“If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.”
Noam Chomsky
The country is still celebrating the inability of the supercommittee to cut Social Security and Medicare, but it is important to move on from this victory to retake control of the political debate from the One Percent. As it stands, the One Percent are insisting that the country genuflect over the non-problem of the budget deficit, at a time when tens of millions of workers are unemployed or underemployed, millions of people are facing the loss of their homes and tens of millions of baby boomers are approaching retirement with little other than their Social Security to support them.
The deficit is the agenda of the One Percent. There is no reason that the rest of us should be concerned about budget deficits when the rest of the country is struggling with the economic disaster created by the greed and incompetence of the One Percent.
This is not a statement of morality; it is a statement based on economic reality. Budget deficits can be a problem when an economy is near full employment and the deficit can be pulling resources away from private investment, thereby slowing growth. However, it is not a problem with large numbers of unemployed workers and vast amounts of excess capacity.
punditleague.usThis is what the financial markets are telling us every day as interest rates on long-term government bonds hover near 2.0 percent. If deficits were really crimping the economy, we would be seeing interest rates of 6 or 7 percent, or even higher. The deficit hawks do not have an economic case to support their argument, just money and influence.
In the longer term, the deficit hawks can point to projections of outsized deficits, which they invariably attribute to Social Security and Medicare. The first part of this story is completely untrue.
Under the law, Social Security is financed from its designated tax. It, therefore, cannot contribute to the deficit unless Congress changes the law. (The payroll tax credit in 2011, which was replaced with general revenue, is an exception to this rule.)
According to the most recent projections from the Congressional Budget Office, Social Security benefits will be fully funded through the year 2038. After that date, if Congress does nothing to increase revenue, then the program would pay a bit more than 80 percent of scheduled benefits. (This would still be about 10 percent more than current retirees receive since benefits are projected to rise by approximately 1 percent a year.)
The real story of the soaring long-term deficits is exploding Medicare costs, which are in turn driven by our broken health care system. We already pay more than twice as much per person for our health care as the average for other wealthy countries, with little to show in the way of outcomes. This gap is projected to continue to grow in the years ahead.
To anyone who looks at the facts, the obvious answer to our deficit problem is fixing the health care system. This is difficult to do given the enormous political power of the pharmaceutical industry, the insurance industry, highly paid medical specialists, and the other members of the One Percent who profit from the waste in the system as it exists now.
If we can’t immediately change the system, then why not take advantage of the gains from trade? If we change rules to make it possible for Medicare beneficiaries to buy into the health care systems in other countries or make it easier for patients to have medical procedures done at far lower cost elsewhere, it should be an enormous win-win, offering gains that could be in the trillions of dollars. And what free-market fundamentalist can argue against the principle of giving people a choice?
In fact, conservatives and self-described free traders run screaming from the idea of opening medical care to trade. They want trade that will lower the wages of auto workers and textile workers by putting them in direct competition with low-paid workers in the developing world; they hate trade when it threatens to reduce the income of the pharmaceutical industry, the insurance industry, and others in the One Percent.
It’s time to expose the lies for what they are. The One Percent have rigged the deck over the last three decades to accomplish the most massive upward redistribution in the history of the world. These are not people who care about budget deficits or free trade or free markets. They care about making themselves richer at the expense of everyone else.
Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. His blog is called “Beat the Press,” where he comments on the media’s coverage of economic issues.
From CommonDreams.org
SALT LAKE CITY — Former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Andersonhas formed a new political party and plans to run for president.
To be known as the Justice Party, Anderson sees it as a grassroots movement that over the long term will bring about the shift in American politics that he says citizens crave.
“The people are the ones who always bring about major change in this country, and we need to provide that power to people throughout the country,” he said Wednesday on KSL Radio’s Doug Wright Show.
“They want to see an alternative party. They recognize that these two militarist, corporatist parties have brought us to this disastrous place to where we are today.”
One of Utah’s most liberal politicians, Anderson renounced his affiliation with the Democratic Party in August, saying he was fed up with it along with Congress, the Obama administration and Republicans. He reiterated that disgust during the interview.
“We’ve been voting as a nation against our own interests year after year,” he said. “Most Americans — whether they consider themselves on the right, left, center, whatever — understand that their interests have been undermined by these folks in Washington, both in the White House and in Congress, who are acting as if they’re on retainer with their largest campaign contributors rather than doing what’s in the public’s interest.”
Anderson, executive director of High Road for Humans Rights, threw out the idea of a new political party in the summer, but said he had no plans to run for office.
Since organizing the Justice Party, he has filled out paperwork for a presidential exploratory committee. The party must also go about the arduous task of getting on election ballots nationwide. Criteria varies state to state but may include past electoral performance or a petition process.
University of Utah political science professor Matthew Burbank said establishing a new party is a “very, very difficult endeavor” that requires lots of time and money.
“I think he has kind of a long-term issues agenda, but that is separate from what it takes to get a third party up and running,” Burbank said.
There is a certain level of discontent with U.S. politics and Anderson’s message may resonate with some such as the Occupy Wall Street crowd, Burbank said. The party, he said, could carve out a fraction of those who otherwise vote Democrat and some independents, but not a significant number of Republicans.
“I can’t see this as anything other than a very long shot,” he said.
Anderson said he expects to attract disenchanted members of both parties and independents.
“I just hope we can be involved in the debate, because if we don’t we’re just going to be hearing a bunch of sound bites from people who between their two parties have colluded in so many ways in serving the interests of their campaign contributors, the wealthy and the powerful,” he said.
“If you put passion and organization together, we can overcome any of these candidates who have all the money but really lack ideas.”
Anderson said “outrageous, expensive” wars have wasted lives and tax dollars the past decade. The government, he said, has driven up the deficit, while cutting taxes for those most capable of paying them. Also, leaders have failed to provide affordable, essential health care for all Americans.
“The middle class has been decimated,” he said.
by Elliot Cohen/ Buzzflash at Truthout/ Nov. 22, 2011
On the surface, the so-called “Stop Online Piracy Act” (SOPA) looks like it has a noble end, that of protecting criminal violations of copyright by foreign (non-U.S.) actors. However, on careful inspection, the Act has the potential to spawn a virtual (cyber) witch-hunt and dismantle the free and democratic edifice of the Internet.
Giant ISPs such as Comcast have already begun to block file sharing websites; and Comcast has already gone to court and gotten the legal green light to block or slow web content. Now, as the Federal Communication Commission sits on the sidelines, it is about to receive the authority from Congress to go after content providers if, pursuant to Section 104 of SOPA, it can claim a “reasonable belief” that they are hosting at least some material that is infringing the rights of copyright owners. And it can do so with complete civil and criminal immunity.
In this regard it is useful to inspect the language of Section 104 of SOPA, which states,
No cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court or administrative agency against, no person may rely in any claim or cause of action against, and no liability for damages to any person shall be granted against, a service provider, payment network provider, Internet advertising service, advertiser, Internet search engine, domain name registry, or domain name registrar for taking any action described in section 102(c)(2), section103(d)(2), or section 103(b) with respect to an Internet site, or otherwise voluntarily blocking access to or ending financial affiliation with an Internet site, in the reasonable belief that-
1) the Internet site is a foreign infringing site or is an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property; and
(2) the action is consistent with the entity’s terms of service or other contractual rights [emphasis added].
Pursuant to 102(c) (2)(A), an ISP that receives a copy of a court order from the Attorney General must take “technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers… to the foreign infringing site (or portions thereof) that is subject to the order.” However, pursuant to Section 104 stated above, it appears that no such order must be received by an ISP to commence an action against an alleged offender. Pursuant to the broad language of Section 104 italicized above, it is also entitled to engage in “voluntarily blocking” Internet sites for which it has “reasonable belief” that the site is a foreign infringer and its action is within the purview of its terms of service. The government would accordingly “deputize” Comcast, AT&T and the other ISPs to be its cyber police or law enforcement officers; and it would authorize these companies to make their own determinations in the absence of a court order, and to receive full legal immunity for their actions.
Pursuant to the FISA Amendments Act, these giant telecommunication/mass media companies are already required by government to cooperate with the National Security Agency (NSA) in filtering and copying the email and phone messages of all electronic communications coming through U.S. switches. This system of mass warrantless surveillance was allowed to operate illegally beginning in the early days of the George W. Bush administration until 2007 when the program was “legalized” pursuant to the Protect America Act. Now, these same companies are about to be authorized to block Internet content without a warrant, not just filter and copy it. Pursuant to the FISA Amendments Act, these companies now have immunity from prosecution for unconstitutional, mass, warrantless surveillance of the electronic messages of millions of Americans. These companies are about to be given total criminal and civil immunity for blocking Internet content without a warrant. This means that blocked websites would not have any legal right to redress even if the action taken by the ISP is unlawful.
Upon us is therefore a brave new world of cyber witch-hunting. The witches of Salem were burned at the stake for supernatural crimes they could not defend against. Now those who are targeted by government and/or their telecom cronies may also have no avenue of defense. (continued)
Read the Entire Story here Cyber Witch Hunts
Elliot D. Cohen is a media ethicist and political analyst. He is the author of Mass Surveillance and State Control: The Total Information Awareness Project (Palgrave Macmillan).
Despite the predictions of Bill O’Reilly and the wishes of Mayor Bloomberg and other One Percenters, the Occupy movement is not going away. It’s too late for that– the idea and the message are out and can no longer be contained. And it should be clear to everyone, the critical problems that gave rise to Occupy Wall Street are not going away anytime soon.
So what is the future of Occupy? Ask a hundred people and you’ll probably get 110 opinions and at least an equal number of suggestions for moving to the next phase.
Here are some critical questions about the past, present and future of the Occupy movement, and for whatever they’re worth, my answers:
What is the Occupy Movement?
Occupy Wall Street started on Sept. 17, 2011, inspired in large part by the Arab Spring events that took place in a number of countries in North Africa and the Middle East, including the occupation of Tahrir Square in Egypt. Considerable praise and encouragement for these foreign demonstrators came from all over the U.S., excited to see oppressed citizens seeking democracy, freedom and a say in how they are governed.
While the Arab Spring resulted in occasional success, economic conditions in the U.S. and most of the rest of the world worsened. As a result of the economic collapse triggered by Wall Street speculators (who have yet to be called to account for their role in the meltdown), Americans have continued to lose jobs, homes and savings. Economic conditions, here and abroad, remain bleak .
Occupy Wall Street set off a spontaneous groundswell of activism from large segments of American society, especially young people, many of whom were racking up huge college loan debts with limited prospects for finding jobs to pay them off. The movement spread rapidly across the country and around the globe.
What does the Occupy Movement Stand For?
Not every occupier will agree on everything, but it is safe to say that the overwhelming majority of occupiers understand that the richest one percent of Americans have rigged the system against the rest of us, defined by the movement as the 99%. Occupiers resent that Wall Street, which caused the economic meltdown, got “bailed out,” while the rest of us got “sold out”(in the words of the Occupy chant).
Meanwhile, Congress, in cooperation with the corporate media, followed a different agenda. They jumped on the government debt crisis bandwagon, seeking ways to cut taxes on millionaires and billionaires, and pare down the budget deficit on the backs of the country’s least advantaged.
Polls demonstrate that large majorities of Americans feel differently. They want the rich to pay more taxes, and for Congress to resist cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Yet politicians of both major parties, bought and paid for by wealthy special interests, continue to pass laws favorable to the One Percent.
Does OWS Want to Overthrow Capitalism?
Occupy is not anti-capitalist, but condemns the destructive form of crony, monopolistic capitalism that has a chokehold on the American economy.
Here are some other things the Occupy movement is not: violent, destructive, un-American, anarchist, Marxist, or crazy. Some individuals might be, but they do not represent the Occupy movement.
Because the movement is large and inclusive, there will be individuals who will do crazy, radical, violent activities that invalidate the entire movement in the eyes of the intellectually lazy. Some of the worse behavior is by people with their own agenda, and some may even be part of a purposeful effort by Occupy enemies to discredit the movement, which steadfastly supports non-violent behavior.
Is the Economic and Political System Really That Broken?
The wealth disparity between the rich and poor has been accelerating for years in the United States and is the largest since 1928, just prior to the start of the Great Depression, and currently the widest of any other developed nation. The top one percent own 40 percent of America’s wealth, and 24 percent of the income (up from nine percent in 1976).
The wealth gap has gotten so extreme the 400 richest Americans have more wealth than the bottom half (over 300 million people). The latest mind-numbing statistic? Thanks to a favorable tax rate (15%), the top one-tenth of one percent are now earning half of all capital gains. In contrast, 46 million Americans live in poverty, among them 16 million children, the highest number in nearly fifty years. And it’s getting worse.
But our elected leaders work in a corrupt culture of legalized bribery, in which thousands of lobbyists fork over financial rewards from corporate interests to ensure that Congress does their bidding. The 2010 Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court swung the door wide open, allowing corporations free rein to spend as much as they want to buy the candidates of their choice. The age-old democratic principle of “one man, one vote” is now an anachronism.
Must the Occupy Movement Occupy?
Occupying public property can be illegal, inconvenient, disruptive and uncomfortable. For these reasons, many sympathetic observers would like to see occupiers move to an empty building or off the beaten path, as well as work within the conventional political process to accomplish their goals. Occupiers instinctively know better. The American political system has become toothless and futile, and effectively controlled by the One Percent.
Only by occupying public space can the movement draw attention to itself, show affinity with other Occupy movements, educate the public, occasionally fight battles against heavy-handed police tactics, and make sure the powers-that-be know Occupy is in it for the long haul. Only by occupying can the movement thrive and grow to its fullest potential.
What has OWS Accomplished?
When it comes to changing laws and gaining political clout, the Occupy movement has not accomplished a lot. But they have achieved at least one significant victory. Prior to Occupy Wall Street, the Tea Party agenda of smaller government, deregulation (the very things that caused the economic meltdown), and the urgency of bringing down the national debt dominated the political discussion.
When Occupy Wall Street sprung up in September, the corporate media did its best to ignore the protesters in Zuccotti Park. But when the police tried to break up the campers, OWS became too big to ignore. Suddenly the message of Wall Street greed and 99% need jumped to the forefront. Meanwhile the Tea Party message faded to the background, with the exception of right-wing media, and Republican presidential debates.
Where Are the Occupy Leaders and Demands?
The Occupy movement is unfamiliar and unconventional, which disturbs its potential allies nearly as much as its opponents. Many older, traditional protesters find it hard to grasp a movement without a leader or specific demands. Some groups or interests would love to co-opt this burgeoning movement but the occupiers have been vigilant in preventing that scenario ( Five Sure-fire Ways to Drive the Right Wing Crazy).
Occupy is a grass-roots, bottom-up mass movement of mostly young people who have found a voice and are effectively using it. This frustrates its opponents, who find it hard to discredit and demonize an OWS figurehead who doesn’t exist, or to attack a demand that hasn’t been expressed. But so far it has worked, judging by the numbers and the energy.
There Will Be Demands Eventually, Right?
Maybe. Or requests, or wants, or some sort of action plan. But like OWS itself, it will have to evolve from the ground up, from the mostly young people who have discovered the American Dream to be an empty slogan, and life in this country to be a harder slog than Americans have had to deal with in at least the last sixty years.
If they asked me (they haven’t), I would propose a minimum of objectives that revolve around the ideas that virtually everyone involved in Occupy can agree on: the widening wealth disparity in this country, and the lack of economic and political fairness and opportunity for the majority of Americans. To accomplish these goals, the political system would have to be totally restructured to take private money out of the process, for it is because of its financial clout that the top 1% has been able to maintain its dominance. Changing that will be no easy task, for sure, and it will be a long process..
But it is the young people who have seized upon this moment in history who will make the decision about what they want to see happen. And hopefully, whatever evolves, will sweep across this land and set in motion an unstoppable wave of change. We desperately need to restore the promise of a once great nation and give this generation real reasons to say they are proud to be Americans.
Will OWS Be Successful?
I hope so, but hope alone won’t do it. Much will depend on how Occupy reacts to the pushback from the powerful interests who control this country. Much will depend on the kind of support Occupiers get from the frustrated and confused average American. And much depends on how hard the protesters are willing to work and occupy in their effort to recapture the American Dream from the one percent who currently own it.
The Occupy movement will be difficult to suppress. If we allow it the space and time to evolve, it may just succeed in changing the world for the better.
Did anybody notice that capitalism failed? It finally imploded in 2008, only to be revived by government bailouts. Of course, it is not polite to mention that capitalism failed, any more than it would be polite to discredit somebody’s religion. And let’s be honest, in this country Capitalism is a religion.
Image: speakingofdemocracy.comInstead of the Occupy movement, maybe it should be called the Reality Movement. Because at last reality is coming out in the open. More Americans now understand: The 1% own the economy and the politicians, Wall Street got “bailed out”and we got “sold out,” corporations should not be considered people and money is not free speech, the American Dream is no more than a dream, and so on. The corporate media has kept a lid on that kind of thinking, but ultimately couldn’t keep that lid capped.
A number of countries have nuclear weapons. Hell, we have thousands. Israel is believed to have more than a hundred. So why should we be terrified and itching to go to war if Iran might someday have their first?
Libertarians sound sensible on a lot of issues–among them foreign policy and legalizing victimless crimes. But ultimately they seem to me to care more about private property and business than they do people. That is a big reason their appeal will always be limited.
The War on Terrorism has always been overrated. The worldwide terrorist network was never as dangerous as it was claimed to be. There will always be the threat of a terrorist attack. But the most likely terrorist danger in this country is the lone wolf terrorist. And you don’t need hundreds of billions of dollars in the military budget every year to stop him.
Remember whenever a horrific act of gun violence occurred in this country, a contentious debate on gun control broke out? If you are young, you probably don’t remember. Even since Democrats were punished by the powerful NRA in the 1994 election for trying to ban assault-style weapons, lawmakers have been afraid to even mention gun control.
from Common Dreams/ Nov. 26, 2011
The covers of the US edition of this week’s Time Magazine compared to the international editions.
We can’t make this stuff up. It kind of says it all…
 |
 |
 |
 |
