Electronic Pen

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

The demand economy has collapsed for the vast majority of Americans. Jobs have been lost, wages have stagnated and the buying power of all but the wealthy dramatically reduced.

But if you are super-rich, according to an August 4 New York Times article, you "are (almost) spending like it's 2006: luxury goods are flying off the shelves, even with the economy staggering."

If you want to walk in the shoes of the ultra-wealthy, it will cost you a few weeks' wages (if you are lucky enough to have a job). According to The Times, "In 2008, for example, the most expensive Louboutin item that Saks sold was a $1,575 pair of suede boots. Now, it is a $2,495 pair of suede boots that are thigh-high."

While most of America struggles with the basic costs of living, even delaying medical care because of high health insurance deductibles (for those who have medical insurance), the rich are on a luxury item buying rampage. According to the Times:

Luxury goods stores, which fared much worse than other retailers in the recession, are more than recovering - they are zooming. Many high-end businesses are even able to mark up, rather than discount, items to attract customers who equate quality with price....

The luxury category has posted 10 consecutive months of sales increases compared with the year earlier, even as overall consumer spending on categories like furniture and electronics has been tepid, according to the research service MasterCard Advisors SpendingPulse. In July, the luxury segment had an 11.6 percent increase, the biggest monthly gain in more than a year.

With the ongoing DC subsidies of the most affluent Americans through tax cuts, America has moved closer to the class and income gaps that characterize third-world nations.

To paraphrase an old Nancy Sinatra song, "These $2,495 boots are made for walking, and one of these days these boots are going to walk all over you."

They already are.

******

If you'd like to receive these commentaries daily from Truthout/BuzzFlash, click here. You'll get our choice headlines and articles too.

read more

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Why don't corporations pay much higher taxes until they produce jobs in America?

After all, workers don't get paid until after they complete their jobs every couple of weeks or so. That's the way companies compensate employees.

So, why not wait to tax corporations at a lower rate until they prove that they are "job creators" in the United States - not overseas?

And every year, the businesses would have to prove that they haven't moved jobs to lower-wage nations, otherwise their taxes will zoom up again.

What Ronald Reagan said about the Soviet Union - "Trust but verify" - should be applied to American business, because they have gotten rock-bottom tax breaks and loopholes - but they mostly use them to increase their profit by employing sweat-shop labor in other nations. As trickle-down economics has played itself out over the last few decades, it has shown that lower taxes for the rich and corporations lead to a very large net loss of jobs in the United States, not an increase.

So, a BuzzFlash at Truthout reader suggested a simple solution. Raise corporate taxes high up, and apply a descending adjustment downward if a business creates jobs in America or doesn't fire employees and move jobs overseas.

Like workers, corporations should only be compensated when they get the job done, which is the job of creating work here in America, not in some far-away lands.

******

If you'd like to receive these commentaries daily from Truthout/BuzzFlash, click here. You'll get our choice headlines and articles too.

read more

They set the standard & we get poor.

That's the takeaway from the recent Standard & Poor's downgrading of America's credit rating.

After all, despite the ongoing collapse of the Wall Street/global corporation trickle-down theory, we are facing a job crisis which almost every well-known player in DC - except Jeremiahs and Cassandras such as Bernie Sanders and Nancy Pelosi - virtually ignores. Even the White House gives only lip service to job creation, while accepting the basic frame of the Republican obsession with debt reduction.

How extreme a threat are we facing to the continued coring out of our economy except for paper financial wealth and the expansion of global companies overseas? Well, Eric Cantor - the majority leader and the most prominent Tea Party voice in Congress - is opposed to extending federal unemployment insurance because it would be "pumping up" the unemployed. That is his position despite the collapse of a demand economy in the US - and the fact that each dollar paid out in employment "generates two dollars of economic growth."

Yes, there are all sorts of things wrong with this first-time-ever downgrading of the US's ability to repay debts. Firstly, as financial analyst Naomi Prins bluntly points out, "S&P's downgrade carries a large dose of irony, since the extra debt the U.S. has piled on recently came courtesy of S&P's moronic toxic asset ratings."

All the major credit rating companies - and that includes Standard & Poor's - according to the movie "Inside Edition," were complicit in allowing Wall Street to sink the American economy by overvaluing the economic stability of banks "too big to fail."

And then there's the interesting twist that the credit rating decrease was done in part because Congress (i.e. the Republicans) wouldn't agree to additional revenues. As Thom Hartmann asks on Truthout,

Have you seen, anywhere, in any media, or even heard reported or repeated on NPR, the following sentence? "We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."

It's right there on Page 4 of the official Standard & Poors "Research Update" - the actual report on what they did and why - published on August 5th as the explanation for why they believe Congress - and even the Gang of Twelve - will be unable to actually deal with the US debt crisis.

Ironically, and to the detriment of the nation's fiscal well-being, Standard & Poor's was curiously low-key about warnings when Congress extended Bush's tax cuts for the rich. And it misled investors by giving solid ratings to corporate economic bombs like Enron.

The one thing that the Standard & Poor's downgrade does indicate is that the US economy is in a heap of trouble, which Standard & Poor's and other major analysts helped create.

And what is slip-sliding away beneath the political positioning in DC on the deficit - and the downgrading itself - is that no economy can be strong without an economic engine that creates an infrastructure of jobs for its citizens.

Without consumers able to purchase goods and services, the nation is left with just a shell of an economy - and a small class of citizens who profit off of the nation's economic decline. Standard and Poor's is among that list.

Meanwhile, financial rating agencies set the rating standards for "creditworthiness," and the rest of us get poor.

******

If you'd like to receive these commentaries daily from Truthout/BuzzFlash, click here. You'll get our choice headlines and articles too.

read more

ROBERT CREAMER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

No doubt about it.  There is widespread disappointment among Progressives at the outcome of the debt ceiling deal. So where do Progressives go from here?

Right now in Europe politicians are struggling to avoid default that would lead their economies to collapse.  In the United States, radical right Republicans manufactured the same kind of crisis that Europeans are desperately trying to avoid, and threated to blow the entire economy to smithereens if they didn't get their way.

Their tactic worked.  Turns out in a game of chicken the guy who is most reckless has a huge advantage.

The President and Democratic leadership did a valiant job ameliorating the worst features the deal.  But in the end the negotiation was only about the size of the ransom.

read more

ROBERT CREAMER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

No doubt about it.  There is widespread disappointment among Progressives at the outcome of the debt ceiling deal. So where do Progressives go from here?

Right now in Europe politicians are struggling to avoid default that would lead their economies to collapse.  In the United States, radical right Republicans manufactured the same kind of crisis that Europeans are desperately trying to avoid, and threated to blow the entire economy to smithereens if they didn’t get their way.   

Their tactic worked.  Turns out in a game of chicken the guy who is most reckless has a huge advantage.

read more

PAUL BUCHHEIT FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

In 1786, just ten years after the American Revolution, a large group of debt-ridden farmers rose up against local government and the wealthy businessmen who sought to maximize profits from their investments in our new country. Small farmers were losing their income and property to a few dozen powerful landowners. Ironically, "Shay's Rebellion" scared the founding fathers into lobbying for a stronger government against the threat of unrestrained democracy.

Today the great majority of us are in the same financial position as those farmers, and it's just as personal. We own less than our parents. Our college graduate children, burdened with tens of thousands of dollars in loans, can't find jobs. We worry about our Social Security and Medicare benefits as wealthy Congressmen tell us these long-time programs waste money.

read more

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

There is a false equivalency that comes into play when President Obama insists on presenting himself as a "reasonable" mediator between two political sides.

Since BuzzFlash was founded in May of 2000, we have lambasted many Democratic leaders for lacking strength and conviction. We have deplored that Democratic leaders, with a few exceptions like Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich, repeatedly accept the far-right Republican-generated "conventional wisdom" as the starting point for negotiating public policy.

When President Obama, in an appeal to the so-called "Independent" vote, positions himself as straddling the middle ground between two equal sides, it is an abandonment of leadership that could expose the moral bankruptcy and manufactured bullying of the Koch brothers' (and like-minded billionaires') created "Tea Party."

President Obama implicitly and explicitly asserts that those who would protect Medicare and Social Security, for instance, are leftist counterparts to Ayn Rand followers who want to destroy the federal government and create free-market anarchy to replace it.

As BuzzFlash has stated many a time, the mythical "center" of public opinion is not some immutable set of public policies. America's strength has been its vigorous and inventive ability to evolve. Otherwise, we would still have slavery and women wouldn't be able to vote.

When the White House legitimatizes the radical notions infused into a segment of confused and frustrated Americans by "Americans for Prosperity," "FreedomWorks" (two perniciously euphemistic names considering their missions) and the entire right-wing media and think-tank infrastructure, it is providing them with credibility. Outrage is called for from the bully pulpit of the presidency, not equating advocates of programs for the elderly and poor with hateful radicals who want to drown government in a bath tub, after strangling it (as followers of Grover Norquist) - but keep their Medicare and government subsidies.

The 20 to 25 percent of the population that is holding America hostage has made Obama look weak, not strong. In his first administration, Obama held all the cards, but still folded on virtually everything but health care reform (and that, while having many good substantive insurance improvements, was a financial windfall for private health insurance companies).

The White House's attacks on progressives while showing respect toward the acolytes of Ayn Rand will not help the nation evolve into a clearer understanding of the serious action needed to save our economy and preserve our democracy.

It calls for the audacity of hope, an impassioned advocacy of a vision infused with the facts, not a "reasonable" legitimatizing of psychotic politics that threatens the ruin of our nation.

******

If you'd like to receive these commentaries daily from Truthout/BuzzFlash, click here. You'll get our choice headlines and articles too.

read more

BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

'It's a wonderful step in the right direction. It's much better than anything we've been doing for the last 20 years," says Norquist.

In recent weeks, he's been called "the most visible mouthpiece and muse of the lower-taxes, less-government troops that have played a major role in the debt crisis," an "anti-tax zealot," and "an immensely well-connected player in the conservative establishment, a compatriot of the disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and a magnet for corporate support."

Whatever one might think about Grover G. Norquist, one thing is clear; he has a set of strong core beliefs and he will use every means in his arsenal to achieve them. While pursuing those beliefs with breakneck speed these days, he recently took a moment for some post debt-ceiling debate comments: "It's a wonderful step in the right direction,' said Norquist, "It's much better than anything we've been doing for the last 20 years." Norquist added that, "We will never again walk into a budget deal with taxes on the table. Congress will never again raise the debt ceiling without cutting spending by the same amount that the debt ceiling goes up."

Now that the debt-ceiling battle has been fought and won handily by Republicans - thanks in large part to the Tea Party and Grover Norquist's Taxpayer Protection Pledge, coupled with his insistence that anyone voting for any revenue increases that might be folded into a debt-ceiling package would be seen as pledge violators -- there are more battles coming down the pike.

Norquist, who heads up Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) (http://www.atr.org/), was, as MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell often called him prior to the debt-ceiling debate, the most powerful man in Washington that you never heard of. However, if he was known for one thing, it was for his dictum: "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

These days, however, with his "Americans for Tax Reform's Taxpayer Protection Pledge," signed onto by just about every Republican on the face of the earth, he has become a very well known Republican power broker. Maybe he's not yet a household word, but he's moving in that direction, as pre-debt-ceiling-agreement appearances on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox attested to.

Norquist targeted by right wing Islamophobes

But not everything is honky dory in Groverville. As I wrote just about a year ago, several major players on the Islamophobic right have accused Norquist of palling around with Islamic Fifth Columnists (http://blog.buzzflash.com/contributor/3601). Last August, on David Horowitz's frontpagemag.com, Ryan Mauro, the founder of WorldThreats.com, and national security advisor to the anti-gay Christian Action Network, claimed that Norquist was "likely a convert to Islam."

Another Mauro piece titled "The Ground Zero Mosque's Conservative Supporter," cited Norquist's apparent support for the building of a Muslim Community Center several blocks from Ground Zero, a project that caused quite a stir last summer.

Mauro pointed out that "Norquist has aligned himself with the Muslim Brotherhood network in the U.S. that is supporting Imam Rauf [the initiator of the community center] and accusing his opponents of having 'Islamophobia' and having an anti-Muslim bias."

Gas tax set to expire on September 30

On September 30, "most of the 18.4-cent tax per gallon of gasoline [is] set to expire ... [and] renewing the tax could be the next political controversy to spark a brawl in an ever more deeply divided Capitol Hill," Byron Tau and Ben Smith reported for Politico on August 1.

According to Tau and Smith, "The federal Highway Trust Fund - the largest source of cash for mass transit and road improvements - is funded by the tax on fuel. In 2008, when high gas prices kept consumers away from the pump, the fund temporarily ran out of money, forcing Congress to appropriate an additional $8 billion to keep road projects on track."

"With the level of partisan vitriol and anti-spending sentiment at an all-time high, some advocates are worried that the nation's highway fund will be the next victim - while some conservatives sense an opportunity," Tau and Smith pointed out.

And wherever there's a possibility of a tax expiring, Grover Norquist is probably somewhere in the mix. "In general, ATR has always supported the idea of ending the federal tax on gas and having states pay for their own roads," Norquist told Politico, but Tau and Smith reported that "he declined to say whether he or his group plans to pressure congressional Republicans to let the excise tax expire." Norquist added that, "ATR would love to help begin such a dialogue," he said.

"You can already see how this issue could play itself out a month from now," wrote Doug Mataconis at OutsideTheBeltway.com.  "As it is the issue of increased energy prices is an easy one to demagogue with simplistic slogans ('Drill Baby Drill') and even more simplistic ideas ... [like the] idea of a Federal Gas Tax Holiday during the 2008 campaign...). ... It's not at all hard to see the argument over the gas tax being boiled down to the slogan Barack Obama wants to increase the price of gas. Given that renewing the gas tax is going to require affirmative action on the part of Congress (rather than legislation to block it) I'd already say that the forces that come out against it are going to have the advantage here, especially given the partisan make up of Congress and the difficulty of getting anything through the Senate."

read more

How strange and other-worldly were the cheers and applause that greeted Republican 'victories' in the House last week during the debt-ceiling intrigues - - and how dispiriting. The lesson learned we are told by conservatives is that the American people are hell bent on balancing the budget and shrinking government, unless when programs like Social Security, Medicare and unemployment benefits are threatened. Driven by the Tea Party movement whose shallow roots and one-note policies do little to move the country in a positive direction; that portion of the "American People" has stumbled into a leadership position it is totally incapable of handling with integrity.

No matter how angry many voters may be, no matter how disappointed they are that the enthusiasm generated during the Obama presidential campaign has failed to change the nature of our political system there remains a measure of hope that all is not lost. But Democrats and most particularly the president need to engage in a massive effort to educate the public. If they fail to do so the voices of unreason will continue to swing opinion and develop policies that lead us into an ideological thicket. Interestingly, in the debate just concluded, once the president began to explain what default would mean, opinion began to reflect a new understanding of the issues involved.

Unfortunately when one side is intent on obfuscating instead of elucidating in order to score political points, it is no easy task to keep the ship of state on an even keel. How often we are told by conservatives that the stimulus failed despite the fact that clearly it saved jobs and kept the country from sliding into a depression. And how many hysterics insisted they would vote against raising the debt ceiling because they didn't want to give the president a "blank check" obviously failing to understand we were obligated to pay debts already incurred, not take on new ones.

In an armed forces committee meeting, the majority insisted that defense spending was untouchable. And on the Senate floor Arizona Senator Kyl reiterated the familiar Republican talking point that national security would be compromised if the defense budget were on the table in discussions about reducing the deficit. Upon closer examination of how much we spend on armaments and deployments, however, it is clear that defense is probably one of our most bloated departments. And if, as one member of the committee said, our troop level is "stretched dangerously thin" that should come as no surprise. After all we have kept two wars going for longer than anyone would have imagined at the outset with endless deployments and no way to pay for them other than through a borrowing mechanism.

So on it goes - - conservatives talk about our national debt without paying appropriate attention to all its component parts. If defense is off the table and revenue sources are not to be considered, social programs assume a larger portion of our indebtedness. That is as Republicans would have it in any case. The way things are being parceled out at the moment a twelve-person committee is going to be left to deal with the problem of deciding how to achieve savings. But since Mitch McConnell has promised to only appoint Republicans who will not propose revenue enhancements and Democrats vow to protect entitlements it may come to pass that triggers could target defense expenses after all. It may sound innocent enough to say the country's fiscal condition would benefit from a constitutional "balanced-budget amendment" but the details of such a 'solution' could force arbitrary across-the-board cuts to programs without proper vetting.

The most frustrating aspect of the arguments in Congress was the foolishness the American people were asked to endure and the enormous waste of time legislators were forced to devote to what has been described by some as a "dangerous and unnecessary brink." And in another attempt to bring the president down important positions went unfilled and no jobs programs were put in place - - another month without significant progress in developing sound governmental policy.

There have been a number of attempts to define the nature of our national problems - - a spending problem, a revenue problem and so on. But commentator Laura Flanders had it right I think when she said we have a "democracy problem."

TONY PEYSER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Now that global finances look just as bad

As they did back in 2008

Thanks, GOP, for getting this ball rolling

With your ginned up debt ceiling debate.

read more

SHAMUS COOKE FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

The debt crisis has been averted and people across the globe are breathing sighs of relief. But in the back rooms of Congress politicians are celebrating for a different reason. It's the kind of celebration that erupts when a group executes a complicated plan to perfection. The objective in this case was to strike the first blows against the national social safety net without encountering massive resistance. Mission half-accomplished thus far.  

Half accomplished because only half of the $2.5 trillion in cuts have been decided on. The other half will be sent to a bi-partisan committee where, according to the White House Fact Sheet: 

"... the committee will consider responsible entitlement [Social Security and Medicare] and tax reform [cuts to entitlement programs]. This means putting all the priorities of both parties on the table - including both entitlement reform [Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid] and revenue-raising tax reform."  

If the committee fails to agree on the cuts, they would be automatically triggered, and Medicare would be the target: "...any cuts to Medicare would be capped and limited to the provider side." This means that fewer doctors would accept Medicare patients or they would provide fewer services to Medicare beneficiaries.  

When it comes to cutting Social Security and Medicare, the Democrats are Republicans are only trying to get their foot into the door. Nevertheless, the potential cuts will have a massive impact on the millions of Americans who depend on these vital services. And if these cuts are allowed to happen unopposed, the possibility of future, more dramatic cuts is certain.  

Equally bad is that the budget deal makes the unemployment situation even worse. In writing about the effect the cuts would have on employment, a Moody's analyst predicted that:

"The deal announced last night calls for a yearly average of $240 billion in cuts over the next decade. Very roughly, that suggests the new plan would cost around 1.6 million jobs per year during that time. [!]" (August 1st, 2011). 

This noxious level of contempt for working people was the product of a manufactured crisis, with Democrats and Republicans playing along. How did Obama and the Democrats essentially push through the long-term objectives of the Republican Party? Author Michael Hudson explains on Democracy Now:  

"... There has to be a crisis. Now, in reality, there is no crisis at all. In reality, raising the debt ceiling has been done for a hundred years automatically. There is no connection between raising the debt ceiling and arguing over tax policy. Tax policy takes many years to work out. All of a sudden, Mr. Obama is going along with the charade of saying, "Wait a minute, let's create a crisis."... And Wall Street doesn't like real crises, so there's an artificial non-crisis that Obama is treating as a crisis so that he can put forth the recommendations of the Deficit Reduction Commission to get rid of Social Security that he has supported all along." (July 22nd, 2011).  

Thus, it's not true that Obama was "held hostage" by the Republicans. If he told the country only half of what Mr. Hudson explained on Democracy Now, the Republicans would have folded instantly. If Obama would have told the country that the Republicans wanted massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare, instead of purposely hiding these issues, Republican voters would have converged on Capitol Hill with torches and pitchforks. Instead, Obama went along with the charade; because in order for it to succeed, he was required to play a leading role in the drama. 

read more

STEVE JONAS FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

History never repeats itself exactly.  But it makes some pretty decent copies.  As I write this on March 29, 2011, we are winding down to the end of the so-called "debt-limit crisis," or the possible end, or the continuation of it, or what have you.  Of course what is going on is not really about the debt-limit.  It is about the future of the federal government in the United States and its appropriate role.  As I wrote in my BuzzFlash@Truthout Commentary on Grover Norquist's wet dream (http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/12601), his 25-year campaign is focused only at the secondary level on taxation.  It is primarily about his stated goal of "shrinking the federal government to the size of a bathtub and then drowning it in the bathtub," or as he used to more simply state it: "starve the beast."

The "beast" for Norquist is of course not the whole of federal functions.  His "beast to be starved" does not include the support of the military-industrial complex, the so-called "drug war" and its off-spring the prison-industrial complex, financial support of the investment and banking industries when needed, and the subsidies for the extractive industries and corporate farming.  It is, rather, national domestic spending on support of the elderly, the health care delivery system, education, infra-structure, and at the top of his enemies list, environmental and financial regulation.

This is what the current struggle is about.  The GOP and its wholly-owned and most convenient subsidiary/front organization the "Tea Party," serving solely the interest of their single master, the corporate power (a tiny oligarchy, leading their mass support by a clever combination of racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, and political religiosity), are simply using the current so-called "debt crisis" as a means to force down the throat of the nation its view of what the Federal government should and should not be doing which it would be extremely unlikely to achieve through the legislative process.  Of course no one over there ever reads the statement of purpose of the US Constitution, the Preamble.  But that's another story (see my BF Commentary on it at http://blog.buzzflash.com/jonas/185). 

Of course President Obama, if he were an old-line Democratic President like FDR, or Harry Truman, or JFK, or LBJ before he was swallowed up his perceived need to polish his "anti-Communist" credentials and expand the War on Vietnam, or even if he were Dwight David Eisenhower, who firmly believed that the New Deal was settled policy and need only to be buffed around the edges, would have made the issue very plain, would have clearly laid it before the nation, would have said something like:

read more

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

If corporations are so great, why do you spend half your life on hold?

O.K., so you try and call your health insurance company to find out if a certain medical procedure is covered under your plan. After being forced to listen to nine options, you press customer service and a recorded voice tells you that due to the company "experiencing excessive call volume," you will need to wait to speak to an "available agent."

When someone finally answers, they have a foreign accent - as you know from past calls, the customer service benefits department has been offshored - and after you ask your question, you are asked if you mind being put on hold while the representative consults his or her manager. After several minutes, the customer service agent - who is paid a subsistence wage - removes the hold and asks if this is a pre-existing condition. You point out that since you've had the policy for two years, the pre-existing condition restriction no longer applies.

The benefits representative in a distant land responds that he or she needs to again consult with the manager and you are put on hold.

When you again hear a voice, you are told that the diagnostic testing is covered, but that you have a $4,500 deductible, so the insurance won't be paying for it. You are then asked if you need any further help.

Then you call your bank that is "too big to fail" about a discrepancy in your monthly statement and are put through a loop of recorded questions and answers that don't resolve your problem, but it doesn't matter much because when you press a number that you thought would lead you to a real person, you are somehow disconnected.

Next, you call the electric utility to tell them that a tree just fell on your house power line and the house is without electricity in 98 degree heat, and after being on hold for 20 minutes, someone comes on the phone and asks if the line is sparking or setting anything on fire. You answer no, not that you can see, and then get told that since it is not an emergency, no one can come out for a few days because there aren't enough line men or women at this time to handle other than live "hot" wire repairs.

And then you call the liquor store to see if they deliver - and they answer right away, and you order a bottle of gin.

Two weeks later, you get a letter from your health insurance company informing you that although you called a benefits consultant you failed to call the department that does prior authorization and, therefore, your claim is denied and it won't even go toward your deductible.

You call the liquor store and order another bottle of gin, and are mystified at how corporations are held up as models of customer service and efficiency while the government is constantly disparaged.

And then you take another sip of gin because the liquor store is about the only business that delivers what you want.

read more

JANE STILLWATER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

What if you were to obtain government information that is important to the public and then give it to someone to disseminate it widely?  How should you be punished?  If you are Bradley Manning, you will be thrown in jail, tortured, humiliated, deprived of even basic creature comforts and forced to sleep naked in an isolation cell.

Can you even imagine this same thing happening to Rupert Murdoch?  Ever?

Let's compare these two men's actions.  Manning made public some vital information that was necessary to help Americans know more truthfully about what is going on here and thus help us to be able to make better decisions based on correct facts.

Murdoch made public some falsified information that caused America to get stuck with George W. Bush whether we wanted him or not, to get unnecessarily embroiled in several illegal and disastrous wars that cost America trillions of dollars we could ill afford and to support ghastly financial policies that stripped our economy to the bone.

And where are Murdoch and Manning now?

Bradley Manning is currently incarcerated at Leavenworth federal penitentiary -- and with no end in sight to his ordeal.

And Murdoch?  I'm not really sure where Rupert Murdoch is now -- probably in his 44-million-dollar apartment overlooking Central Park?  Who knows for sure.  But I betcha anything that there is gonna be no torture or jail time involved.

read more

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

The world power companies are winning.

Let's imagine a company, say a global corporation like Wal-Mart.

Let's suppose that this behemoth retailer sells - among other consumer goods manufactured outside of the US - shirts made in China to unemployed textile workers in North Carolina whose factories were closed and whose jobs were moved overseas. After all, they can only afford to shop at this retailer because the prices are cheap, even though they are committing self-cannibalization by buying goods that they used to get paid to make, but now are made in foreign lands at great profit to the retailer.

Let's suppose that this retailer - again like Wal-Mart - has been showing flat sales at its stores open more than one year in America (the financial measurement of success for retailers) because consumer demand has stagnated due to unemployment and low wages. As a result, this global colossus of wealth accelerates its opening of stores around the world, where there is more opportunity for increasing sales and profits. It sees its future not in the United States, but abroad.

Let's suppose that this retailer pays minimum wage and relies on government subsidies for Medicaid for its workers in some states and even food stamps and other federal and state programs. Let's say this company also gets tax breaks and other incentives from local governments to open stores, at the taxpayer's expense.

Let's suppose that this corporation is among the wealthiest in the world, but employs a team of union busters to ensure that many of its employees are paid the lowest possible legal wages in the United States.

Let's suppose that the family that owns this retailer - again like Wal-Mart - benefits from tax cuts for the rich that could significantly help balance the budget - and the members of this family are among the wealthiest in the world.

Let's suppose that, due to campaign contributions to politicians and to its own virtual state department to nations such as China and India, this corporation's loyalties are to its own enrichment and not to the best interests of the United States or its workers.

Let's suppose that this company is not like Wal-Mart, but is Wal-Mart.

Because it is.

******

If you'd like to receive these commentaries daily from Truthout/BuzzFlash, click here. You'll get our choice headlines and articles too.

read more

TONY PEYSER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

In previous years, remarks like this

Were career-ending abominations.

Now they're helpful tools designed

For fundraising solicitations.

read more

STEPHEN PIZZO FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

There's nothing a zealots cherish more than the notion they and their kind are being oppressed. And nothing gets better than outright martyrdom -- which they consider any form of organized opposition to whatever the hell they want.

Yeah, the Tea Party folk are zealots. But so are Christian fundamentalists --- though, to a large extent, I repeat myself.

Self-declared oppression is the weapon of choice of America's ascendant far-right. They are the "injured party," ganged up on by those who don't share their pure love for America, freedom and the American way. Oh, and all things Jesus.

That's how they won the debt ceiling fight, you know. It was the oppressed from Heartland America, the Mr. & Mrs. Smiths, who sacrificed their clean-cut Beaver Clever lives back home - sweet home, and traveled to the dark corridors of Mordor-the-Potomac to set things right -- far right.

And the rest of us (you know, the godless, self-hating American "oppressors") are left wondering what to do about it. Clearly opposing them only plays into their hands. Opposition is proof positive of oppression.

Proof positive comes when we actually catch one of these self-styled Dudley Do-rights up to no good, like the Tea Party congressman Joe Walsh, who pounded the House lectern during the debt ceiling debate declaring, "I will not saddle my children with additional debt,"though he seems to have run out on his three children, to the tune of $121,000 and change.

It's a brilliant strategy. Diabolically so. And it's a strategy that is not only shaping America's future, but the world's as well.

read more

BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT NEWS ALERT

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement today after voting against what he called "an extremely unfair" deficit-reduction package:

"I believe that Vermonters and people across the country are extremely dismayed that all of the burden for deficit reduction will fall on the backs of working families, the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor.  This extremely unfair agreement does not ask the wealthiest people in this country, most of whom are doing extremely well, or large profitable corporations to contribute one penny.  This is not only immoral, it is bad economic policy and will cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs.

"It is impossible at this point to determine exactly what programs will be cut or by how much.  That will be determined later in the committee process and I will do everything I can to defend priorities important to Vermont.  What we can say, however, is that vitally important programs for Vermont, like LIHEAP, education, Head Start, child care, community health centers, the MILC program for dairy farmers, Pell grants for college students, nutrition programs, environmental protection, affordable housing, community action agencies, small business loans and many other programs will be on the chopping block.

"Further, the so-called deficit reduction super committee of six senators and six House members will have the power to make devastating cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and veterans.

"All of us understand that the current deficit situation is unsustainable and that we need responsible action to address it.  It is unconscionable, however, that this agreement would place the entire burden on working families and some of the most vulnerable people in our country."

read more

BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

If you're planning to attend, or tune in and watch the Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, Gangwon Province, South Korea in 2018, be aware that one of the biggest financial beneficiaries of those games will be the Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his Unification Church, although it is fair to say that the Reverend, now 91, may not be around to reel in the profits.

Last month, I was at a friend's home for lunch and sushi dominated the takeout fare. Not particularly liking sushi, and being the party pooper that I am, I mentioned the fact that the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church was heavily involved in the world sushi market. "Who," the well-educated younger folks seated around the table wanted to know, "is Rev. Moon?"

Trying to recap more than 50 years of Moon-ness is like having Tolstoy's War and Peace made into a classic comic book.

It's practically impossible to get a handle on the whole thing, but here are some things that come to mind:

• Potential members recruited off college campuses by nefarious means;
• CAUSA International, Moon's anti-communist operation;
• The tax evasion scheme that cost Moon 18 months in prison in the 1980s;
• Support for Richard M. Nixon during Watergate and his close relationship to the Reagan administration and the Bush family (http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/moon.html);
• Ownership of News World Communications, his international news operations which has included the conservative daily Washington Times and United Press International, as well as publications in a number of foreign countries;
• Large financial contributions to keep Jerry Falwell's Liberty University afloat;
• A myriad of front groups that draw in all sorts of powerful religious and political leaders;
• Financial incursions into the black community;
• Well-publicized and predictably arena/stadium mass marriages;
• Support for Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan's Million Family March in Washington DC;
• His coronation as the "king of peace" in the Dirksen Senate Office Building in March 2004, where Moon called himself the Messiah and claimed that his teachings have helped Hitler and Stalin be "reborn as new persons"; and,
• A number of major business operations, including computers and religious icons in Japan, seafood in Alaska, ginseng in Korea, huge tracts of land in South America, a recording studio and travel agency in Manhattan, a horse farm in Texas and a golf course in California;

2018 Winter Olympics in Korea

One long-time Moon watcher told me in an email that "Moon doesn't do anything that is not tied to the rest of the plan," and in the case of the 2018 Olympics, it is clear that "all the profits that accrue to Tongil Business [Group] goes to support church activities i.e. support the promotion of Moon in his role as the Messiah."

The Week reported that "According to the Korean Institute for Industrial Economics and Trade, the Olympics could bring in as much as $27 billion, while the Hyundai Research Institute estimates that it will inject $61 billion into the economy, factoring in investments, spending, and increased consumption. In Thursday trading, shares in South Korean construction firms and resort companies surged by as much as 15 percent."

After it was determined that Korea would be getting the games, Japan Today reported that "South Korean president Lee Myung-bak promptly announced the nation would invest the equivalent of 40 billion Japanese yen into upgrading facilities."

The magazine Asahi Geino reported that the Yongpyong Ski Resort, which will host some of the events, has close ties with the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, aka the Unification Church.

"The church is the largest shareholder of the Yongpyong ski resort, with 49.9% of shares," says Yoshifu Arita, a well known investigative journalist and currently a member of Japan's House of Councilors. "In addition, the Segye Ilbo newspaper founded by the church [called Sekai Nippo in its Japanese edition] owns another 12.59%.

"In other words, for all intents and purposes, the resort is owned by the Unification Church. In books and other church publications, the hotel, condominiums, ski slopes and other facilities are introduced as 'sacred territory.' The site has also been the venue for 'special training seminars' attended by Japanese church members, at which ... Moon ... participated."

The YongPyong Resort - owned and managed by the Unificationist Tongill Business Group -- is called "The Mecca of winter sports" on its website, has "hosted the World Cup Ski Competition in 1998 and 2000, as well as the Winter Asian Games in 1999." In 2018, it will be hosting the alpine downhill and slalom skiing events.

With the awarding of events of the 2018 Winter Olympics to the Moon-owned ski resort, Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church is back in the news, sort of. Ever since the brouhaha over who would be running the Washington Times (http://blog.buzzflash.com/contributors/2113) and which of the Moon children would be heading the rest of his business empire kind of died down, we haven't heard much from the 91-year-old Moon, who also likes to be known as the True Father, Messiah, King of America, etc.

Sushi, guns and the True Father/Messiah

According to an April 2006 report in the Chicago Tribune, a Moon-run operation called True World Group "which builds fleets of boats, runs dozens of distribution centers and, each day, supplies most of the nation's estimated 9,000 sushi restaurants."

In a 1980 speech titled "The Way of Tuna," - during which he called himself "king of the ocean" -- Moon said: "I have the entire system worked out, starting with boat building. After we build the boats, we catch the fish and process them for the market, and then have a distribution network. This is not just on the drawing board; I have already done it."

And there is Kahr Arms (http://www.kahr.com/), Moon's Worcester, Massachusetts-based gun-making company that is now run by his son, Kook Jin Moon. "I see an irony, if not hypocrisy, that someone who professes peace and says he's completing Jesus's work also manufactures for profit an implement with no purpose other than killing people," Tom Diaz, author of Making a Killing, a book critical of the firearms industry, told the Washington Post in 1999 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/march99/moon10.htm). "What's the message, turn the other cheek, or lock and load?"

In late-July, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence announced a settlement in a 2002 wrongful death suit in which Kahr agreed to pay the family of Danny Guzman, who was killed, and Armandoi Maisonet, who was wounded, nearly $600,000, in a shooting involving a gun allegedly stolen from the company.

In mid-July Kahr announced that it - along with its sister companies Auto-Ordnance (AO) and Magnum Research (MRI) -- would be sponsoring a TV series called "Student of the Gun," which, according to AmmoLand.com, "will give viewers a detailed look at all sorts of firearms and their uses and training applications." (The show is carried on the Pursuit Channel, available to all Direct TV and Dish Network customers.)

As John Gorenfeld, author of King of America (formerly titled Bad Moon Rising) has pointed out, "Years ago, Moon was widely considered a dangerous madman, the next Jim Jones. He inspired TV specials with names like "Escape From The Moonies." His cult separated college students from their families, persuaded them to take to the streets by the hundreds to sell flowers and underwrite Moon's mansions and yacht. So completely did they surrender to Moon that he even assigned them spouses at fabulous stadium weddings."

Another veteran journalist I asked about Moon's relevancy in the second decade of the twenty-first century, pointed out that while "Moon is clearly not as important as he once was, partly because of his age and partly due to the divisions in his empire, he still writes very big checks for the Washington Times and other right-wing propaganda operations. How significant his benefit from the Korean Olympics will be is another question."

read more

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Republicans can't stop feasting on pork, even as they denounce it.

Last week, BuzzFlash at Truthout asked the question, "Why is GOP hypocrisy so brazen and audacious?"

We focused on freshman Illinois Tea Party Congressman Joe Walsh, who voted no on the debt ceiling/deficit reduction bill on Monday. Walsh, a favorite of cable TV, said he was opposing the bill in order to save a future for his children and grandchildren - and only more drastic deficit reduction would do that and show fiscal responsibility. Walsh, however, was revealed last week to be a deadbeat dad to the tune of owing more than $100,000 in child support to his ex-wife.

But there are a myriad of GOP hypocrisies, whether having to do with lapsed moral values (e.g. David Vitter paying for prostitutes, or John Ensign having an adulterous affair with his top aide's wife and then paying him off to hush it up) or financial improprieties (Ensign qualifies for a twofer in these two areas). And many, many more.

Which brings us to virtually the entire Republican delegation in Congress decrying pork (earmarks) as not being kosher for fiscal accountability, while indulging in bringing home the bacon to their districts or states (as Sarah Palin tried to do as governor with her "bridge to nowhere," among other federal projects).

The New York Times ran an editorial on Monday exposing just a few examples of GOP hypocrisy on pork:

The road to Washington is paved with broken campaign promises. But few are so rich in hypocrisy as those of House Republican freshmen caught engineering hometown pork even as they vow to slash the federal budget for the supposed good of the nation....

Representative Tim Scott, a Tea Party favorite from South Carolina, helped secure the down payment on a $300 million harbor dredging project back home. Not at all pork, said Mr. Scott, pronouncing the dredging a matter of the national interest. In the case of a new bridge in Wisconsin, Representative Sean Duffy reasons it's no earmark since the legislation listed no specific costs.

Representative Michele Bachmann, Minnesota's three-term incumbent and presidential aspirant, also supports the bridge - and calls for a "redefinition" of what an earmark is. "There's a big difference between funding a teapot museum and a bridge over a vital waterway," is Ms. Bachmann's head-scratching guidance.

No, it's not "head-scratching." It's just being fundamentally dishonest, annoyingly self-righteous and profoundly hypocritical, yet again.

******

If you'd like to receive these commentaries daily from Truthout/BuzzFlash, click here. You'll get our choice headlines and articles too.

read more