Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Class war’

The rigged economic game continues and has gotten more one-sided. A new study below shows that the one percent extracted 93 percent of total US income growth from 2009 to 2010. The rest of us shared the 7 percent. This occurred through their manipulation of the government. Studies will likely show roughly the same numbers for the division of the growth in total US income from 2010 to 2011. And things will continue to get worse for the 99 percent and the total US economy now that “Wall Street Obama” signed free trade legislation with South Korea, Colombia and Panama last year. We’re hurtling toward third world status.

More US jobs will be shipped overseas, or US corporations will place jobs there rather than here, which would not have been the case without the president’s signature on those treaties. The difference between the wages of the old jobs in the US and the new jobs overseas will go into the pockets of the rich. So called free trade treaties are designed to do just that. Expect the economy to be weaker once Obama signs the Trans-Pacific Freely Redistributing Income Treaty sometime later this year. It’s not too late for the 99 percent to stop the madness.

The same redistribution process occurs in a number of other areas, such as deregulation. When, for example, the electricity market is privatized and deregulated, prices always go up, especially in the long term. “Aunt Millie” pays higher electricity bills so that rich folks can receive higher dividends and stock prices, straight out of her pocket.

That’s why the government cooks the books on inflation. Inflation is running about ten percent per year, but the government tells us it’s about 3 percent. In other words, raising prices is a way to redistribute income from the 99 to the one percent. The government has changed the way it measures inflation twenty times during the last thirty years so as to understate inflation, which is another way of understating the redistribution of income and wealth.

Related Stories

One percent get 93 percent of total income growth from 2009 to 2010

Top Incomes Up 93 Percent — UC Berkeley Study

It's been an Amazing Ride for the Rich

The Numbers Racket; why the economy is worse than we know–Harpers Magazine

Read Full Post »

Like the rest of the United States middle class, years after the housing bubble burst, residents in the Sunshine State continue to face the heartbreak of home foreclosure. That’s because Wall Street owns both political parties.

click here for the rest of the story

Read Full Post »

The war began with a savage legislative assault by President Ronald Reagan. Working people voted for him as he slaughtered their livelihoods, starved their schools, bankrupted their nation, laid the foundation for mass corruption and destroyed the retirement accounts of the elderly. Now the Occupy Movement has come to challenge Reagan’s legacy. How did we get here?

Click here for the story

Read Full Post »

The American middle class hardly needs to be told that it’s struggling: Obama needs to name the enemy, not emote empathy, but he’s not likely to do that. He doesn’t care about the middle class, except during election time. That’s now, and three years ago, and ten years ago. Obama wasn’t politically around ten years ago, but he was three years ago.

Substantively, nothing in Obama’s Kansas speech broke new ground. No new policies were put put forth and no new arguments were made. He spoke to restrained frustration dusted with hope – wasn’t much different from other recent addresses, either.

And you can’t argue he was breaking new ground by showing empathy with a disintegrating middle class.

“When people are slipping out of the middle class,” he said, “it drags down the entire economy from top to bottom.”

This is not news to anyone, anywhere. The president has been aware of this for quite some time.

“Soon, the middle class will only exist in speeches given by politicians and in the minds of workers who cannot allow themselves to identify as something below that. The face of poverty looks more and more like the face in the mirror as thousands of Americans turn to food banks and homeless shelters for the first time. Yet, I think we may be too proud to let the term “middle class” slip away – even as the moderate level of prosperity and disposable income that defined it becomes a day dream.” Ana Marie Cox

some people say that “Obama takes a risk in his willingness to openly discuss the fragility of our national self-image: admitting how bad things have become can only work to his electoral advantage if he offers a solution that feels right to voters – or if he can channel their discontent away from himself.” That may be true, but not likely. Americans are easily swayed. Obama’s core constituents will believe in his populist rhetoric, or at least, pump hope into their financially destroyed hearts. Obama will not follow his words with any substantial action.

The so-called experts have reacted pretty reliably to Obama’s speech: “those on the left have swooned over his embrace of populist rhetoric, those on the right have raised the tattered banner of “class warfare”, apparently not realising that class warfare has been going on for quite awhile now – and the rich have been winning.”

Ana Marie Cox said it best, “Politicians always put themselves rhetorically on the side of the middle class without ever admitting there’s a fight going on. Obama has finally acknowledged that the elephant in the room is crushing us.” Obama can’t and won’t fight the good fight to save the American middle class because he the disciple of Wall Street. He worships at the feet of greed. Just ask the folks at Goldman Sachs.

Read Full Post »

“Aftershock” is a copycat ripoff of several other books. There are significant differences. Aftershock lacks the depth of analysis of similar books.

On the other hand, like many others starting a decade or more ago, Reich correctly identifies the mal-distribution of income in the USA that has occurred over the last thirty years as the primary problem with the economy. Okay, give Reich credit. Like a lot of other people, he figured that one out.

After that Reich moves off into a fantasy world when he blames automation as the primary culprit for the loss of jobs in the United States and one of the chief culprits for the redistribution of income from working people to the rich over the last thirty years. What nonsense! Perhaps this was a way for Reich to exonerate the Clinton Administration and its support of free trade agreements like Nafta. Reich was labor secretary under Clinton. The problem is that free trade agreements are a primary agent of income redistribution.

A corporation ships high paying job overseas and then redistributes the difference between the old compensation in the USA and the new lower compensation in third world nations to rich CEOs and shareholders via higher dividends and share prices. Anybody with half a brain can see this, but Reich can’t.

Reich’s book came out just in time to give corporate Democrats the rationale they need to support free trade agreements last summer with South Korea, Columbia and Panama. The Economic Policy Institute estimates nearly a million American jobs will be lost over the next ten years to the South Korea free trade agreement alone. Millions more might be lost to Panama and Columbia. Congress approved those treaties last October and President Obama decided losing jobs wasn’t a big deal since his re-election wasn’t for another year.

Liberal Democratic Senator Ron Wyden prepared a summer offensive in 2011 in the latest round of his war against the middle class. This corporate plutocrat is a member of the Senate Finance Committee. Wyden is also the chairperson of the subcommittee on trade. Those three trade agreements came come through Wyden. He supported them.

Jaymie White is Wyden’s point man on trade for the subcommittee. At a meeting last year with activists opposed to these free trade income redistribution agreements, White insisted that free trade did not cost our nation any jobs. He insisted automation is the culprit.

Thank you Robert Reich for giving talking points to the corporate Democrats even though knowledgeable people know this is a lie. Free trade is an income redistribution scam and Reich knows this. By the way, the idea of automation as a permanent job destroyer goes back to David Ricardo and Karl Marx.

Look what automation has done for manufacturing in China. It has created millions of jobs. It’s true that automation kills jobs, but the forces that bring about automation also bring more jobs. Think in terms of a store clerk twenty years ago. Nowadays, some of them have been replaced by machines. So those people have lost their jobs. But the machines have to be designed, built, installed and maintained. That creates more jobs.

Same thing with typewriters. They’re still around but not widely used compared to fifty years ago. They’ve been replaced by computers. The computer industry supports a lot more jobs per capita than the old typewriter industry used to. Ergo, Reich is completely wrong on this.

That’s why despite automation, and productivity increases, the number of jobs actually increase. That’s why Reich and this book are full of it.

Read Full Post »

Excerpted from a speech by Bill Moyers

During the prairie revolt that swept the Great Plains in 1890, populist orator Mary Elizabeth Lease exclaimed, “Wall Street owns the country…. Money rules…. Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags. The [political] parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us.”

She should see us now. John Boehner calls on the bankers, holds out his cup and offers them total obeisance from the House majority if only they fill it. Barack Obama criticizes bankers as “fat cats,” then invites them to dine at a pricey New York restaurant where the tasting menu runs to $195 a person.

That’s now the norm, and they get away with it. The president has raised more money from employees of banks, hedge funds and private equity managers than any Republican candidate, including Mitt Romney. Inch by inch he has conceded ground to them while espousing populist rhetoric that his very actions betray.

Let’s name this for what it is: hypocrisy made worse, the further perversion of democracy. Our politicians are little more than money launderers in the trafficking of power and policy—fewer than six degrees of separation from the spirit and tactics of Tony Soprano.

Why New York’s Zuccotti Park is filled with people is no mystery. Reporters keep scratching their heads and asking, “Why are you here?” But it’s clear they are occupying Wall Street because Wall Street has occupied the country. And that’s why in public places across the nation workaday Americans are standing up in solidarity. Did you see the sign a woman was carrying at a fraternal march in Iowa the other day? It read, I Can’t Afford to Buy a Politician So I Bought This Sign. Americans have learned the hard way that when rich organizations and wealthy individuals shower Washington with millions in campaign contributions, they get what they want.

In his Pulitzer Prize–winning book The Radicalism of the American Revolution, historian Gordon Wood says that our nation discovered its greatness “by creating a prosperous free society belonging to obscure people with their workaday concerns and pecuniary pursuits of happiness.” This democracy, he said, changed the lives of “hitherto neglected and despised masses of common laboring people.”

Those words moved me when I read them. They moved me because Henry and Ruby Moyers were “common laboring people.” My father dropped out of the fourth grade and never returned to school because his family needed him to pick cotton to help make ends meet. Mother managed to finish the eighth grade before she followed him into the fields. They were tenant farmers when the Great Depression knocked them down and almost out. The year I was born my father was making $2 a day working on the highway to Oklahoma City. He never took home more than $100 a week in his working life, and he made that only when he joined the union in the last job he held. I was one of the poorest white kids in town, but in many respects I was the equal of my friend who was the daughter of the richest man in town. I went to good public schools, had the use of a good public library, played sandlot baseball in a good public park and traveled far on good public roads with good public facilities to a good public university. Because these public goods were there for us, I never thought of myself as poor. When I began to piece the story together years later, I came to realize that people like the Moyers had been included in the American deal. “We, the People” included us.

It’s heartbreaking to see what has become of that bargain. Nowadays it’s every man for himself. How did this happen? The rise of the money power in our time goes back forty years. We can pinpoint the date. On August 23, 1971, a corporate lawyer named Lewis Powell—a board member of the death-dealing tobacco giant Philip Morris and a future justice of the Supreme Court—released a confidential memorandum for his friends at the US Chamber of Commerce. We look back on it now as a call to arms for class war waged from the top down.

Recall the context of Powell’s memo. Big business was being forced to clean up its act. Even Republicans had signed on. In 1970 President Nixon put his signature on the National Environmental Policy Act and named a White House Council to promote environmental quality. A few months later millions of Americans turned out for Earth Day. Nixon then agreed to create the Environmental Protection Agency. Congress acted swiftly to pass tough amendments to the Clean Air Act, and the EPA announced the first air pollution standards. There were new regulations directed at lead paint and pesticides. Corporations were no longer getting away with murder.

Powell was shocked by what he called an “attack on the American free enterprise system.” Not just from a few “extremists of the left” but also from “perfectly respectable elements of society,” including the media, politicians and leading intellectuals. Fight back and fight back hard, he urged his compatriots. Build a movement. Set speakers loose across the country. Take on prominent institutions of public opinion—especially the universities, the media and the courts. Keep television programs “monitored the same way textbooks should be kept under constant surveillance.” And above all, recognize that political power must be “assiduously [sic] cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination” and “without embarrassment.”

Powell imagined the Chamber of Commerce as a council of war. Since business executives had “little stomach for hard-nosed contest with their critics” and “little skill in effective intellectual and philosophical debate,” they should create think tanks, legal foundations and front groups of every stripe. These groups could, he said, be aligned into a united front through “careful long-range planning and implementation…consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and united organizations.”

The public wouldn’t learn of the memo until after Nixon appointed Powell to the Supreme Court that same year, 1971. By then his document had circulated widely in corporate suites. Within two years the board of the Chamber of Commerce had formed a task force of forty business executives—from US Steel, GE, GM, Phillips Petroleum, 3M, Amway, and ABC and CBS (two media companies, we should note). Their assignment was to coordinate the crusade, put Powell’s recommendations into effect and push the corporate agenda. Powell had set in motion a revolt of the rich. As historian Kim Phillips-Fein subsequently wrote, “Many who read the memo cited it afterward as inspiration for their political choices.”

They chose swiftly. The National Association of Manufacturers announced that it was moving its main offices to Washington. In 1971 only 175 firms had registered lobbyists in the capital; by 1982 nearly 2,500 did. Corporate PACs increased from fewer than 300 in 1976 to more than 1,200 by the mid-’80s. From Powell’s impetus came the Business Roundtable, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Manhattan Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy (precursor to what we now know as Americans for Prosperity) and other organizations united in pushing back against political equality and shared prosperity. They triggered an economic transformation that would in time touch every aspect of our lives.

The Chamber of Commerce, in response to the memo, doubled its membership, tripled its budget and stepped up its lobbying efforts. It’s going stronger than ever. Most recently, it called in its agents in Congress to kill a bill to provide healthcare to 9/11 first responders for illnesses linked to their duty on that day. The bill would have paid for their medical care by ending a special tax loophole exploited by foreign corporations with business interests in America. The Chamber, along with nearly 1,300 business and trade groups, urged Congress to pass the new tax bill, signed into law just before this past Christmas and filled with all kinds of stocking stuffers, including about fifty tax breaks for businesses. The bill gave some of our biggest banks, financial companies and insurance firms another year’s exemption to shield their foreign profits from being taxed here in the United States; among the beneficiaries were giants Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, all of which survived the financial debacle of their own making because taxpayers bailed them out in 2008.

The coalition got another powerful jolt of adrenaline in the late ’70s from the wealthy right-winger who had served as Nixon’s treasury secretary, William Simon. His book A Time for Truth argued that “funds generated by business” must “rush by multimillions” into conservative causes to uproot the institutions and the “heretical strategy” of the New Deal. He called on “men of action in the capitalist world” to mount “a veritable crusade” against progressive America. BusinessWeek (October 12, 1974) somberly explained that “it will be a bitter pill for many Americans to swallow the idea of doing with less so that big business can have more.”

Those “men of action in the capitalist world” were not content with their wealth just to buy more homes, more cars, more planes, more vacations and more gizmos than anyone else. They were determined to buy more democracy than anyone else. And they succeeded beyond their expectations. After their forty-year “veritable crusade” against our institutions, laws and regulations—against the ideas, norms and beliefs that helped to create America’s iconic middle class—the Gilded Age is back with a vengeance.

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,017 other followers