloated Imperial Domestic Security State)  on the basis of "jobs, jobs, jobs!"

Yeah, well.

This performance on the Washington Stage is being brought to us by a unified company. It includes both parties in Congress and the White House, acting in concert to accomplish certain mutually agreeable ends. Those ends include the fleecing and screwage of the rest of us.

The concept that it is all the Republicans' fault -- or all the Democrats', or Nino Scalia's -- fault is kind of essential myth making and propaganda, intended to maintain division among the Lower Orders. That division is essential for continuing control of said Orders, and that control is necessary for the continued unmolested fleecing and screwage -- which is all Our Betters think the rest of us deserve anyway.

The Dreaded Sequester does little in the context of the overall budget -- because it is such a tiny percentage of overall spending. But because of its focus on bang for the buck, so to speak, the harm caused to ordinary people will be significant -- intentionally. The harm to the poorest among us will be especially harsh, and few will pay much attention because that's the way budget cuts have been implemented for many years now.  But intentional harm to the collapsing middle class will be significant as well.

Obviously, Republicans don't have to worry about what happens to ordinary people in any case because they don't have "constituents" as the term is ordinarily understood. They have client who they serve -- as long as the price is right. Dems may have the same or different clients, but they lack "constituents" as well. The People matter not a whit to the Rulers.

It is so because even when the People become restive, they are still reluctant to do anything that Rulers believe they need pay any attention to. Nobody expects the Paris Commune, but it's well past time to demand something better out of the Washington image machine -- something beyond "it's Republicans all the way down!" (And oh how the "Left" loves to play that game!)

Interestingly, there is some nascent ferment on the Constitutional front, even going so far as to suggest replacing the antiquated, indeed fossilized and ignored, establishing document we have with something appropriate and new. The Voting Rights issue seems to be a trigger to the realization that the establishing document itself is deeply, terminally flawed (because there is no People's right to vote in the Constitution). Regardless of what you believe about the ideology of the Supreme Court majority, if they are going to rule based on what they believe the framers of the Constitution meant, and they will not allow any deviation, then perhaps -- just maybe -- it is time to abolish the whole rickety mess and start over.

Will wonders never cease.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Disarming

The other day, the gunners descended on the New Mexico Capitol, the Roundhouse, and demanded that the legislature enact no more gun restrictions, no matter what. They pretty much got their way, too, as the committee considering a bill that would require background checks for all gun sales and transfers, including private ones between individuals, tabled the measure as it could not pass out of committee. The committee vote was tied, and at least for now, the measure is dead.

Meanwhile, the measure by secessionist Republican Nora Espinoza to make a felony of enforcement of Federal gun law in New Mexico doesn't seem to be going anywhere, although it is widely supported by gunners and it mirrors similar legislation introduced in Wyoming, Tennessee, Texas and so on.

The hot button notion of civil disarmament is hardly considered at all in New Mexico as the gunners really have the upper hand, and no one wants to cross them for fear of triggering something unpleasant. The implicit threat of mayhem from the gunners is, I believe, what has long prevented any sort of civil disarmament movement or legislation, and not just in New Mexico. It's nationwide.

When a member of Congress is shot down, as Gabby Giffords was in Arizona two years ago, and Congress fails to act at all on the matter of excessive gun violence in this country, you pretty much know they are in fear for their lives should they do anything to cross the gun fanatic community. The fact that a few are only now raising their voices and proposing legislative responses to the violence is hardly a badge of courage.

The idea that the excess of gun violence in this country is somehow protection from tyranny is one of the most absurd arguments there is, especially given the nearly complete abrogation of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights since the advent of the so-called Glorious Global War on (or of) Terror.

Tyranny in America -- though it may be "soft" at this point (well, depending) -- is a fact, and the gunners, for the most part eagerly support it now as they have from the outset. They aren't worried about preventing tyranny at all, they just want to be sure they are the ones to impose it.

And they're getting their way.

The excess of gun violence, in the United States which I have characterized as equivalent to that of a nation experiencing a civil war, is part of the process of tyrannizing the population: it's the tyranny of fear, fear of mayhem, chaos, random massacre and slaughter, fear of your neighbor, fear of strangers, fear of authority, fear piled upon fear. It is quite deliberate in my view.

More guns and more gunners simply leads to more fear and more violence. Guns pervade poor neighborhoods where often gun violence seems to be out of control -- and fear is rampant. Is it unintentional? I think not. The more fearful the downtrodden are, the easier they are to control. Yes?

The fact is, the High and the Mighty among us live in fear of gun violence just as everyone else does, but they believe they have the means to protect themselves from the random mayhem that afflicts everyone else. Barricades and armed guards and gate keepers and law usually keeps the gunners away from the rich and the powerful, but there have been exceptions. Oh, the assassination record shows there have been many enough exceptions, but the exceptions have typically been due to... strategic and ideological issues shall we say. Stray from the path of Righteousness and watch out...

Civil disarmament is another kettle of fish, to be sure, and it can't realistically take place until the civil war is ended. That may not happen in our lifetimes.

To end the civil war, either the combatants have to tire of the conflict or a faction has to declare or believe its victory.

The United States is the victim of an ongoing class war with many, many aspects, including the drug war. All of these aspects of the class war/civil war are meant to ensure that the People stay divided and thus more easily exploited and controlled. Random acts of murder, mayhem, and massacre certainly haven't hindered division and control of the masses, have they?

Consequently, though there will be continual hearings and debate over "gun rights" and "gun issues," I don't expect anything significant to be done. We are likely to stay on this path for another generation or two, simply because doing anything about gun violence can be destabilizing to those who benefit and profit from it...

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing is about to begin... Gabby Giffords vs Wayne LaPierre. Fireworks are guaranteed, eh?

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

The Problem of the Gerrymander and Strategic Make Believe

The Original Gerrymander

A couple of years ago, I made note of the fact that Democrats really dropped the ball in the 2010 election at the state and local level, to the extent that Rs won dozens of state houses where they would have a free hand to run wild and to redistrict House seats -- ie: gerrymandering them to protect Republican incumbents and create new, safe districts for Republicans -- thanks to the 2010 Census. And so it has been.

The current Republican lock on the ridiculous clown show that is the House of Representatives is the direct result of Dem Party failure (catastrophic, in my view) to work the states and localities in 2010, an election in which they seemed to put up little more than a sham fight when it came down to it.

To my mind, this catastrophic failure was a deliberate -- strategic? -- decision by the Party Pooh-Bahs to "let the states go" and let the clown show transpire. The protests against Scott Walker's overreach in Wisconsin were just the beginning of what has been a long and exhausting struggle, not so much against Rs as against Ds -- and a D Party apparat -- that enables them.

The dysfunctional Congress is merely a symptom of a much larger problem, that of the Uni-Party with two collaborative branches that put on a Show for the entertainment (and profit) of the Big Media and for the bamboozlement of the Public. Let's not fool ourselves. That's how it works. Whatever is done in public is a Show. What's going on behind the scenes is the real work of the governing classes, work that always inures to their benefit at the expense of everyone else. They -- the rulers -- believe it's supposed to be that way, as if determined by God His Ownself, which is why they can be and for many years now have been totally oblivious to the needs and interests of the People and how cruel and even sadistic they can be in their ignorance and contempt.

Their Operating System and Theory is to Govern Contrary to whatever the People's Will or Interest demands.

The Ds are no Salvation Party, but their failure of due diligence in 2010 by letting so many state houses go was instructive to me regarding the Party intent for the next few cycles. At the upper levels, the Ds had fully adopted and accepted Neo-liberal "economics" and they saw that the only way to get it implemented without throwing everything into complete chaos was to pretend opposition and to manage dissent.

I'd suspect this comes from the lessons of success of the IMF and other outfits imposing Neo-liberal "economics" on many Third World nations,  where protest had to be managed (sometimes quite violently) and indeed governments themselves had to be overthrown (again, sometimes violently) -- which looked bad -- in order to impose the Doctrine of Exploitation which is at the root of Neo-liberalism. The brutality of the early pillaging was ugly to say the least; wasn't there a way to do this without all the tumult and bloodshed?

Yes, of course. Strategic make-believe, ie: The Show. As Reagan and Thatcher had demonstrated, the People Who Matter will go along with the program of plunder and exploitation so long as they think they're going to get a cut of the spoils. The Masses don't matter.  They will do nothing that the Ruling Classes need pay attention to -- as long as their dissent is properly managed. Managing the dissent of the Masses became something of an intriguing game for the Rulers -- which we saw demonstrated with remarkable clarity during the protests against the Iraq War in 2002 and 2003.

People were encouraged to "protest" all they wanted, so long, of course, as they stayed within strictly limited bounds, which they did. This left the Rulers free to ignore the protest -- which they did. The People would actually do nothing except what they were told to do. As long as that was within bounds, the more the merrier.

Wah-lah! Perfectly managed dissent.

Though there have been a number of efforts to break free of the management of dissent (such as Cindy Sheehan's camp out along the road to Bush's Bogus Ranch in Texas -- an early example of the principle of Occupy, btw -- and the Occupy encampments in the Public Squares of the Globe)  they are either co-opted or dispersed in relatively short order. Real opposition fades away -- or seems to.

It's much like what happens in Congress, where dissent is heavily managed and a kind of bogus struggle and its accompanying paralysis is institutionalized. The gerrymander ensures that no matter what the People want or even vote for the charade will continue indefinitely.

Thus, from a strategic point of view, it was necessary for Ds to lose a majority of state houses in 2010 in order to enable the Rs to gerrymander safe House districts for themselves in near perpetuity. It's similar to the odd behaviour of Team Obama in saving the asses of Republicans time and again and always caving to their demands in the end. This is how to enable the victory of Neo-liberal policies without triggering the kind of massive uprising that generally accompanies naked power grabs. Both parties agree that Neo-liberal policies are necessary, but they are unpopular. Thus a minority party -- the Rs -- is delegated to propose and push them ("moving the country ever rightward") while the majority Ds pretend to oppose them -- but always cave in the end. The Rs would be wiped out electorally if there were free and fair elections based on rational districting in this country, thus there would be less of a push rightward and less gain for Neo-liberalism -- and it would take longer, too.

The current policies are devastating to the People, but that's the whole point. I've seen very little understanding of what the Senate bill that the House passed last night really does. This is perhaps the best outline I've seen so far:

"Quibbles" by Kid Oakland


1. The United States is in the midst of a jobs crisis, not an unemployment benefits crisis

2. This tax deal contains an instant, regressive anti-stimulus in the form of a 2% increase in payroll tax for all income up to $113,700.

3. The change from $250K to $450K is being misreported and misunderstood

4. Accepting this tax deal, and its premise that the Bush Tax Cuts should largely be made permanent, means accepting two Americas, those who have, and those who, increasingly, have very much less.

Taxes on the working poor and the middle classes are going up by at least 2%; taxes on the rich, not so much. In fact, it's been calculated that the bite out of higher incomes will be less than 1%. Sweet. There will be no jobs programs or substantial increases in employment for the foreseeable future or ever for that matter. The Neo-liberal economic program of Bushevik tax cuts for the rich will become institutionalized.  The devastation of the Masses will continue unabated.

That's where we are.

If we stay on the current path, it will only get worse.

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

So Let Me Get This Straight...

We're well and truly ::over the cliff:: now.

Taxes are going up on working people and the middle classes at the smart clip of 2% because payroll taxes are reverting to their previous levels with no offsetting reductions or benefits. In other words, the working and middle classes will pay more, to the tune of $1,000 to $2,000 a year or maybe a scoch more or less depending on what their income is, and for some of them at least, $100 or so less a month in take home pay will mean they go over the household fiscal cliff and into poverty; bye-bye. Millions already fall off that cliff every year as it is, so what's a few more, anyway?

The beauty part, of course, is that this is the Social Security payroll tax, and since everybody wants to save Social Security, this additional money going in the kitty will strengthen and preserve it, so there will be no fussing over this tax increase. Of course the devil is in the details, and since SS surpluses are used to pad the rest of the budget, every dime will wind up paying for more wars and such, just you wait.

The rich, well...

They get to pay the 2% more on the first $110,000 of wage income (assuming they have any, don'tchaknow; clipping coupons and collecting rents don't qualify for payroll deductions), so there's that, and they get hit with extra percentages on all their income (so I'm told) above $400,000 for a single person, $450,000 for a married couple. The top income tax rate goes up from 35% to 39.6% (why such a wonky figure anyway?) and capital gains taxes go up from 15% to 20% -- on income amounts above the threshold. And there's a bump up in the estate tax, applicable to a handful of Old Rich People from 35% to 40%.

None of these little adjustments and increases in the taxes paid (or avoided) by the rich will affect their lives and lifestyles in any perceptible way; none will be forced into poverty because of the slightly higher tax rates they will be at least theoretically subject to. Thank goodness. Wouldn't want them brought low, after all. "Jawb creatuhs" and so forth that they are.

Unemployment benefits will continue for up to 73 weeks. The EITC will continue.

These are the payments that keep the out of work and the barely getting by tame enough to prevent a revolt by the masses. Despite all the huffing and puffing about these "wealth transfers", self-preservation is still a paramount objective of Our Betters. Foolish and stupid and cruel they may be, but even they know that cancelling these two payments to the Lesser People would lead directly to rolling out the tumbrils and dusting off the guillotines. Not surprisingly, they don't want that.

The Sequester will be put off for two months while negotiations go on regarding cuts to defense and social program budgets.

Oh, and then there's the Debt Limit which will be addressed, they say, in due time.

All in all, it could be worse, and let's not fool ourselves, it will be. It will be because this is the path to austerity. And austerity is purpose-designed to pick winners and losers and make things far worse for the losers so that things will be ever so much better for the winners.

You see.

Of course this all depends on Boner's House going along -- which so far (c. 5:00p MST) they are not.

So there is that.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting. The "news" on the teevee had it that the Senate bill was passed by the House right around 9:00p MST and everyone could go home now, yay. As I write this morning, how some ever (c. 7:00a MST, Jan 2),  it is as if news hasn't quite filtered into the blogosphere, which is still caught up in the drama of the conflict over the bill in the House and the question of whether or not it will be passed by the reactionaries (even though there are oddly discordant acknowledgements that (oops!) it did pass.)  Very disorienting, but interesting...

Monday, December 31, 2012

"Over the Cliff!"



Of course the teevee is breathless with anticipation that a "Deal" will be made "at the last minute," yadda yadda, but I've been arguing for years that we went over that Cliff long ago, and all we've been doing since is deciding who will be able to grapple their way back up the Cliff face and how fast.

That's it.

Nevertheless, the media has such an investment in their Cliff Narrative (and that includes the self-proclaimed "new media") that they're not about to give it up now.

What exactly happens if no "Deal" is brokered is anybody's guess. Taxes on the working and middle classes will go up no matter what, and benefits for the poor, the sick, the halt and the lame will be cut, no matter what. Military spending will not be reduced and may actually be increased no matter what.

And the Security State will be secured ever more.

That's what will happen regardless of any "Deal" and I think by now we know that -- or at least we should.

The People don't matter in these kinds of things. All that matters is that the Highest of the Mighty receive an ever greater share of whatever "good" there may be.

So let it be written, so let it be done.

 

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

The Confusion of Rhetoric and the Rectification of Names

For months now, the primary domestic economic news story has had to do with something dubbed "The Fiscal Cliff" by some wag at the Federal Reserve or Treasury, then picked up by and universally employed by The Media in an orgy of post-apocalyptic hysteria matching or exceeding Y2K proportions.

We haven't seen anything like this since the last time.

The problem with the rhetoric is that there is no actual "cliff" -- fiscal or otherwise; to be uncharitable about it, we went over The Cliff, the real one, a long time ago, and we haven't begun to crawl back up the precipice. Oh no. Far from it. There is still debris yet to make its way down.

Of course The Fiscal Cliff is supposed to refer to the basket of tax increases and spending cuts that will be required by law beginning January 1, 2013, if nothing is done. The horror!

In this economy, the tax increases on the middle and working classes could be crippling -- $200 a month or so for many. That's not chump change when you're on the brink. If the increases were to take place, many -- perhaps millions -- would wind up in a bad place without succor or recourse. That's because so many people these days have no economic flexibility whatever. They are in such a rigid income/expense situation that the slightest increase on the expense side is liable to push them into insolvency; any increase in income for most winds up servicing the enormous levels of household debt accumulated during the decades of wage stagnation and price inflation.

 On the other hand, the mandatory spending cuts that would take place have a less direct effect on households, though there would be impacts down the line. The defense and security budgets would be impacted significantly, but it is hard to say that they would be "devastated" or "eviscerated," as their defenders want to claim. The issue is that both defense and security budgets are so obscenely bloated that even the trillion dollar cuts which would take place were the sequestration provisions taken seriously (they won't be) would be hardly noticeable -- and they would not lead to a fundamental reassessment of American military and internal security posture. Not on a bet.

The other discretionary spending cuts demanded by lawmakers in setting up this Rube Goldberg contraption to raise the debt ceiling last year (oh, yes, it all goes back to that), would have profound effects on programs for various constituencies, cutting their budgets or eliminating them altogether by the great gross, but the effects on most households would be subtle and would take quite a while to be felt.

The only reason put forth for the tax increases and spending cuts that are supposed to take place once we go over The (Non-Existent) Fiscal Cliff is to reduce the level of public debt. The reason for doing that in this economy (which is effectively a Depression economy for the vast majority of Americans who have lost almost all the little bit of wealth they were able to squirrel away during the boom-times, while the wealthy have made out like bandits) is unclear at best. Obviously somebody would benefit, but who? Not you or me, that's for sure. But somebody would. Who that would be is almost never mentioned, even sotto voce, because if people knew who benefits from conditions of low or no public debt, they would rise in rebellion and revolution.

The whole situation arose because a radical cabal in Congress decided to hold the debt limit hostage until and unless they got their way on spending cuts. The deal they got was wonky to say the least, in that not only did they get their spending cuts (deferred, of course), but they got big ol' tax increases as well (something they weren't bargaining for). That they got a deal at all was astonishing, and that they were allowed to drive the nation's economic bus in such an irresponsible manner was appalling. But there you are, that's Washington politics today.

 Comes now we have a situation where what they agreed to to git 'er done back in the day is coming due, and they deeply resent the fact that what they agreed to is not what they or the People want.

So this is what they want to do to avoid the alleged Cliff this time:

  • Increase spending on military and security 
  • Reduce taxes even further on the upper end (by eliminating, for example, the inheritance tax)
  • Increase tax burdens on the working and middle classes (by limiting/eliminating such frivolities as the Earned Income Tax Credit and other deductions and credits)
  • "Reform" the entitlement programs of Social Security and Medicare by further increasing the eligibility age and reducing benefit levels
  • Institutionalize the Cliff through debt ceiling shenanigans.  In other words, do this over and over and over again until it becomes the norm.
That's for starters. I'm sure they have many other goals and objectives to pursue once they get these in place.

The point here is to shift the burden of paying for government and services from those who have the most onto those who are seeing their incomes decline and their futures evaporate. It's the New American Way, one that is being implemented regardless of the overwhelming public rejection of these policies.

Too bad, so sad, they're gonna happen anyway. For the People no longer have a say in these matters.

How did Bush the Lesser put it? "We had an accountability moment; that was the ... election."

Indeed, you put the people who are intent on these policies back in office, and guess what? They pursue them! Golll-lee! Who'dathunk?

 Of course in our system, campaigns are not run on the basis of what the candidates will actually do when they are elected. Pshaw! Instead, they are run on the basis of what they think the People want to hear. "Cliff" policies were sidestepped for the most part, leaving it to the Lame Duck session now underway to hammer out the details.

The focus is almost entirely on how to "reform" entitlements to meet the objectives of making them harder to access, less beneficial to recipients, and ultimately to turn them over to private interests to exploit for profit.

And we are being propagandized relentlessly to believe that only by making these "reforms" can the programs be "saved" -- a total lie -- and that further, it's the only way to avoid going over the Cliff.

It's a neat propaganda package, one that is universally accepted, even by the opponents to the particular "reforms" being proposed (ie: raising the eligibility age and reducing benefit levels; eventually privatizing).

The correct approach, on the other hand, is almost never acknowledged let alone addressed.

That would be: expanding the programs by lowering the eligibility age, increasing benefit levels, and rejecting privatization.

Simple. Almost unheard of.

And it has nothing to do with avoiding going over any alleged "Cliff."

What it would do is start our climb up from the bottom where the People have been for years and years. But that's why you don't hear about doing the correct thing: the people and interests on top benefit from keeping the rest of us down. They benefit enormously. Beyond their wildest dreams. You bet.

The relentless propaganda has been so effective that it's become nearly impossible to even suggest there may be another and more appropriate way to handle economic issues that affect the masses. No, one is limited by the deliberate rhetorical confusion of the propagandists. The framework of discussion is entirely theirs. It is confused in that there is no acknowledgement within that framework that the interests being served are exclusively among the rich. The lie is that the People are being served.

There is no framework for the correct approach.

Then there's the whole problem of Names: "entitlements," "Fiscal Cliff," and "reform" being the three biggies, none of which mean what most people think they mean.

  • "Entitlements" are not a bad thing. 
  • The "Fiscal Cliff" is not real.
  • "Reform" does not mean reducing benefits and services to the People.
 Is it any wonder that more and more Americans are turning their backs on a politico/media-plex that is so completely divorced from the realities faced by individuals and households.



 

Sunday, August 26, 2012

On the Importance and Irrelevance of Voting



I come from a heritage in which voting was considered of fundamental importance. When my Irish ancestors emigrated, they were not allowed to vote in Ireland, and previously, they hadn't even been allowed to marry according to the rites of the Holy Catholic Church, to hold office, or in any other way participate in the political life of His/Her Majesty's Realm. My German ancestors faced similar impediments.

In America, however, as soon as they established citizenship and residency, they could vote in elections and stand for office. My grandfather, therefore, only one generation away from the emigrant boat, was a Democratic Party Chair in the Great State of Iowa, and my father stood for office. This is something their ancestors could not have imagined doing.

I have voted in every election since I was eligible to vote (at age 21, let it be known), and I have never advised or encouraged anyone not to vote. Though I have never stood for office myself, I have served on numerous boards and commissions, have chaired some of them, and I have a fairly intimate acquaintance with the operations of government from the inside at the local, state and federal levels. I have campaigned extensively for candidates -- though not recently -- and I have more than a little bit to do with local Democratic politics (though again, not recently.)

If I were a cynic, I would say it's all a bunch of bullshit, a fraud of the first order, and everyone should stay well away from it -- or burn the whole rotten edifice down. But as a rule, I don't say that. Instead, I try to point out what the real deal is.

American politics is corrupt to the core, and there is no way to salvage it from its mortal corruption. It's been this way since dirt was new. There is no way to clean it up because much of the corruption is built in to the system. It's inherent in the way the Parties operate and in turn in the way the Government operates. It's riddled with cronyism, backscratching and backstabbing, time serving, and barely functional constituent services. "Pay to Play" is nearly universal, and the exceptions are striking.

You do not get a vote on policy at the Federal level at all. You may or may not get a vote on policy through initiatives and referenda at the state and local level, but even if you do, the implementation of any policy you've voted on is not in your hands, and it may not be in the hands of anyone who is accountable to you or any portion of the electorate and you will therefore have little say in the matter.

A Presidential election is a personality election, not a policy election. By the time candidates reach the presidential level, their policy prescriptions have long since been determined outside your purview, by people and institutions you probably have no relationship with, on behalf of interests you're probably not a part of. In most respects, the candidates you are allowed to choose from for President have similar if not identical policies. They are candidates for Head of State, Chief of Government and Military Commander; the Government itself is a huge institution with its own internal interests and characteristics. Changing that institution in any substantial way is usually out of the question, therefore, most of the policies of candidates (not necessarily campaigns) are virtually identical because the candidates campaigning not so much to serve the People as to serve the Government. 

Your vote is a resource to be mined under the circumstances, but it is not individually important at all. Vote or don't vote, it doesn't matter very much in the end, because you're basically voting on variations in personality and on slight differences in implementation policies that have already been determined. The policies are going to happen no matter what you vote -- or don't vote as the case may be.

The only way to affect policy is from the outside of the system. I learned that a long time ago, but it was a lesson I didn't really understand until fairly recently. In our political system, for the most part, policies (and candidates for that matter) are bought and sold like commodities, and with about as much care and concern. As a rule, those who have the money... rule.  This is true nearly everywhere in electoral politics; there are at any given time very, very few "citizen politicians." They are almost all creatures of their benefactors and funders. But their benefactors and funders are outside the political/governmental system. Very few of them ever stand for office themselves (this is not as true as it once was) and often they are completely unknown to the People. They are in the shadows, behind the scenes, pulling strings to be sure, but rarely making any sort of public display of it. These are the people whose phone calls your representative always takes; these are the people whose will becomes law in a surprisingly short time with little or no public comment. These are the people whose interests come first. These are the people to whom your government is accountable.

Not. To. You.

"But we can throw the bums out!" Yes. By all means. Go ahead. You'll get another crop of bums inevitably. This is how the political system and the government works. Indeed, voters have a choice but it will almost always be a choice between variations of the same thing.

The growing problem is that over the years the Government -- and its servants, the electeds  -- have become divorced from The People, to the point where now The People hardly factor at all in the policy decisions of the Movers and Shakers in and out of Government. In fact, many in office are proud to assert that the public interest and public will are not important factors in their decisions, and we have seen time and again, that the Democratic Party Big Wigs make a fetish of insulting and denouncing their own political base. Republican Big Wigs don't do this publicly, but their contempt for the base of their own Party is pretty obvious just the same.

Our Rulers don't believe that they need to accommodate the public any more, or even hear them in many cases. They don't believe they need to in part because they don't believe the public will do anything about the actions of the electeds (and those who sponsor them) that those in office need pay any attention to.

Sternly worded emails don't cut it.

Nor do blog posts.

Not even hotly passionate phone calls.

It isn't too strong to suggest they don't care what you think. They never really did. They only care about what you do and so far as they're concerned, you're not going to do anything they need concern themselves with. And if you get uppity, they'll have you taken care of.

Once you're clear about these fundamentals, the whole "lesser of two evils" trope and the notion that "this is the most important election in world history evah" lose their oomph. "Lesser of two evils" is essentially meaningless, especially if there is no recognition that it is the political/electoral/governmental system itself that produces this situation, not the candidates. All the candidates come out of and serve that system. "The most important election" notion is just as meaningless. If they are all the "most important" -- and they are -- then they're really not that important in the larger scheme of things.

What's important are the policies that are adopted -- which you and I have almost no say in as individuals or as voters.

Sustained activism outside the political system can and does affect those policies, however, as we have seen in numerous instances of civil rights and civil liberties campaigns. Our Rulers have been racheting down the limits of what sorts of activism and on what issues they will allow to affect their decisions, but there is still a possibility of influencing and affecting public policies through sustained activism.

Economic policies and war and peace policies, however, are rarely subject to public influence you may have noticed. In fact, it works the other way: economic policies and war and peace policies are determined at the top and then sold to the public like soap.

Nevertheless, by all means, vote, cast your ballot, exercise the franchise. Just don't expect it to make that much of a difference and you'll be fine.

And if too many people vote the wrong way for their own good, the wise old Robed Ones will take the vote on their own and fix it for you.


Friday, August 24, 2012

Railing Against the "Left" in America



At some point I will have to acknowledge the uselessness of continuing to beat the long dead horse of what passes for the "left" in American politics.

In point of fact, there is no real Left active in the American political system and there hasn't been one for many years. There are a few (very) fringe parties that take leftist, even revolutionary, positions on some issues, but they have no political influence at all -- some would say by the design and intention of the political system itself and by these fringe parties in cahoots with their own marginalization. They do seem to be oddly content outside the system, come to think of it.

In the mainstream of American politics, what's called the "left" functions as a slightly mitigating version of the ever-dominant American Right. I've pointed out that even St. Franklin Roosevelt was no "leftist," and the New Deal programs and policies that actually survived (like Social Security and Unemployment Insurance) are NOT leftist by any stretch of the imagination. They are basically survivalist policies of the Right intended to buy off the masses and keep the tumbrils and guillotines at bay for a while longer.

Now, however, since the Crash of 2008, the Right is going for complete control without the troublesome and burdensome necessity of carving out some benefit for the masses. They've been busying themselves with taking economic benefits as well as civil liberties away from the masses, selling off public assets at fire sale prices, destroying public education, reducing and/or eliminating pension benefits, making access to health care ever more difficult and expensive and setting up system after system of automatic revenue payments to corporate entities, many of which are now behaving like taxing authorities and private governments.

The so-called "left" in American politics and governance merely operates as if it were a helpful critic of Rightist policies. The "left" has no policies of its own except maintaining bits and pieces of the status quo and delaying and mitigating (somewhat) the more radical policies of the Right.

That's it. At one time, when there was something of an active Left in American politics, instead of reducing benefits and raising retirement ages, we would have been treated to arguments proposing to lower the retirement age and substantially increasing benefits. We would hear arguments to collectivize, nationalize industries and services and implement a broad-based public sector economy on democratic principles. Instead of ignoring Marx and other cogent critics of capitalism, we would have long ago explored and demonstrated alternatives to the kind of rampant crony capitalism we endure today -- a capitalist system that is depriving whole generations of a future.

If we had a real Left in our politics, the possibilities for the Future would be seen as unlimited.

But we don't have one. No, Occupy is not "the Left," not even close; it's not at root a political entity; it's more of a philosophical one. It may give rise to a political entity, but it hasn't yet. It has only given rise to ideas, opportunities, and demonstrations of alternatives to the current downward spiral.

The election will only have an effect on how fast and how harshly Rightist programs and policies -- most of which we are already familiar with -- will be implemented going forward. Neither major party is in any way interested in backing off from those Rightist programs and policies, any more than most of the governments around the world are going to suddenly jettison neoliberalism. It's not going to happen.

The only way to accomplish that end now is through efforts conducted outside the standard political system, and we've already seen that if those efforts show signs of succeeding, they will be violently shut down by the corpro-government.

If a genuine political Left is ever revived on the other hand, what might we see? What wonders might await?

A rational argument for not voting. [Note: a repost of the material at the link was disappeared at FDL because a moderator didn't want to "promote" the idea of not voting. It is obviously considered a dangerous concept that must be kept away from the masses.]

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Delusional

The current imbroglio over the ACA has once again thrust the radical, reactionary, lawless Supreme Court majority into the spotlight it so loves.

I'm fairly certain that the Court majority will let stand most if not all of the ACA legislation simply because it assures so much money to the Court majority's corporate masters. Whatever gives them what they want is what the Court majority approves, viz the Montana decision.

But if they overturn the whole thing -- which they will do if they are told to do so by their corporate masters -- the idea that the re-election of Obama will somehow lead to the overturning of the Court majority and its replacement with a liberal/progressive majority is delusional.

And yet I'm hearing it more and more stridently as the consequences of the current Court's majority decisions on behalf of their neo-liberal/neo-conservative and lawless ideology sink in.

Those consequences are dire. The delusion, however, is that Obama will somehow intervene and transform the Court. His two appointments to date demonstrate he has no intention of doing so, even if he had the power, which he does not.

The Court's lawless, extreme and thoroughly disreputable majority was essentially enshrined for the next 50 years with the appointments to the Court made by George W. Bush -- with the complicity of the Senate Democrats, let it not be forgotten. They knew what they were doing, Harriet Myers notwithstanding. Those appointments ensured that the Court's chief justice and majority would be "stabilized" as is for decades to come. That the was point, after all.

Democrats went along with it. As has been noticed from more than one observational post, many nominal Democrats are on board with the neo-liberal/neo-conservative agenda and ideology no matter what they say to get elected.

So even if by some miracle (reliance on which is itself delusional) Obama is re-elected, and all the Court's "conservative" majority resigns or dies, he's still not going to appoint, nor will the Senate confirm, a "liberal/progressive" Court majority.

Nothing short of revolution will achieve that in our lifetimes. In other words, it's not going to happen through presidential and congressional elections. It's delusional to think it will.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: Court upholds ACA in its entirety. The Rightists will of course experience exploding heads, but it will all be for show. The real deal is of course that their corporate paymasters love-love-love the mandate and all the money that will now be forthcoming.

Still we need comprehensive, affordable, and universal health care coverage, and as importantly, we need universal access to healthcare. The other factor of the ACA that corporatists love-love-love is that while payment is required, access is not.

Brilliant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT!!!

A counter argument arises: Roberts sided with the "liberals" to uphold the ACA; the "conservatives" all denounced it, including Kennedy.

Then I ask you: if this ruling represents a "liberal" victory, what does it say about the "liberal" minority on the court that staunch corporatist Roberts sided with them?

Why of course: it says that the "liberals" on the Court are just as corporatist as the "conservatives."

In Mussolini's day, this was the definition of Fascism.