Family-UnFriendly

Posted in economy, employment, government, health care, labor, medicine, politics | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The New Abnormal

Over the last ten or more years since 9/11, despite any spike in terrorism on our soil, Americans have easily acquiesced to substantially invasive national security measures. Inspections, body searches, surveillance, torture, loss of constitutional liberties–Americans shrug their shoulders and expend little, if  any, energy worrying about it.  Glenn Greenwald gives some great examples of this passive compliance and acceptance. —BPR Editor 

EXTREMISM NORMALIZED

How Americans are efficiently trained to acquiesce to ideas once deemed so radical as to be unthinkable

By Glenn Greenwald/ Salon/ July 31, 2012

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., left, shakes hands with Vice President Dick Cheney after McCain introduced Cheney during a campaign stop, Friday, July 16, 2004, at the Lansing Center in Lansing, Mich. (Credit: AP Photo/Al Goldis)

Remember when, in the wake of the 9/11 attack, the Patriot Act was controversial, held up as the symbolic face of Bush/Cheney radicalism and widely lamented as a threat to core American liberties and restraints on federal surveillance and detention powers? Yet now, the Patriot Act is quietly renewed every four years by overwhelming majorities in both parties (despitesubstantial evidence of serious abuse), and almost nobody is bothered by it any longer. That’s how extremist powers become normalized: they just become such a fixture in our political culture that we are trained to take them for granted, to view the warped as normal. Here are several examples from the last couple of days illustrating that same dynamic; none seems overwhelmingly significant on its own, but that’s the point:

After Dick Cheney criticized John McCain this weekend for having chosen Sarah Palin as his running mate, this was McCain’s retort:

Look, I respect the vice president. He and I had strong disagreements as to whether we should torture people or not. I don’t think we should have.

Isn’t it amazing that the first sentence there (“I respect the vice president”) can precede the next one (“He and I had strong disagreements as to whether we should torture people or not”) without any notice or controversy? I realize insincere expressions of respect are rote ritualism among American political elites, but still, McCain’s statement amounts to this pronouncement: Dick Cheney authorized torture — he is a torturer — and I respect him. How can that be an acceptable sentiment to express? Of course, it’s even more notable that political officials whom everyone knows authorized torture are walking around free, respected and prosperous, completely shielded from all criminal accountability. “Torture” has been permanently transformed from an unspeakable taboo into a garden-variety political controversy, where it shall long remain.

Equally remarkable is this Op-Ed from The Los Angeles Times over the weekend, condemning President Obama’s kill lists and secret assassinations:

Allowing the president of the United States to act as judge, jury and executioner for suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens, on the basis of secret evidence is impossible to reconcile with the Constitution’s guarantee that a life will not be taken without due process of law.

Under the law, the government must obtain a court order if it seeks to target a U.S. citizen for electronic surveillance, yet there is no comparable judicial review of a decision to kill a citizen. No court is even able to review the general policies for such assassinations. . . .

But if the United States is going to continue down the troubling road of state-sponsored assassination, Congress should, at the very least, require that a court play some role, as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court does with the electronic surveillance of suspected foreign terrorists. Even minimal judicial oversight might make the president and his advisors think twice about whether an American citizen poses such an “imminent” danger that he must be executed without a trial.

Isn’t it amazing that a newspaper editorial even has to say: you know, the President isn’t really supposed to have the power to act as judge, jury and executioner and order American citizens assassinated with no transparency or due process? And isn’t it even more amazing that the current President has actually seized and exercised this power with very little controversy? Recall that when The New York Times first confirmed Obama’s targeting of citizens for assassinations in 2010, it noted, citing “officials,” that “it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing.” No longer. That presidential power — literally the most tyrannical power a political leader can seize — is also now a barely noticed fixture of our political culture.

Meanwhile, we have this, from the Associated Press yesterday:

Remember when John Poindexter’s “Total Information Awareness” program – which was “to use data mining technologies to sift through personal transactions in electronic data to find patterns and associations connected to terrorist threats and activities”: basically create real-time surveillance of everyone – was too extreme and menacing even for an America still at its peak of post-9/11 hysteria? Yet here we have the NYPD — more than a decade removed from 9/11 — announcing a very similar program in very similar terms, and it’s almost impossible to envision any real controversy.

Similarly, in the AP’s sentence above describing the supposed targets of this new NYPD surveillance program: what, exactly, is a “potential terrorist”? Isn’t that an incredibly Orwellian term given that, by definition, it can include anyone and everyone? In practice, it will almost certainly mean: all Muslims, plus anyone who engages in any activism that opposes prevailing power factions. That’s how the American Surveillance State is always used. Still, the undesirability of mass, “all-seeing,” indiscriminate surveillance regime was a given — a view, in sum, that the East German Stasi was a bad idea that we would not want to replicate on American soil — yet now, there is almost no limit on the level of state surveillance we tolerate.

(FULL STORY HERE)

Posted in civil liberties, government, law, media, politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mission Accomplished?

BPR Quote of the Day

“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false”

William Casey, CIA Director                     

at his first staff meeting, 1981

Interesting Fact:  Hours before Casey was scheduled to testify before Congress related to his knowledge of Iran-Contra, he was reported to have been rendered incapable of speech, and was later hospitalized. In a 1987 book, Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA 1981-1987, Washington Post, reporter, and biographer, Bob Woodward, who had interviewed Casey on a number of occasions for the biography, said that he had gained entry into Casey’s hospital room for a final, four-minute encounter—a claim which was met with disbelief in many quarters as well as an adamant denial from Casey’s wife, Sofia. According to Woodward, when Casey was asked if he knew about the diversion of funds to the Nicaraguan Contras, “His head jerked up hard. He stared, and finally nodded yes.”–Wikipedia                    

Did a Dead Man Tell No Tales? 

 

 

Posted in government, media | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Unfortunately, We Don’t Get to Choose

OLIGARCHY OR DEMOCRACY?

By Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)/ OpEdNews/ July 31, 2012

Economically, the United States today has, by far, the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth, and that inequality is worse today in America than at any time since the late 1920s.

As the longest serving Independent in U.S. congressional history I want to take this opportunity to share with you my views about what I consider to be the most serious crisis we face: the need to defeat the effort of the wealthiest people in our country to convert our American democracy into an oligarchic form of government where virtually all economic and political power rests in the hands of a small number of enormously rich families.

The history of this country has been the drive towards a more and more inclusive democracy — a democracy that would fulfill Abraham Lincoln’s beautiful phraseology at Gettysburg in which he described America as a nation “of the people by the people for the people.”

We all know American democracy has not always lived up to this ideal. When this country was founded, only white male property owners over age 21 could vote. But people fought to change that and we became a more inclusive democracy. After the Civil War we amended the Constitution to allow non-white men to vote. We became a more inclusive democracy. In 1920, after years of struggle and against enormous opposition, we finally ratified the Nineteenth Amendment, guaranteeing women the right to vote. We became a more inclusive democracy.

In 1965, under the leadership of Martin Luther King, Jr. and others, the great civil rights movement finally succeeded in outlawing racism at the ballot box and L.B.J. signed the Voting Rights Act. African Americans could not be denied the right to vote. We became a more inclusive democracy. One year after that, the Supreme Court ruled that the poll tax was unconstitutional, that people could not be denied the right to vote because they were low-income. We became a more inclusive democracy. In 1971, young people throughout the country said; “we are being drafted to go to Vietnam and get killed, but we don’t even have the right to vote.” The voting age was lowered to 18. We became a more inclusive democracy.

Today, after centuries of seeing this country move toward a more democratic and inclusive society, we are now witnessing the most severe attack on our democratic foundations, both economically and politically, that has been seen in the modern history of our country. In terms of the distribution of wealth and income, in terms of concentration of economic ownership and in terms of political power, fewer and fewer Americans are determining the future of our country.  This is a trend we must reverse. I recently appeared on MSNBC where I discussed this with Al Sharpton…

Economically, the United States today has, by far, the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth, and that inequality is worse today in America than at any time since the late 1920s.  Today, the wealthiest 400 individuals own more wealth than the bottom half of America — 150 million people.  Today, one family, the Walton family of Wal-Mart fame, with $89 billion, owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America. Today, the top one percent owns 40 percent of all wealth, while the bottom 60 percent owns less than two percent. Incredibly, the bottom 40 percent of all Americans own just three-tenths of one percent of the wealth of the country.

In terms of income distribution, the top one percent earns more income than the bottom 50 percent. Between 1980 and 2005, 80 percent of all new income created in this country went to the top one percent. In 2010 alone, 93 percent of all new income went to the top one percent.

In terms of economic power and concentration of ownership, the six largest financial institutions in the country (JP MorganChase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Metlife) own assets equivalent to two-thirds of the GDP of this country — more than nine trillion dollars. These giant Wall Street institutions produce half the mortgages in this country and two-thirds of the credit cards. Three of the top four are larger today than they were when we bailed them out four years ago because they were “too big to fail.”

That is what is going on economically in this country. A handful of billionaires own a significant part of the wealth of America and have enormous control over our economy.
In my view the Citizens United Supreme Court decision was one of the worst and most anti-democratic decisions in the history of our country. What the Supreme Court did inCitizens United was to give enormous new political power to the wealthiest people in our country, in addition to all of the economic power they have. That decision allowed corporations and the super-rich, without disclosure, to spend as much money as they want to buy candidates and elections. In essence, the Supreme Court said to America’s billionaires: “You own and control the economy, you own Wall Street, you own the coal companies, you own the oil companies. Now, for a very small percentage of your wealth, we’re going to give you the opportunity to own the United States government.” That is what Citizens United is all about.

Why should we be surprised that one family, worth $50 billion, is prepared to spend $400 million in this election to protect their interests? That’s a small investment for them and a good investment. But it is not only the Koch brothers or Sheldon Adelson. There are at least 23 billionaire families who have contributed $250,000 or more into the political process up to now. My guess is that number is really much greater because many of these contributions are made in secret.

From one end of this country to the other, hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent by the very wealthy to defeat candidates who represent the needs of working people. Not content with controlling the economy, they also want to dominate our political system as well.

(CONTINUE HERE)

Posted in Economics, economy, inequality, politics, Supreme Court, taxes, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

QUESTION AUTHORITY

BPR Quote of the Day

“If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs.”

Carl Sagan

 

 

Posted in philosophy, politics, protest | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

PR Flop

Posted in elections, humor, media, Mitt Romney, politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Fed and Its Friends

A new book by Neil Barofsky, former Inspector General of the TARP program criticizes President Obama, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, and federal regulators for working in the interests of Wall Street at the expense of distressed homeowners and the public. Then this week, when a bipartisan bill to audit the Federal Reserve Bank passed the House, the Democratic leadership began to criticize Barofsky and put pressure on the Senate to kill the bill. It appears the number one priority of the president and the leadership of both parties is to ensure that Wall Street is protected at all costs. – BPR Editor

PROTECTORS OF WALL STREET

By Glenn Greenwald/ Salon/ July 27, 2012

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke

If you believe the Federal Reserve has done a fine job of managing monetary policy and trust it to continue to exert vast power with no accountability or transparency, then you are probably content with the status quo. But yesterday, “a powerful left-right coalition” in the House of Representatives — defying the Fed as well as a likely White House veto — voted overwhelmingly to enact Rep. Ron Paul’s bill to subject the Fed’s monetary policy to audits by the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan and independent congressional agency. As Dennis Kucinich, one of 89 Democrats to vote for the bill, put it: “It’s time that we stood up to the Federal Reserve that right now acts like some kind of high, exalted priesthood, unaccountable to democracy.”

Despite the large bipartisan House majority in favor of the bill, it is almost certain, as Reuters put it, “to die in the Democrat-controlled Senate.” That’s because “Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, at one time expressed support for an audit — though he reportedly has changed his mind.” Indeed, despite substantial Democratic support for the bill (including some from the progressive wing, such as Kucinich, Jerry Nadler and Raul Grijalva), “every top Democratic leader [in the House] voted against the bill, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and Whip Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland.” As former Alan Grayson aide Matt Stoller documented yesterday, Democratic leaders did not merely oppose the bill but actively whipped against it, meaning they sought to pressure caucus members to stay in line and oppose it; but as he observes: “The Democratic leaders, despite whipping, barely got a majority of the caucus to vote no. This is a massive failure on their part, and shows how weak they are.”

It was this same left-right coalition, led by Paul and joined by liberal Democrats such as Alan Grayson, that succeeded in enacting an Audit the Fed bill back in 2010. Even though that 2010 bill was substantially weakened by the same forces that oppose the bill now — the Fed, the White House, and party leadership — that audit, once completed, “revealed 16 trillion dollars in secret bank bailouts and has raised more questions about the quasi-private agency’s opaque operations” and independently showed that the Fed ignored rules to aid the largest banks. Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose watered-down Audit the Fed amendment is what passed in the Senate in 2010, said this about the audit revelations:

“The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. . . . ‘As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world,’ said Sanders. ‘This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else.'”

The argument has always been that the Fed must be able to act with independence and secrecy and that transparency would undermine its credibility and lead to political interference in monetary policy; especially now, the ostensible concern is that Republicans will impede necessary measures. But as Stoller points out, none of the parade of horribles about which the Fed warned resulted from the 2010 audit, and more to the point, the Fed — prime enablers of banks, crony capitalism and oligarchy — has proven that it deserves neither the trust nor the credibility which it had previously commanded. It’s remarkable to watch the Democratic Party become its most devoted defenders. As Stoller said about yesterday’s vote: “It’s so tiresome to see the Democratic leadership take the side of Wall Street, over and over and over.”

Along those lines, Neil Barofsky, the Inspector General of the TARP bailout program from 2008 until 2011, has a must-read new book entitled Bailout: An Inside Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street. When he was serving as IG, I praised Barofsky’s independence and adversarial watchdog mentality several times when he was warning of the Treasury Department and Tim Geithner’s overarching devotion to the interests of Wall Street at the expense of everyone else. But this new book lays out the case as clearly and powerfully as it can be made that the Obama administration and Geithner, as The New York Times” Gretchen Morgenson put it, “eagerly served Wall Street interests at the public’s expense, and regulators were captured by the very industry they were supposed to be regulating.” She adds:

“‘The suspicions that the system is rigged in favor of the largest banks and their elites, so they play by their own set of rules to the disfavor of the taxpayers who funded their bailout, are true,’ Mr. Barofsky said in an interview last week. ‘It really happened. These suspicions are valid’ . . . .

“Mr. Barofsky joins the ranks of those who believe that another crisis is likely because of the failed response to this one. ‘Incentives are baked into the system to take advantage of it for short-term profit,’ he said. ‘The incentives are to cheat, and cheating is profitable because there are no consequences.'”

As one very good review of the book began: “I sincerely did not think it would be possible at this point to lower my opinion of Tim Geithner. Nor did I think it possible, after the year and a half I just spent there, to make me think less of DC. . . . [F]ormer TARP watchdog Neil Barofsky has accomplished both with his just-published book Bailout.” Barofsky has been particularly critical of the Treasury Department’s failure to use the billions in funds allocated by Congress to help distressed homeowners as part of the HAMP program, on the ground that bankers — rather than ordinary Americans — were their only real concern (MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, citing this New York Times article on the administration’s HAMP failures, previously said that the “[White House’s] foreclosure mitigation failure has been so egregious and cruel, it makes me question their motives on everything”).

Predictably, Barofsky, a life-long Democrat and 2008 Obama supporter, has now become a Prime Enemy of Democratic partisans and banker-loyal, establishment-protecting, status-quo-perpetuating apparatchiks (as yesterday’s vote demonstrates, there is substantial overlap between those two categories). When Barofsky left his job as IG in 2011, a cowardly Obama official — naturally allowed by a Washington Post reporter to hide behind a shield of anonymity — maligned him as being desperate for media attention and “consistently wrong about a lot of big things” (without specifying any of those things). In an interview this week with Charlie Rose, Geithner pronounced himself “deeply offended” at Barofsky’s claims (without actually refuting them or claiming they are inaccurate).

(CONTINUE HERE)

Posted in Barack Obama, Economics, economy, finance, government, law, politics, Wall Street | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

At Least Zygotes Can’t Vote…..Yet

Posted in Abortion, civil liberties, humor, inequality, law, politics, religion, Republican Party, science | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

THINK WE COULD USE SOME OF THAT MONEY?

The chief economist for an international corporate consulting firm crunched the numbers and came up with $21 Trillion stashed away in offshore tax havens and unavailable for use by financially-strapped government treasuries. If this revenue were available, social programs around the world would not have to be slashed and austerity measures would  be unnecessary. In the U.S. we wouldn’t need to consider cutting Social Security, Medicare, unemployment  checks and food stamps. But only, of course, if governments had the backbone to go after the tax avoiders.–BPR Editor

Broke? Not if Governments Tax the $21 TRILLION Rich Have Offshored

By John Nichols/ The Nation/ July 23, 2012

Does it matter that Mitt Romney, the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party for president of the United States, is a huge fan of offshore tax havens?

It should to Americans who take seriously the question of whether this country has the resources to pay for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, implementation of the Affordable Care Act and all the other programs and initiatives that Romney and House Budget Committee Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, say we can no longer afford.

The truth, of course, is that the United States produces more than enough taxable wealth to pay for every program that Romney and Ryan propose to “reform,” mangle, dismantle or eliminate.

Indeed, a remarkable new study produced for the global Tax Justice Network reveals that at least $21 trillion—yes, that’s “trillion” with a “t”—has been shielded from appropriate taxation in the secret tax havens favored by the super-rich of the United States and other countries around the world.

To put that figure in perspective, $21 trillion is the equivalent of the combined GDPs the United States and Japan.

James Henry, the former chief economist for McKinsey & Company (a top international business consulting firm), produced the report for the Tax Justice Network. Employing data from the Bank of International Settlements, International Monetary Fund, World Bank and governments around the world, Henry came up with what he describes as the “conservative” figure of $21 trillion as a baseline measure of the financial wealth deposited in offshore bank and investment accounts.

Henry says that private wealth socked away in offshore tax havens by billionaires and millionaires who want to avoid paying their fair share at home represents “a huge black hole in the world economy.”

It also represents an opening, should world leaders choose to address the issue, for governments to claw back tax revenues in a time of global economic distress.

“The lost tax revenues implied by our estimates is huge. It is large enough to make a significant difference to the finances of many countries,” explains Henry. “From another angle, this study is really good news. The world has just located a huge pile of financial wealth that might be called upon to contribute to the solution of our most pressing global problems.”

While reasonable people might debate the precise amount of sheltered cash, there is no question that Henry is right. The United States and other countries could go a long way toward balancing their books if they clawed back a fair share of the sheltered largesse.

Unfortunately, as he notes, it is not easy to claw money back from the offshore accounts of the tax-avoiding Mitt Romneys of the world. (Romney keeps millions, perhaps tens of millions, in secretive Swiss banks accounts and the shadowy tax havens of the Bahamas and the Cayman Islands.) As Henry notes, an “industrious bevy of professional enablers in private banking, legal, accounting and investment industries” makes it possible for millionaires and billionaires to move their money offshore.

In addition to the “professional enablers,” however, there are also “political enablers.”

Republicans and Democrats in Washinbgton have been slow to move beyond narrow debates about tax “reform” and toward serious discussions of tax “enforcement.”

But Romney takes a problem and turns it into a pathology. The Bain Capitalist does not just sock money away in foreign tax havens. He favors tax policies that would make it dramatically easier for multinational corporations—and, presumably, their wealthy CEOs—to avoid paying taxes.

The United States needs leaders who will work with leaders of other countries, especially Germany, that are looking for ways to crack down on abusive practices that shelter wealth from legitimate taxation. Barack Obama has not begun to go far enough in this regard, but his criticisms of Romney on tax issues represent a step in the right direction.

If Romney wins, does anyone think the country’s most prominent investor in tax havens would lead the charge to constrain the very tax-sheltering schemes in which he has engaged? Of course not.

This is a serious matter, not just for progressives and Democrats but for conservatives and Republicans who care about the economic stability of the United States.

Posted in Economics, economy, finance, government, inequality, law, Mitt Romney, taxes | Tagged , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

BEWARE OF DARKNESS

“Watch out now, take care
Beware of greedy leaders
They take you where you should not go…”

George Harrison

“Beware of Darkness”

 

Posted in Mitt Romney, Quotations, Republican Party | Tagged , | Leave a comment