Day: October 23, 2008

The Economic Recovery?

The “economic recovery” plan being pushed by congressional Democrats, far from representing a serious response to the social disaster threatening working people, underscores the complete subservience of the Democratic Party to Wall Street.

Having voted to spend $700 billion in taxpayer money to prop up the banks and rubber-stamped further bailout measures bringing the total allocation of public funds to $2.25 trillion, the Democrats are proposing a derisory $150 billion to address a social crisis that is likely to surpass any economic slump since the Great Depression.

The immense disparity illuminates the class character of the response of the government and both political parties to an economic crisis that has exposed the bankruptcy of the socio-economic system they defend.

The Democrats, who control both houses of Congress, have played the leading role in pushing through the measures proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke to rescue the banks. All of the actions taken have proceeded from the standpoint of protecting the interests of the most powerful sections of the American financial aristocracy. The Democrats’ economic stimulus proposals, which they portray as parallel measures to boost “Main Street” America, amount to little more than political window dressing.

2008 Anal-Ocity

As most of my readers know that I nominate people who make assinine or anal statements for them to compete in the contest for the Assie Award that is given by Info Ink every year.  It has been awhile since I have put anyone in nomination and it has been a good year for anal statements, most election years are.

This time I nominate the GOP, the Grand Ole Party, the Republicans for the most anal statement because they allowed these people to talk and the points they were given to talk about.  This is the tact that the Party has taken in the last week or so.

John McCain–“Obama is flirting with socialism”

Sarah Palin–“It is good to be in the area of pro-America”

Rep. Michele Bachmann–“I am concerned that Obama is anti-American”

Mel Martinez–“Obama is a communist”

Rep. Robin Hayes–“Liberals hate real Americans”

I chose these because it illustrates what will be said to demonize another American just to win an election.

How About A Split Ticket?

This brings up an important question: Why are voters denied the chance to vote for a president of one party and a vice president of the other? After all, voters often split their votes in other ways: between a president of one party and a House member or senator of the other; between federal representatives of one party and state representatives of the other. Why not let voters consider making Biden’s offhand comment during the primaries this spring — that he could envision serving as John McCain’s vice president — a reality?

In fact, nothing in the U.S. Constitution or in federal election law requires that voters in each state must choose between unified president/vice president party tickets. In early American history, the men serving in the top and second jobs came from opposing parties. In 1796, Thomas Jefferson served as John Adams’ vice president, even though the two bitter rivals represented and headed opposing parties. At the time, some even thought a “split” executive promoted checks and balances and was thus something to be embraced, not lamented.
For example, almost every state awards its electoral college votes on a winner-take-all basis rather than proportionally. So, if Barack Obama wins California 55% to 45%, he still gets 100% of the state’s electoral college votes — the biggest possible reward for taking California’s concerns and issues seriously during the campaign and in the future. Those few states that allocate electors proportionately are at a competitive disadvantage relative to the others.

But states could stop tying the vice president into the deal without changing the winner-take-all approach, so there wouldn’t be obvious harm to their relative influence. And even if a president resented serving with a vice president from an opposing party, why not leave it up to the voters whether to take that risk or avoid it, as they already do in deciding whether to split their tickets in other ways?

This suspiciously sounds like the now defunct Unity 08.  I am sure the the LA Times knew that already when they wrote the opinion piece.

Marx Gets Resurrected

Two decades after the Berlin Wall fell, communism’s founding father Karl Marx is back in vogue in eastern Germany, thanks to the global financial crisis. His 1867 critical analysis of capitalism, Das Kapital, has risen from the publishing graveyard to become an improbable best-seller for the academic publisher, Karl-Dietz-Verlag.

“Everyone thought there would never again be any demand for Das Kapital, the managing director, Joern Schue-trumpf said. He has sold 1,500 copies so far this year, triple the number sold in all of 2007 and a 100-fold increase since 1990. “Even bankers and managers are now reading Das Kapital to try to understand what they’ve been doing to us,” he added.

A recent survey found 52 per cent of eastern Germans believe the free market economy is “unsuitable” and 43 per cent said they wanted socialism rather than capitalism. Unemployment in the former communist east is 14 per cent, double western levels, and wages are significantly lower. Millions of jobs were lost after reunification.

Desperately Seeking A Message

In the beginning there was the message of experience, then it was the maverick, then it was national security and then the economy tanked, and then it was the Ayers thing and now it is socialism and maybe back to experience depending if they can spin the Biden comment.

The McCain campaign is flailing around desperately seeking a message that will have some weight with the voter.  Kinda looks like they are throwing crap at a wall to see what sticks.  If that is the case, one should ask what is the real message of the McCain camp?  Does he truly believe any of the crap slung around by his surrogates?  Does he have a message?  If so, just what is the message?

I do not want to continuously pick on the McCain campaign, but as a political analyst, there is just too much to over look.  McCain’s speeches reminds me of Aristotle, when he said in The Republic, “The ship’s captain is locked up, navigator is ignored and the crew only has ears for the foolish words of their leader who just promises them what they all want to hear”.  (that is from memory the words may have been a bit different, but the thought is there)  In that Aristotle is talking about democracy, but it sure sounds like the McCain camp to me.

With two weeks left, if McCain has any illusions of winning, he must go back to being that loveable little maverick that won him the nomination.  Playing Grumpy, ain’t working.

The Gospel Of The Free Market

The gospel of the “free market,” which has, particularly over the past three decades, become the secular religion of the entire political establishment, has proven to be a recipe for social disaster. In one sense, however, the system has worked quite well. It has performed its essential function of generating colossal levels of personal wealth for the financial aristocracy.

The Financial Times reported last month that compensation for major executives of the seven largest US banks totaled $95 billion over the past three years, even as the banks recorded $500 billion in losses.

Small shareholders have been ruined; pensions, IRAs and 401(K)s have been decimated, factories are closing and families in the millions are losing their homes—but the Wall Street titans get to keep every penny they have pocketed for themselves.

There will be no letup in Wall Street bankers’ ruthless pursuit of profits and personal wealth. While the government and politicians of both parties are calling for all Americans to “sacrifice” for the sake of the “nation,” the CEOs of major banks and financial companies are exploiting the crisis of their own making to extract new concessions from the government.

The American Bankers Association on Monday demanded that government regulators scrap accounting rules that require banks and financial firms to write down the value of worthless assets on their balance sheets.

The arrogance of the bankers is so brazen than even the Wall Street Journal is warning that their behavior could spark a popular backlash. In a cautionary article entitled “Street’s Demands May Stir Public Wrath,” the Wall Street Journal wrote on Tuesday: “You would have thought the Street’s last surviving chieftains would be a contrite bunch by now, eager to reform their industry and help rebuild their country.

Despite this carte blanche for the bankers, it was deemed necessary to roll out George W. Bush on Friday to reassure Wall Street that there were no strings attached and no hint of nationalization in the bailout scheme. Speaking before the US Chamber of Commerce early Friday morning—his remarks timed to precede the opening of the stock market—Bush paid obeisance to “democratic capitalism” as “the greatest system ever devised.”

“Some have viewed this temporary measure as a step toward nationalizing banks,” he said. “This is simply not the case.”

To dispel all doubts, he specified key terms of the deal: “The government will not exercise control over any private firm. Federal officers will not have a seat around your local bank’s boardroom table. The shares owned by the government will have voting rights that can be used only to protect the taxpayers’ investment, not to direct the firm’s operations.

“The government intervention is not a government takeover. Its purpose is not to weaken the free market; it is to preserve the free market.”

He added, “We must not blur the line between the government and the private sector. We must not supplant the profit motive with political motives.”

Everyone in the audience understood that “political motives” was a euphemism for infringing on profit and the wealth of the financial elite to address the social crisis facing the working class.