Nov 252009
 

I learned this morning that the death of William E. Sparkman, Jr. was a suicide, to my great surprise.

census A Census Bureau worker in Kentucky who was found dead in September with “FED” written on his chest killed himself and staged his death to look like a homicide, state and federal law enforcement officials said Tuesday.
William E. Sparkman Jr. was found with his hands, feet and mouth loosely bound with duct tape, a rope loosely tied around his neck. Passersby spotted his body Sept. 12 in a remote area of the Daniel Boone National Forest in eastern Kentucky.
The condition in which Sparkman’s body was found led to speculation about whether he was a victim of anti-government violence. Area residents, however, surmised he had stumbled upon a backwoods drug lab.
But investigators concluded that Sparkman wrote the word on his own chest from the bottom up. He died of asphyxiation, an autopsy showed.
Witnesses told investigators that Sparkman had discussed ending his life. He had also discussed recent federal investigations of Kentucky public officials and the negative perceptions of federal agencies expressed by some residents of Clay County, Ky., where he lived, investigators said. Before his death, Sparkman also secured two life insurance policies, totaling $600,000, that would not pay out for suicide.
Sparkman was a substitute teacher and one of 5,900 part-time Census Bureau fieldworkers who conduct the annual American Community Survey and dozens of other government surveys each year. Normal census operations will resume in Clay County next month, Census Bureau spokesman Stephen Buckner said.
“The death of our co-worker, William Sparkman, was a tragedy and remains a loss for the Census Bureau family,” Buckner said in a statement. “Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends.”…

Inserted from <Washington Post>
On September 26, I incorrectly concluded that his death was a murder, brought on by GOP hate speech.  This is an excerpt of what I said:

…Michelle Bachmann and Glen Beck, you have done it.  You have stirred peoples fears until some poor ignorant fool acted on your foul lies and deranged Census Bureau conspiracy theories, and now a man is dead for nothing more than doing his job…

Inserted from <Politics Plus>

I was wrong.  And when I’m wrong, I say so.  You didn’t find it buried under a bunch of other posts.  It’s right on top, the day’s lead article.  I assumed facts that seemed undeniably apparent at the time, but were not true, and therefore I apologize to my readers.  You depend on me for accurate analysis, and I let you down.  I promise to take more care in the future.

To Michelle Bachmann and Glen Beck, I offer no such apology.  Everything I said about the likelihood of their hate speech to stir violence still stands.  This time, I was wrong, but if they and their fellow goose steppers continue in this vein, I’ll be reporting an authentic victim of their rabble rousing far too soon to suit me.

Share
Nov 112009
 

VeteransDay

Many are inclined to assume that when people opposes a war, they also oppose the troops serving in it.  During the Vietnam War, a small minority of protestors, mostly on the West Coast fixed that notion in the public’s perception by throwing blood at returning troops.  To this day I feel angry over that.  Most of us in the peace movement took a completely different attitude.  We accepted returning troops and listened to what they had to say.  They were a window for us, through which we could see the truth about what was happening there.  Once returning vets saw that we accepted them and did not condemn their service, more often then not they joined us in opposition to the war.

Our troops do not make policy.  They do not start wars.  They serve under oath to obey the legal orders given them.  Most perform their duties with pride and honor.  When they become involved in illegal, immoral wars such as Vietnam and Iraq, they are victims of the politicians that place them in harm’s way without just cause.  They deserve our thanks, our loyalty and our love.  They deserve the best care and benefits we can provide them because of the extreme sacrifices they have made on our behalf.

With that in mind, I considered the ongoing GOP claim that Democrats do not support our troops, but Republicans do.  I visited Project Vote Smart to learn what our veterans have to say about just who it is that has their backs.  The Disabled American Veterans gave 200 national politicians a 100% perfect rating.  All 200 are Democrats.  They gave 32 national politicians a rating of 50% or less.  All 32 are Republicans.  The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave 85 national politicians an A+, A or A- rating.  All 85 are Democrats.  They gave 49 national politicians a D, D- or F rating.  All 49 are Republicans.  It seems that Republicans call it supporting the troops whenever they vote for a measure to funnel billions into the pockets of war profiteers, but when it calls to actually taking care of our vets, they almost invariably complain about the costs and oppose it.  So I encourage you all to do remove Republicans from office.

And to those among you who have served our nation in the military, thank you for your sacrifice.

Share
Nov 082009
 

Tom070108-2 The bill that passed the House of Representatives yesterday was not the bill I wanted.  I’m for single payer.  I have no doubt that some of my more radical friends will oppose this bill.  I can respect their reasons for doing so and probably agree with most.  But, in my opinion, it offers enough positive change to be a viable first step in the direction of reform.

I expected a long, contentious day in the House, but the behavior of the Republican Representatives when the Women’s Caucus took the floor was so reprehensible that it disgusted me.  I found video of what I watched on C-SPAN at Think Progress.

 

I’ve never seen anything like that on the House floor.  Shame!

Before the main bill came to the floor, the House voted on the Stupak-Pitts amendment.  It passed.  It is, in my opinion, the biggest flaw in the bill.  In a nut shell, it forces any woman who purchases insurance through the exchange the bill provides to pay for an abortion out of her own pocket, even if she purchases her coverage with no government subsidy.  To set the record straight, I think abortion is wrong.  However, I recognize that situations exist under which the available options do not include any right choices, and sometimes abortion is the least wrong of the options.  I also recognize that my personal view of right and wrong gives me the right to choose not to have an abortion.  I suspect that I shall never do so.  It does not, however, give me the right to impose my belief into a decision between a woman and her doctor.   I expect that Stupak-Pitts will not survive the conference committee and fully support its removal there.

The following Democrats joined the GOP in supporting Stupak-Pitts.

Jason Altmire, Joe Baca, John Barrow, Marion Berry, Sanford Bishop, John Boccieri, Dan Boren, Bobby Bright, Dennis Cardoza, Chris Carney, Ben Chandler, Travis Childers, Jim Cooper, Jim Costa, Jerry Costello, Henry Cuellar, Kathy Dahlkemper, Lincoln Davis, Artur Davis, Joe Donnelly, Mike Doyle, Steve Driehaus, Brad Ellsworth, Bob Etheridge, Bart Gordon, Parker Griffith, Baron Hill, Tim Holden, Paul Kanjorski, Marcy Kaptur, Dale Kildee, James Langevin, Daniel Lipinski, Stephen Lynch, Jim Marshall, Jim Matheson, Mike McIntyre, Charles Melancon, Michael Michaud, Alan Mollohan, John Murtha, Richard Neal, James Oberstar, David Obey, Solomon Ortiz, Tom Perriello, Collin Peterson, Earl Pomeroy, Nick Rahall, Silvestre Reyes, Ciro Rodriguez, Mike Ross, Tim Ryan, John Salazar, Heath Shuler, Ike Skelton, Vic Snyder, Zachary Space, John Spratt, Bart Stupak, John Tanner, Gene Taylor, Harry Teague, Charles Wilson

If one of these belongs to you, you know what to do.

Next on the agenda came the GOP substitution, which I have dubbed the Boner Bill.  Oregon Representative Peter DeFazio debunked it beautifully, and I found video of him doing so at Crooks and Liars.

 

I’m pleased to report that not a single Democrat voted for this GOP fraud.

Finally the final vote came in 220-215 in favor.

health-insurance In an historic vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, a health-care reform bill containing a public health-insurance plan passed the chamber by a vote of 220-215. One Republican, Joseph Cao of Louisiana, voted with the Democrats, while 39 Democrats, including Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich, voted against H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

Both of the Democrats who won special elections last week, Bill Owens of New York’s 23rd district, and John Garamendi of California’s 10th voted for the bill.

As the time allotted for voting drew to a close, Democrats, shouting in unison, counted down the final seconds like it was New Year’s Eve. Speaker Nancy Pelosi smiled broadly as she pounded the gavel and announced the result.

At a meeting with reporters following the bill’s passage, Pelosi called up Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., son of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, the upper chamber’s long-time champion of health-care reform. "My dad was a senator," Kennedy said, "but tonight his spirit was in the House."

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., also played an historically symbolic role in today’s vote, gaveling the start of the proceedings.  Like his father before him, who was also a congressman, Dingell has introduced a health-care reform bill every year of his 54-year career in the House, and gaveled to order the 1964 proceedings for the passage of Medicare.

The bill passed today in the House includes a public health-insurance plan that is one of a number of plans — the rest offered by private and non-profit insurers — that consumers will be able to purchase on an insurance exchange, which has been described as a sort of shopping mall of insurance policies. Lower-income citizens will be eligible for federally-financed subsidies of premiums. All Americans will be required to carry a minimum level of health insurance or face a tax penalty. Individuals earning more than $500,000 annually, and couples who earn more than $1 million per year, will face an additional tax to help finance the health-care plan.

Included in the legislation are protections against exclusion from coverage for pre-existing conditions and a prohibition on rescissions that have seen people suddenly dropped from coverage because they failed to disclose a minor condition such as acne. Women will be protected from elimination of coverage for gender-specific conditions. Young adults will be able to remain on the parents’ policies until their 27th birthdays, and several discriminatory practices against LGBT people will be prohibited.

(For more on what’s in the bill and likely battles to arise in a conference committee, see 5 Key Fights We Face Against the Insurance Industry by AlterNet’s Joshua Holland.)… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Alternet>

There is still a lot to like about this bill, despite its weaknesses.

In a surprise, one Republican actually refused to goose-step, Joseph Cao of LA.  Here is his statement:

Cao Of his vote, Cao said:  “Tonight, I voted to keep taxpayer dollars from funding abortion and to deliver access to affordable health care to the people of Louisiana.

Cao said:  “I read the versions of the House [health reform] bill.  I listened to the countless stories of Orleans and Jefferson Parish citizens whose health care costs are exploding – if they are able to obtain health care at all.  Louisianans needs real options for primary care, for mental health care, and for expanded health care for seniors and children.  

The bill passed the House at a 220-215 vote.

Cao said:  “Today, I obtained a commitment from President Obama that he and I will work together to address the critical health care issues of Louisiana including the FMAP crisis and community disaster loan forgiveness, as well as issues related to Charity and Methodist Hospitals.  And, I call on my constituents to support me as I work with him on these issues.

Cao said:  “I have always said that I would put aside partisan wrangling to do the business of the people.  My vote tonight was based on my priority of doing what is best for my constituents…

Inserted from <Josephcao.house.gov>

I commend him for his courage and thank him for his integrity.

On the other hand, 39 Democrats, wastes of human skin, betrayed their constituents, their party and their nation by joining the GOP in voting no.

John Adler, Jason Altmire, Brian Baird, John Barrow, John Boccieri, Dan Boren, Rick Boucher, Allen Boyd, Bobby Bright, Ben Chandler, Travis Childers, Lincoln Davis, Artur Davis, Chet Edwards, Bart Gordon, Parker Griffith, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Tim Holden, Larry Kissell, Suzanne Kosmas, Frank Kratovil, Dennis Kucinich, Betsy Markey, Jim Marshall, Eric Massa, Jim Matheson, Mike McIntyre, Michael McMahon, Charles Melancon, Walt Minnick, Scott Murphy, Glenn Nye, Collin Peterson, Mike Ross, Heath Shuler, Ike Skelton, John Tanner, Gene Taylor, Harry Teague

They are without excuse.  Remember them.

The GOP response to the vote was expected.

john-boehner Shortly after a Democrat-backed healthcare bill passed the House late Saturday night, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued a statement denouncing the "2,032-page" bill as a "$1.3 trillion government takeover of health care."

“I came here to renew the American Dream, so my kids and their kids have the same opportunities I had. I came here to fight big-government monstrosities like this bill that dim the light of freedom and diminish opportunity for future generations," Boehner said in a statement.

“Americans want a common-sense approach to health care reform, not Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s 2,032-page government takeover that increases costs, adds to our skyrocketing debt, destroys jobs with tax hikes and new mandates, and cuts seniors’ Medicare benefits," the statement added. "Americans asking ‘where are the jobs’ are getting more of the same from out-of-touch Washington Democrats: more spending, more debt, and more government…

Inserted from <Raw Story>

Isn’t he more like a broken record every day?

The extremists were out in force voicing their hatred on Faux Nation, the website of the official GOP Ministry of Propaganda, Faux Noise.  Here’s an example I found at Newshounds:

 HC1

And another:

 HC5

Is this disgusting or what?  These are comments that their moderators actually cleared.

Finally, I’m pleased to share Barack Obama’s statement:

Obama-Pittsburgh Tonight, in an historic vote, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would finally make real the promise of quality, affordable health care for the American people.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act is a piece of legislation that will provide stability and security for Americans who have insurance; quality affordable options for those who don’t; and bring down the cost of health care for families, businesses, and the government while strengthening the financial health of Medicare.  And it is legislation that is fully paid for and will reduce our long-term federal deficit.

Thanks to the hard work of the House, we are just two steps away from achieving health insurance reform in America.  Now the United States Senate must follow suit and pass its version of the legislation.  I am absolutely confident it will, and I look forward to signing comprehensive health insurance reform into law by the end of the year.

Inserted from <Daily Kos>

From here it’s on to the Senate, and it’s time to go back to building a fire under our Senators.

Share
Oct 142009
 

Tom070108-2 BARF (Baucus Against a Real Fix bill) passed the  Senate Finance Committee by a vote of 14 – 9.  Most of the more progressive Senators voted for BARF, and I’ve already heard some rumblings about that.  Let me be clear.  These Democrats have not betrayed their party.  Four other committees (three house, one senate) have already completed work on their versions of the bill.  Nothing further could be done to to further health care reform until the Senate Finance Committee produced a bill, any bill.  Senators like Jay Rockefeller and Ron Wyden do NOT support BARF.  They barfed for BARF only to get it out of committee, so the real work can begin on the Senate floor.

Many were surprised by Olympia Snowe’s Yea vote.  She is already taking heat from the GOP hard liners, or is she?  When I first learned about Snowe’s vote, I commented, “Good for her!”  However, I have reconsidered my initial reaction.  Obama praised Snowe richly for her vote, but, for those who think I don’t criticize him, Obama is wrong.  So far Democrats on the Finance Committee have wasted weeks courting Snowe.  To get that lone Republican vote, they have weakened the provisions of an already bad bill.  Had Snowe voted No, the courtship would be over.  Even Snowe admitted that her vote does not guarantee further support for this bill.  So the courtship will continue.  I believe that her goal is twofold.  First, it provides her political cover in Maine, which is well left of their Senator.  Second, it continues the courtship, giving her further opportunities to weaken the final bill.  Earth to Senate Democrats!  Come in!!  I’m shouting here!!!  ONE LONE REPUBLICAN VOTE DOES NOT MAKE A BILL BIPARTISAN!  I think the GOP hardliners know this quite well, and the believe that their complaints are an act to cover up an opportunity more obstruction and delay.

This is all happening in the face of the withdrawal of the so-called support from the Insurance Lobby, AHIP.  In the coming video, you will learn that even the accountants from PWC who prepared the AHIP report I covered Sunday, are now admitting that the report did not take into account any of the cost saving measures in the bill.  It amounts to blackmail.  If you pass health care reform, we’ll raise your rates.  As I said in a comment here yesterday, this demonstrates, more than ever, the need for a strong Public Option, because BARF has nothing to prevent Big Insurance from making their threat a reality.

At the same time, TPM reports that an insurance agent provided them with the link to secret talking point for insurance agents to oppose health care reform.  You can see them here.  Since Big Insurance has clearly abandoned their seat at the table to oppose health care reform, I see no reason to keep any of the provisions added to the various bills in order to pacify them.

Unions are voicing strong opposition to BARF, because most of them have negotiated away wage increases in favor of better health benefits.  BARF will clearly raise their premium costs, because it imposes a fee on “Cadillac” policies that are worth over $8,000 a year.  That’s hardly a Cadillac.  It sounds more like a high end Chevy.  BARF has the wrong people paying for reform.  The House bills all raise the necessary revenue by taxing the rich, the same people who have benefited from the Bush/GOP tax cuts.  Isn’t it time they gave a little of that windfall back?

The Public Option has problems too.  The strongest version, from Jay Rockefeller, reimburses hospitals at Medicare rates for the first two years.  In many rural states, that reimbursement rate is lower than it is in more urban states, so low that the hospitals lose money on Medicare patients.  They make up for it by charging other patients a little more.  But a public option with Medicare rates would put many rural hospitals out of business.  This needs to be fixed in one of two ways.  The best is to adjust Medicare rates for rural hospitals to accurately reflect the cost of care.  If not, then don’t tie the Public Option to Medicare rates.

To get a good health care bill, we won’t necessarily need sixty votes.  If all else fails, we still can fall back on reconciliation rules.  As much as the GOP whines about how disreputable that would be, that’s exactly how they passed both of the Bush/GOP tax cuts for the rich.  We can also pass a good bill with fifty votes, if Democrats will just stand together and vote for cloture, to defeat the coming GOP filibuster, and allow a straight up or down vote.  In my opinion, any Democrats who votes against cloture should be stripped of their committee and sub-committee offices.

I think I’ve given you an explanation of where we stand in terms that are not too difficult to understand.  Just in case, here are two videos from one of my favorite people, Keith Olbermann.  The first is on the Snowe vote.

 

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The second is on Big Insurance blackmail.

 

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I hope you will join me in harassing your Senators to provide us real reform, inclucing a strong public option,

Share
Oct 092009
 

I’ve mentioned this in Open Threads and discussed it in comments on other blogs, but I held off reporting it here until I found an article that explains the impact well.

dollar-plunges The big news this week on the financial front was the Independent’s claim that Gulf Arabs and France, Japan, Russia and Japan were planning to move from buying oil in dollars to buying it in a basket of currencies, including gold and a new universal currency shared by the Gulf nations.

Buying oil in dollars is one of the foundations of the dollar’s role as the world’s primary reserve currency. Because the the dollar is the world’s primary reserve currency Americans have been able to borrow money for significantly less than other countries are able to. This has both made America more prosperous, and through the perverse incentives of cheap money, helped lead to the high indebtedness of American citizens and the financial crisis.

In addition, buying oil in dollars is one of the things which allowed strong dollar policies to drive the price of oil down. Making dollars extremely scarce in the 80’s and nineties was one key factor leading to a price per barrel under $20. Oil prices started their rise upwards after Greenspan’s Federal Reserve let loose the money spigot in the Asian crisis and the Long Term Capital fiasco. Greenspan essentially never took his foot off the pedal from that point onwards, and oil prices soared, until last year at one point they were over $150/barrel.

So one consequence of going off the dollar is that a major benefit of the strong dollar play is taken off the table, and the US loses its ability to control the price of oil. Since at this time, contrary to what the Feds are saying, a strong dollar play isn’t in the cards (the US needs to borrow way too much money) that’s not a big deal in the short run—in the long run it is.

But buying oil in dollars isn’t the only thing that underpins the dollar as the world’s reserve currency and to understand what buying oil in something other than dollars would mean we need to understand what else makes, or perhaps more accurately, made, the dollar so important.

Technological Revolutions: Remember the internet boom of the nineties? Remember the way that money flooded in from the rest of the world to buy up internet stocks? Sure, most of them turned out to be worthless, but some didn’t. When the US was the nation most likely to create the next technological revolution you needed dollars so that when it occurred you could buy in on the ground floor. Whether microcomputers in the 80’s or the internet in the 90’s, odds were that America was going to create the next big tech. So foreigners needed to be in the dollar.

At this point the US is the undisputed leader in almost nothing except military tech. As expected, US dominance of the arms sales market continues to increase, but the US can’t live on weapon sales alone. In most other fields, including telecom, the internet, large chunks of biotech, renewable energy, ground transportation and so on the US now lags other modern economies.

The structure of the US economy, with a few large oligopolistic firms dominating the market in key fields needn’t necessarily mean no technological advances, after all Japan and Korea certainly have high concentrations of large firms, but US firms such as the telecom giants essentially don’t engage in research, don’t believe in upgrading infrastructure more than they have to and are rent seeking corporations—they provide an inferior product to a captive audience (as with insurance companies) knowing that Americans have no other options. If they fail, they expect the US government to bail them out with huge subsidies.

This structure means that the US, is unlikely to be the home of the next great technological revolution. The next tech reveolution could happen in the US, with the right policies, but the Obama administration has not engaged in those policies, instead spending trillions on propping up failed business models.

Consumers of Last and Main Resort: For decades now Americans have bought a ton of consumer goods, from cars to electronics to clothes. As time went by, more and more of these goods were bought from foreign countries, and more and more of it was bought on credit. America and Americans have been the engine of development for Japan, the Asian Tigers, and most recently, China. China, Japan and Korea, in particular, used mercantalist policies—that is to say they generally used trade barriers to protect their internal economy and subsidies to help their exports. China’s main trade barrier and subsidy is its massive interventions to keep the Yuan cheap against the dollar, an intervention which has amounted to as much as 10% of China’s GDP.

That intervention has left China with a huge number of dollars denominated assets. In effect the Chinese loaned America the money to consume Chinese goods, which simultaneously made American manufactured goods uncompetitive which meant that manufacturing employment in American dropped like a rock while new factories opened in China rather than the US. In exchange for the money they loaned America, China industrialized. Even if they don’t get most of the money back (and they won’t) it was a good deal for them. As for Americans, well, Americans were able to live above their means—those who didn’t lose their jobs, anyway.

Many countries export a lot to the US. While US consumers have pulled back significantly, they still consume a lot. There is, as yet, no replacement for the US consumer. China and other countries may wish there was, but there isn’t.

The American Security Product: One of the main reasons other countries were willing to, in effect subsidize the US, for decades, is that it provided the common security product—against the Soviets, then against real rogue nations, and always against pirates.

In particular, America’s navy is as large as the next 13 navies combined. The US was responsible for keeping the world’s shipping lines open, and it was the core of the NATO hammer when a problem needed to be dealt with (for example, Serbia in the late nineties.)

But lately the US hasn’t been delivering the product in a way that the rest of the world appreciates. Most of “old” Europe (ie. the countries with money and power) opposed it. So did most of Asia. So did America’s allies in the Middle East. Once in Iraq, the US couldn’t be defunded for fear of Iraq splintering, but now that it’s clear the US is leaving anyway, the possibility exists.

And then there’s the Somali pirates. Because most of the US navy was occupied with the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, the Somali pirates got completely out of hand and the US Navy didn’t do anything about it for a long long time. When the issue was finally dealt with, the US navy was only one of a number of navies doing so. The US let it get out of control, and then wasn’t key to fighting it.

Now that the US no longer protects very well against the Soviets, rogue nations or pirates, and now that joint naval operations are how the Somali pirates are being dealt with, the rest of the world is wondering whether it’s worth paying for a US military which doesn’t do what they want it to do. Only the Afghan war, which has elite support in Europe (though not popular) makes some think that perhaps the US is worth keeping on as the world’s policeman.

Buying Key Technologies Required Dollars: Yet another reason folks wanted to have lots of dollars and access to dollars was that you needed dollars to buy certain goods. For decades the only good commercial jet liners were Americans. Key computer technologies needed to be bought in dollars. Intellectual property needed to be bought in dollars. The best military technology had to be (and still has to be) bought in dollars. And so on. The US wasn’t just home to the next technological revolution, it was home to all the good things you wanted to buy and which you couldn’t buy in your currency.

This is, with a few exceptions, no longer true. The Europeans and Japanese can sell you most high end capital goods. There is no real difference between Airbus and Boeing products (though both are essentially 30 year old technology). The Chinese can and will sell you middle and low end goods for less than America. You don’t need dollars to buy most of what you need and want, and if something comes up really worth buying (say General Motors) well, if you’re someone who really wants it, like the Chinese, you just won’t be allowed to buy it anyway. (The Chinese would have loved to buy GM.)

A Safe Haven For Money and For You: For decades, if you wanted a safe place to put your money and put it to work, the US was probably the best. It was the most stable, it was impossible it could be conquered even if there was a World War III, it was the largest and could absorb the most money. Likewise, if things went really bad in your country, it was a great place to flee to.

The financial crisis put the wisdom of placing your money in the US in question. Bush era immigration and travel policies, not rescinded by the Obama administration, put the utility of the US as a safe haven in question as well. And yet, to an extent, the US retains at least the first role, because there is simply no other country available. Europe did not avoid the financial crisis, China doesn’t allow that much investment in the country and is an unsafe place to put money, and so on. So the US retains some safe haven appeal. At the same time, however, foreign elites have become far more uneasy about the idea and want a different option. And for themselves, they’d rather vacation, have their second homes and educate their children in Europe.

And at last, back to oil: Of course, the final and in some ways most important reason for the dollar’s reserve currency status is that oil was sold in dollars. This is a result of a decades long understanding between the key Gulf States, Saudi Arabia and America that the US both underwrote their security and could knock them over any time it wanted. In exchange for America’s security umbrella and help in maintaining their regimes, oil was priced in dollars. When they became rich in the 70s, their money flooded primarily through US banks.

Indeed, in prior years, every time an OPEC nation talked about going off the dollar as the currency for buying oil, rumor has it that the Saudis were the ones to spike the move.

Oil is the most important commodity in the world. Ultimately all economies are underpinned by oil. Oil is also the most important military resource. With oil your army can move and fight. Without it, it can’t. In many ways WWII was fought for oil and with oil, and the powers with the oil defeated those which didn’t have it.

Which brings us back to the US military product. As long as oil is priced in dollars, the US military can always function at full capacity, because if push comes to shove, the US can always just print more dollars.

If oil is not priced in dollars, then certain US access to oil is removed—both for the military and for the civilian population. Sure, the US can still print more dollars, but if oil isn’t priced in dollars, well, print too much and you may get inflation, even hyperinflation. And if the oilarchies don’t approve of a particular military action, well, they can make it much more expensive.

 

Are the Dollar’s Days as Reserve Currency Over?

No. They aren’t. But they are numbered. They aren’t over because other nations still need the US consumer. Until the Chinese manage to create a domestic consumer society, both they and other countries can’t cut themselves lose from the US consumer. What they will do, and what they are doing, is trying to manage how much the US borrows and to take away the US ability control the world’s money supply. They will still have to keep the US propped up for the time being, because in so doing they are propping up themselves. And remember always that Chinese citizens aren’t like Americans. Take their jobs or their land or their hope and they get violent—very violent. They have, do and will fight both the police and the military. China’s elites know that if they don’t keep economic growth coming, their heads could literally wind up rolling.

In addition, while no one is happy with the US security product, the fact is that no one can really replace it. The European military is not strong enough, and their navy does not have the projection ability. Likewise with the Chinese military, who in any aren’t trusted half as much as the Europeans, though their moral flexibility is appreciated by many regimes, who still understand you don’t invite China to station large number of troops in your country if you have half a brain.

Likewise, there is simply no replacement for the US as a haven of last resort. China’s currency and investment controls make it unsuitable. Europe managed its financial affairs no better than the US over the last decade, although they seem to have learned the regulatory lessons marginally better than the US. If you need a place to store your money, and put it to work, the US may not look good, but neither does anyone else who is large enough to absorb large amounts of money.

The key break point, the end of the dollar hegemony, will come when the Chinese are able to move to a consumer economy. At that point, the Chinese will no longer need America as consumers, and they will let the Yuan float. The devastation this will wreck on the US economy is hard to overstate. Standards of living will crash. In the long run, being forced to live within its means, and no longer having to compete against massively subsidized foreign goods may turn out to be good for the US, but that won’t make you feel better as your effective income collapses or you lose your job.

This is probably two economic cycles out. We’re talking 12 to 16 years. So there’s time yet. Probably… [emphasis original][emphasis added]

Inserted from <Crooks and Liars>

Tom122007 There you have it.  Mene mene tekel upharsin.  We have twelve to sixteen years to fend off economic collapse, and if we fail to do so, the consequences are bleaker than I care to imagine.  So what can we do not to minimize the effects?  First, we need to recognize what got us here.  Since the Republican Revolution brought in with Reagan, GOP economics rewarded greedy corporations for making money instead of making things.  We moved from a manufacturing economy, to a technology economy, to a service economy, and finally to a consumption economy.  When the US consumer is bled dry, and the economy has collapsed, Wall Street will just move offshore, gorged with decades of ill-gotten gains.  And the GOP will scream that the Democrats were responsible.  Much of the damage is already done.  But there are still some steps we can take.

  1. Break up the companies we bailed out.  Too big to fail is too big to exist.  The last thing we can afford is to keep financing their corporate greed at taxpayer expense.
  2. Pour resources into education.  Without the brain power to innovate, we have no chance to reclaim our role as a leader in technological innovation.  We can provide an education to anyone capable of mastering the work, from kindergarten through post doctoral studies, paying for their tuition, books, room and board.  In return, they can provide national service, at a reasonable wage, for a period of time after their studies are complete, with the length of service dependent on the level of education completed.
  3. Pour resources into research and development.  Provide tax incentives for companies who invest in new technologies, and penalize companies, like the giant telecoms who do not, preferring to deliver inferior services to captive customers.
  4. Pour resources into green energy.  If we can no longer control the price of oil, weaning our society from foreign oil becomes an imperative.
  5. Pour resources into infrastructure.  We cannot support a thriving economy on our decaying highways, bridges, utilities, etc.
  6. End tax breaks for companies who manufacture overseas.  If a corporation, manufactures in China, and writes off manufacturing costs as an expense here, then all the profit they make from the sale of those manufactured goods should be taxed here, even if they sell them somewhere else.
  7. Finance these programs by taxing the rich.  The top quintile (20%) in the US own 84.5% of the wealth.  The bottom two quintiles (40%) own o.2% of the wealth.  The rich achieved this gross inequity by getting us into this mess.  Let them pay to get us out.

The Republicans will surely scream that all this spending will bankrupt our grandchildren.  Let them scream, but remember that if their policies continue, those grandchildren will be born in a third world country.

Other than the seven points I brought up, what else do we need to do to prevent the collapse of our nation?

Share

Inequality Must Go

 Posted by at 1:58 am  Editorial, Politics
Oct 052009
 

Part of the legacy of the Reagan/Bush/Bush years was “trickle down economics”.  It never  trickled.  It gushed.  And it wasn’t down.  It was UP.  This is the only GOP program from the last forty years that actually succeeded in the manner they intended.  This is the policy I call No Millionaire Left Behind.

Wealth 2004 Not long ago, liberals were insisting that income inequality was America’s most serious economic problem.

Now there are more immediate crises: A 9.8 percent unemployment rate, a yawning budget deficit. But the inequality issue hasn’t gone away.

The latest census figures show the gap between the wealthiest Americans and everybody else widening — rather than shrinking, as some economists expected — during the crash of 2008. An August report from Bank of America/Merrill Lynch suggested that middle-income Americans, buried in real-estate debt, will have to wait much longer than the rich to see their finances rebound.

This landscape will put liberalism to the test. Since Ronald Reagan was elected nearly 30 years ago, Democratic politicians have promised that their program could reverse the steady post-1970s growth of income inequality without sacrificing America’s economic dynamism.

But having promised win-win, they may deliver lose-lose. In the short run, Barack Obama could preside over an America that’s more economically stagnant and more stratified…

Inserted from <NY Times>

Tom070108-2 The graph is one I made myself using Excel.  2004 data is the most recent I could verify.  It’s much worse now.  At first glance, it appears that the pie has three pieces.  It has four.  Do you see that little line, just to the left of the green slice?  That’s not a dust spot on your screen.  It’s the tiny portion of US wealth that the bottom 40% of us share.  That has to change.  The US economy is now a pyramid in which the capstone has become so heavy it’s crushing the base.  Even the most cursory glance at this graph clearly shows were we need to go for the resources needed to restore some measure of equity.

But here’s the problem.  The rich are not represented solely by one political party.  They have two, and the Democrats are included.  Now don’t think for a minute that I consider the Democratic party equal to the Republican party.  The difference in degree is huge.  While Democrats quietly sneak some preferential treatment for the rich into legislation, the Republicans gleefully wrest every possible penny from the middle and lower classes to provide socialism for the rich.  But Democrats need to be on notice that the people of this nation put them into power to make changes that benefit we the people, not the beneficiaries of almost 30 years of GOP hegemony.  If they sell out, as Baucus has on health care, we need to replace them in the primaries.

Although they don’t come close to the Republicans for pure evil greed, the Democratic party is still a swamp, a swamp it’s our job to drain.  Are your waders ready?

Share
Sep 282009
 

Iran followed up its admission that they have a previously undisclosed nuclear facility with a move sure to be considered bellicose.

shahab-3 Iran has successfully test-fired some of the longest range missiles in its arsenal, state media says.

The Revolutionary Guards tested the Shahab-3 and Sajjil rockets, which are believed to have ranges of up to 2,000km (1,240 miles), reports said.

The missiles’ range could potentially reach Israel and US bases in the Gulf, analysts say.

The tests come amid heightened tension with the big international powers over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Last week, Iran disclosed it was building a second uranium enrichment plant, despite UN demands that it cease its enrichment activities.

Iran is due to hold crucial talks with the five UN Security Council members plus Germany on Thursday on a wide range of security issues, including its nuclear programme… [emphasis original]

Inserted from <BBC>

While this missile is not a direct threat to the US, it certainly is to our troops in the region and to our allies.  So, we must ask, what do we do now, and present possibilities.  Here are three views on the best way forward.

The first is the type of response we’re most used to seeing after eight ugly years of the Bush/GOP regime.

kyl Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) suggested on Meet the Press this morning that the way to deal with Iran and its nuclear program is to push for regime change.

What we’re trying to do here eventually is to get a regime change with a group of people in there that are more representative of the Iranian people — who we really can talk with in a way that might end up with a good result. I think it’s very difficult to do that with the current leadership, and especially the elected President.

Kyl also implied that the time for talking with Iran is over…

 

Inserted from <TPM>

Of course, Kyl’s approach is war first, think later, the standard for the GOP.  I’m not saying regime change is always a bad idea.  It was a good thing for the US to remove the Bush/GOP regime from power, but if we refuse to talk with Iran, we move out of step with the rest of the world.  In a confrontation, Iran has the capability to block the Strait of Hormuz, cutting the world off from Persian Gulf oil.  Iran also has the ability to launch conventional missiles at US bases, troops and allies in the region.  Finally, our military is so depleted from long deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to years of Bush/GOP neglect for our troops’ needs and well being, that all we have left for the vital boots on the ground component of such a conflict are troops of Brownie Scouts.  In a confrontation, the US will not get support from the Iranian people that the GOP thinks we will.  Since the GOP under Eisenhower overthrew their democratically elected government and installed a dictator, the Shah, since the GOP under Reagan armed and financed Iran’s arch enemy, Saddam Hussein, even providing him the means to acquire chemical weapons to use against Iran, and since the GOP under GW funded terrorist groups within Iran, the Iranian people do not trust the US.  But the GOP does not really care what happens, as long as the get to blame Obama for the mess they created.

The second view comes from an editorial by Raymond J. Learsy, and is more reasonable than the first.

iran_oil On June 21st a Huffington Post submission ("Boycott Iran’s Oil Immediatley") [sic] called for the immediate boycott of Iran’s oil. It was a seemingly draconian suggestion that was met with widespread skepticism. After all, what would happen to oil markets without Iranian oil?

Well, on today CNN’s State of the Union program, Senator Evan Bayh (D-Ind), being interviewed by John King on the timely subject of Iran’s nuclear pronouncements (or lack thereof), made a rather startling revelation. According to Senator Bayh, the Russians had informed their American interlocutors that the greatest fear of the current Iranian regime was that they would be denied access to world markets for their oil. Clearly the financial bounty generated by oil sales are key to maintaining their hold on government power and the funding of their nuclear and missile programs, not to speak of buying the loyalty of their goon militias giving them the wherewithal to terrorize their citizenry.

Certainly now is the time to establish the kind of international cooperation needed to boycott Iranian oil. With recent revelations about Iran’s nuclear deception, the growing and shared concerns of the major European states and a far more amenable Russia and China, the moment for an international boycott has come.

The boycott would simply be a refusal to buy Iran’s oil, either directly or indirectly (i.e. not lifting oil from Iranian ports nor from offshore storage facilities, nor turning a blind eye to third party exchanges). It would be analogous to boycotting Coca Cola (apologies Coca Cola) because of a nasty dispute with its management. No one buys Coke any longer. Soon their warehouse is full. Then their factories shut down. Then after a while one would hope the workers organize to oust the management so that business can carry on as before… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Huffington Post>

While clearly an improvement over the idiocy promoted by Kyl, this plan has its own problems.  Even if we can get China and Russia to go along, Iran is likely to lower the price of their oil sufficiently that multinational corporations, including our own, will find ways to purchase that oil on the sly.  Corporate greed is patriotic about profit alone.  In addition, the removal of Iranian oil from the market will prompt China to seek oil elsewhere, driving up the price of oil at a time when we’re recovering from a recession.  This would be bad for the economy.  Still, the idea does have merit.

The third view is my own.

Tom122007 When I learned of Iran’s missile test, I asked why.  What possible reason could Ahmadinejad have for making a move that was sure to magnify the animus against him, especially from the US?  After considering it, I think I understand.  Ahmadinejad us up to his ears in a major controversy at home over an election as crooked as ours in 2000.  He is facing strong opposition and public discontent.  His hope is that US threats will fan the fear of the US that Iranians justly have, and that the Iranian people will unite behind him against the foreign aggressors, thus  solving his domestic woes.  It is in our best interest not to make any moves that the Iranian people perceive as a threat.  That includes Learsy’s option.  An oil boycott will not immediately hurt Iran’s ruling elite, but will be devastating to Iran’s people.  Ahmadinejad can then blame the US for their suffering, and in this way, solve his domestic woes.  Once his opposition at home is shattered, he can always back down and thereby avert the crisis.

The option that does not threaten the Iranian people is to negotiate.  It leaves Ahmadinejad’s domestic problems in place, thereby defeating his missile-test strategy.  Now I’m not suggesting that we cave in.  There’s no reason to do so, when we can take a hard line where our interests are concerned.  We have time. The worst case I have heard for Iran actually developing a nuke is one year, while most estimates range closer to five  years.  In addition Ahmadinejad has agreed to allow IAEA inspectors into the newly revealed facility, so it’s best to see where that leads.  Now it’s true that negotiations may fail, and if they do, the other options are still available, but isn’t it most rational to at least try the option that is least harmful to Ahmadinejad’s opposition, least harmful to the Iranian people, and least harmful to the world economy?

Share
Sep 252009
 

I trust you all remember the Dixie Chicks.  In 2003, while performing in London, according to Common Dreams, lead singer Natalie Maines sais that the group was “ashamed that the President of the United States was from Texas”.  The reaction from the rabid right was extreme, as described in the same article:

dixie-chicks That comment ripped through the country music world, prompting outraged fans to hold CD burnings, some even taking their kids out to the parking lot to publicly stomp on the group’s product and likeness — creating eerie images of exuberant violence-as-family-outing, that should be a shameful reminiscence for the South. Led by right wing press and political figures, otherwise peaceable Americans heaped scorn, verbal abuse and, ultimately, vandalism and even death threats on the three young women, who have topped the charts as the top selling girl group in music history. Country radio stations and even whole networks — including, not surprisingly, the rabidly right wing Clear Channel conglomerate — yanked the group’s songs from playlists. Backlash songs promoting the war in the most muscular terms hit the airwaves, and the man who originally recorded the group’s hit "traveling soldier" re-released the song to capitalize on the Dixie Chicks ban-wagon.

And if the images of people burning and breaking perfectly good CDs that they already paid for (thus — and work with me here, country fans — the Chicks already profited from,) wasn’t bizarre enough, the world was treated to a bile-spitting display of American intolerance unlike anything those of us who didn’t live through the McCarthy era have ever seen. The Chicks joined Hollywood celebrities like Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon as objects of hatred and ridicule by Americans who accused them of selling out the troops — willfully ignoring the ad nauseum statements of support for the fighting men and women of the U.S. armed forces that were issued by the antiwar celebrities. But the snide ridicule directed at the Hollywood set (who had the odd event canceled or who became the butt of endless late-night TV jokes,) was nothing compared to bitter, violent reaction to the Chicks.

And then there was the hour-long, televised rebuke of the women Thursday night, in which ABC News correspondent Diane Sawyer repeatedly pressed, in tisking, school-marm fashion, for just one more apology to Bush. Maines heroically resisted the attempts to reduce her to a wicked child, who surely must realize that it isn’t nice to criticize her betters, but the interview ought to go down in history with the House Committee on Un-American Affairs hearings for its daring presumption of guilt. What many of the rest of us still don’t get, is just what Maines is guilty of: Feeling ashamed? Being from Texas? Or speaking her mind?…

Do you remember those days?  The Dixie Chicks had criticized the President abroad, during a time of war, an act tantamount to treason, said the right.

Glen Beck was busy organizing grass roots pro-war rallies that included vilification of the Dixie Chicks.  The more things change, the more they stay the same.  Even three years later, Bill O’Lielly of Faux Noise said that the Chicks have not recovered to this day.  The Chick did have a few supporters.   Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) likened Dixie Chick boycotters to Nazi book burners and "communist dictators" who "strip out all the works of art that they don’t agree with.".

I wish I could have found more direct quotes from that period, but I remember that all the GOP talking heads were putting down the Dixie Chicks and calling them traitors.  It was so extreme that, to this day, the vilification of a public figure is called being Dixie Chicked.

Shifting to the present, a group of Hong Kong businessmen exercised poor financial judgment in hiring Snake Oil Sarah Palin to speak to them.  Guess what?

Palin Hong Kong Sarah Palin took her closely watched political act overseas for the first time since resigning as governor of Alaska, telling a Hong Kong audience that President Barack Obama had weakened American influence in Asia.

With speculation raging over whether the former Republican vice presidential candidate is planning to challenge Mr. Obama in the 2012 presidential race or simply trying to convert her fame and popularity into income, Ms. Palin gave a 90-minute speech Wednesday that touched in part on foreign-policy issues, which were seen as her weak spot in the 2008 campaign.

Ms. Palin’s address at a conference sponsored by investment firm CLSA Asia Pacific Markets was officially closed to the media. The Wall Street Journal reviewed an audio recording of the speech. CLSA officials declined to say how much Ms. Palin was paid for the appearance.

Speaking on China policy, the former governor criticized the Obama administration for cutting back on some defense spending, suggesting that it sends a worrisome signal to allies depending on U.S. strength to counterbalance China’s growing influence… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <WSJ>

How about that!  Sarah Palin criticized the President abroad, during a time of war, just like the Dixie Chicks.  And this charge comes not from some leftist blog.  It’s from Rupert Murdoch’s own Wall Street Journal, a most conservative source.  Where is the Republican outrage?  Where are the accusations of treason?  Where are te screaming crowds publically burning moose heads in protest?  Why has Alaska not disowned her?  Why isn’t Glen Beck rabidly organizing protests against her?

I guess that from the GOP perspective, it’s only treason when someone criticizes one of their own, not when someone criticizes a Democrat.  What hypocrites they are!

So, I ask you, how should we on the left respond to this?  Should we Dixie Chick Sarah Palin and accuse her of treason?  I say we should not.  To criticize the President abroad is not treason.  Every American has the right to speak his or her mind, including Sarah Palin.  What the right did to the Dixie Chicks was evil, and the most evil thing we on the left can do about this is to copy their foul tactics.  But I will take this opportunity to post a small tribute to the Dixie Chicks for their courage in speaking out when most Americans were cowering in fear.

 

I’m not ready to make nice either.  I’m mad as hell too.  But as much as  I abhor the GOP tactics of hate, fear and intolerance, I refuse to take part in them.  How about you?

Share