Find a show you like and click the 
button. The show will be added to your My Playlist page and updated 24/7 with new videos.
Search Results
5 Views
19:00:30 12/28/11
Notable Death of the Year: RIP Austerity Economics, 1921-2011
[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 19:00:30 12/28/11
"Smokestack Lightnin'," with Hubert Sumlin backing Howlin' Wolf in 1964
This is the time of year when we're reminded of all the famous people who died over the last twelve months, a list which includes two of my favorite guitar players ( Hubert Sumlin and Cornell Dupree ). But there were also some notable non-human deaths in 2011, especially in the world of economic policy.
One of those deaths should have completely altered the political debate in Washington. The name of the deceased was "Austerity Economics," and it was first glimpsed in a 1921 paper by conservative economist Frank Wright. Austerity died of natural causes brought on by prolonged exposure to reality.
But the debate in Washington didn't change nearly enough after its passing. In the nation's capital, dead things still rule the night.
Why Austerity?
"Austerity economics" backers claim that today's economic woes can only be fixed by dramatic reductions in government spending, which will lead to increased private-sector confidence and therefore to greater investment and growth.
But it's never worked. And if investors have lost confidence in the U.S. government's fiscal stability, they're sure not acting that way. There hasn't been this much demand for Treasury bonds since the government began tracking it twenty years ago, and they haven't performed as well since the go-go 1990s.
It's easy to understand austerity's attraction for power elites inside and outside of government. The people who suffer from austerity budgets aren't the kinds of people they know personally, since they're typically public employees like teachers, police, firefighters and the administrators of social programs; people who need government assistance, like the poor; and middle-class people with the temerity to either grow old or become disabled.
Austerity's attraction became even greater in the U.S. because once it became conventional wisdom that tax increases on the wealthy was "politically infeasible." That made it a program whose sole purpose was to cut government spending, lowering the pressure to increase taxes on the wealthy from today's historically low levels.
For a one-percenter, what's not to love?
Austerity Comes of Age
The idea's been around in one form or another since that 1921 paper, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had been imposing it on Third World nations for decades.
But 2009 was the year that austerity really came of age. That was the year that a wealthy stockbroker's son named David Cameron began campaigning for Prime Minister of Great Britain on an explicitly pro-austerity platform.
It was also the year that Cameron helped to form a group named European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) dedicated to electing like-minded politicians across Europe and helping them collaborate on ways to slash government spending. It was also the year that right-leaning Angela Merkel won reelection as the Chancellor of Germany with a stronger mandate than she'd been given in her first term.
With Nicolas Sarkozy as President of France, Great Britain was the only major European power not yet in the hands of the corporate-backed austerity crowd.
The Global Sado-Erotic Thrill Machine
That changed with Cameron's election as Prime Minister in May 2010, an event that threw pro-austerity Americans into throes of near-erotic ecstasy. And if that sounds like hyperbole, consider conservative Anne Appelbaum's reaction to Cameron's budget in September of 2010: >
Vicious cuts." "Savage cuts." "Swingeing (sic) cuts." The language that the British use to describe their new government's spending-reduction policy is apocalyptic in the extreme. The ministers in charge of the country's finances are known as "axe-wielders" who will be "hacking" away at the budget. Articles about the nation's finances are filled with talk of blood, knives, and amputation.
And the British love it.
What can I say? There are people who collect serial-killer memorabilia, too. But Appelbaum wasn't just speaking for herself. It became unacceptable for any politician in Washington, Democrat or Republican, to advocate anything other than an austerity budget for the United States.
And it was more than an economic strategy to its backers. Austerity became a way to demonize those who had suffered most from the banking abuses and self-indulgences of the wealthy, a totemic "blame the victim" response that turned the political debate into a grotesque inversion of morality. Again, Appelbaum: >
"Not only is austerity being touted as the solution to Britain's economic woes; it is also being described as the answer to the country's moral failings."
Bad Metaphors vs. Good Economists
The Democratic President of the United States, Barack Obama, jumped onto the bandwagon with both feet by repeatedly lecturing Americans on the need for government to stop "spending beyond its means." Obama recycled the popular conservative metaphor of a family that has to sit around the kitchen table and decide how much money it has to spend.
That's one of the worst metaphors in modern politics. Does a family establish its own currency -- especially one that has the unique position of the dollar? Can a family borrow money at rates so low they're effectively less than zero? Would a family let Grandma go hungry because Junior bought too many Porsches out of the family kitty and then gambled it away on lousy mortgage investments?
The world's top economists, those who had successfully predicted the crisis of 2008, tried telling the rest of the world what was wrong with the idea: Joblessness and consumer fears were killing any chance of real recovery. More short-term spending was needed to get the economy moving again. Austerity would make things worse, not better.
But nobody listened. Austerity's S%M-like attraction had the world's elites in its grip.
Death of a Delusion
And then something else came into the picture: Reality.
Cameron's austerity budget had a shattering effect on the already-struggling British economy. His government's financial stability was downgraded five times during his first year in power and retail sales had fallen 2.5 percent. Household income was projected to fall an additional 2 percent if his austerity plans were carried forward. Britain's modest employment gains were reversed, youth unemployment reached record levels, and income inequality was the worst it had been in more than half a century.
Anne Appelbaum's erotic dreams had become Great Britain's nightmare.
As Europe's ruling austerity class pushed forward with their plans, even the IMF tried to dissuade them. It was clear to anyone who wasn't blinded by ideology or political cynicism that austerity economics was a failed program. Even in countries like Greece, where government was far graver than elsewhere, the austerity programs imposed from outside threatened to destabilize society while other reasonable measures like improved tax collection were still not taken seriously enough.
And now the entire Eurozone hangs in the balance. Bankers became wealthy by treating governments as if they were mortgages, lending recklessly and pocketing their fees without considering the long-term reliability of their loans. European leaders insisted for months they were take the kind of sensible steps that should've been taken in the United States by requiring bankers to accept at least part of the losses for the bad loans they had issed.
That plan was quietly dropped last month. "Austerity economics" never calls for austerity from those who have gotten rich by being irresponsible, only from those who didn't benefit from it at all.
The Afterlife
President Obama has dropped his austerity rhetoric, at least for the time being, but the Republicans have not. Listening to Mitt Romney discuss economics is like having a doctor wave a dead chicken over your head and saying he's decided to cast a spell on you rather than operate on that thing they found in your X-rays.
Aside from the bill introduced this month by the House Progressive Caucus to almost no media attention, there's no comprehensive plan for dropping this country's ineffective austerity strategy and replacing it with an agenda that works.
Rational solutions to our economic problems are being ignored. There won't be a real debate about alternatives to austerity until an entire political party, not just part of it, adopts this kind of program. Until then there will be chaos. And where there is chaos, austerity's powerful advocates can step in and take charge.
Austerity economics died in 2011 and is survived by the British, German, and French governments as well as the GOP and large portions of the Democratic Party. Instead of sending flowers, the family has asked the public to abandon all hopes of future economic growth.
1 Views
19:00:30 12/28/11
Notable Death of the Year: RIP Austerity Economics, 1921-2011
[LESS INFO] 1 VIEWS | ADDED 19:00:30 12/28/11
"Smokestack Lightnin'," with Hubert Sumlin backing Howlin' Wolf in 1964
This is the time of year when we're reminded of all the famous people who died over the last twelve months, a list which includes two of my favorite guitar players ( Hubert Sumlin and Cornell Dupree ). But there were also some notable non-human deaths in 2011, especially in the world of economic policy.
One of those deaths should have completely altered the political debate in Washington. The name of the deceased was "Austerity Economics," and it was first glimpsed in a 1921 paper by conservative economist Frank Wright. Austerity died of natural causes brought on by prolonged exposure to reality.
But the debate in Washington didn't change nearly enough after its passing. In the nation's capital, dead things still rule the night.
Why Austerity?
"Austerity economics" backers claim that today's economic woes can only be fixed by dramatic reductions in government spending, which will lead to increased private-sector confidence and therefore to greater investment and growth.
But it's never worked. And if investors have lost confidence in the U.S. government's fiscal stability, they're sure not acting that way. There hasn't been this much demand for Treasury bonds since the government began tracking it twenty years ago, and they haven't performed as well since the go-go 1990s.
It's easy to understand austerity's attraction for power elites inside and outside of government. The people who suffer from austerity budgets aren't the kinds of people they know personally, since they're typically public employees like teachers, police, firefighters and the administrators of social programs; people who need government assistance, like the poor; and middle-class people with the temerity to either grow old or become disabled.
Austerity's attraction became even greater in the U.S. because once it became conventional wisdom that tax increases on the wealthy was "politically infeasible." That made it a program whose sole purpose was to cut government spending, lowering the pressure to increase taxes on the wealthy from today's historically low levels.
For a one-percenter, what's not to love?
Austerity Comes of Age
The idea's been around in one form or another since that 1921 paper, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had been imposing it on Third World nations for decades.
But 2009 was the year that austerity really came of age. That was the year that a wealthy stockbroker's son named David Cameron began campaigning for Prime Minister of Great Britain on an explicitly pro-austerity platform.
It was also the year that Cameron helped to form a group named European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) dedicated to electing like-minded politicians across Europe and helping them collaborate on ways to slash government spending. It was also the year that right-leaning Angela Merkel won reelection as the Chancellor of Germany with a stronger mandate than she'd been given in her first term.
With Nicolas Sarkozy as President of France, Great Britain was the only major European power not yet in the hands of the corporate-backed austerity crowd.
The Global Sado-Erotic Thrill Machine
That changed with Cameron's election as Prime Minister in May 2010, an event that threw pro-austerity Americans into throes of near-erotic ecstasy. And if that sounds like hyperbole, consider conservative Anne Appelbaum's reaction to Cameron's budget in September of 2010: >
Vicious cuts." "Savage cuts." "Swingeing (sic) cuts." The language that the British use to describe their new government's spending-reduction policy is apocalyptic in the extreme. The ministers in charge of the country's finances are known as "axe-wielders" who will be "hacking" away at the budget. Articles about the nation's finances are filled with talk of blood, knives, and amputation.
And the British love it.
What can I say? There are people who collect serial-killer memorabilia, too. But Appelbaum wasn't just speaking for herself. It became unacceptable for any politician in Washington, Democrat or Republican, to advocate anything other than an austerity budget for the United States.
And it was more than an economic strategy to its backers. Austerity became a way to demonize those who had suffered most from the banking abuses and self-indulgences of the wealthy, a totemic "blame the victim" response that turned the political debate into a grotesque inversion of morality. Again, Appelbaum: >
"Not only is austerity being touted as the solution to Britain's economic woes; it is also being described as the answer to the country's moral failings."
Bad Metaphors vs. Good Economists
The Democratic President of the United States, Barack Obama, jumped onto the bandwagon with both feet by repeatedly lecturing Americans on the need for government to stop "spending beyond its means." Obama recycled the popular conservative metaphor of a family that has to sit around the kitchen table and decide how much money it has to spend.
That's one of the worst metaphors in modern politics. Does a family establish its own currency -- especially one that has the unique position of the dollar? Can a family borrow money at rates so low they're effectively less than zero? Would a family let Grandma go hungry because Junior bought too many Porsches out of the family kitty and then gambled it away on lousy mortgage investments?
The world's top economists, those who had successfully predicted the crisis of 2008, tried telling the rest of the world what was wrong with the idea: Joblessness and consumer fears were killing any chance of real recovery. More short-term spending was needed to get the economy moving again. Austerity would make things worse, not better.
But nobody listened. Austerity's S%M-like attraction had the world's elites in its grip.
Death of a Delusion
And then something else came into the picture: Reality.
Cameron's austerity budget had a shattering effect on the already-struggling British economy. His government's financial stability was downgraded five times during his first year in power and retail sales had fallen 2.5 percent. Household income was projected to fall an additional 2 percent if his austerity plans were carried forward. Britain's modest employment gains were reversed, youth unemployment reached record levels, and income inequality was the worst it had been in more than half a century.
Anne Appelbaum's erotic dreams had become Great Britain's nightmare.
As Europe's ruling austerity class pushed forward with their plans, even the IMF tried to dissuade them. It was clear to anyone who wasn't blinded by ideology or political cynicism that austerity economics was a failed program. Even in countries like Greece, where government was far graver than elsewhere, the austerity programs imposed from outside threatened to destabilize society while other reasonable measures like improved tax collection were still not taken seriously enough.
And now the entire Eurozone hangs in the balance. Bankers became wealthy by treating governments as if they were mortgages, lending recklessly and pocketing their fees without considering the long-term reliability of their loans. European leaders insisted for months they were take the kind of sensible steps that should've been taken in the United States by requiring bankers to accept at least part of the losses for the bad loans they had issed.
That plan was quietly dropped last month. "Austerity economics" never calls for austerity from those who have gotten rich by being irresponsible, only from those who didn't benefit from it at all.
The Afterlife
President Obama has dropped his austerity rhetoric, at least for the time being, but the Republicans have not. Listening to Mitt Romney discuss economics is like having a doctor wave a dead chicken over your head and saying he's decided to cast a spell on you rather than operate on that thing they found in your X-rays.
Aside from the bill introduced this month by the House Progressive Caucus to almost no media attention, there's no comprehensive plan for dropping this country's ineffective austerity strategy and replacing it with an agenda that works.
Rational solutions to our economic problems are being ignored. There won't be a real debate about alternatives to austerity until an entire political party, not just part of it, adopts this kind of program. Until then there will be chaos. And where there is chaos, austerity's powerful advocates can step in and take charge.
Austerity economics died in 2011 and is survived by the British, German, and French governments as well as the GOP and large portions of the Democratic Party. Instead of sending flowers, the family has asked the public to abandon all hopes of future economic growth.
0 Views
15:00:01 12/06/11
What 'Occupy Our Homes' Could Change
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 15:00:01 12/06/11
Amy Goodman reports on "Occupy Our Homes" for Democracy Now
This week 60 Minutes gave viewers a good look at some of the widespread criminality that created the Wall Street mortgage boom and led to our ongoing financial crisis. They also saw some of the overwhelming evidence of illegal activity on the part of big banks, and were reminded that none of those banks' executives have been prosecuted.
As ugly as the situation is, there is some logic behind the government's actions - and its inactions. They're acting on a tragically incorrect (but internally coherent) set of assumptions that can be summed up in one sentence. It goes something like this:
"To preserve the health of the American economy, banks must be allowed to keep preying on their consumers."
That's it. That's the logic.
But there are two exciting "Occupy" developments this week that could change the equation - "Take Back the Capitol" in the District of Columbia, and Tuesday's "Occupy Our Homes" events around the country. Think of them as complementary actions: One is taking place at the site of our greatest government power. The other is bringing the action to homes where people have been victimized by bankers.
People may not realize it, but there's power in those homes, too.
The Logic of Injustice
Despite their destructive behavior, the people who bailed bankers out and are giving them a free pass for their crimes aren't necessarily evil or corrupt. Well, okay, people like this guy are. But others have merely been so infected by misguided economic thinking that they really believe that the only way to save the economy is to keep shafting consumers and pampering mega-bankers.
The thinking goes something like this: Our largest banks are too big to fail, and since we lack the will or the motivation to break them up or regulate them we must protect them at all costs. We've propped them up with TARP, quantitative easing, and $7.7 trillion in secret Federal Reserve loans, but they're still shaky as hell. If we prosecute any of their executives, their stock prices will fall and they'll collapse again. And they'll take the entire economic system with them.
That leads to some grotesque miscarriages of justice. Nobody at Wells Fargo has been indicted for money laundering, for example, despite the fact that the bank has paid millions to settle charges of laundering cash for the Mexican drug cartels that have murdered more than 35,000 people. As an experienced bank investigator working for the Senate observed, "There’s no capacity to regulate or punish them because they’re too big to be threatened with failure."
The Bailout Nobody Knows
And banks don't just need protection from their own criminality. They also need protection from their own lousy management. Their balance sheets are filled with toxic risks from their long run of incompetence, negligence, and greed. That's where you and I come in. Some powerful folks are afraid the banks will fail if they're forced to write off the bad loans on their books, or to stop profiting from loans sold deceptively or irresponsibly.
TARP may be over, but there's another massive bank rescue going on. Who's funding it? We are. Every time we pay a usurious interest fee on a credit card, we're propping up the banks. Every time we make another month's payment on an underwater mortgage, we're propping them up too. Every time we pay an overpriced consumer loan of any kind, we're making another payment into the consumer-funded bailout that's keeping the big banks afloat.
It would be great if politicians in Washington stopped using American consumers to subsidize banks that shouldn't even exist. But they haven't. That's where "Occupy Our Homes" comes in.
Occupy Our Homes
Tuesday, December 6, has been declared a National Day of Action to Occupy Our Homes . Its goal is to focus attention on the corrupt banking practices that led to the mortgage boom and today's ongoing economic misery for most of the 99 percent.
It's also a day for helping people in our communities who have been victimized by predatory lending, criminal bank forgery, unfair or illegal foreclosure practices, and other bank abuses that victimize the public. Occupy Minnesota has already occupied an illegally-foreclosed home, and plans to do the same thing with another home tomorrow. Here in Los Angeles, where an inspiring victory has already taken place, OccupyLA will help two brave families re-occupy their illegally foreclosed homes .
One of those homes belongs to a three-earner family that includes a gainfully employed woman with cerebral palsy named Ana Wison. Ana's household clearly seems capable of making its mortgage payments, but her bank's foreclosing anyway. And in one of ironies that have become all too common, the bank in quesion is none other than that Mexican drug cartel money-laundering outfit, Wells Fargo.
The Occupy movement hopes to focus the public's attention on people like Ana Wison. In the words of the Dylan song : "Things should start to get interesting right around now."
Demonizing the Victim
Resisting illegal foreclosures is a good first step. It brings attention to Wall Street's criminality, venality, and plain old inhumanity toward the people they call their"customers" - but treat like serfs.
It does something else important: It counteracts the brainwashing, driven by Wall Street and dutifully echoed by the media, which has demonized the victims of bank misbehavior. (We were trying to fight that brainwashing back in 2008, without much luck.) The Occupy movement has already won several battles in that war. If the public's attention can now be focused on people like Ana Wison, that can be a powerful blow against the Wall Street/corporate media "they deserve it" hype.
What about the millions of people who have suffered because of the banks' predatory mortgage lending but aren't behind in payments or in the foreclosure process? We need to re-open the debate about the fairness of forcing any underwater homeowners to pay underwater principal on homes that their banks knew, or should have known, were going to decrease in value. After all, the same conglomeration of banks and corporate media that demonize homeowners as "greedy" and "irresponsible" spent most of the last twenty years convincing people that real estate was a sure-fire investment.
Banks made an extraordinary amount of money off the bubble they created. The total mortgage amount outstanding in this country went from $6.2 trillion in 2002 to $11.9 trillion in 2009, a meteoric rise. And while banks feed off the Federal Reserve's unusually low rates, they've renegotiating very few home loans.
Consumers also owe nearly three quarter of a trillion dollars in credit card debt, much of it being paid at unconscionable rates of 12 percent to 29 percent - while their banks enjoy rates from 0 percent to 3 percent, thanks to the government institutions created by those same consumers.
Occupy Our Homes. Occupy Our Credit Cards. Occupy Our Payday Lending ...
What will happen if consumers stopped blaming themselves? What if they demanded that the banks take responsibility for their irresponsible and/or predatory lending? What if they refused to stop this country's perverse economic role reversal, where customers have become the ATMs while banks keep making the withdrawals?
If 10% of America's homeowners declared a mortgage strike it would rock the banking world. If everybody paying exorbitant credit card interest declared a moratorium on payments all at once, Wall Street would change forever.
Think about it: "Occupy ALL Our Homes." "Occupy Our Credit Cards ... Our Payday Loans ... Our Buy-and-Drive Loans ..." I'm not saying these are necessarily the right tactics, although they very well may be. But what's most important is that we understand that consumers have far more power than we usually realize - provided we act together.
Many of Washington's leaders will cringe at the thought, of course. "That could hurt our biggest banks," they say. It would be tempting to reply, You say that like it's a bad thing. Here's a better response: Then start planning to break them up in an orderly fashion. We're done living a life of indentured servitude just so we can subsidize their greed.
Those are the discussions that we should be having. If powerful people on Wall Street and in Washington aren't worried about Occupy Our Homes , they're not paying attention. But with any luck, they soon will.
______________________
(If you've been a victim of mortgage abuse you can tell your story here . If you want to find an Occupy Our Homes event near you, you can look for one here .)
2 Views
18:00:07 11/05/11
Vetoing Democracy: In Athens or Washington, Elites Still Call the Shots
[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 18:00:07 11/05/11
Greeks protest austerity measures, October 19 (RT Television)
This week was a sharp reminder that the ancient ideal of democracy is just as threatened -- and to some, just as threatening -- as it's ever been. In government offices in Athens, G20 meeting rooms in Cannes, and "Super Committee" chambers in Washington, we learned that there are still places where the will of the people can be overruled by the whims of the powerful.
From the Parthenon to the Potomac, it was the same story: Elites still hold veto power over the democratic process, and they're not afraid to use it.
Democracy: 'Radical,' 'Irrational,' 'Dangerous'
Ironically, this week's ferment began in the country that's usually credited with creating democracy. In many ways the Greek economy couldn't be more different from our own. The government's fiscal problems there are due in large part to widespread corruption and massive tax evasion -- not tax breaks , tax evasion -- which are very different from our own problems. The government's finances dramatically worse than our own -- almost like night and day -- and a default could create the next major financial crisis.
A certain level of fear and concern was understandable when Greek President George Papandreou announced there would be a referendum on the new bailout plan imposed on his country. The global economy is still unstable, top-heavy, and still riddled with too-big-to-fail institutions. In a worst-case scenario, Greece could trigger another financial meltdown.
Yet the fear was rarely balanced with an understanding of what's really happening in Greece. There was no acknowledgement that the bailout's terms might be grossly unfair (they are), that they're likely to make a terrible situation even worse (they will), or that Greece is in chaos, misery, and despair. (It is.)
And what was most striking was the assumption the elite -- the 1%, if you will -- have veto power over the democratic process. In most of the commentary that flowed from the powerful and the press, a surprising number of world leader didn't even acknowledge that Greece had the right to its own democratic decision-making process.
South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, whose nation will benefit from "bipartisan" U.S. actions to create a free trade agreement between the two countries, said that "The world has plunged into fears again because of the Greek prime minister's radical step to hold a referendum." Closer to home, French President Sarkozy said that "the Greek's gesture is irrational and, from their point of view, dangerous."
The first part of that statement is a slur against democracy. The second part is, of course, a threat.
What's the Greek word for 'shafted'?
Few are asking who created the Greek debt problem, or who benefited. As in the United States, deficit-creating behavior primarily served the wealthy, the powerful, and the banks. Tax collections for corporations and the wealthy have been very low in Greece. And while tax evasion is commonly for everyone from taxi drivers to millionaires, it takes a lot of cheating cabbies to equal one rich tax dodger.
Bankers didn't give Greece these loans out of kindness, either. They saw an opportunity and they took it. That's why they're being asked to take "haircuts" and lose part of the loan repayment (a reasonable measure that hasn't been yet considered in the US mortgage crisis.)
Greeks are struggling with devastating levels of unemployment, a declining standard of living, and widespread social unrest. While the austerity measures imposed on it do include tax hikes and measures to reduce tax evasion, they will have an especially devastating impact on already hard-hit middle class Greeks. They're the ones who went to work, paid their taxes (wage earners were disproportionately taxed because of the evasion), and paid into their Social Security and health funds with the expectation these services would be available when they were needed.
It doesn't matter now. They won't get their say. Once again the elites were given veto power over democracy. A "bipartisan" revolt of politicians in both major parties made sure of that, and today George Papandreou is looking forward to joining the swelling ranks of Greece's unemployed.
The public's widespread dissatisfaction is understandable, and this stifling of democracy should raise even more fears for Greece's future stability than the referendum did. What will happen if the Greek people continued to be denied a place at the bargaining table as their fate is decided? Given that nation's troubled past, and its tormented present, there's always John F. Kennedy's quote to consider: Those who make peaceful evolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.
Elites Only
But what does this have to do with us? We certainly don't face Greek-level problems. In fact, it serves the elite's narrative to suggest otherwise. Our currency is the dollar, which helps a great deal. We're a commanding world economy. We have the money and resources to fix our joblessness problem, if we only had the will, and we're not part of a larger group like the European Community.
Bet we are part of the G20, which this week reaffirmed its obsession on austerity measures even as Europe sinks under the weight of those already imposed. Washington's Powers That Be are still obsessing about austerity, too.
Here, as in Europe, public opinion is expected to take a back seat to the elites. Yet another poll has been released which shows that a majority of people in all age groups oppose cutting Social Security to fix the deficit. Past polls have shown that strong majorities of Republicans, independents, and even Tea Party member oppose such measures.
Yet despite the strong public objections, and despite the fact that there's overwhelming evidence these cuts are unnecessary and counterproductive, an elected "Super Committee" is likely to recommend them anyway. The usual Congressional rules have been waived in order to force their proposal to a simple up-or-down vote, with no possibility of filibuster and no chance to offer amendments. And US politicians will be under as much pressure to vote for this austerity measure as their Greek counterparts were.
Vetoing Democracy
The same week that democracy was under siege in Greece, the "Super Committee" heard from a blue-ribbon panel representing the austerity elite: a Republican hater of Social Security recipients; a Democratic member of Morgan Stanley's Board of Directors; a Republican ex-Senator; and an economist aligned with the Democratic establishment advocates for entitlement cuts. The activities of all four been funded by Republican anti-government-spending billionaire Pete Peterson.
In words that echoed those of the South Korean and French Presidents, the quartet told the unelected committee that if it fails to offer austerity measures which the public rejects, "We haven't got a prayer and neither have you." The elites have spoken: The public is to be ignored. Democracy's been vetoed.
Here's what they didn't teach us in civics class: Democracy has always been controversial. "Democracy... is a charming form of government," said Plato, "full of variety and disorder; and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike." He could sound like a Tea Partier at times. "Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy," he said, " and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty."
Plato's aversion to democracy is shared by a lot of powerful people these days. But politicians, especially those whose party derives its name from the democratic principle, would be better off remembering another Greek philosopher, Aristotle, who said that "The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law."
Representatives from groups that represent Social Security and Medicare recipients, the disabled, and the elderly requested an opportunity to address the Super Committee. They wanted to present their case for preserving these programs, a position that's supported by compelling evidence and supported by majorities in all political parties and of all generations.
Their requests were ignored.
4 Views
18:00:07 11/05/11
Vetoing Democracy: In Athens or Washington, Elites Still Call the Shots
[LESS INFO] 4 VIEWS | ADDED 18:00:07 11/05/11
Greeks protest austerity measures, October 19 (RT Television)
This week was a sharp reminder that the ancient ideal of democracy is just as threatened -- and to some, just as threatening -- as it's ever been. In government offices in Athens, G20 meeting rooms in Cannes, and "Super Committee" chambers in Washington, we learned that there are still places where the will of the people can be overruled by the whims of the powerful.
From the Parthenon to the Potomac, it was the same story: Elites still hold veto power over the democratic process, and they're not afraid to use it.
Democracy: 'Radical,' 'Irrational,' 'Dangerous'
Ironically, this week's ferment began in the country that's usually credited with creating democracy. In many ways the Greek economy couldn't be more different from our own. The government's fiscal problems there are due in large part to widespread corruption and massive tax evasion -- not tax breaks , tax evasion -- which are very different from our own problems. The government's finances dramatically worse than our own -- almost like night and day -- and a default could create the next major financial crisis.
A certain level of fear and concern was understandable when Greek President George Papandreou announced there would be a referendum on the new bailout plan imposed on his country. The global economy is still unstable, top-heavy, and still riddled with too-big-to-fail institutions. In a worst-case scenario, Greece could trigger another financial meltdown.
Yet the fear was rarely balanced with an understanding of what's really happening in Greece. There was no acknowledgement that the bailout's terms might be grossly unfair (they are), that they're likely to make a terrible situation even worse (they will), or that Greece is in chaos, misery, and despair. (It is.)
And what was most striking was the assumption the elite -- the 1%, if you will -- have veto power over the democratic process. In most of the commentary that flowed from the powerful and the press, a surprising number of world leader didn't even acknowledge that Greece had the right to its own democratic decision-making process.
South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, whose nation will benefit from "bipartisan" U.S. actions to create a free trade agreement between the two countries, said that "The world has plunged into fears again because of the Greek prime minister's radical step to hold a referendum." Closer to home, French President Sarkozy said that "the Greek's gesture is irrational and, from their point of view, dangerous."
The first part of that statement is a slur against democracy. The second part is, of course, a threat.
What's the Greek word for 'shafted'?
Few are asking who created the Greek debt problem, or who benefited. As in the United States, deficit-creating behavior primarily served the wealthy, the powerful, and the banks. Tax collections for corporations and the wealthy have been very low in Greece. And while tax evasion is commonly for everyone from taxi drivers to millionaires, it takes a lot of cheating cabbies to equal one rich tax dodger.
Bankers didn't give Greece these loans out of kindness, either. They saw an opportunity and they took it. That's why they're being asked to take "haircuts" and lose part of the loan repayment (a reasonable measure that hasn't been yet considered in the US mortgage crisis.)
Greeks are struggling with devastating levels of unemployment, a declining standard of living, and widespread social unrest. While the austerity measures imposed on it do include tax hikes and measures to reduce tax evasion, they will have an especially devastating impact on already hard-hit middle class Greeks. They're the ones who went to work, paid their taxes (wage earners were disproportionately taxed because of the evasion), and paid into their Social Security and health funds with the expectation these services would be available when they were needed.
It doesn't matter now. They won't get their say. Once again the elites were given veto power over democracy. A "bipartisan" revolt of politicians in both major parties made sure of that, and today George Papandreou is looking forward to joining the swelling ranks of Greece's unemployed.
The public's widespread dissatisfaction is understandable, and this stifling of democracy should raise even more fears for Greece's future stability than the referendum did. What will happen if the Greek people continued to be denied a place at the bargaining table as their fate is decided? Given that nation's troubled past, and its tormented present, there's always John F. Kennedy's quote to consider: Those who make peaceful evolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.
Elites Only
But what does this have to do with us? We certainly don't face Greek-level problems. In fact, it serves the elite's narrative to suggest otherwise. Our currency is the dollar, which helps a great deal. We're a commanding world economy. We have the money and resources to fix our joblessness problem, if we only had the will, and we're not part of a larger group like the European Community.
Bet we are part of the G20, which this week reaffirmed its obsession on austerity measures even as Europe sinks under the weight of those already imposed. Washington's Powers That Be are still obsessing about austerity, too.
Here, as in Europe, public opinion is expected to take a back seat to the elites. Yet another poll has been released which shows that a majority of people in all age groups oppose cutting Social Security to fix the deficit. Past polls have shown that strong majorities of Republicans, independents, and even Tea Party member oppose such measures.
Yet despite the strong public objections, and despite the fact that there's overwhelming evidence these cuts are unnecessary and counterproductive, an elected "Super Committee" is likely to recommend them anyway. The usual Congressional rules have been waived in order to force their proposal to a simple up-or-down vote, with no possibility of filibuster and no chance to offer amendments. And US politicians will be under as much pressure to vote for this austerity measure as their Greek counterparts were.
Vetoing Democracy
The same week that democracy was under siege in Greece, the "Super Committee" heard from a blue-ribbon panel representing the austerity elite: a Republican hater of Social Security recipients; a Democratic member of Morgan Stanley's Board of Directors; a Republican ex-Senator; and an economist aligned with the Democratic establishment advocates for entitlement cuts. The activities of all four been funded by Republican anti-government-spending billionaire Pete Peterson.
In words that echoed those of the South Korean and French Presidents, the quartet told the unelected committee that if it fails to offer austerity measures which the public rejects, "We haven't got a prayer and neither have you." The elites have spoken: The public is to be ignored. Democracy's been vetoed.
Here's what they didn't teach us in civics class: Democracy has always been controversial. "Democracy... is a charming form of government," said Plato, "full of variety and disorder; and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike." He could sound like a Tea Partier at times. "Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy," he said, " and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty."
Plato's aversion to democracy is shared by a lot of powerful people these days. But politicians, especially those whose party derives its name from the democratic principle, would be better off remembering another Greek philosopher, Aristotle, who said that "The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law."
Representatives from groups that represent Social Security and Medicare recipients, the disabled, and the elderly requested an opportunity to address the Super Committee. They wanted to present their case for preserving these programs, a position that's supported by compelling evidence and supported by majorities in all political parties and of all generations.
Their requests were ignored.
1 Views
21:45:19 10/26/11
Reducing Your Student Loan Debt: Barack Obama's plan to help College Student Loan Borrowers
[LESS INFO] 1 VIEWS | ADDED 21:45:19 10/26/11
Reducing Your Student Loan Debt: Barack Obama's plan to help College Student Loan Borrowers
Share this: my.barackobama.com Nearly six million students who have both guaranteed and direct loans will soon be able to refinance them and get a discount under President Barack Obama's student loan debt reform plan: "Help Americans Manage Student Loan Debt". You'll only have to write one check a month and within a year it will ensure that more than 1.6 million college students won't be required to make loan repayments over 10% of their income. President Obama's plan will make college more affordable for students. All remaining debt is forgiven after 20 years of payments for college students. Debt is forgiven after 10 years for teachers, nurses, members of the armed forces, and others in public service careers. These are just some of the important repayment options designed to make student loan repayments more affordable. All of this progress builds off student loan reform President Obama signed into law in 2010. All of this progress makes sure that more students from working and middle class families can get college educations and the opportunities that come with them. Bankers don't get to be middlemen for student loans anymore. We saved $68 billion dollars by taking them out of the equation and a lot of the money is going towards loans and grants to make college more affordable for more people. Share this news and join the movement. President Obama needs your voice to be heard. He needs you to tell Congress that reforms like this are what we're fighting for. Get the ... From: BarackObamadotcom Views: 140170 896 ratings Time: 01:15 More in News & Politics
