Friday, February 01, 2008

Old Man River, Sold Down Old Man River...

  • Within the same week of his loopy State of the Union speech (which finally I read online; how Bush can dare to say the word 'trust' any longer demonstrates either how oblivious he is, or stupid he thinks we all are), President Bush concedes our economy "is weakening and that we've got to do something about it,"
  • though he and the GOP refuse to deal with how their own policies (and many ongoing deregulation and 'corporate welfare' laws active since the Reagan years) have precipitated this plight.

    Why should he give a fuck? One year left to go,
  • unprecedented Presidential signing statements
  • on over 1100 laws (expanding Presidential powers beyond any Constitutional parameters and encroaching on those of Congress, the courts, etc.), and a superficial proposed economic stimulus package dependent upon simply borrowing more money to swell the national deficit -- we have been collectively sold down so many rivers, it's impossible to begin to grasp the magnitude of how fucked we are.

  • Of course, the petro giants are soaring: Exxon Mobil posted the largest annual profit by a U.S. company in history ($40.6 billion!) today, and set a new American record for the biggest quarterly profit (net income of $11.7 billion for the final quarter of 2007, beating its own previous record!)
  • (and second-largest petro firm Chevron reported record profits, too),
  • the very same week Halliburton posted quarterly net profits rising 5 percent, "helped by growth in its Eastern Hemisphere business and a lower tax rate."

  • Got that? A lower tax rate, while the US plunges further into massive debt waging war -- wars Halliburton also profits directly from. "The company said it had benefited from a lower tax rate as increased international profits allowed it to recognize additional foreign tax credits..." Suck it up, America.

    Bully for them; for the rest of us, record national debt, record personal debts, record foreclosures and April 15th income tax deadlines mark the landscape created in large part by two decades of massive government deregulation of once-sane banking and credit practices and the Bush Administration's overhaul of personal bankruptcy laws in 2001-2002 to further favor predatory credit and banking institutions. It's hard to stomach a third year of record oil corporation profits as gas prices continue to hover between $3.00-$3.25 a gallon. The tanking economy is measurable by
  • American payrolls suffering their first major decline in five years.
  • Note among the references to current unemployment numbers still doesn't take into account those so long unemployed that they cease to register; hence, the uncounted unemployed -- an indeterminable portion of the population, until/unless new and reliable poverty statistics are compiled -- remain invisible.

    Depression of another kind is hitting hard, too, as an inevitable consequence of President Bush's policies and actions. This week's staggering report concerning military suicides has made the news;
  • confirms the statistics, providing further links and context.
  • "The report also shows an increase in the number of attempted suicides and self-injuries - some 2,100 in 2007 compared to less than 1,500 the previous year and less than 500 in 2002. The total of 121 suicides last year, if all are confirmed, would be more than double the 52 reported in 2001, before the Sept. 11 attacks prompted the Bush administration to launch its counter-terror war."
  • It's worth noting earlier reporting: here's the December 2003 report --
  • -- at which point noted, "The Army is concerned about the deaths. Outside experts have said the rate is alarmingly high compared with the military's average suicide rates..." --
  • -- and in February 2004 this was where we stood.
  • By 2006, Military suicides were at a horrific high,
  • and now it's much, much worse.

    Given the Pentagon's breaking of long-standing rules concerning reasonable tours of duty, the repeated extension of those deployment periods, and the obscene lack of support for the troops and returning veterans by the very President, Vice President, Pentagon and government that launched these pre-emptive wars, it's hardly surprising.

    As I've said here repeatedly, the correlation between Bush, Cheney and the Pentagon's treatment of our troops and their treatment of detainees is obvious: interminable imprisonment based on a war that is, by definition, impossible to win (e.g., a "war" on a tactic, not a nation or geographically-definable 'enemy'). How much can the human spirit withstand?

    How long can we inflict this upon our own troops, as well as the countries we have invaded and occupied?

    And when will the inevitability of a military draft, in the face of how irrevocably Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al have manhandled, mismanaged and damaged our military, be the wake-up call to those still complacent about all this? I dread that day, but given the ongoing madness and Bush's determination to lodge America in Iraq and Afghanistan far beyond the end of his term -- and the Republican candidates (save Ron Paul) so arrogantly brandishing the war(s) as a given and necessary path for their hoped-for Presidencies -- it indeed seems inevitable.
  • (Note, too, the whispers are getting louder.)

  • As the saying goes, "...a nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves” (so said Edward R. Murrow).
  • But don't take my word for it;
  • William J. Lederer echoed Murrow in 1961,
  • and Judge Andrew P. Napolitano echoes Murrow today.
  • How baaaaaaaaahhhhd can it get?
    I think we're going to find out this year.

    Another Reason to Love Vermont

    My home state Senator Bernie Sander's riposte to Bush's State of the Union speech is worth sharing:

    The State of the Union Bush Forgot to Talk About

    I listened intently to President Bush's State of the Union speech. Frankly, I had a hard time understanding what country he was talking about, what reality he was talking about. Certainly, if the "state of the union" refers to what is happening to the shrinking middle class of this country, and how we as a people are doing, the president had almost nothing to say that rang true. In fact, the speech just reminds us once again how far removed from the reality of ordinary life this president is, and how little he and his administration know about what is going on with the vast majority of Americans.

    The president said that "in the long run, Americans can be confident about our economic growth." I wish that was true. Unfortunately, since President Bush has been in office it is important to understand that nearly five million Americans have slipped out of the middle class and into poverty. Amazingly, the poverty rate is higher today than it was during the last recession in 2001.Median household income for working-age Americans has declined by almost $2,500 and overall median household income has gone down by nearly $1,000. More than 8.6 million Americans have lost their health insurance. More than 3 million manufacturing jobs have been lost, including more than 10,000 in Vermont. The list of troubling economic statistics goes on.

    Meanwhile, the wealthiest people in our society have not had it so good since the 1920s. Income inequality is on the rise. According to the latest figures from the IRS, the top 1 percent earned more income in 2005 than the bottom 50 percent, and the national share of income going to the wealthiest Americans is higher than at any time since 1929. Perhaps even more disturbing is the unequal distribution of wealth. According to Forbes magazine, the collective net worth of the wealthiest 400 Americans increased by $290 billion last year to $1.54 trillion. In addition, the top one percent now owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.

    What are the super-wealthy doing with their money? As Robert Frank of The Wall Street Journal has pointed out in his book Richistan, the super wealthy, those worth between $100 million to $1 billion, spent an average of $182,000 on wrist watches; $311,000 on automobiles; $397,000 on jewelry; and $169,000 on spa services last year alone. The middle class is shrinking, poverty is increasing, and the wealthiest Americans have not had it so good since the 1920s. That is the state of our economy.

    In order to protect the interests of the sinking middle class the federal government needs a change in direction in almost every area of public policy. We must start by passing an economic stimulus package as soon as possible. A stimulus package that the House approved on Tuesday could and should be improved.

    In my opinion, for an economic stimulus package to be most successful, we must do three things: 1) We must provide help to those most in need, particularly senior citizens on fixed incomes, low-income families with children and persons with disabilities. 2) We must strengthen the middle class. 3) We must put Americans back to work at good paying jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure: our roads, bridges, schools, homes, health centers, sewers, and other important needs.

    If we pass an economic stimulus package that does not accomplish all three of these goals, we will have missed out on an important opportunity to strengthen our economy.

    Here is what I believe we should do.

    First, I would increase the economic stimulus package from $150 billion to $175 billion. We should reduce the business tax breaks on equipment purchases by 50 percent or roughly $25 billion. These tax breaks are referred to as bonus depreciation. It has been argued that businesses need these tax breaks to buy more equipment, but experts tell us that businesses will be buying this equipment regardless of whether these tax breaks are signed into law or not. According to Mark Zandi with Moody's, for every $1 the government provides for bonus depreciation, it would only add 27 cents to GDP. In other words, it would provide very little stimulus. If we did these two things: increase the overall economic stimulus package by $25 billion; and cut the bonus depreciation tax break by 50 percent, that would leave us with about $50 billion.

    What could we do with this $50 billion? We could put Americans to work at decent paying jobs; we could help those most in need; and we could strengthen the middle class. Those are the three pillars I believe should be included in any economic stimulus package. Specifically, I believe we should provide $5 billion for an expansion of the Food Stamp program. The Congressional Budget Office and other experts have indicated that such an increase would be one of the most effective ways to stimulate the economy. For every $1.00 invested in the Food Stamp Program, we would add $1.73 to GDP. More importantly, these benefits would go to the Americans who have been hit the hardest in our economy.

    We could provide $3.62 billion in home heating assistance for senior citizens on fixed incomes, low-income families with children and persons with disabilities through the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. The price of energy is skyrocketing. People in Vermont and all over this country are paying record prices to heat their homes this winter. In the richest country on the face of the earth, we must ensure that no-one goes cold this winter.

    In addition, with unemployment rising and our infrastructure crumbling, we could address both of these concerns by providing $16 billion to repair our schools, bridges, roads, sewers, rails, ports and airports. We could also put people to work weatherizing nearly 100,000 homes; expand our health delivery system by increasing funding for Community Health Centers, and help veterans with disabilities retrofit their cars and refurbish their homes. States, localities, economists and other experts have identified thousands of projects throughout the country that could not only use this money, but spend it quickly. Last year, about 200,000 construction workers lost their jobs. We could and should put many of these Americans back to work through this economic stimulus package.

    Let me give you two examples of investments we could be making that would have a tremendous economic impact on the lives of Americans. If we just provided $148 million for an expansion of Community Health Centers, that would be enough to create 227 new health centers throughout the country; provide health care services to an additional 1.4 million previously unserved Americans; lead to the creation of 15,000 new jobs, and provide a total economic benefit of $1.25 billion.For those that question the appropriateness of including an expansion of community health centers into an economic stimulus package, I would say to my colleagues that this is exactly what we did during the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan. It worked. If it worked in the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan, it will work today.

    Another important investment that we should make is to provide at least $200 million for the Low-Income Weatherization Assistance Program. Not only could the program easily absorb this level of funding and create additional construction and retrofitting jobs, but it also would save millions of dollars for low-income people who are struggling with higher energy costs by weatherizing an additional 75,000 homes.

    In 2001, I was an early backer of tax rebates. I support tax rebates for the middle class, for low-income families with children, and for persons with disabilities. I also believe that senior citizens who don't pay income taxes should be receiving this assistance as well through a bonus in their Social Security checks. But giving someone $300 or $600 or $1,200 alone will not fix the economic situations facing millions of Americans. Putting Americans to work at decent paying jobs and helping those most in need would do much more to strengthen the middle class and reduce the poverty rate than simply sending rebate checks and bonus depreciation tax breaks.

    Let's pass an economic stimulus package quickly, but let's make sure we get it right. Let's help those most in need. Let's put Americans to work at good paying jobs.

  • He hasn't listened to anyone but his cronies for seven years; why should 2008 be in any way different? President Bush, of course, is doing quite the opposite of what Senator Sanders recommends.

  • And, on a far less consequently note, but of great potential consequence to online activity, I'd wager,
  • note that if this sale goes through, we'll be seeing some insidious internet mutations. I'll be changing my email address soon.
  • What, me worry?

  • Have a great weekend...

    Labels: , , , , , , ,