On the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that President Obama has presented to the US Congress.
Former Presidential Candidate John McCain loves to be in the media's lights and has said that he will vote against the President's Plan because "It won't create enough jobs." (!)
John McCain revels in his Maverick! reputation. Is his saying he will vote "No" an attempt to regain credibility with the Republican conservatives who were not pleased with his Presidential Campaign?
In the same interview on "Fox News Sunday" John McCain repeated again his "Lower taxes" campaign speech that independent (and some Republican voters) rejected during the November election.
Or John McCain raising his objections as a bargaining ploy to gain some concession so that he can again play the Maverick! finally voting against the Republican Party's conservative "free market" principles as he "crosses over the aisle" as an example of his "bipartisanship."
Both John McCain and President Obama support the Cap-and-Trade Bill that the US Senate wants to use to impose higher gasoline and utility bill taxes on Americans, Click Underlined Link:
http://www.communati.com/steve-lee/John-mccap-and-trade-has-few-ideas
There is an American economic myth that the corporate media keep repeating, Click Underlined Link:
http://www.communati.com/node/3250
Decade of the 1970's -
Sergio de Castro, Pinochet's 'Friedman Schooled' economics minister, said he could never have done it without Pinochet's iron fist backing him up. (Referring to the implementation of a brutal policy for 'Wiping the Slate Clean' in order to make way for the new religion of a U.S. sponsored, 'Free Market' ideology. The economists taught their students to look upon the population as a psychiatric patient, requiring 'Shock Treatment' in effort to cleanse it of its 'collective' cancer, simply because it - the population mindset - didn’t fit Friedman's free-market model.)
It was Nixon who would give the Friedman Chicago Boys and their professors something they had long dreamed of: a chance to prove that their capitalist utopia was more than a theory in a basement workshop – a shot at remaking a country from scratch. Democracy had been inhospitable to the Chicago Boys in Chile; dictatorship would prove an easier fit. – Klein
Chile’s coup, when it finally came, would feature three distinct forms of shock, a recipe that would be duplicated in neighboring countries and would reemerge, three decades later, in Iraq. The shock of the coup; financial shock; the other, Ewen Cameron’s shock, drug and sensory deprivation research, codified as torture techniques in the ‘Kubark’ manual and disseminated through extensive CIA training programs for Latin American police and military. – Klein
This is the same Free Market formula Reaganomics and Thatcherism, whole heartedly, imbued itself in. Amongst the Chicago Boy Institution’s professors included such luminaries of destruction as George Shultz, and Donald Rumsfeld; Rumsfeld describing Friedman and his colleagues “a cluster of geniuses.”
In 1985 John McCain visits Pinochet. McCain described the meeting with Pinochet “as friendly and at times warm, but noted that Pinochet does seem obsessed with the threat of communism.” Gee, I wonder who planted that bug into Pinochet’s psyche? Today, the commies have morphed into: Al Kaeda Everywhere, under the ubiquitous and pervasive - Global War on Terror. Gen. Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, the brutal dictator who repressed and reshaped Chile for nearly two decades and became a notorious symbol of human rights abuse and corruption.
In 1985 John McCain visits Pinochet. McCain described the meeting with Pinochet “as friendly and at times warm, but noted that Pinochet does seem obsessed with the threat of communism.” Gee, I wonder who planted that bug into Pinochet’s psyche? Today, the commies have morphed into: Al Kaeda Everywhere, under the ubiquitous and pervasive - Global War on Terror.
Gen. Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, the brutal dictator who repressed and reshaped Chile for nearly two decades and became a notorious symbol of human rights abuse and corruption.
Friedman's, Chicago Boys, during the decade of the 70's, had already proven their greed based markets worked in test beds such as Chile and Argentina, but only through the process of 'Cleaning the Slate' through Shock and Torture, where hundreds of thousands were 'disappeared', along with U.S. - CIA and Corporate complicity.
Friedman himself was forced to admit that his free-market ideology does not fit comfortably within democratically established Societies - which is why the 'CULTURAL SLATE MUST BE ERASED' to make way for the new free-market religion, a medicinal cleansing is required. In Friedman's world - the architect of Reaganomics - Democracy and Free-Markets are a contradiction in terms; diametrically opposed and at odds with each other. Its results: a small elite grow far wealthier while large portions of what had been the working class are discarded from the economy althgether and turned into surplus people.
What should be even more worrisome is that Friedman style, free-market ideology was sold to the Chinese. The Chicago Boys having deemed Democracies as inhospitable to their formula for quenching insatiable greed, China certainly would prove quite the opposite. Just look at the praise it received via the, so called, Olympics. Look where the free-market multi-nationals tend to find attraction and tend to gravitate towards - China and Dubai.
'Operation Iraqi Freedom' should be seen in its true light, for what it really is, a Neoconic cleansing, or 'clearing of the slate' in preparation for Iraqi Friedman!!
See: Negorponte - The Death Squad Ambassador
A lot of folks have criticized, questioning Obama's character for having rubbed shoulders with folks from the same institution from which Freidman launched his bloody counter-revolution against New Deal policies. But what people don't bother to check is that Obama is completely anti-Friedmanism. Having infiltrated the den of vipers, having discovered the enemy’s strategy, Barack of all peoples is the only one poised to expose them, or at least use their own tools against them for the greater good. I can still hear Barack's words, ringing in my ears, calling for transparency. Although Barack may have brushed shoulders with Friedman's school of financial thugs, does not make him one.
Friedman, along with, Nixon’s Secretary of State, Kissinger should be pointed out for what they are: Criminals wanted for murder! In fact, if Kissinger were to set foot in certain areas of South America, he would immediately be arrested as such and he knows it, thereby forcing him to utilize his 'Free Market Miles' frugally.
**STOP** and get a copy of Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine - The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, read and re-read it while we await election day to arrive. Because, what Naomi brings to light within the pages of her expose, is precisely what WE are voting against in this election; decades of ruthless, predatory abuse of power, with greedy Corporatarch bottom-lines that are soaked with innocent blood, everywhere. Now, the chickens are coming home to roost.
Naomi does an excellent job in removing the haystack, exposing the piercing needle hidden within and explains everything.
Video of Naomi Klein speaking at the University of Chicago, invited by anti-Freidman group against erecting monument to Freidman. Naomi says each time Obama criticizes the current failed economic policies, his ratings shoot up.
Naomi Klein: Wall St. Crisis Should Be for Neoliberalism What Fall of Berlin Wall Was for Communism
Have we met our enemy yet? Or, are we still unable to see the forest for the trees?
Proper education and sunlight are the BEST disinfectants!
Peace, Best Wishes and Hope
The hang-ups to progressive taxation are based on few ideals: (1) folks have a vested property interest in their salaries and do not want to have it taken away or feel penalized for hard work; (2) folks believe that capitalism and the free market should decide this issue and view re-distribution as socialist. I think both of these are faulty premises, and I'll explain why.
I don't think anyone rational would now doubt that the economic crisis proves that the free market does not always function properly, especially when it's ascribing value to intangible things. The economic crisis has shown that an unfettered "free market' can fall prey to excessive greed and result in assets being artificially over-valued, while other assets are under-valued. The economic crisis has shown that the free market can benefit from regulation and overt correction.
Now - how does this relate to progressive taxation?
What most people don't understand is that salary is just another manifestation of the free market. It's an ascribed value given by the market to our job/work product. Once you recognize that fact, then you can understand why progressive taxation is necessary. Unfortunately, rich people tend to have an inflated assessment of their own worth and want to believe that they are worth what the market is willing to pay them - and therefore they view the money as rightfully their property. But if you go back to the learnings of the economic crisis, you'll understand that this is not actually the case.
The underpinnings of this argument is based on one simple premise: the free market does not work in assigning salaries to individuals, and I think that's undisputable. The free market does not work for a variety of reasons: (1) it is subject to greed; (2) it is subject to arbitrary whims about what is important at a particular time; (3) it is subject to undue manipulation by external forces (war, power structures, etc.); and most fundamentally (4) it is subject to real and profound barriers to entry that are not characteristic of a true free market. People start out in inequitable positions and may never get the chance to get to their true value.
Just like we learned with bubble bursts and asset valuations in the economic crisis, the ultimate test of whether the free "salary market" works or not is in objectively viewing its results. If you take a moment to look at the results - it cannot be disputed that it's not working. It just takes folks being humble. Examples: Adam "Pacman" Jones is a felon and criminal without any translatable skills whose only talent is the ability to play cornerback and run with a football. Yet, he makes millions of dollars while a person who has labored their whole life and studies for 15 years to get a PhD cannot approach six figures as a professor teaching tomorrow's youth. Same is true in accounting for the gap between the CEO's and the brilliant workers in his company who actually come up with the ideas that drive his company's success.
A more centered example. I am an attorney who comfortably makes six figures; I have worked hard and gone to the best law schools. But I also now have a job that really has no real value to society - yet I make a great living.
A person just as smart as me may have never gotten the chance to enter this free market because of the place they grew up in, or the inability to pay for school.
My brothers, who are by all objective measures smarter than me - each attended the finest universities in America and received PhD's, but could not get any jobs in the sciences (professor or research) that paid half my salary.
My mother is a small business owner and licensed day care provider who has devoted her life to teaching and caring for toddlers and she can barely make the mortgage.
All of these examples, and especially the barrier to entry ones, show that the salary market is not working properly if left unfettered. If you can come to grips with that fact, then you may come to realize that in order to fix the situation you need a market correction or some form of market regulation. A true market correction would involve complete re-assignment of values, re-distribution of wealth, and would be too drastic and too subjective for anyone to accomplish in a practical manner. But tax policies and progressive taxation are at least a form of market regulation that help alleviate some of the burdens and inequities created by the malfunctioning salary market.
I support Barack Obama for his character and his temperament as much as for his stance on the issues. As best I can judge, he is the most intelligent man running for president, and the calmest. He is open-minded without being gullible, and while he is much more liberal than I in his ideology, ideology does not appear to be a prison for his mind as it is for so many politicians both liberal and conservative. On substantive issues, I support him principally because he recognizes the basic fact that government has to be paid for by taxes, and that those taxes should fall chiefly on people most able to afford them. I also support him for his realistic and pragmatic foreign policy and his rejection of theocratic government.
Obama's stance on economic regulation is not among the reasons I support him. He, and many of his supporters, tend to blame the current financial crisis on the Republicans' decision to let the market "run wild." Tighter governmental regulation, it is presumed, must be the answer. Very little is said of exactly what regulation will be imposed or exactly how it will solve the present crisis or prevent future ones.
The conservative Republicans and economists continue to insist that the only way to a successful economy is by allowing the free market to operate without interference. Indeed, even in this current economic crisis, their mantra is that the root cause of market failure is too much regulation and interference by government. Worst of all, a large segment of the population agrees with this economic philosophy, which contributes to the lack of "bail-out" support. In theory, I cannot disagree that we, the public, should not bear the burden of corruption or poor business decisions. In theory, I also cannot disagree that a truly free market economy would be the most productive, competitive, and overall beneficial economic structure. Unfortunately, we don't live in the theoretical, and if theories always accurately accounted for every variable, then we would never have failure. In this case, free market theory fails to accurately account for numerous variables, most significantly, human nature and the interdependence of government and economy.
The human factor is something our Founding Fathers recognized well over 200 years ago when they established a capitalist society with a democratic republic as its form of government. In so doing, our country was ingeniously built on a foundation of individual achievement, democracy, and checks and balances, because the Founding Fathers understood three important principles of human nature: 1) the free exchange of ideas and competition, both in society and government, leads to mutual respect and progress; 2) too much power in the hands of a few is a recipe for greed, corruption, and abuse of power; and, 3) an unfettered majority can lead to oppression of the minority. How, then, can anyone logically argue that our market is somehow immune from these realities? Whether it's the government, the market, an individual business or even one household, these fundamental truths about human nature always apply. As long as we are a nation of people, people cannot be excluded from our theories about how systems will operate. The great benefits that come from the driving force of individual achievement must always be balanced against the dangers of greed, corruption, abuse of power, and oppression.
Theories are unquestionably valuable, because they represent ideas, provide crucial explanations, and often demonstrate the possibilities for achievement. However, theories are only theories until they are proven or disproven. Communism and Socialism are theories; theories that most in this country would agree have been disproven as viable systems. They are, in our view, repugnant to our values of individual achievement and represent an extreme and unacceptable level of government involvement. So much so, that the moment anyone suggests government involvement, we accuse them of being socialist. Yet amazingly, many seem unwilling to admit that a true free market economy, with zero government interference, is merely the opposite end of the spectrum. The reality is that while everyone has been sitting around bickering over different theories, our economy is being consumed by greed, corruption, abuse of power, and the oppression of the lower and middle classes. The public and our elected officials must reject this extreme and once and for all recognize the necessity of checks and balances just as our Founding Fathers did so long ago.
This letter is a 350 word version of the longer article with the same title further down on my blog. It might be better suited for submission as letter to the editor.
“I am a conservative. I could never vote for the most liberal Democrat in Congress.” I’ve heard this said over and again. Let me show you why it is precisely the liberal Democrat you need to vote for if you truly espouse conservative principles.
Let’s take the idea of small government and free markets, a truly conservative value. Free markets consistently outperform centrally planned economies, and everybody ends up better off. The problem is that the “conservatives” running Washington for the last 8 years mistook “little intervention” for “no intervention” and successfully pushed for deregulation and less government oversight of our financial markets. Where has that gotten us? To a world in which the federal government now essentially owns four of our largest financial institutions.
Should the federal government be in the business of running Wall Street? Is that a conservative value? The answer is no. Overnight, we dramatically jumped from no regulation to government control. We now have the very government intervention that would have Milton Friedman turn in his grave.
The thing is, with prudent foresight and well-managed regulation, the current crisis could have been avoided. But what has the “conservative” candidate, who is now pledging to “clean up Wall Street,” done in the last 26 years? He has consistently sided with his party in pushing for deregulation.
If years ago we had listened to “liberal” calls for caution, we would now live in a world where the markets were regulated AND working. If you are in favor of free markets and little government intervention, you need to wake up to the fact that “liberal” and “conservative” are misleading labels created as smokescreens by the political parties. Nowadays “conservatives” are not pro-market. They are pro-business and have allowed special interests to lobby them for measures that imperil the very foundation of our free markets.
Why put a person in the White House just because he calls himself a “conservative”? If you’re voting for free markets, you need to vote for the man who has plans for their survival, no matter what label anyone tries to stick on him.
The GOP's party platform was approved earlier this month at the convention. Part of it discussed rebuilding homeownership. If the Republicans truly believe in the free market as stated below, they cannot approve the bailout. (See http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Economy.htm)
Rebuilding Homeownership"We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself. We believe in the free market as the best tool to sustained prosperity and opportunity for all."
Rebuilding Homeownership
"We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself. We believe in the free market as the best tool to sustained prosperity and opportunity for all."
One of my coworkers, who supported Hillary Clinton during the primaries, has a respectable grasp of the issues, and I asked her if I could blog a recent e-mail exchange. Private information has been deleted.
I felt like posting this because I'm feeling some anxiety because of how easily McCain's VP pick is getting away with HER lack of experience and fiery rhetoric. I can only hope the Obama campaign is waiting to pounce at the right time. I wish they would pounce NOW. I need reassurance before I have an anxiety attack meltdown! You know it's bad for me when I won't watch The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. :>(
(Suggested draft speech fragments for Senator Obama)
Many people doubt the ability of the government to solve the problems of individual Americans. It is easy to see where that attitude comes from. Just say “hurricane Katrina,” or “infrastructure” and most people think “government failure.” People who distrust government solutions say that we should be patient and allow the free market to solve all of our problems.
But let me say this to advocates of unrestrained free markets: There is nothing I would like better than to be able to say that without any government action at all, everyone has access to health insurance which has nothing to do with where they work or if they work. I would like to be able to tell you that the free market has worked and no government action is required in the area of health insurance.
I wish I could say that we have a strong and growing middle class with high savings rates, low household debt, and no worries about retirement. I would like to be able to tell you that the free market has produced a financially-secure middle class, and no government action is necessary.
However I cannot say these things because millions are without health insurance, foreclosures are up, consumer debt levels are high, and a nearly everyone is worried about funding their retirement.
I say to advocates of unrestrained free markets that if the free market had solved the problem of access to health insurance I would not be talking about it now. I say to corporations which have eliminated high-paying manufacturing jobs in the United States that government action may be required to clean up the mess they made of the middle class.
