2010 EDITORIALS

TIME TO GO
THE TOXIC WAVE
THE INFAMOUS 45

UPPING ANXIETY
HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT
THE TIME IS COMING
BAD DECISION
QUESTIONS FOR OBAMA
A COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS FOR TODAY
GLOBAL IGNORANCE
NO JOBS
EXPANDING THE CIRCLE OF INFAMY

2010


TIME TO GO

   Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, should get his wish. It is time for President Obama to be replaced, at least by 2013. The last straw was his "deal" over extending the Bush tax cuts which Obama described as a compromise but which was much closer to copitulation. The negotiaton process to reach the "best deal that I could get" has become all too familiar as Obama recognized when he compared it to the health care Public Option proposal. First, give away something that could be used as an opening bargining chip, in this case the federal employee pay freeze, in that case never putting Single Payer on the table. Then signal that he would compromise to get a deal even if Republicans wouldn't budge. His concilatory approach was seen as weakness and McConnell, along with his 40+ Senate Republican zombies, who care nothing about the good of the country, took full advantage. With the right wing about to control the House, the prospects for more extortion and more concessions are bright.
    Obama's justification for the cave-in, in a press conferece to face down disgruntled Dems (Dems that Obama didn't include in the negotiations), was that he wouldn't hurt middle class tax payers. But no mention was made about hurting their children who will have to pay for this tax break for the wealthy under what will likely be even harsher circumstances. Then again those tykes don't vote yet. There is also the duplicity of saving unemployment payments for those about to run out but not getting any extension of benefits for the so-call 99ers. We all know that those 2 year tax cut extensions will now be extended indefinitely but the unemployment entension is only for 13 months, setting up another hostage situation.
    Lawrence O'Donnell defended the deal by saying that tax rate hikes for lower end tax payers could not be legislatively reversed in the next session of congress (assuming that the tax cuts were allowed to expire) and that the pain was unacceptable. No one challenged him with the prospect of just mailing out checks which would roughly cover the take home loses, but no checks would go to the wealthy. When faced with the appropriate heat, would House Speaker Boehner deny legislating that middle class relief? If coupled with extended relief for the wealthy, Republicans would face prominent public ire, as indicated by the polls. The onus would be squarely on them instead of Obama and the Dems getting much of this blame. Or the Fed could do it, using some of their bond buying money. Apologists suggested that more tax relief went to those below the top 2% and that would act as some stimulus. But it is widely recognized that tax cuts do not effectively create jobs when compared to direct government spending, stimulus spending that could come from that tax revenue. And, in any case, what about the deficits? Aren't we still supposed to be reducing them? \The President has done some good things but his Dr. Jeckel, Mr. Hyde personality has resulted in a man we cannot trust. His campaign rhetoric was inspiring and given the choice between Obama and McCain, he had to be selected even without any track record of national accomplishment nor evidence of governing capability. But the "change we can believe in" and "yes we can" has become much more like Bush redux and no we can't.
    Obama's foreign policy differs little from Bush's. More troops in Afghanistan and hands off Pakistan. North Korea remains beligerant while it accumulates more nuclear bombs. The Palistanian situation remains unresolved as more Israeli settlements are built. Burma continues its repression. China continues to support rogue regimes and eats our economic lunch. Iran continues to fester. None of this differs from what Bush has, or would have done.
    But it is not nearly as easy to give Obama a pass on domestic issues. Of the 3 main objectives he addressed, no satisfactory remedies have been established. The Bush initiated bank bailout staved off depression but the unaccompanied regulation left the too-big-to-fail banks even bigger, derivatives underregulated and a smoldering pile of toxic assets still in place. Big banks still avoid stimulating the economy and the foreclosure mess continues to hold down housing values. The stimulus was too small, devoted too much to tax cuts rather then direct spending and its benefits went under publicized. The Affordable Care Act, derivisively called "Obama Care" puts no certain constraints on premium escalation while requiring everyone to sign up for insurance. Increasing medical efficiencies to lower costs were unaddressed as was the employer provider-patient disconnect when it comes to using only needed services. Climate change legislation has been forgotten. Energy independence is just a talking point. DADT remains in effect as does the gun show loophole.
    However, Obama can be legitmately impeached and removed for violating his oath of office--to uphold the law. It is clear that Bush and Cheney and their administration officials committed serious illegalities when ordering torture and warentless wire taps. Nigeria wants Cheney for bribery. Other offenses are likely to surface with proper investigation. But the lack of prosecution also includes the bank/housing fraudsters who almost brought down the whole economy. This is playing out as people are being thrown out of their homes by bank agents who may not even have rightful title to the properties! Allowing Obama to get away with this only permits a new lower standard of Presidential accountability in the future.
    Finally, any real change we could believe in would have to start with going hard after the corruption that pervades Washington and is centered in congress. Even the apparence of bribery should be grounds for quick explusion as it diminishes trust.
    Now is the time to start headhunting for a true progressive (with spine) alternative for a 2012 primary challenge. Any decent Republican candidate for president will beat Obama now that he has abandoned his base and blown up his credibility. Even if he is reelected, there are no signs that McConnell and Republicans won't continue to "walk him like a dog" as one commentator put it. The dream is broken, it is time to cut our loses.
December 9, 2010
JBM
GO BACK TO TOP

THE TOXIC WAVE

   National polls clearly indicated that jobs and the economy, including home foreclosures, have been the top priority for governments to address. So voters across the nation, in their collective "wisdom", ushered in a wave of political sludge that will further gum up the works in Washington, making it, and us, meaner and weaker--if we are lucky. Worse still would be that they get their way; that Obama and Dems allow the right wing to take us into another, even deeper recession if not an outright depression.
    The Conservative mantra this year, led by the Tea Party, has been to cut government spending and get it out of our lives--while it creates jobs. But cutting government spending means cutting government jobs. Unemployed government employees will have less to spend on goods and services, business will slow and more private sector jobs will be lost. And without another stimulus, state governments are going to cut still more jobs. What the dolts can't seem to understand is that without the previous stimulus the official unemployment rate would have been significantly higher than 9.6.
    And cutting government jobs will reduce the governments ability to regulate business so if Conservatives have their way there will be more Wall Street fraud, more oil spills or other "accidents", more tax cheats etc.. Without more spending on infrastructure we will witness continued degradation and inefficiency, making us even less competitive.
    The GOP mantra always involves cutting taxes, especially for the super rich. Cutting taxes allows beneficiaries to "invest" in the stock market and firms who will continue to shift workers overseas in order to maximize short term profits and returns. Major corporations have been the chief way the private sector channels income and wealth to the top 1%--at the expense of the middle class. Targeted spending is much more efficient at creating jobs which will benefit the country for years to come. Of course, Republicans can't be deficit hawks and tax cutters at the same time except in front of the excessively stupid.
    Voters should have kept in mind that the economic mess was inherited by the party they put back in charge of the House, that the impending House majority leader brooks no compromise and that the Senate minority leader wants to end the Obama presidency in 2012 first and foremost, regardless of the damage it might do to the country. So unless Dems do exactly what they are told by these types->gridlock; at least on the core issues.
    Some say that gridlock is okay. What they don't want to conjure with is that circumstances change and that an increasingly out of step, inflexible government will only have bigger problems to deal with later. We've seen a lot of that already.
    But specifically: Do Republican voters really believe that less regulated banks will stop throwing people out of their homes after they sold them improvident, if not deceitful loans?
    Do they really believe that repealing the American Care Act will make us a healthier nation?
    Do they really believe that shrinking the government will bring back jobs? The answer seems to be yes; and that is the bigger problem.
November 3, 2010
JBM
GO BACK TO TOP

THE INFAMOUS 45

   There is no question that Washington, actually the congress, actually the Senate, has failed to address the ongoing problems that continue to grow around us. Economic concerns are in the forefront but are not exclusive. Everybody is pointing fingers but many of the truly reprehensible culprits, those directly responsible for stopping or stalling remedies that would benefit most Americans, are rarely outed for all to see. This has been a huge Democratic mistake as many citizens don't even know the names of those who would destroy the country we wish we had. Here is the list:
    Lamar Alexander, John Barrasso, Robert F. Bennett, Christopher S. Bond, Scott Brown, Sam Brownback, Jim Bunning, Richard Burr, Saxby Chambliss, Tom Coburn, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins, Bob Corker, John Cornyn, Mike Crapo, Jim DeMint, John Ensign, Michael Enzi, Lindsey Graham, Chuck Grassley, Judd Gregg, Orin Hatch, Kay Baily Hutchison, James Inhofe, John Isakson, Mike Johanns, Jon Kyl, George LeMieux, Richard Lugar, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, James Risch, Pat Roberts, Jeff Sessions, Richard Shelby, Olympia Snow, John Thune, David Vitter, George Voinovich and Rodger Wicker are all Republican Senators who have stood as one to keep America in decline (Scott Brown joined the list this year). /You may recognize some of the names of the worst Senators: minority leader McConnell is right on top; against any proposal that doesn't directly benefit the super rich but many are close behind, including DeMint, Coburn, Inhofe, McCain, Kly and Hatch. Others are so obscure that many residents of their own states can't even name them. But they all have one vote and that vote has been cast to abuse the filibuster and rule by minority. The result has been the demise of compromise and hundreds of pieces of legislation sent over from the House which have been left to die. This do-nothing nihilism for expected political gain has brought out the Tea Partiers who have been corralled and co-opted by the plutocrats and thrust into the political arena to supply frightful and disturbing incompetency.
    Voters in some states stand out as significantly detrimental to our overall welfare: Oklahoma, Kentucky and South Carolina have provided the worst of the worst but the old South, right around to Arizona, richly deserves condemnation.
    There are many more who deserve national excoriation and job removal including House minority leader John Boehner, propagandist Rush Limbaugh, Rupert Murdock and the Fox "News" people, but they don't directly stand in the way of getting this country back on a positive track.
    And that brings us to the 5 others that do: Supreme Court justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy. The egregious Bush v. Gore decision begat Roberts and Alito who will be around for a long time to inflict the likes of the horrific and ludicrous Citizens United V. FEC ruling on us.
    When you get angry at the direction we are going, these are the people to focus on. And, of course, never forget Reagan and Bush 43.
October 23, 2010
JBM
GO BACK TO TOP

UPPING ANXIETY

   It is highly likely that distant historians will look back at these troubled times as a "golden age", the one before a potential storm of calamities descended on our nations. As the "not if but when" clock ticks away we can see (if we choose to look) a potential slew of coming assaults near the horizon. Many have seen various anxiety provoking reports which have been shunted off into our subconscious. Too many day-to-day worries to deal with. But the prepared won't be as shocked if one or more of the following occur:
    (1) We are all aware that nuclear war was averted because the few nations that had the capability also had control of their atomic weapons. We are also aware that the number of nuclear weapon making countries is expanding and includes at least one rogue state with more to come. We know that terrorists want at least one nuclear bomb to use and that North Korea et. al. will want the sales income as long as it can't be traced back to them. We also know that world organizations won't act together to forestall such a transaction or use. Then there are the "loose" nukes that are unaccounted for....
    If and when such a bomb goes off the damage won't be confined to the specific location. It will send shock waves around the world. There will be the fallout plume to consider. Financial markets will oscillate around the globe and that insecurity will cause a market contraction. Retaliation will be expected but the perps may be hard to identify. One detonation would likely lead to a military response which could quickly draw in other nations. Urban residents might think they will be next and panics would ensue. The cost to relieve and rebuild would be humongous and much of the advanced world is in precarious financial shape. Billions of people would be emotionally afflicted.
    (2)But there is another type of warfare that is growing in likelihood--cyber warfare. As Richard E. Clark and Robert K. Knake point out in Cyber War, the U.S. is most vulnerable to attack by hackers, acting alone or for a government or terrorist organization. Our private sector has consistently resisted regulation that would require their electronic systems to "harden" against attack. The authors contend that we quickly need to install a deep packet inspection system for Tier 1 ISP's and isolate electric power and grid communication systems detached from the Internet. Hear all the popular uproar for even these basic precautions?
    However, until we get serious about protecting ourselves from cyber attack we may not even have a viable military threat to counter foreign or even domestic demands. It is even less likely that we will be able to trace the attack source and counter it effectively without drawing in innocent bystanders, who will want revenge. You can see where this might all go. The darkness and chaos may come sooner than anyone thinks.
    (3)Scientists can't predict when but they are sure a major earthquake(s) will hit the U.S. west coast this century. The loss of lives and damage will affect the whole country. This won't be some villages in Chile. This won't be some Gulf oil spill. This will dwarf those disasters combined. Fortunately, this assault will be limited in scope. But it might pile on to some other hit.
    (4)Such as a meteor strike. These are very rare occurrences these days but as time marches on the odds increase. Anything sizable striking earth could end life as we know it.
    (5)But let's put that one aside for now. Much more likely are 2 man made calamities.
    We are warming the planet. Weather systems are becoming increasingly unstable. Summers will get hotter and torrential rains and flooding will be more frequent. Sea levels are rising which will force populations away from coasts in massive numbers. Where will they go? Drinkable water sources are drying up and will force people away from America's Southwest. This is a slow moving disaster and there would be time to avert the worst damage if we in America had an efficaciously functioning government and an informed, cohesive citizenry. We have neither and no positive change is in sight.
    (6)And relatedly; as it warms and populations increase it becomes evermore likely that some form of plague(s) breaks out. Air and water borne chemical pollutants are likely to combine with overcrowding and inadequate sanitation to reduce immune systems which will be unable to cope with an air (or water) transmitted, delayed symptomatic disease(s). Global air travel could spread this mutation pandemicly, well before any antidotes or relief can be discovered and generated.
    (7)Finally, but not necessarily exhaustively, financial collapse could be related to any of these misfortunes, or it could occur by itself. America has been in an untenable situation for some time. We have covered up our maldistribution of income and wealth with financial bubbles and middle class borrowing until there is nothing left but a dangerous debt load and the prospect of depression up ahead. Big business controls the government and acts in its own short term interest, not in the interest of the country or the world. This has been touched on in previous editorials. Suffice to reiterate here, until we take from those who have too much to refortify our middle class, any assaults will be compounded by our misplaced financial priorities.
    So enjoy it while you can; it could be worse.
August 18, 2010
JBM

GO BACK TO TOP

HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT

<>   As America's problems continue to get worse, even our mid-term elections become vitally important in the face of runaway partisan conflict. And the centerpiece issue for this November's campaigning and outcomes (barring some unforseen disaster) will be our high unemployment numbers and their relationship to the national deficits and debt. So let's clarify for those paying insufficient attention.
    Unemployment figures aren't coming down anytime soon. Ignore the Obama administration's optimism. The numbers are now structural in nature, an outcome of globalization and subversive political and counterproductive economic policies over the last decades.
    When capital and transport can move around the globe quickly and cheaply due to technological advances, businesses will travel to where they can minimize labor costs thereby maximizing profits. There will continue to be a gravitational pull towards leveling wages between relatively backward and advanced nations. Dictatorships, and those countries with mercantile policies in the developing world, will keep the wages of their workers artifically low in order to maximize exports. The American government will not be able to force these nations to raise their workers wages. [We could close our borders to imports (or institute tariffs) but that would spark retaliation and drive up prices, if we could get Americans to make those products at all.] So our wages will be dragged down towards or below poverty or we will export those jobs, except where we have a technology lead or where they are proximity dependent. Patches, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and tax writoffs for hiring will only desguise the overall decline from the halcyon days after WW II when we controlled world manufacturing and services.
    Traveling under the radar for the most part is another structural factor. In order to compete, American businesses are becoming evermore productive (while others hire illegals at below poverty wages). This means using technology to replace the most costly aspect of that output; the employee. Robots don't need expensive medical insurance nor retirement benefits. And they don't need coffee breaks. The recession has just sharpened the impetus to invest in worker reducing technology rather than rehire.
    And add in the substandard educational system in our country. We not only don't graduate a quarter of our high school students, we have virtually no vocational acadamies to produce recognized, up-to-date technical workers. On top of that, shriviling the course load down to math and English isn't preparing students for living in the modern world.
    The outcome has been a hollowing out of our middle class which over borrowed for decades to keep up with relatively declining incomes. Now that the housing bubble has burst the inevitable scale back in consumer spending, which has propped up our economy for decades, is under way. That reduced demand is the primary reason that business isn't expanding. Forget the Republican intentionally misleading nonsense that big business is holding on to its money because of enonomic and regulation "uncertainty". Business doesn't see increased sales in the near future so why should it expand? But keep in mind that Republicans are doing virtually all they can to minimize any job expansion that might occur due to government stimulus, including bank lending to small business.
    Keeping the Bush tax cuts, which are about to expire, is paramount for the right even though it comprises much (30% according to Fareed Zakaria) of the deficits and debt they say they want to reduce. Ample evidence refutes their lies about tax cuts being self financing, especially compared to targeted jobs bills. It is clear that Republicans want a soft, cheap labor market for the benefit of business profits, continuing the upward redistribution of income and wealth that has transpired since the Reagan presidency.
    However, they are right about tax hikes accelerating the downward spiral towards depression. While other taxes, such as a financial transaction tax (to reduce speculation) and gasoline tax increases (to encourage more fuel efficient car sales) would be beneficial, they would have to be off-set with targeted stimulus outlays to rebuild our infrastructure, especially in the energy production and transmission, conservation and transportation fields. Such expenditures, closely monitored, sans pork, would begin to reshape our economy constructively. The private sector would benefit enormusly from more efficient energy, communication, transportation infrastructure and climate stability. We badly need a better consumption-investment balance. Tax cuts won't do that.
    It should be clear, to anyone paying any attention at all to the overall picture, that the Republican/Conservative/Tea Partiers are rabidly detrimantal to out nation's health. Dems are better but not by nearly enough--but they are better, And maybe they would get even better if right wing obstruction was removed from congress. Do your part.
August 5, 2010
JBM

GO BACK TO TOP

THE TIME IS COMING

<>   Observers, looking down the road, could see the portents of the Friedan-Steinam led feminist revolution of the 1960's. Women wanted equality (in all beneficial areas) while retaining the advantages of sexual attraction and exclusive rights to reproduction. As the cover story in the July/August issue of The Atlantic magazine indicates, that time has about come. As author Hanna Rosen describes, women are dominating society as never before. We have known that in modern, stable societies women outlive men. Now, in post industrial societies, education trumps physical attributes and females are not only doing better in public schools but are approaching 60% of the college attendees. Better educated women have been moving up the ladder from secretary to middle management and now to senior management positions. And with that economic power, increased as male oriented, union production jobs have been devastated by the recession (and offshored for decades), women have increasingly become independent, including when it comes to the children they choose to have. Men are being marginalized.
    The process is working its way up the social strata. America's senior management and professional class may not be too concerned yet but the changeover is bubbling up from the working class towards them. That is when the full perception will be consensually apparent.
    This has never happened before on any kind of scale we may soon see. The human species has not only survived but has thrived until it has taken over the planet. Through natural selection it has developed adaptive capabilities to deal with competitors (e.g. hunting instead of being prey) and environmental changes but one relationship has remained constant--women have needed men to protect and provide, especially when they were vulnerable during pregnancy. They sought out the good men and traded sex for safety and wherewithal. This mutual insufficiency bound couples, and extended families into tribes, into nations and into the global world man dominates today. As women become self sufficient, aside from an occasional boy-toy fling (perhaps for pregnancy purposes) less desirable males will find it harder and harder to attract a mate, especially for a term long enough to fulfill his fatherhood role. Two related dynamics have been continuous: males leave occupations that women advance to and women still want men they can look up to. They will find such men increasingly harder to find in the work place.
    Women, less violently oriented, have always civilized males, especially the ones that didn't have much going for them. Heads of households felt important. They were needed. However, these males will become increasingly detached, they will be loose cannons. Unable to fill any positive, admired role in society, they will likely drift into des