Iraq

Today's Visionary: An Illustrated Guide to Dr. King's 21st Century Insights

Richard Eskow — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:37:33 -0500

Here it comes again. This holiday weekend we'll see a lot of media coverage of Martin Luther King, Jr. But we'll hear very little about what he really was - a brave and visionary leader whose vision is as relevant today as ever.

One year ago I listed ten quotes by Dr. King, and mourned the lack of a movement that would advance his kind of vision. Then came the uprising in Madison and the Occupy movement, which began a long-overdue national debate about economic, as well as racial inequality.

Once again, Dr. King's insights provide offer insight and vision for today's movement activists - and tomorrow's.

1. "True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring." Where Do We Go From Here? August 1967 speech.

"Bain Capitalism" - aka "vulture capitalism" - didn't happen out of nowhere. It was made by politicians. It should be un-made by politicians. The system is the problem and it needs to change.

A long list of corporations and banks enriched itself by triggering the events that led to the Great Recession, and many of them took Federal bailout money when it happened. Each of them has a Corporate Social Responsibility policy, designed to show they're good citizens who give back to the community. And each of them has a fleet of lobbyists working to protect their privileged status and tax benefits.

Meanwhile the poverty rate, which had been declining, started to rise again in 2000. That year it stood at 11.3%, but by 2009 the Census Bureau reported that it had climbed back to 14.3%. At last count, 46 million Americans lived in poverty, more than 15 percent of the population. More than 16 million of them are children, which means that nearly one in four American kids (22 percent) is living in poverty.

Is that okay with you?

The situation has become so grave that The Nation responded by allocating an entire page to poverty, which is managed by Greg Kaufman. Sadly, it is now essential reading if we're to understand the real state of our union. As Kaufman points out, one study suggests that 340,000 children joined the ranks of the impoverished last year.

As the New York Times reported last September, another 2.6 million people slipped below the official poverty line in 2010. The official total of impoverished Americans was the highest it's been in the 52 years that it has been reported. For white Americans, the figure was 9.9 percent. The poverty rate for African Americans surged to 27.4 percent. For Hispanics the figure was 26.6 percent. For African American children the figure was 39 percent.

Is that okay with you?

(photo by Jeff Schrier, Saginaw News)

2. "We must develop a federal program of public works, retraining, and jobs for all - so that none, white or black, will have cause to feel threatened ... There is nothing except shortsightedness to prevent us from guaranteeing an annual minimum and livable income for every American family." Where Do We Go From Here?

Many economists agree that the unemployment rate will remain tragically high unless there is a concentrated program of government-funded, short-term job creation. Instead, budget cutbacks are forcing layoffs of government employees, especially at the state level. Republicans are refusing to back any extension of unemployment benefits. Among their Presidential candidates, only Mitt Romney appears to support increasing the minimum wage.

President Obama's pre-compromised and therefore overly mild jobs proposal was weakened with ineffective tax breaks for businesses, but it would have provided some jobs. Yet even that proposal was rejected by the Republicans. Of the political groups in Washington, only the House Progressive Caucus is willing to propose an effective ob creation bill - one that would also reduce the nation's deficit. But mainstream media have stigmatized it as "extreme" and no major politician is willing to back it.

What did Dr. King say about jobs?

"The unemployed, poverty-stricken white man must be made to realize that he is in the very same boat with the Negro. Together, they could exert massive pressure on the government to get jobs for all. Together they could form a grand alliance. Together, they could merge all people for the good of all."

Today it seems that the only bills that even get proposed are those that disguise tax breaks for corporations as "stimulus" spending, even though there is widespread agreement they're an ineffective way of creating jobs when there's not enough consumer demand.

With 24 million people out of work or under-employed, demand is hard to come by. ALong-term unemployment is a portrait of human loss, of human beings cast out of productive, wage-earning lives and into an existence of hopelessness and deprivation.

How bad is unemployment today? There are a number of ways to illustrate it. Here's one:

Pundits and politicians get excited about short-term blips in unemployment figures. But nobody's addressing this long-term catastrophe..

3. "A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth." Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence, April 1967 speech.

(Daimler Maybach sedan, manufacturer's suggested retail price $366,000 - plus delivery and other charges)

Hello, Occupy!

The gap between the wealthy and the rest of society is greater now than it was when Dr. King spoke those words in April, 1967. The progress we made toward reducing poverty is being eroded as the result of increasingly maldistributed wealth, Wall Street's reckless gambling, and the cost of the Great Recession that followed. Wall Street's doing fine, now that it has been rescued by the American public. But the American public isn't doing so well. We threw a life preserver to the drowning bankers, and now they're sitting on the shore as millions of their rescuers go down for the third time.

Income inequality in this country is worse than it is in Egypt. As economist Edward Wolff explains, wealth inequality has more than doubled in this country since the mid 1970s. The GINI coefficient, which measures economic inequality, has risen nearly 20% since it was first measured in this country (coincidentally, the same year Dr. King's speech was given.)

Where are the trends headed?

The increasing disparity in wealth has been greatest for the top 0.5% of earners - the wealthiest of the wealthy - yet their tax burden has dropped from 70% in 1967 to 35% today (it was scheduled to "soar" to 39.6% until the Obama/McConnell tax deal of December 2010). And hedge fund managers - including the billionaires - continue to pay 15% instead of the 28% commonly paid by teachers, nurses, and police officers. (One hedge fund manager likened the possibility of a change to Hitler's invasion of Poland.)

The Federal minimum wage, however, has dropped from $6.58 in fixed-dollar terms (1996 equivalent) to $5.29 since this speech was given. When Dr. King gave his speech, it was possible to support a family of three on this wage and stay out of poverty, but that's no longer possible.

4. "The profit motive, when it is the sole basis of an economic system, encourages a cutthroat competition and selfish ambition that encourages men to be I-centered rather than thou-centered." Where do we go from here?

The I-centeredness of American business leaders has reached a level Dr. King could not have dreamed of. Two short years after Wall Street ruined the economy and was rescued by the American people, the depth of its self-absorption and self-pity was a miracle of human indulgence. It reflects a self-centeredness so profound that its leaders are in danger of morally imploding, spiritual black holes in an amoral universe.

Case in point: Steven Schwartzman, the hedge fund manager we mentioned earlier, who felt that paying taxes on his billions' at a laborers' rate was the moral equivalent of the invasion of Poland.

Or Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, who said "We're very important ... we do God's work." (Reverend King might beg to differ.)

Or erstwhile Democrat Daniel S. Loeb comparing himself and his fellow investors to an oppressed minority, victims of tyranny (a "tyranny" that rescued them and asked nothing in return), and even underpaid workers.

Or John Coulson, head of the Mortgage Bankers Association, lecturing underwater homeowners not to walk out on their mortgages - even as his organization was walking away from a headquarters building they lost nearly forty million dollars on in two short years.

Or the King of the Emo Executives, Jamie Dimon, pouring out his hurt feelings to the New York Times - "My Achilles heel?" Jay-Z rapped, "Love! I don't get enough of it!" - even as his bank was on its way to earning record profits in a time of record unemployment (and as it continued to engage in unscrupulous business practices).

Dimon, who has also contributed to the Democratic Party, is stridently resisting regulations that would remove the existential threat his bank (and others like it) pose to the economy. And he won't stop whining.

I'm tired of going after the guy, so this time we'll let Josh Brown tell him what time it is. All these greedy, rapacious, whiny CEOs help to remind us that shame performs a useful social function.

We need better laws and regulations - and they should be ashamed of themselves.

5. "Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals." Letter From a Birmingham Jail, April 1963 open letter.

Tea Party supporters may have populist impulses. But the movement itself was created with an outburst by an investor-turned-television commentator who was cheered on in his rantings by traders on the Chicago Board of Mercantile Exchange. And the movement's been funded by wealthy interests ever since.

After it was bailed out, Wall Street immediately redoubled its lobbying efforts. Banks were able to blunt the most effective and urgently needed financial reforms, like breaking up banks that are "too big to fail." Now they're hard at work eliminating the reforms that were passed, with the help of the Republican Congress they helped get elected. Big-bank CEOs have spent more than $170 million to influence politicians in the last ten years.

The situation has gotten so bad that the International Monetary Fund - hardly a leftist organization - issued a report showing a strong correlation between bank lobbying and risky bank behavior in the United States.

That's why the Occupy movement is so important, and why it must grow and evolve in 2012.

6. "An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal." Letter From a Birmingham Jail

Recent court cases have revealed widespread lawbreaking on the part of United States banks - a "power majority group" - as they foreclosed on homes that in some cases they don't even own.

Members of both parties have indicated an eagerness to rescue banks from the consequences of their own disregard for state and local laws, which has led to numerous and egregious violations (like foreclosing on a home that is fully paid for). But the criminality goes further: In many cases, mortgages changed ownership without proper notification to the borrower. The new holder of the note often changed the rules - about due dates for payment, late penalties, and other contractually agreed-upon terms - without informing the homeowner, then began imposing steep fees and penalties retroactively. (The banks own servicing companies that benefit from these fees.)

Many homeowners are now delinquent because of these wrongfully-imposed fees. Many of the solutions now being proposed would allow them to seize the homes anyway. The Administration's HAMP program, ostensibly designed to help homeowners, has too often become an "extend and pretend" program that allows banks to take another year or two's worth of mortgage payments before seizing the home anyway.

That's why the Obama Administration's cushy settlement deal - which would immunize bankers from criminal prosecution, or even investigation - must be stopped. (You can help by making your voice heard here.)

7. "When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." A Testament of Hope (posthumously published essay).

Banking has become divorced from reality. When the financial sector can enrich itself with speculation alone, it no longer needs to fund concrete business activities. That's why statements like "Main Street and Wall Street rise and fall together" are 100% incorrect: Those two geographies have never been more distant from one another.

Robo-trading. Flash crashes. Databases where mortgages are traded like gambling chips. Incentives to lie, and to hide the truth. Banks are "automated greed factories." The most human thing about banking in the 21st Century is its greed.

Is racism conquered? When infant mortality for African Americans in 2.5 times that of whites? With these disparities in poverty and employment?

Militarism? The Cold War is over and the Defense budget continues to expand. We didn't shift military spending when the world changed—we added to it. The Homeland Security Complex is enormous, growing—and looking for targets of surveillance.

And as Tom Engelhardt points out, President Obama's much-touted "defense cuts" are really just a slight reduction in the rate of spending increase. That's like an alcoholic boasting that he's solved his drinking problem by only having three more drinks a day next month, instead of his original plan to have four more.

As for conquering materialism, how many people even want to anymore? Dr. King's "three triplets" still walk the earth.

8. "There is also the violence of (African Americans) having to live in a community and pay higher consumer prices for goods or higher rents for equivalent housing than are charged in white parts of the city." A Testament of Hope

Payday lenders disproportionately exploit minorities and lower-income communities. Big banks (like Jamie Dimon's) make it harder for working minorities to get credit through normal channels. Then they help finance usurious payday lenders who step in and offer credit at outrageous rates designed to trap the borrower in a cycle of debt, so that a "one-time" fee for borrowing against next week's paycheck turns into a revolving loan that costs the borrower 300-400% in interest per year.

As a theologian and scholar, Dr. King would recognize a practice that was condemned as sinful in both the Old and New Testaments.

Big banks also back auto loans, which have been shown to charge more to African Americans than whites. HSBC Bank settled when it was found to have been charging minority customers more than others.

When it comes to banks, Dr. King would recognize the United States of the 21st Century. And he wouldn't be surprised to learn that the government is still more inclined to rescue banks than force them to change. He would probably be encouraging citizens to take action - action that would change things. The CFPB is now up and running with a full-time Director. We wish Richard Cordray and his staff the best.

9. "Congress appropriates military funds with alacrity and generosity. It appropriates poverty funds with miserliness and grudging reluctance. The government is emotionally committed to the war. It is emotionally hostile to the needs of the poor." Domestic impact of the war in America, November 1967 speech..

Today's politics would look all too familiar to Dr. King. In the matter of poverty, as in so many things, the Washington consensus of "centrist" Democrats and Republicans fails to reflect the opinions of the American people.

He would be pleased to learn that the American people are dedicated to eliminating poverty - and to protecting Social Security, defending Medicare, and asking the wealthy to pay their fair share.

He would be disappointed, however, to find that there aren't more national leaders speaking up for the public's values in Washington.

10. "Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus." Domestic impact of the war.

Dr. King was discussing a critic who told him that taking a controversial position on Vietnam might diminish his authority as a civil rights leader and weaken his political influence in Washington. Here's the full quote:

And I had to answer by looking that person into the eye, and say 'I'm sorry sir but you don't know me. I'm not a consensus leader.' I do not determine what is right and wrong by looking at the budget of my organization or by taking a Gallup poll of the majority opinion. Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.

We're speculating now, but we can't help imagining that Dr. King might have challenged today's leaders to try harder at molding consensus before seeking to achieve it. That was his idea of genuine leadership.

Lately the President of the United States has been taking a tougher rhetorical stance on behalf of the American majority. We hope that his words will be followed by a year of aggressive action. But we won't be waiting to find out. We'll be acting for ourselves and encouraging others to do the same.

See you at the demonstrations.

Today's Visionary: 10 Things Martin Luther King, Jr. Taught Us About Today's Struggles

Richard Eskow — Sun, 28 Aug 2011 14:17:18 -0400

A lot of people in the media are so afraid of offending anyone that they can't even tell the truth about the man whose memorial is being unveiled this weekend in Washington. Their coverage could give you the impression that the purpose of Martin Luther King, Jr's life was simply to make everybody in this country feel good about themselves. So once again we're presenting ten quotes that represent Dr. King as he truly was -- the kind of brave and visionary leader we so badly need today.

You might be forgiven for thinking that everybody liked and admired Dr. King while he was alive except maybe for a few angry old white people down South (who later realized the errors of their ways and were very sorry.) The media have been so reluctant to convey Dr. King's true message that Glenn Beck can claim to have inherited his mantle and millions of people believe him. They're so afraid of telling his truth that a Pentagon official can claim that the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, the spiritual heir to Gandhi's mantle of nonviolence, would have supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In this fame-addicted age, this activist and challenger of comfortable ideals has been presented as just another celebrity. And these days "celebrity" is another word for "commodity." Dr. King: Didn't they use his picture for one of those Apple ads (or was it Nike?) Didn't he have his picture taken with movie stars and singers? Future generations may come to believe he was famous just for being famous - like a Kardashian.

This weekend Dr. King's name will be spoken by politicians and business leaders who would probably despise what he would have had to say about 21st Century America. They'll try to appropriate his name and memory to ensure their own well-being. They hope to domesticate his moral challenge in order to protect their own ambition.

Fortunately, Martin Luther King left his words behind. In his honor, here are ten quotes from Dr. King, illustrated with images from today's events to show their continued meaning. If they don't manage to comfort the afflicted on this national holiday—and at least unsettle the comfortable—they're followed by a slide show with even more quotes.

A long chain of corporations and banks enriched itself by triggering the events that led to the Great Recession, and many of them took Federal bailout money when it happened. Each of them has a Corporate Social Responsibility policy, designed to show they're good citizens who give back to the community. And each of them has a fleet of lobbyists working to protect their privileged status and tax benefits.

The poverty rate, which had been declining, started to rise again in 2000. That year it stood at 11.3%, but by 2009 the Census Bureau reported that it had climbed back to 14.3%. At last count, 43.6 million Americans lived in poverty. In raw numbers, that's the highest number since these statistics were first collected more than fifty years ago (although it's been higher as a percentage of the population).

We're moving in the wrong direction. Children are being hit the hardest, and their rate of poverty is growing the fastest. More than 20% of children in the United States - one child in five - lived in poverty in 2009. The poverty rate for African Americans was 25.8%, a considerably higher percentage than possess a college degree. A college education is still the best ticket out of poverty - but there's considerable pressure to cut funding for education, too.

Poverty rates would have been even higher if not for unemployment insurance, which was not extended for the long-term unemployed. That means they're likely to jump again. The "99ers" have exhausted their ninety-nine weeks of special unemployment, and the agreement that extended tax cuts for the wealthy and the middle class included nothing for them.

(photo by Jeff Schrier, Saginaw News)

Had Dr. King's vision become reality, it wouldn't have been necessary to extend unemployment for the 99ers. As he said:

"The unemployed, poverty-stricken white man must be made to realize that he is in the very same boat with the Negro. Together, they could exert massive pressure on the government to get jobs for all. Together they could form a grand alliance. Together, they could merge all people for the good of all."

Today the idea of Federal support for jobs is considered so politically unfeasible that President Obama didn't even bother asking Congress for the full stimulus package economists felt was needed - and that was in a national emergency. The only bills that can passed are those that disguise tax breaks for corporations as "stimulus" spending, even though there is widespread agreement they're an ineffective way of creating jobs when there's not enough consumer demand.

With 25 million people out of work or under-employed, demand is harder to come by. And the rapid rise in long-term unemployment is a portrait of human loss, the outline of human beings cast out of productive, wage-earning lives into an existence of hopelessness and deprivation:

In the mid-sixties there was vigorous protest at the idea that 5% might be an acceptable unemployment level. The racial disparities of Dr. King's day haven't changed much, at least as far as employment is concerned: The African American rate that month was 15.8%, as opposed to 8.5% for Caucasians. Official figures reflect the fact that unemployment in the black community is twice that of whites - and the true difference is probably even greater, once figures are adjusted for those who have given up seeking employment. Underemployment is also considerably higher among African Americans.

But Caucasians aren't winning this game, either. 8.5% is a devastating figure. Increased employment for some people means more jobs for all, as newly-employed workers spend their earnings and stimulate economic growth. Dr. King's words are as true today as they were when he spoke them: A unified movement to demand more jobs would benefit all races and communities in the United States.

Income support for lower-income Americans was cut during the Clinton years, in the name of welfare reform. Dr. King's dream of an annual minimum income for all Americans, working or unemployed, may sound hopelessly radical today. But Richard Nixon proposed a guaranteed national income (he called it a "negative income tax") and it almost made it through Congress while he was President.

Could a President as economically progressive as Richard Nixon get elected today? It's hard to tell, because nobody's tried lately.

3. "A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth." Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence, April 1967 speech.

(Daimler Maybach sedan, manufacturer's suggested retail price $366,000 - plus delivery and other charges)

As economist Edward Wolff explains, wealth inequality has more than doubled in this country since the mid 1970s. The GINI coefficient, which measures economic inequality, has risen nearly 20% since it was first measured in this country (coincidentally, the same year Dr. King's speech was given.)

This increasing disparity in wealth has been greatest for the top 0.5% of earners - the wealthiest of the wealthy - yet their tax burden has dropped from 70% in 1967 to 35% today (it was scheduled to "soar" to 39.6% until the Obama/McConnell tax deal of December 2010). And hedge fund managers - including the billionaires - continue to pay 15% instead of the 28% commonly paid by teachers, nurses, and police officers. (One hedge fund manager likened the possibility of a change to Hitler's invasion of Poland.)

Case in point: Steven Schwartzman, the hedge fund manager we mentioned earlier, who felt that paying taxes on his billions' at a laborers' rate was the moral equivalent of the invasion of Poland.

Or Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, who said "We're very important ... we do God's work." (Reverend King might beg to differ.)

Or the King of the Emo Executives, Jamie Dimon, pouring out his hurt feelings to the New York Times - "My Achilles heel?" Jay-Z rapped this year, "Love! I don't get enough of it!" - even as his bank was on its way to earning record profits in a time of record unemployment (and as it continued to engage in unscrupulous business practices).

Poverty's up. Unemployment's essentially unchanged. The American family is struggling. American businesses just had their best quarter ever. Yet its leaders are whining. They're using the rhetoric of freedom in defense of greed.

Dr. King trained his followers in the path of nonviolent resistance to endure jail, starvation, beatings, and even death without complaint or retaliation. He would not be impressed with America's CEOs.

After it was bailed out, Wall Street immediately redoubled its lobbying efforts. Banks were able to blunt the most effective and urgently needed financial reforms, like breaking up banks that are "too big to fail." Now they're hard at work eliminating the reforms that were passed last year, with the help of the Republican Congress they helped get elected. Big-bank CEOs have spent more than $170 million to influence politicians in the last ten years.

And that report was issued before the lobbying frenzy of the last twelve months - before the White House hired more bank executives to placate Wall Street, and before leading Republicans paraded themselves before bank lobbyists like le Pigalle hookers on a Parisian summer's night.

Guess who wasn't represented? The American public, 72% of whom want Washington to do more to rein in Wall Street misbehavior. Washington still lives by its version of the Golden Rule: Whoever has the gold, sets the rules.

Recent court cases have revealed widespread lawbreaking on the part of United States banks - a "power majority group" - as they foreclosed on homes that in some cases they don't even own.

The incestuous relationship between big banks and government threatens to undermine fundamental principles of law and justice, some of which were established in the Magna Carta. A recent proposal from "centrist" group Third Way is typical ("centrist" is a term Dr. King wouldn't recognize in its present use, where it denotes a right-wing ideology masquerading as middle-of-the-road "common sense'). It would override centuries of legal tradition and the legal responsibilities of the states to protect the nation's banks at the expense of their clients.

There are rumors that the Administration is sympathetic to solutions of this kind. It seems safe to say that Dr. King would not have felt the same way.

Is racism conquered? When infant mortality for African Americans in 2.5 times that of whites? With these disparities in poverty and employment?

As for conquering materialism, how many people even want to anymore? Dr. King's "three triplets" still walk the earth. And three years into what has become a permanent depression for millions of Americans, reality shows about rich people are still popular.

As a theologian and scholar, Dr. King would recognize a practice that was condemned as sinful in both the Old and New Testaments.

Big banks also back auto loans, which have been shown to charge more to African Americans than whites. HSBC Bank settled when it was found to have been charging minority customers more than others.

He would be pleased to learn that the American people are dedicated to eliminating poverty - and to protecting Social Security, defending Medicare, and asking the wealthy to pay their fair share. He might be disappointed, however, to find that there aren't more national leaders speaking up for the public's values in Washington.

10. "Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus." Domestic impact of the war.

And I had to answer by looking that person into the eye, and say 'I'm sorry sir but you don't know me. I'm not a consensus leader.' I do not determine what is right and wrong by looking at the budget of my organization or by taking a Gallup poll of the majority opinion. Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.

This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project.

On Redistribution, Or, “Afghanistan Peace Dividend Stimulus Lotto? OK!”

fake consultant — Thu, 12 May 2011 06:46:32 -0400

They tell us we’re dropping about $10 billion a month in Afghanistan so we can catch that Bin Laden guy...but eventually, we’re gonna catch him, and as soon as we do you can imagine that folks will be wondering why we’re still over there – and I gotta tell ya, I’m one of those people.

I mean, we’re over here talking about how we're so broke that we have no choice but to cut a couple of billion from heat assistance for the poor, and a billion-and-a-half from the Social Security operations budget, and money from food stamps and childcare assistance and tornado forecasting in Alabama…but every single month, just as regular as clockwork, we seem to be able to find another $10 billion to spend in Afghanistan, even as we have an economy that could badly use another round of truly productive stimulus.

And I don’t think y’all even realize just how much money $10 billion really is – but today we’re gonna see if we can’t fix that with a bit of a thought exercise.

Imagine if we set up a program that took that Afghanistan money and spent it right here at home for a year or two – and it was spent in the form of a lottery, where we stimulate the larger economy, help fix the mortgage crisis, and create a more energy-independent nation, all at the same time.

I got all we need except a catchy name; with that in mind let’s move on to the description of how the Happy Super Fun Day Peace Lotto Stimulus Thingy works.

...In this world, the two cities – the earthly and the heavenly – are commingled; but hereafter the predestinate and the reprobate will be separated. In this life we cannot know who, even among our seeming enemies, are to be found ultimately among the elect...

--Bertrand Russell, explaining St. Augustine, in the book “A History of Western Philosophy”

So it couldn’t be any simpler: what I have in mind, to illustrate our point, is a giant national lottery, and it wouldn’t cost a dime to enter.

First prize would be directed toward cleaning up the mortgage crisis by either getting folks out from “under water”, lowering their current monthly payments, or converting them from renters into homeowners: if you’re one of the 10,000 first place winners, you get $250,000 to spend on either paying down your mortgage or to buy a house of your choice if you don’t have one now.

Second prize involves “greening” America’s homes; the idea being that if we cut America’s heating, air conditioning, and hot water bills, we free up billions of newly productive dollars to create long-term self-sustaining consumer demand – and that means you can take some of that power bill money and go out and have a nice dinner with the kids again.

10,000 winners would each get $50,000, and with that you could easily replace a whole lot of windows with better-insulated ones…or you could get some solar panels, or put up that rooftop wind generator you’ve been thinking about, and you could pay for the electrical connections to get you in the business of selling power back to your utility. Don’t own your house? That’s OK, we’ll “green” it up anyway, with the owner’s permission – and if that can’t be arranged, then maybe we’ll have to just award you third prize instead.

The idea behind our third prize is to lower the amount of money we spend every year on imported oil; to that end we would give 50,000 third place winners $40,000 to spend on a vehicle that gets 40 MPG or better – and because we don’t want to “disincentive” inexpensive green cars, if you can arrange to buy two cars for $40,000, we’ll do that, too. (And hey, just to be fair: if you were “bumped down” from second place, let’s make your “car credit” $50,000.)

That’s 70,000 winners, folks, who could end up with a new house, or a new car, or a newly energy-efficient home – and that doesn’t give a complete picture of just how much we’re really spending right now blowing up Afghanistan.

You see, we’re spending so much right now that we could give away all this stuff every single month of the year with all the money we’re dumping “Over There” instead – and even that doesn’t tell the whole story, because all that stuff...all the houses and all the cars and all the energy improvements...represents only 50% of what we’re spending every month Over There.

And all that money doesn’t even include what we’re spending on our other wars, overt and covert, in Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, the Philippines, Yemen, Iran, Mexico, Columbia, Venezuela, and, of course, the one we fight right here in the good ol’ USA: The War On Drugs.

So whaddaya think, America?

Should we continue the endless war and keep on looking for those last 100 or so Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan, to the tune of $100 million a month for each guy, for the next decade or so…or would you rather do a giant lottery for a couple of years, for half the cost of what we’re spending every month over there now, that creates lots and lots of jobs and permanently lowers our national energy bill?

I think I know which one you want – and that’s just too bad, because we aren’t gonna get it anytime soon, now are we?

Deficits Are the New Iraq

Richard Eskow — Mon, 02 May 2011 14:57:29 -0400

Before President Obama announced Bin Laden's death the big topic in Washington was the deficit. Pundits and politicians alike eagerly anticipated a possible "bi-partisan" budget-cutting deal forged by "selfless" Republicans and Democrats. Deficits will be the hot topic again after the excitement dies down. But Bin Laden's death is a timely reminder of what happened the last time Washington's leaders and pundits reached a "bi-partisan consensus."

Then, as now, we were told that their consensus viewpoint was clearly and objectively correct. Then, as now, dissenting voices were marginalized, mocked, or ignored. Then, as now, the media credulously took the biased statements of interested parties for the objective voice of reason. Then, as now, many politicians were either too fearful or self-serving to speak the truth. And then, as now, we were told that the consensus idea was bigger than the petty distinctions of "left" and "right."

What did we get for all of that? The war in Iraq. And then, as now, the ones being celebrated for their "courage" and "sacrifice" won't be the ones to pay the price.

Politicians must be toughening their palms with rock salt to get ready for all the high-fiving they'll do if there's a deficit deal. But before we read any more gushing stories about the Gang of Six or watch any more fountains of self-congratulation erupt from the lips of self-serving "centrists," let's remember some lessons from recent history. The President and other Democratic leaders might want to take special note of one such lesson: At least two people who are not named Barack Obama might have become President if they hadn't gone along with the crowd.

A good starting point for reflection is this weekend's editorial from New York Times Managing Editor Bill Keller. It's so chock-full of naivete and misinformation that it's hard to know where to start, but the Gang of Six is as good a place as any: "The popular culture tends to treat 'politician' as a synonym for 'craven.'" Keller writes. "But I think the Gang of Six is the kind of undertaking that should give politics a good name."

I'd quote more, but I'm afraid I'll be accused of "aggregating."  Let's just say that by the time he compares the Gang of Six to Nelson Mandela (Really! he's self-aware enough to try backtracking afterwards, but really!) ,and then suggests they're engaged in "thankless, bet-your-career work," tiny shreds of credibility lie scattered at his feet like so much "Mission Accomplished" confetti. (Uh-oh. There goes my shot at replacing Bob Herbert.)

I don't know if you've been to the Senate Dining Room, but Robben Island it ain't.

This just in: These six senators represent Washington's conventional wisdom. And conventional wisdom is a kind of safe house, a place to hunker down when you're tired of fighting for what you believe in. The Self-Serving Six have clear and selfish goals: to become power brokers, snag huge chunks of air time (a politician's oxygen), open the spigot for a gushing flow of campaign money, and secure prosperous futures filled with board memberships, foundation directorships, and the leadership of many "bipartisan commissions" to come.

Think the pianist at Lounge 201 on Mass Ave knows how to play Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrika?

It was the New York Times, of course, who brought us the false "news" of Iraq's WMD , thanks to Judith Miller and her anonymous source "Curveball." And the Times editorial page accepted the false premises behind the invasion of Iraq just as unequivocally as Keller accepts the false premises behind austerity economics.

What are those false premises? That we can cut the deficit without first addressing our jobs crisis. That Social Security contributes to the deficit. That it's "braver" to shift Medicare costs to the elderly than it is to face the dragon of for-profit healthcare. That tax increases should come in the form of 'expenditure' cuts that target the middle class and protect the wealthy.

These ideas are the "WMD" of austerity economics. Alice Rivlin and the other handful of Democratic economists pushing these ideas are its Curveballs. And on any given day, half a dozen prominent journalists are its Judith Millers.

Some more parallels:

We're attacking the wrong enemy: Saddam Hussein was a horrible human being and a terrible dictator, but he wasn't our most immediate threat. For national security in 2002, the most urgent threat was (and still is) a stateless network of fundamentalist terrorists.

For the economy in 2011, our urgent problems are unemployment, wasteful war spending, extravagant tax cuts for the wealthy, and a real economy that's locked in stagnation. Note to upscale Times readers: The real economy is the one you enter when your subway train passes Fulton Street on its way north from Wall Street, or through Bowling Green station on its way to Brooklyn.

(Who am I kidding? Subways? Just tell the driver to point out Fulton Street on your way back to the Upper East Side.)

We've forgotten that our economy was shattered by reckless, under-regulated banks. Our government just took a step toward protecting us from Al Qaeda. When will it protect us from Goldman Sachs? It doesn't take smart bombs, just smart laws. And we don't need terminators, just regulators.

We're making the real problem worse: When we attacked Iraq we gave Al Qaeda a rich vein of recruiting material, and made the world's terrorism problem much worse. Worldwide incidents of terrorism rose exponentially after we invaded Iraq, from 165 in 2003 to more than 11,000 in 2005.

Economically, premature budget cuts will costs us hundreds of thousands of jobs when we should be spending to create more jobs. And those tax "increases" will probably take the form of reductions in tax "expenditures" that help people to keep their homes and their health insurance. They'll devastate the middle class, and the ripple effect will be destructive to the whole economy.

The bi-partisanship fetish ignores the people we should really listen to: non-partisans.

Most reasonable economists agree that we should have more investment in jobs and growth, and address the deficits afterwards. Similarly, nonpartisan experts like Reagan's former chief Social Security actuary say benefit cuts aren't needed and would be counterproductive.

That's the non-partisan consensus. But "bi-partisans" like the Gang of Six rule the media and policy worlds right now. They're politicians, not experts, and they rely on campaign contributions in a post-Citizens United world. They're united more by self-interest than they are divided by party. Personally, I'd rather rely on people who don't have such a huge personal stake in the outcome.

Deficit cutting, like the war in Iraq, was "a solution in search of a problem" long before the crisis came.

The invasion of Iraq came straight from the shock-doctrine playbook: Exploit a crisis, and the resulting fear and confusion, to do what you already wanted to do. Neocons in the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) had been planning the invasion of Iraq for years. 9/11 was their their chance.

The government-haters behind today's austerity economics push have also been planning their moves for a long time, too. Billionaire Pete Peterson proposed a government-downsizing scenario in the early 1990s that's virtually identical to those we'llbe seeing from the Gang of Six and other servants of the new Beltway consensus. The Peterson Foundation is the PNAC of deficit reduction.

The consensus will damage careers - including political ones.

Austerity economics won't work. When that becomes obvious there will be hell to pay. When the suffering really starts, people will look for someone to blame.

Going along with the status quo seemed like the smart career move in 2002. Just ask Phil Donohue, or General Shinseki, or Bill Maher, or anyone else who didn't and paid a price. But in the long run, many of those who followed the herd suffered a loss in credibility. The entire field of journalism took a severe hit to its credibility during those years.

The political blowback was even worse. Most people agree that John Kerry would probably have become President if he had voted against the war in Iraq. Same with Hillary Clinton. But a progressive-led House minority was able to take control of that chamber in 2006, largely based on public frustration with the war in Iraq. Will the White House and Senate Democrats remember these painful lessons?

Barack Obama probably wouldn't be President today if he had been in a position to vote for the war back then, and had done so. Who will play Obama's role in 2014, or 2016 - or 2012? Who will prosper politically because she or he didn't go along with the crowd? Political expediency may have some short-term gains, but in the end it isn't worth it. It isn't worth it for your career, it isn't worth it for your conscience, and it certainly isn't worth it for the country.

Let's hope that our leaders understand that the death of Bin Laden isn't just a historial moment. It's a teaching moment, too - if anybody's willing to learn.

This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project and the Strengthen Social Security campaign.

Today's Visionary: 10 Things Martin Luther King, Jr. Taught Us About Today's Struggles

Richard Eskow — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 04:04:59 -0500

A lot of people in the media are so afraid of offending anyone with controversial truths that they can't even tell the truth about the man whose holiday we're celebrating this weekend. Their coverage could give you the impression that the purpose of Martin Luther King, Jr's life was simply to make everybody in this country feel good about themselves—so good, in fact, that we deserve a day off just for having the wisdom to be born American.

You might be forgiven for thinking that everybody liked and admired Dr. King while he was alive - except maybe for a few angry old white people down South, who later realized the errors of their ways and were very sorry. The media have been so reluctant to convey Dr. King's true message that Glenn Beck can claim to have inherited his mantle and millions of people believe him. They're so afraid of telling his truth that a Pentagon official can claim that the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, the spiritual heir to Gandhi's mantle of nonviolence, would have supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In this fame-addicted age, this activist and challenger of comfortable ideals has been presented as just another celebrity. And these days "celebrity" is another word for "commodity." Dr. King: Didn't they use his picture for one of those Apple ads? Or was it Nike? Didn't he have his picture taken with movie stars and singers? Future generations may come to believe he was famous just for being famous - you know, like Heidi Montag.

(photo by Jeff Schrier, Saginaw News)

Had Dr. King's vision become reality, it wouldn't have been necessary to extend unemployment for the 99ers. As he said:

"The unemployed, poverty-stricken white man must be made to realize that he is in the very same boat with the Negro. Together, they could exert massive pressure on the government to get jobs for all. Together they could form a grand alliance. Together, they could merge all people for the good of all."

With 15 million people out of work, demand is harder to come by. And the rapid rise in long-term unemployment is a portrait of human loss, the outline of human beings cast out of productive, wage-earning lives into an existence of hopelessness and deprivation:

Some people "celebrated" last month when the official unemployment rate dropped from 9.8% to 9.4%. (In the mid-sixties there was vigorous protest at the idea that 5% might be an acceptable unemployment level.) The racial disparities of Dr. King's day haven't changed much, at least as far as employment is concerned: The African American rate that month was 15.8%, as opposed to 8.5% for Caucasians. Official figures reflect the fact that unemployment in the black community is twice that of whites - and the true difference is probably even greater, once figures are adjusted for those who have given up seeking employment. Underemployment is also considerably higher among African Americans.

Could a President as economically progressive as Richard Nixon get elected today? It's hard to tell, because nobody's tried lately.

3. "A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth." Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence, April 1967 speech.

(Daimler Maybach sedan, manufacturer's suggested retail price $366,000 - plus delivery and other charges)

Case in point: Steven Schwartzman, the hedge fund manager we mentioned earlier, who felt that paying taxes on his billions' at a laborers' rate was the moral equivalent of the invasion of Poland.

Or Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, who said "We're very important ... we do God's work." (Reverend King might beg to differ.)

Poverty's up. Unemployment's up. The American family is struggling. American businesses just had their best quarter ever. Yet its leaders are whining. They're using the rhetoric of freedom in defense of greed.

After it was bailed out, Wall Street immediately redoubled its lobbying efforts. Banks were able to blunt the most effective and urgently needed financial reforms, like breaking up banks that are "too big to fail." Now they're hard at work eliminating the reforms that were passed last year, with the help of the Republican Congress they helped get elected. Big-bank CEOs have spent more than $170 million to influence politicians in the last ten years.

Recent court cases have revealed widespread lawbreaking on the part of United States banks - a "power majority group" - as they foreclosed on homes that in some cases they don't even own.

There are rumors that the Administration is sympathetic to solutions of this kind. It seems safe to say that Dr. King would not have felt the same way.

Is racism conquered? When infant mortality for African Americans in 2.5 times that of whites? With these disparities in poverty and employment?

As a theologian and scholar, Dr. King would recognize a practice that was condemned as sinful in both the Old and New Testaments.

Big banks also back auto loans, which have been shown to charge more to African Americans than whites. HSBC Bank settled when it was found to have been charging minority customers more than others.

10. "Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus." Domestic impact of the war.

And I had to answer by looking that person into the eye, and say 'I'm sorry sir but you don't know me. I'm not a consensus leader.' I do not determine what is right and wrong by looking at the budget of my organization or by taking a Gallup poll of the majority opinion. Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.

This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project.

America's King George III may get a challenge from the left on Afghanistan.

Michael Kwiatkowski — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:22:38 -0500

Leave it to Ohio's Dennis Kucinich to do what no one else in Congress has the courage to do. The Representative from the Buckeye State's tenth Congressional District is looking to force a vote on withdrawal from Afghanistan, according to a report by RAW Story.

For congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Afghan President Hamid Karzai's announcement Tuesday that his country would need the US's military support for another 10 or 15 years seems to have been the last straw.

The outspoken House representative says it was Karzai's statement that prompted him to draft a resolution calling for a House vote on the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"We shouldn't be there another 15 to 20 months, let alone 15 to 20 years," Kucinich told the Cleveland Plain Dealer. "When I'm in my district talking to people, nobody has come up to me and said we need to be in Afghanistan for the next 15 to 20 years. They do say we need jobs, we need to protect our basic industry, we need education, we need to protect retirement security. I'd like to see us start taking care of things here at home."

Kucinich tried to initiate impeachment proceedings against Dick Cheney using this same method. Unfortunately, he'll get absolutely no support from his own political party. We can't pay for basic services here in the United States, such as medical care and infrastructure including bridges, highways, and electrical grids, but oh how we have money for genocidal killing and for Wall Street criminals. And the political party that is supposed to be against all this is instead enabling it. It's madness.

Small wonder that rumblings of a repeat of 1994 abound. With Democrats like the bunch we elected to power, who needs Republicans? I don't know about you, but it's time we on the left finally get Dennis Kucinich's back and help him end these wars. Click the link to the House Telephone Directory and use it to get in touch with your representatives. Tell them that if they want your money and votes next year, they'd damn well better do as they're told and end this occupation.

John Crippen

John Crippen — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:20:48 -0500

With A Compass, Not A Roadmap

Eric Lotke — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:14:55 -0500

The complaints are starting on the new Obama administration. Some are concerned that he filled his administration with former Clinton hands, reflecting the old school (if more competent), not the change we need.

“What worries me is there is not one person in the senior group who is the outsider to this club,” cautioned Robert Kuttner of the American Prospect. “Where is the diversity of opinion in this economic team?”

David Sirota of our own Campaign for America's Future observes that some terrific progressives have been appointed to high-level positions in the Administration, but they are political jobs, not substantive ones. They are “positions that are focused on selling policy, whatever that policy may be. “ In contrast, the “policy advisers who actually craft policy are almost all right-of-center, Establishment choices.”

Discontent is coming from the other direction as well, as Democrats increase estimates of the cost to revive the economy. During the campaign Obama pledged roughly $150 billion in spending over 10 years to create new jobs for clean energy and rebuilding schools. Now Congressional Democrats are estimating immediate expenditures in the $700 billion range. The GOP has created a spendometer to track the continuing increases.

Obama himself dodges questions about cost. “It is going to be of a size and scope that is necessary to get this economy back on track,” he said in his November 24 press conference. “I don't want to get into numbers right now.”

The question for progressives is whether to demand the details or question his choices.

Both seem premature. Political change happens with a compass, not a roadmap. Obama has clearly indicated which way he wants to lead: in the direction of clean energy, massive public investments, an exit from Iraq and “affordable, accessible health care for all Americans.” These are important and fundamentally progressive goals.

Digby sees a positive side to the appointments to political -- if not substantive -- positions. Simply using progressive language drives our country in a positive direction.

Let’s hope that those old Clinton hands will have the skills and experience to navigate the changing terrain. Obama’s job is to set a direction. Our job is to push him forwards and keep him on course.

White House Blackmails Iraq Ahead of Dec. Expiration of UN Mandate

Gus Wynn — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:21:28 -0400

The recent $70 billion financial bailout was forced onto a skeptical, unwilling American public who dialed in to Congressional offices protesting the plan. The inital NO vote by Congress echoed the feeling by enraged citizens that Wall Street should twist in the wind, choked by it's own greed and irresponsible, unsustainable practices.

The White House got the votes it needed, however, after a few days of tense wrangling in which big finance threatened they'd let the peoples assets get eaten up in their collapse. The White House became salesmen for the deal. Congress saw they were up against impending chaos if the tumbling dominos endangered the life savings of their constituents. Blackmail.

The bailout ensured the Bush White House enough cash and control to see them through to the end of their misbegotten term. That it was unhealthy for the economy in the long-term mattered not - Bush all but doubled the national deficit already, signaling how much he cares about fiscal responsibility.

Now the White House has turned his attention to Iraq. Frustrated for months at the resistance Iraq has shown in signing a Status of Forces Agreement, Bush has ratcheted up the pressure. The SOFA would allow U.S. to continue its "war on terror" in Iraq until 2011 and pave the way for the contracts Big Oil has been long waiting for.

The Iraqi people have been protesting and marching in solidarity against the SOFA which they see as exploitive and imperialist. The blatant greed of the U.S. has brought together Iraqi rivals in common disgust. Prime Minister Maliki, who endorsed Obama's plan for a responsible withdrawal of U.S. forces has stood up to Bush, identifying privatized military forces as a sticking point in negotiations - the Iraqis want Blackwater liable for their actions in Iraqi criminal courts.

But President Bush wants a deal now, charging General Odierno with the job of threatening the Iraqis who quickly termed this blackmail. Odierno gave a three page list of "services" that the U.S. military will withhold if Iraq resists further. This includes the security that has prevented Iraqis from killing eachother in the streets as they did for years before the Petraeus era.

Here's where it gets interesting - January 1st would be the date for withholding these services. In a hilarious twist of irony, a timetable, but without adequate transition support for the Iraqis to take over their own security.

Unlike the timetable proposed earlier by Democrats which Bush claimed amounted to surrender, this timetable is being used to pressure the Iraqis, leaving them without weapons and training, vulnerable to violence, and particularly at their borders. Many experts believe this may further push Iraq towards waiting Iranian influences.

This deadline however isn't of Bush's design- it represents the expiration of the U.N. mandate under which U.S. forces have been allowed to occupy Iraq - the legal cover for the war. Technically, the U.S. couldn't continue providing military "services" if they wanted to - unless a SOFA is signed or the deadline is extended, unlikely because the President won't let Congress, the American people or the U.N. see the terms of the prososed agreement.

Phyllis Bennis offers an excellent analysis of a translated draft of the SOFA leaked by the Iraqis here - and it is a must-read for anyone against this war and particularly troops questioning the legality of their deployment after New Year's Eve.

Perhaps it's the fingerprint of Vice President Cheney at work here. It was Cheney who stopped Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix on his way into the Oval Office to meet the President in 2003. According to Blix, Cheney ordered him to issue a report that agreed with George Bush's claims or Blix would be discredited.

Another story circulated during the 2006 NSA hearings warned that any Republican who voted to continue the inquiries would see their reelection funding withheld -- at the behest of Karl Rove. By the next day, the hearings were discontinued without explanation.

Regardless of who within the White House is conceiving of these blackmail and secrecy plots, it's clear the current administration wants to do some last-minute business in ensuring the wealthiest of defense and energy industry barons contract out a little more plunder before the Bush era ends. Related reading: updated commentary by John Perkins, author of A Game As Old As Empire: Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

Links:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5624
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/54849.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_john_per_070315_john_perkins_3a_...

Abdullahi Edward Tomasiewicz

Abdullahi Edward Tomasiewicz — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:05:21 -0400

An American by Birth I have lived and worked in Nigeria for the past 40 years.