Madison Ave. Drive-by

Well, that didn’t take long. The U.S. now has something new to focus their fear on: Europe. The State Dept. will issue the warning on Sunday. It is now best to avoid anything in Europe since you might fall victim to the deluge of misdirection and outright bullshit foaming from the information orifices in Washington, D.C. Yessir, at this rate, those travel dollars will soon be nested right here at home. Not that many of us have money to spend on a vacation right now.
On a terror-related note, I notice bin-Laden is now doing TV spots for flood relief in Pakistan. I say, “Good move,” to whoever dreamed that one up. It’s just amazing how he keeps showing up at the oddest times. Of course, if your economy is limping along and you need the Middle East to shoulder more of the burden, who better to call upon the Muslims of the world for help to their Islamic brothers. So, just whip him out for a little fund-raiser. Must be nice to have a persona like that on your payroll, so-to-speak.

Unpacking from a trip

Well, let it ring from the mountainsides! Let it be told in the taverns and dales from the first settlement on this continent to the shining Golden West of our forefathers. The justices of our own U.S. Supreme Court—that last bastion of judicial activism—have screwed “We the People” once again…or have they?

Let’s unpack that argument just a bit before we take any particular stand either for or against this wholly astounding interpretation of the First Amendment. First off, I think most people will agree that U.S. corporations already engage in financing congressional and presidential elections. Obama got roughly 80% of his financing via the FIRE industries. Where do you think congress-people (shudder) get their biggest contributions from? What the Supreme Court has decided through Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission is essentially to put a veneer of legality on an already wide-spread practice of circumventing existing legislation like the McCain-Feingold Act by way of K Street lobbyists. What this means in terms of money lost to the PR apparatus in our capitol is anyone’s guess. What is most important is that SCOTUS left regulating power to Congress in their majority opinion. There is still some shred of hope for our tattered constitution and its separation of powers clause. However, I think we are going to see the price of poker go way up, driven more by the greed of politicians than by willingness from the corporations to spend more money.

To me, this whole fuss over the Supreme Court decision is reminiscent of the debate surrounding present marijuana laws. Or, is it merely coincidence that the California Supreme Court just overruled limits on pot possession at the same time SCOTUS says no limits on campaign money? This opens the door for new taxation schemes by the state. At least we citizens of the middle classes will go down feeling really good.

No Sweat, Ben’s Got Yer Back

Okay, so I’m going through the news this morning, and I see where Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke is saying we need some kind of financial regulation in place to rein in “rampant speculation.” He goes on to say it may be necessary to raise interest rates in order to cut down on the amount of it. Stunningly however, he also dismisses any connection between record-low interest rates and the housing bubble of the late “Noughties” leading to the Crash of ‘07. (Nice to know Ben’s on the job there.)
Further perusal of the latest flowing forth from the bowels of our financial centerpiece reveals an unemployment outlook promising more economic despair for 2010; the aforesaid idle misery is apportioned at a rate in excess of 9% stretching to the terminus of this new year of the new decade according to Bernanke’s own Federal Reserve..
Well, it looks as if the boys on Wall St. may have created a bigger problem than they realize. Since I’m a reader of history, I would like to think what has been created here is an economic phenomenon I choose to call a “Roosevelt Rift.” What we seem to have here is a moment in history where we are presented with the sight of a government hoisting itself by its own petard. To expand on that, I first refer to Franklin Roosevelt’s confrontation of popular revolution on two separate occasions during his administration as an example of doing it right..
The first of these is, of course, the “Great Depression” of the 1930s. This was a time of great social upheaval in the United States. This time saw a vast change in labor practices brought about by “labor intellectuals” like Eugene Debs. As president, Roosevelt was smart enough to understand the potential for upheaval inherent in the jobless masses queuing up at soup kitchens throughout the land. Thus was born programs like unemployment insurance and Social Security, due in no small part, it should be said, to First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt’s advocacy for these programs. In this way, FDR showed enormous political courage in the face of powerful opposition from financial entities like the Harriman Bank and industrialists such as DuPont Chemical.
In his second move to avert disaster, FDR’s post-war administration once again opted for socialized programs aimed at diverting the prospective overthrow of U.S. government through implementation of the G.I. Bill and jobs programs designed to give returning soldiers, sailors, and airmen a way to blend back into American society at the close of the Second World War. This new prosperity saw the beginning of a true middle-class in this country. Roosevelt was well aware of what could happen when you allow a lot of unemployed, well armed, combat-experienced men to roam around with nothing to do. Bush 43 and the rest of his history-light, ‘Neo-conderthal’ cronies found out about this the hard way when they disbanded the Iraqi army in 2003.
Now, our newest “wartime administration” faces challenges very similar to what plagued us in the 30s. The difference is in a response tailored more to Reaganesque economic “trickle-down” theory of the 1980s, than to a reality-based approach of putting the money where it does the most good, ala the National Recovery Act of 1933.
These elitist ideas spread by financial gurus like Milton Friedman have brought us to the brink of financial disaster in much the same way the self-same pecuniary missteps brought about the collapse of Wall St. in 1929. Unlike the response then, the new formula consists of taxpayer bailouts for banks and a greater divide between those who “have,” and those who do not.
Now, the present administration can’t do anything other than continue extending unemployment for the foreseeable future. There is no prospect for any major reduction in the ranks of the unemployed between now and the end of 2010 if the “Masters of the Universe” and their government henchmen in the Labor Department are to be believed. What’s the alternative? Perhaps, a bunch of very hungry and pissed-off chunks of the general population just begging for an excuse to strike back at the ones causing their present state of misery? Try and guess who that might be. This is a classic illustration of the tit caught in a wringer.

We Are So Easy To Please

Frankly, I am of the mind that this entire business of a “mandate” requiring people to pay an insurance company for health coverage is an unconstitutional mess to begin with.. I think Madison hit it right on the head. He seems to be saying that government can inadvertently give too much power to a private concern in its zeal to legislate certain rights. In our case, that would be the present Health-Care legislation being debated.
Bill of Attainder
Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.”
“The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply – trial by legislature.” U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).
“These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.” William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.
“Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. … The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community.” James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.
Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:
• Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866).
• Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866).
• U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
• Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977).
• Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG, 468 U.S. 841 (1984).
See also, SBC v. FCC. : SBC Communications v. FCC, U. S. Supreme Court Docket No. 98-652
http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm

What is of particular note here is the last half of the last paragraph. It is for this reason alone that I would challenge this shoddy piece of legislation being foisted on the American people by an uncaring group of so-called “people’s representatives.” They haven’t been our representatives for some time now.

So, why hasn’t anyone challenged this? Are we so desperate for any sort of victory that we would even accept this as a solution? That is not progress. We should be demanding what is ours by right, by virtue of the fact we are supposedly masters of our government. Yet, we act like its servants. We even allow our legislature to pass retroactive, ex post facto laws immunizing it from the consequences of its own actions, and we say nothing. Need I point out the part of the definition that states “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.” Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3. Yet, we allowed our Congress to pass a law retroactively immunizing known criminals in the Bush administration from any consequence of their illegal wire-tapping and torture policies.

Have we finally reached the point where even our own Constitution is just a worthless scrap of paper to be hauled out only when our thoroughly corrupt, corporate-bought-and-paid-for legislature wants to justify some new outrage on us? This egregious giveaway to the insurance industry needs to be fought against tooth-and-nail until we get what we asked for in the first place: a single-payer system.

A Crisis Deconstructed

Under the category of “You gotta be kidding,” this just in from Tim Geithner: “We have to start living within our means.” Yes, that’s right; Mr. Geithner’s discovered the cause of the last economic catastrophe. It was due to the peasants not having the good sense to live in a more fiscally responsible way. Gone are the derivatives stacked on mountains of debt, gone is the massive fraud perpetrated by investment bankers and hedge fund managers at places like Goldman Sachs, No mention to be made of the obscene payouts to executives undeserving of a salary let alone any bonuses. No, it all could have been avoided if you members of the proletariat simply had the good sense not to buy that new big-screen television, or the orthodontics for your teenager.

“It is very important that Americans understand that we need to do everything possible to sustain confidence in our ability to keep inflation low and stable over time and to make sure we’re getting our fiscal house in order,” Geithner said.

I feel humbled in the presence of such wisdom. How were we to know with all that low-interest money out there being thrust under our noses by anyone even remotely connected to the finance industry? How could we guess the answer with a financial guru like Alan Greenspan telling us to spend like there was no tomorrow? Joined by a president exhorting the population to help win the Global War on Terror by shopping Al-Qaeda to death.

His good buddy Larry Summers piped up with some sage advice also about those banks needing to “bow” to more restrictive oversight in order to prevent any future meltdowns.

My question is simple. Where was all this concern when it mattered? Where was Mr. Geithner’s voice or Mr. Summer’s concern when the bubble was busily inflating? Why didn’t they speak up when it really mattered? Maybe they were just too busy. After all, it takes time to figure out the best way to screw the taxpayer without him or her figuring out what you are up to.

Now, the head of the Federal Reserve wants us to believe lending and credit are on the mend although the TARP funds for that purpose are squirreled away and being used to speculate on high risk funds rather than being used for their avowed purpose of stimulating business, and thus reinvigorating our moribund economy. According to Geithner, access to credit has “improved dramatically.” He’s right, but only if you happen to be a large Wall Street bank. Otherwise, he says that you may still be facing “borrowing constraints.” So, if you happen to own a small business, you may have a little problem raising capital, especially if you depend on revolving credit to keep you afloat.

Take heart you small business owner, there is a rumor of the present administration possibly diverting bank bailout funds to you in order to keep you afloat. However, nothing has been confirmed as of yet. I guess you have to know the treasury secretary personally to get anything done quickly on that score.