|
For The Trees
Who is our economy FOR, anyway? About the Authors: Dave Johnson John Emerson Richard Reich Thomas Leavitt
Recent Posts: BEST OF STF: Dave's: Articles not at STF: The ATLA Speech on building a progressive infrastructure Lowering the Bar The Attack on Trial Lawyers and Tort Law Who's Behind the Attack on Liberal Professors On the Right and their communications infrastructure: Why Republicans Win Win or Lose The "Conventional Wisdom" Machine Some History of the Conservative Movement HOW TO FIGHT BACK An Amplifier Of Our Own Don't Blame the Democrats How They Do It 1 2 3 4 Getting Rolled Other: You're Gonna Get Drafted Scalia and Self-Government Who is Our Economy For? Voting Machine Story Link Collection What's Wrong with this Picture? (Voting Machines) Like Meat in the Supermarket Get Active Thin Line 1 2 3 Fixing Social Security Seeing the Forest I, II, III "Incredibly Positive News" The Breadth of It The Republican Crony Club Moon Bush Ralph Nader is a Scab John's Best Of: Kerry Smear Page Bandar Bush 9/11 Commission Report Damages Bush -- if you read it Florida Goon Squad Intimidated the Supreme Court The Use and Abuse of George Orwell Zizka's Archives (John's previous identity) Zizka Sampler News Sources: AlterNet BuzzFlash Common Dreams Cursor Drudge Retort Information Clearing House Smirking Chimp TruthOut What REALLY Happened Links to Other Weblogs: |
 9/10/2002 Thin Line Between Company and Party (Part 2) In Part 1 I wrote about Enron and its web of connections to the Republican Party, channeling money to The Party through campaign cash, lobbying, think tanks, paying salaries of campaign workers, etc. (Sorry, I forgot to mention use of Enron jets and facilities for Party activities…) This sort of thing is not unique to Enron. There are a number of companies that have gained attention because they seem to operate as arms of The Party. Read this July Washington Post article. Republican National Committee Chairman Marc F. Racicot sits on Siebel's board of directors. Seibel Systems CEO sends e-mails to employees, "asking" them to "donate" $5,000 to a "PAC" which all goes to Republicans. (Having been an executive, I hate to think what would happen to an executive who chooses not do "donate." Maybe regular employees can get away with it, but don't forget this is in a time of terrible job fear here in Silicon Valley.) "Siebel, the brash chief executive officer of software maker Siebel Systems Inc., last year beamed e-mails to hundreds of his most fervent employees with an unmistakable message: Cough up $5,000 each for the company's new political action committee. The response was something this town has never seen: within weeks, more than 350 workers heeded the CEO's call..."Also in the article, Seibel meets with lawmakers, talks to them about writing his company's products into the Homeland Security bill and then writes them a check, making it clear that the check is linked to the talk. Seible and people from his company get special meetings to demonstrate products to members of the Administration. ""Company officials said their campaign has already paid dividends: It has been awarded several grants and is well-positioned to land others when the administration divvies up the homeland defense money."Where does the company end, and "The Party" begin? More to come... --- Posted at 9/10/2002 02:37:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post  
Those Who Fear I came across this quote today. For some reason it made me think if Bush and Cheney: "No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804. --- Posted at 9/10/2002 02:16:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
UN Fund My Aunt Ginger forwarded this to me. I'm pretty sure it's for real: Dear Friends: I am asking you to join in sending a message from 34,000,000 American women. The message will help women living in countries where the lack of medical services (not to mention the lack of other necessities that we take for granted every day) results in hardships beyond our imagination. The US made a commitment of $34 million to the United Nations Population Fund last winter, with Congress approving the funds and President Bush signing the bill containing the appropriation. The Fund provides family planning and reproductive health services to women in 142 countries. It has a budget of about $270 million worldwide and does "invaluable work," as Secretary of State Colin Powell said during his confirmation hearings. The Fund's programs help some of the most impoverished and underserved women in the world. Our country has reneged on its commitment. The reason given for refusing to release the $34 million is that the Fund provides aid to Chinese government agencies that force women to have abortions. However, a State Department fact-finding mission was sent to China in May to investigate exactly that allegation. The mission reported that it found no evidence that the program "knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization" and recommended that the funds be released. In addition, the Population Fund is barred by law from using US money in China and, as a U.N. organization, from funding any abortion related activities. If 34,000,000 American women send one dollar each to the U.N. Population Fund, we can help the Fund continue its "invaluable work" and at the same time confirm that providing family planning and reproductive health services to women who would otherwise have none is a humanitarian issue, not a political one. PLEASE, NOW: Put a dollar, wrapped in a plain sheet of paper, in an envelope marked "34 Million Friends." If you wish your gift to be acknowledged on the web address www.unfpa.org, print your name on the sheet of paper. Then mail it today to: Chief, Resource Mobilization Branch UNFPA 220 East 42nd Street New York 10017 EVEN MORE IMPORTANT: Send this letter on to at least ten friends-more would be better!-who may join in this message. --- Posted at 9/10/2002 10:55:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
9/09/2002 PE in 1929 OK, it looks like the PE ratio of the S&P 500 in October, 1929 was 21, and the PE of the DOW was 17. The current PE ratio of the DOW is 21.6 and the current PE ratio of the S&P 500 is 24.3 but I don't know what "earnings" measure this is using. Anyway, yes, it looks like we are above where stocks fell FROM in the 1929 crash. --- Posted at 9/09/2002 05:05:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Stocks Stink! Ethel the Blog points to Stocks Stink from Rumor Mill News. Worth reading. Following are verbatim excerpts from Bill Gross: “STOCKS STINK…Stocks are way over-valued…the Dow’s fair-value is about 5000. “…stocks stink and will continue to do so until they're priced appropriately, probably somewhere around Dow 5000, S&P 650, or NASDAQ God knows where."When you hear ANYONE talk about "the bottom" of the market, see if they mention the key word - VALUATION! The valuation of the market is still remarkably high. It is currently at the level that inspired Greenspan to make his famous "irrational exuberance" remark. I read somewhere that they are currently at the valuation that the market crashed FROM in 1929, but I haven't had time to research whether that is accurate. What was the average PE ratio in 1929, and what is it now? When someone tries to talk to you about the market having a certain return over the long run, here's the catch. If you buy stocks at a certain valuation (P/E ratio -- stock price per dollar of earnings of the company) several years later the stocks should have a higher price AT THAT SAME VALUATION because over time average corporate earnings have risen and therefore should rise, over time. But RIGHT NOW stocks have a very very (very) high valuation - the P/E ratio is much much higher than the historical P/E ratio. Usually the reason for a high P/E ratio is expectations that earnings are going to go way up, and soon. But are there reasons for such expectations at this time? Companies had been screwing with their books to make earnings appear higher, they are likely to stop screwing with the books (for a while), so earnings are certainly not likely to rise (as they had been doing) due to that factor. On top of that the economy is no where near solid so we should not expect any big boost in earnings due to a bug surge in the economy. So \there is no explanation for this high valuation that is based on expected good news. Unless you think that war with Iraq will be good news. Usually in such circumstances you should expect P/E ratios to start falling. If you expect they are likely to they fall to historic averages they have a LONG way still to fall. Let me put it another way, people think because stocks prices have fallen they are therefore low. Look at this chart to see if you think they have fallen enough to be "low". Now, if you can think of some reason for stocks to be really really high, buy more stocks. Otherwise, run for your life. --- Posted at 9/09/2002 03:45:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Saying it Well Scot Rosenberg over at Salon's blogs says it well. "The threat is urgent! But it can wait a month". --- Posted at 9/09/2002 03:39:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Going On And On I realize that I have been going on and on about Iraq in the last few days. I want to make one more point. I've already made the following points: 1) There was a series of "terrorist threats" that coincided with breaking news harmful to the Bush administration, and these threats stopped when the press began mentioning the coincident timing. 2) The drive to start the war began coincident with the start of "election season." 3) We learned from VietNam that the country must be behind sustained military action. Launching this war-drive in election season risks dividing the country, not uniting it. There must be an immediate national emergency to justify this timing. 4) The administration has made no case that there is a current national emergency NOW that requires the war-drive coincident with election season. 5) The previous Iraq war was started based on phony "babies thrown from incubators" evidence, and Bush was caught this weekend providing phony evidence. And the point I want to make today: What's DIFFERENT about any Iraqi weapons development, when Iraq, North Korea, China, and who knows how many other countries are engaged in these activities. To be clear, I am not saying that we shouldn't do something about it if Iraq or any of these other countries are developing such weapons. I am saying that the timing of THIS Iraq war-drive appears to be more about manipulating the November elections than about Iraq. --- Posted at 9/09/2002 09:14:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
9/08/2002 Iraq, Redundant Again Labor Day is the traditional start of political campaign season. This year, Labor Day was also when the drumbeat for war really kicked in. Coincidence? You decide. Is there any evidence that anything in Iraq has changed NOW? Is there a reason this is happening NOW instead of 3 months ago? To be redundant again, we learned from VietNam that the country must be together when we go into a conflict. If things do not go well, we could be in this for a long time and our forces will NEED the country behind them. It must not begin with a potential for domestic conflict built into the origins of the effort! ANY appearance of domestic political considerations being part of the calculation must be avoided at all costs. Yet here we have the Administration firing up the war talk in sync with campaign season. That is potentially divisive, to put it mildly. If this were REALLY a national emergency, the leaders would be doing everything they could to avoid it being associated with Congressional election season. This has Carl Rove written all over it. Congress MUST find out if this has as any part of it an attempt to manipulate the elections. We MUST know if our leadership is capable of the monstrous crime of terrifying the public with false war scares. --- Posted at 9/08/2002 03:49:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
How To Start a War Thanks to Tom Tomorrow for pointing to this article about the previous Iraq war. When George Bush Sr. was trying to whip us into war with Iraq he tried out one story after another. He even said at one point that Saddam was "worse than Hitler". One would fizzle and he would try the next one. Eventually there was a story about the Iraqis throwing babies out of incubators, and we went to war. Except it never happened. The story was manufactured by a PR firm, Hill & Knowlton. Here's a link to a fairly extensive description of the Hill & Knowlton incubator story. Here, here and here are more links to this story. I'm not saying we shouldn't have gone into that war. Maybe we should have. After the war the inspectors did find (and destroyed) chemical, biological and nuclear weapons development facilities. But we went into that war with a U.N. mandate and a multi-national force. That was THE WORLD deciding to do something about Iraq. We were part of a world effort - Iraq was not a threat to us and we were RESPONDING to an action by Iraq. THIS time we are not responding to anything Iraq has done, we would be distracting from the war on terrorism. (The confederate yahoos who support Bush don't know better than to think Iraq was responsible for 9/11.) --- Posted at 9/08/2002 03:44:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
9/07/2002 Liar Lies, Gets Caught, Election-Manipulation War Talk Continues I saw this one at MSNBC. Seeking to build a case Saturday that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, President Bush cited a satellite photograph and a report by the U.N. atomic energy agency as evidence of Iraq’s impending rearmament. But in response to a report by NBC News, a senior administration official acknowledged Saturday night that the U.N. report drew no such conclusion, and a spokesman for the U.N. agency said the photograph had been misinterpreted.Bush said Iraq may be 6 months from having a nuclear weapon. But the report he cited said that BEFORE WE DESTROYED IRAQ'S NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTRE Iraq was possibly 6-months away from having the bomb. --- Posted at 9/07/2002 09:17:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
9/06/2002 Hey, Not Bad Media Whores Online points us to a White House Document on Social Security "reform" that makes it clear they mean PRIVATE accounts -- yes, the dreaded "privatization" word that George "I don't use polls" Bush says they never used, now that polls show the public doesn't like it. Anyway, in the document is a chart showing that Social Security offers a 1.7% "rate of return." Compared to what banks are offering these days, that's not too bad! (Hasn't anyone ever told these wizards that return = risk.) --- Posted at 9/06/2002 04:49:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Amazing Timing In my previous entry I wrote about the amazing timing of this drumbeat for war with Iraq. That got me thinking about the amazing timing of this year's flurry of terrorist threat alerts. They amazingly seemed to happen whenever something was hitting the news that could hurt Bush politically. Remember? Remember the country being scared out of its wits, time after time? And with the Padilla "dirty bomb" scare the timing become so amazing - reporting that he was arrested months after he really was arrested but just after some harmful political news - that mainstream reporters started writing about the amazing timing. And then the terrorist threats stopped! Another example of amazing timing. Just after the mainstream press started writing that the timing of the terrorist threats was amazing, the terrorist threats amazingly stopped. Amazing! The country seems to be cursed with terrible events - threats, wars - that occur with amazing timing that is in sync with Republican troubles ... unless .... no, I couldn't say something like THAT. --- Posted at 9/06/2002 09:09:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
A Choice? John Kerry says, We Still Have a Choice on Iraq. Uh, John, HELLO!, did you miss the 100 American and British warplanes attacking Iraq yesterday? It's already STARTED, John! I mean, DUH! Bush snuck another one past the Constitution, John, and what are the Democrats going to DO about it, John? You wrote, "For the American people to accept the legitimacy of this conflict and give their consent to it, the Bush administration must first present detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and then prove that all other avenues of protecting our nation's security interests have been exhausted." There's ANOTHER thing they're going to have to prove. They're going to have to prove that something is DIFFERENT right now from what was happening in Iraq 6 months ago or a year ago or 3 months ago instead of right NOW, because otherwise I'm going to think that this is just too suspiciously timed to manipulate the election, and I don't like that. This country learned the hard way in VietNam that it is important to have the WHOLE public behind you when you go to war, not just a manipulated majority and an angry minority that sees too clearly how the rest were manipulated. So if this is REALLY serious, and this is REALLY a threat to the country the LAST THING that should be happening is a drumbeat of war just in time to change the focus of the election in the Republicans' favor. What would I like to see? I'd like to see a hearing on whether Carl Rove has had ANYTHING AT ALL to do with any aspect of the "War on Terrorism." Because there is no more serious crime than manipulating a war for political objectives. I am not saying that IS what the Republicans are doing, I'm saying that the oversight job of the Congress requires that they make sure it ISN'T what is happening here, that they ask that question and get satisfactory answers, ESPECIALLY when the timing is so amazingly, stunningly, astoundingly, brazenly, unbelievably, incredibly, shockingly, historically convenient for the Republicans. --- Posted at 9/06/2002 08:29:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
9/05/2002 Not Reporting on the ONGOING War in Iraq? Is there some reason this major story just isn't being reported in the American press? I mean, some GOOD reason? Maybe it's just early and it will be reported later. But other recent air strikes and other actions against Iraq haven't gotten much press. About 100 American and British aircraft took part in an attack on Iraq's major western air defence installation yesterday in the biggest single operation over the country for four years.I reluctantly have to admit I saw it on Drudge. --- Posted at 9/05/2002 08:47:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Added Shadow I've also added Shadow of the Hegemon to the links. Check it out, too. --- Posted at 9/05/2002 08:34:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Free Pie! I've added Free Pie to the links list. Check it out. --- Posted at 9/05/2002 07:52:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Well Worth Reading The other day I wrote that the lack of union and worker issues in the media clearly demonstrates the effect of corporate ownership of news sources. Today Joe Kenehan Center points to this article on worker issues, We Rarely See Those Who Labor. From the article: A study by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a liberal media-watchdog group, found that the evening news programs of CBS, ABC and NBC recently devoted only 2 percent of their total air time to workers' issues, including child care, the minimum wage, and workplace safety and health. During a full year, the broadcasts reportedly spent a total of 13 minutes on job safety and health, while an average of more than 16 workers die daily from work-related injuries, and more than 650,000 annually suffer back, wrist or other injuries from poorly designed work stations and repetitive motion.and Not only are work-related topics missing in the media, but so are workers. Studies of ABC's "Nightline" and PBS' "News Hour" found that almost all the guests were corporate or government officials, politicians or professors, while fewer than 1 percent were non-elite workers or their representatives. An examination of four months of news reports in the New York Times and the Washington Post found that not one of 201 sources mentioned in reporting on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was a worker or union representative.It's a longer article, well worth reading. --- Posted at 9/05/2002 04:25:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Tax Cuts for Billionaires I did something fun today. I went to the Heritage Foundation's PolicyExperts.org and looked up some right-wing organizations. All I did was sort by "National Research Organizations" so it shows me the entire list. Then I started picking a right-wing organization at random and going to Cursor's Media Transparency to see who is funding them. I did this several times. Guess what I found? There are hundreds of right-wing organizations, but they are almost all funded by a foundation whose name contains Scaife, Olin or Bradley, and a few others. The public, the media and policymakers think they hear a wide range of voices. For example, you might see on C-SPAN or MSNBC a panel with experts from five or six different organizations. But in fact the likelihood is you are hearing the voice of Scaife, Olin, Bradley or one or two other billionaires. NO WONDER so much of the national policy debate is about giving huge tax cuts to billionaires! Try it yourself. --- Posted at 9/05/2002 03:36:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
9/04/2002 Timing is Everything So, how about that Iraq timing, huh? Almost exactly 2 months before the election and it looks like things are really heating up. Looks like it could really come to a head in ... OCTOBER. Is it in any way possible that the timing is political? I'm hearing a lot from the right wing PR machine about how this is a Democrat vs Republican thing (and not much about reasons to attack Iraq). They're spinning this entirely as a political issue. Anyone been listening to Rush Limbaugh lately? Much of his show this morning was about how the Democrats are placing the country in danger by trying to manipulate public opinion on Iraq against Bush in an attempt to get an issue in the election. I've often observed that the right-wingers accuse us of what they're up to themselves. It's called inoculating. And the usual suspects have been all over the media accusing the Democrats of using Iraq as a political issue. It seems to me that if they are looking for public support and want to keep the divisiveness down that they would do everything they could to keep things QUIET until after the election to avoid even the APPEARANCE of this being politically motivated. Even if the need was truly great to do something it would be best to keep it away from the election so they could go into a war with an undivided public, to put it redundantly. I think it is becoming blatantly obvious that they are pulling an October Surprise here. This timing is extremely unfortunate for our soldiers because it risks public support for at home. To be redundant again, it this were for real they wouldn't want it to happen anywhere NEAR election time. --- Posted at 9/04/2002 03:40:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Government Again Thinking about right-wing anti-government rhetoric, I like to swap a few words so that the real meaning is more clear. For example, for "government" I like to substitute some version of "the people" or "the interests of the people." For "government bureaucracy", some version of "public accountability over the use of public funds." Here's how it works: Ronald Reagan said "Government is the problem." Substitute in "public oversight and accountability". Or suppose you hear "government regulations are holding back business," you can substitute in "public control over health and safety issues making sure that the public benefit." "Big government" - "Lots of public oversight and things done for the benefit of the people." Substitute some variation of "autocratic anti-democratic organizations where decisions are made by a few amoral people who sole interest is to funnel profits to a few people at the top" for corporations. Try it out on "corporations do everything better than government bureaucracies." --- Posted at 9/04/2002 03:32:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
9/03/2002 Big Government "Big government" is a great sounding phrase, but does it actually mean anything? I've always loved to taunt right-wingers with totally unfair questions like "What does 'big government' mean?", and "WHAT programs would you cut to make government smaller, and how much money does it save, and does it make a difference in balancing the budget?" (See if you can ever find a right-winger who can answer that one. "Waste, fraud and abuse" isn't an answer.) They will never, ever, ever, ever say that they oppose Social Security or Medicare - at least not if they're running for any kind of public office so long as we remain some imitation of a democracy that sometimes lets the people's will decide what happens. The only "big government" left is military and interest on the debt, both of which funnel huge amounts of our money into rich people's pockets. Of course, that leaves tax increases on the rich as the only way to balance the budget, so "big government" will stay in their vocabulary until enough of us speak up. --- Posted at 9/03/2002 07:26:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
MaxSpeak, You Listen MaxSpeak has a great piece about debt and growth in the 90's. And you better read it because, as he says, "There is no liberal politics worthy of the name that can fail to comprehend this." As I wrote earlier today, "Never mind that the government is us. Never mind that almost everything the government spends money on benefits us - that's what government IS." So I was ahead of my time at being a liberal! (He wrote at 4:31 Eastern and I wrote at 11:14 Pacific, so I was ahead of my time by two and a half hours if I added that right.) --- Posted at 9/03/2002 06:23:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Taking it Easy Buzzflash points out that Bush has spent 42% of his time as President at a leisure destination - Camp David (123 days), Kennebunkport (12) and his Texas ranch (115). When Reagan was President I had a standard Halloween costume. I'd wear pajamas and a Reagan mask and say I was dressed up as Reagan attending a cabinet meeting. But it looks like Bush has even Reagan beat for not giving very much respect to the office of President and actually doing the JOB. --- Posted at 9/03/2002 04:59:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Read This Again Friday I wrote a little piece pointing to a New York Times report of Bush saying that the deficit is "incredibly positive news" because it forces the government to stop growing. It's worth reading again, and understanding what he's saying. He's admitting that the deficits are intentional. "Incredibly good news" because it advances the right-wing strategy of cutting back our government. Never mind that the government is us. Never mind that almost everything the government spends money on benefits us - that's what government IS. Never mind that he has proposed the largest increases in government growth in decades with his military buildup and his Fatherland Security department. Never mind that it means no prescription drug plan or health insurance for children, and cutbacks in almost everything good that our government does. And never mind that deficits mean we are borrowing more and more money and every year we have to pay interest on that borrowing. Let's not let him get away with claiming now that the deficits aren't his fault, that he "hit the trifecta" or anything else he says. He said that the deficits are "incredibly good news" and the public should be reminded that he said that. --- Posted at 9/03/2002 12:14:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
9/02/2002 Get Your War On I think I've recommended Get Your War On before, but just in case I haven't, I recommend it. I also recommend clicking around the website, the archives, links, etc. --- Posted at 9/02/2002 06:53:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Today's Google Experiment Speaking of George Will, today's Google Experiment looks back to the 1980 presidential election. During the election the Reagan campaign (among other things) ran an intelligence operation against the Carter White House involving active military personnel. One of their actions was the theft of Carter's debate briefing books from the White House. (That's right, a White House military aid stealing notebooks from the Oval Office, never disciplined by the "patriotic" Republicans.) So go to Google and search for "George Will Carter Reagan stolen briefing book". Read some of the websites that pop up. (If you're not old enough to remember the criminality of the Reagan crowd I recommend spending a few more minutes looking into some of the things that happened between 1980 and 1992.) Here we have a briefing book stolen from the White House, we have "journalist" George Will in possession of this stolen property and helping prepare Reagan for the debates, and on the night of the debate "journalist" Will sat as an ABC commentator on the debates. A "journalist" in possession of stolen briefing books, possibly the biggest political news story of the decade at that time, and he kept it secret. He was never jailed for possessing stolen property (the Reagan Justice Dept. from day 1 suspended prosecution of Republicans), never fired for not reporting the story, never fired for not letting the public know of his role in debate preparation, and continues as a high paid "journalist" to this day! --- Posted at 9/02/2002 04:51:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Thanks Thanks to Shadow of the Hegemon, for referring to and writing about what I wrote yesterday and for inspiring me to explain my anonymity, which I've been meaning to do. Replying to what was written, I don't think that Will or North or Limbaugh think for a second that what they wrote about the NEA is true - or care. Sure, others are believers, but they have a responsibility to contact NEA before writing that kind of stuff about them, and editors shouldn't be publishing it without finding out if they did contact NEA. I completely agree that they are using a technique of conditioning the public to distrust mainstream news sources. IssuesGuy, if you want to change the way that people debate, the first and most important step is to deal with the ridiculous, hateful, and sickening rhetoric aimed at the left, the kind that neo-conservatives specialize in and that the left (both moderate and radical) has ignored and explained away for far too long.Hey, that's the theme of this weblog! See the forest for the trees! They throw trees at you, see the forest. Also, thanks Atrios for referring to and writing about yesterday's rant as well. I guess I really got going. --- Posted at 9/02/2002 04:02:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Anonymity I haven't made my name public here and use "Issuesguy" because I first named this weblog "I Have Issues," and because the way the Blogger software works I needed a name to use. (I would have changed it to "Forestguy" if I could figure out how to do it without adding another team member.) I want this to be a weblog ABOUT, not a weblog BY. I think I have some good reasons for that. First and foremost this focuses criticism to content. I mean this limits a critic's ability to attack the content by attacking & attempting to discredit the author - a favored right-wing technique. If you don't know who the author is you're stuck with having to look at the content and argue with that. Too bad. I'm not saying that I expect to be writing anything worthy of right-wingers taking note. My second reason is more that this is NOT an ego-based endeavor so why put my name on it. And my third reason is that I have been discussing politics online since way back when I was getting HUGE bills from CompuServe, and I've received plenty enough nasty e-mail and threats, it is jarring every single time and can ruin a day. It seems less jarring when it isn't addressed to your very own personal e-mail account. --- Posted at 9/02/2002 03:57:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Slacktivist I don't know how I missed putting Slacktivist in my links list, but it's there now. --- Posted at 9/02/2002 11:31:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Labor Nathan Newman has a good Labor Day roundup of Labor news that actually relates to WORKERS issues, so clearly contrasted with most newspaper, TV and radio coverage. And as always, I recommend checking out Joe Kenehan Center. And Atrios notes that in his Labor Day radio address Bush went out of his way not to mention Labor. --- Posted at 9/02/2002 10:38:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
9/01/2002 Wal-Mart Campaigns for Dole in N.C. Wal-Mart mailed a Dole campaign piece to 200,000 North Carolinans this week, 2 weeks before their primary. It also was sent to millions nationally. The company said the campaign piece "was meant to promote literacy." "There was nothing remotely political in the intent," Jay Allen, a senior vice president of Wal-Mart, said on Friday. Right. --- Posted at 9/01/2002 03:03:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
More Fuming (Referring to the piece below this one) What get's me is that Mona Charen knows that the NEA didn't do what she's writing. She is lying, and knows it, and is getting paid well to repeat these lies because the end result is people believing bad things about the NEA, and "liberals." And all the others participating in this lie, like George Will and Ollie North and Rush Limbaugh and all the rest of this crowd. It is a lie. They know it is a lie. They are repeating it because focus groups have shown that this particular lie will stir up the public in certain lasting ways, and if they keep circulating lies like this the public becomes more inclined to vote Republicans into power so they can give big tax breaks and defense contracts to their cronies. And, of course, pay Mona Caren and the rest of them lots of money. We know how this works. (Read "Blinded By the Right." This is from the guy that started the whole "Clinton Scandals" lie. He talks about how they do it, how much they're paid, and the people doing it. People like Ted Olson, rewarded by Bush with the job of Solicitor General of the United States.) We know that they circulate lies to achieve their political goals. But the editor of the San Jose Mercury News has a RESPONSIBILITY to know, too! And a RESPONSIBILITY to look at a piece of trash like this column and say, "This is just a lie and I will not print it in my paper." And "responsible" columnists like David Broder have a responsibility to the public to alert them to this kind of lie, this kind of calculated smear. Just a couple of weeks ago we all watched ANOTHER calculated smear spread through the media. This was the one about Gore and the Springsteen tickets. It was just another made-up lie. But it was repeated. Back then I wrote about the old "Clinton haircut" smear, how that was spread. These are just lies, character assassination, and the way it works is the Republicans make up lies and spread them and when one lie dies down they make up a new lie and spread that one. How long can this character assassination/lie machine go on before enough of us are telling the rest of us what it is, making it ineffective? It worked on Carter and got Reagan elected. It kept Clinton from accomplishing very much. It got Bush elected. It threatens to take us into perpetual war now. --- Posted at 9/01/2002 10:36:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
A Lie Repeated, and Repeated, and Repeated! I'm fuming again. My morning is ruined by reading this damned LIE repeated in this morning's newspaper. Mona Charen, nationally syndicated columnist, in today's San Jose Mercury News, repeats and extends the lie about the NEA, starting it now with, all capitalized, "LIBERALS," "LIBERALS want to prevent Americans from feeling any sense of righteous fury about Sept. 11. How dare we, when we were responsible for slavery, imperialism, racism and an inadequate minimum wage?" She continues with the lie you're already familiar with, "The National Education Association has weighed in with suggestions to guide teachers on the first anniversary of the terror attacks. ``Do not suggest,'' the NEA advises, ``that any group is responsible. Do not repeat the speculations of others, including newscasters. Blaming . . . is especially difficult in terrorist situations because someone is at fault.'' Well, yes, someone is always at fault. And unless those that someone is a right-wing radio host, liberals just hate to see anyone blamed for anything." Listen to this whopper, "In New York (the NEA would like this), a teacher was suspended merely for telling her class that all of the individuals who attacked this country on Sept. 11 were Arabs." Reminds me of the time right-wingers were telling people about the guy "arrested for praying", but when I looked into it the guy was kneeling in the middle of the busiest intersection in town blocking all traffic. There's more, much more. "The NEA also tells teachers to say: ``We have no reason to believe that the attacks were part of an organized plan of any other country. The terrorists acted independently, without the sanction of any nation.'' This is false. Did Afghanistan not fully participate in the terrorists' attacks?" Well, no, actually, "Afghanistan" did NOT fully participate, didn't participate AT ALL, in the terror attack. They "Harbored" the terrorists. Here's how it ends, "The liberal hold on our education system amounts to a moral disarmament of the nation. Before there can be an Army, Navy and Air Force capable of protecting us, there must be a citizenry that believes we are worth defending." I am just fuming. How long is a lie like this allowed to spread. By now I'm sure that much of the public believes this. And, playing on emotions from the terrible Sept. 11 attacks there could be real consequences to stirring up the public with such inflammatory lies! How can my newspaper reprint something like this, lies from first word to last. How can this so-called "columnist" ever be printed in newspapers after knowingly circulating such trash! And most important, why is there no voice informing the public that this is a cruel, calculated, inflammatory lie, circulated by professional LIARS! Where are the so-called "responsible" journalists and editors when LIES like this are being circulated! Are they hiding, afraid to be branded with the dreaded "liberal" word? Have they no guts? Have the editors of the San Jose Mercury News and other papers circulating this inflammatory LIE no shame at all?! And now I'm even angrier than when I started writing this. --- Posted at 9/01/2002 09:57:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
8/31/2002 Ideology Meets Reality Earlier this week the New York Times had a story about implementation of Bush's big-deal Education Act. After all the talk about "failing schools" and freeing children from the grip of the socialist school systems, and national priorities, here's what happened "In Baltimore, of 30,000 children eligible to transfer to better schools, 347 have applied to fill 194 slots, school officials said." In my opinion the "education crisis" is a good example of a phony issue, whipped up to support ideological objectives, and driven to the top of the national agenda by use of large amounts of money and the Republican marketing machine. The Republicans poured so many millions and millions of dollars into getting their message out that public schools are bad, pounded the public with message after message that "the public schools are failing." It's a relentless drumbeat, and this week's smear story about the NEA "blaming America" is part of their strategy. You've probably seen the polls that show that most people think the education system is failing, but at the same time most people think THEIR local schools are just fine. It's those OTHER schools. EVERYONE knows that the schools are failing, but no one sees that in their OWN school districts. There MUST BE a problem, everyone says so, except not in the schools WE see, so it must be a problem in those OTHER schools. (It's like the Social Security system. EVERYONE knows it won't be there for them, even though the figures show that it's solid. Or like how before the 1984 election the got everyone believing that Congress is bad, but not THEIR member of Congress.) So Bush campaigned for President, playing on the belief the Republicans have created in the public mind about the terrible schools and how bad they are for the children and how so many parents are trying to escape, etc. It became the highest concern among those polled (except THEIR schools). He got his big-deal Education Act passed. Now they're implementing it and what are they finding? "In Baltimore, of 30,000 children eligible to transfer to better schools, 347 have applied to fill 194 slots, school officials said."Maybe the ideology got a little bit ahead of the reality? --- Posted at 8/31/2002 05:59:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
8/30/2002 Reforming Labor Law, and a Great Blog Thanks to Joe Kenehan Center for pointing out this Boston Globe Op-Ed piece about reforming labor law. "The view that the corporation exists only to enrich its stockholders has been accepted for too long. Corporate failure to similarly value other objectives - including the well-being of employees and their community - has helped produce today's scandals. Any reform package that fails to give employees the power to monitor executive behavior and protect their human capital investments fails to complete the job." --- Posted at 8/30/2002 05:01:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
War or Recession And on another point, I noticed that in the August 25, 2001 story referenced below Bush says that he would dip into the Social Security in the event of war or recession. He first said that five days before, on August 20. Unfortunate timing to start talking about the U.S. getting into a war. --- Posted at 8/30/2002 04:10:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
"Incredibly Positive News'' President Bush has been trying to deflect blame for the deficits. He tells his "trifecta" joke (lie, actually), and says Democrat spending is the cause. Here are some examples: CBS News, Jan. 23, 2002, "Republicans have blamed the worsening budget picture on the recession and the campaign against terrorism. They say annual surpluses will return shortly if the economy rebounds and if Democratic efforts to boost spending are rebuffed." NY Times, Aug. 28, 2002, "But White House officials and Congressional Republicans argued that the new deficits merely reflected the recent economic slowdown, the price of the war in Afghanistan and the costs of beefing up domestic security against terrorism. Dan L. Crippen, the director of the budget office, said the recession and the plunging stock markets appeared to have played a bigger role than the tax cuts in reducing tax revenues." Wash. Post, Aug. 27, 2002, "The president believes the lesson from today's CBO numbers is that Congress needs to hold the line on spending," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said from the president's ranch in Crawford, Tex. "And if Congress won't do it, the president will do it for Congress." And in another article, same paper, same day, "The real danger to the budget comes from pork-barrel spending by the Congress," declared White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. "We should control what we can," said Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels, "which is spending." MaxSpeak today gets into this with a very good piece suggesting that Republicans want deficits on purpose as a way to limit the size of government. Let me help sort this out, and note the date as he tries to blame 9/11. New York Times, August 25, 2001 President Bush said today that there was a benefit to the government's fast-dwindling surplus, declaring that it will create "a fiscal straitjacket for Congress." He said that was "incredibly positive news" because it would halt the growth of the federal government. --- Posted at 8/30/2002 03:27:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Light Blogging I know I haven't been putting much up here since the Sopranos 3rd season came out Tuesday on DVD. I have to return them by next Tuesday. --- Posted at 8/30/2002 12:37:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
8/29/2002 8/27/2002 Today's Google Experiment - Watch a Smear Spread The Daily Howler has been exploring an ongoing smear against the NEA, claiming that the teacher's union is asking teachers to "blame America first" for the 9/11 terrorism. The initial smear appeared in the Washington Times, the newspaper published by the Moonies. The original article referenced a paper by Brian Lippincott, saying that we should be careful not to blame all Muslims for 9/11. The smear twists this into a claim that the NEA says to teach children that we shouldn't blame the terrorists but should instead "blame America." So let's search on the words "Brian Lippincott NEA" and see what we find. Guess what? It's the usual web of Scaiff-funded right-wing organizations leading the list - Traditional Values Coalition, Concerned Women for America, Townhall (Heritage Foundation). Now let's try searching on "NEA Blame America First". Look at this gem from Ollie North! "The NEA -- and other 9-11 Deniers -- cannot be trusted to "Remember Sept. 11," when they refuse to forthrightly acknowledge what really happened on that terrible Tuesday morning. Wouldn't it be nice to have a teacher's union that didn't want to blame America first?" Keep in mind that this is just a bald-faced LIE, and click beyond the first page of Google results, at all the organizations and "columnists" repeating this lie! Look at this one, "NEA exploits 9/11 as propaganda tool" This is how it's done, folks. The Republicans have a huge machine out there and we know that about half the public believes this stuff! Question 1 - How many "reputable" journalists do you see standing up to this, and denouncing the lies? Question 2 - Isn't it time to restore the "Fairness Doctrine" so we can get more than the Republican side of issues discussed on the radio and TV networks that WE license to operate and serve THE PUBLIC INTEREST? --- Posted at 8/27/2002 11:57:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Do You Know Where YOUR 401K Is? Arianna Huffington in today's LA Times talks about a big mutual fund conflict of interest. They get fees for managing 401K accounts of large companies. If they vote against management of these corporations, or dump their stocks from their mutual funds, the owners of the shares of the fund (you) might do better, but the fund's management (them) rick having the companies dump them from managing the company's 401K plan, and the resulting revenues of the are in peril. THEIR money comes from management fees, NOT from how well their funds perform. "For instance, the nation's largest mutual fund, Fidelity, which owns 5.3% of Tyco's stock, also earned $2 million in 1999 for its part in running Tyco's 401(k) plans. Last year, more than 50% of Fidelity's $9.8 billion in revenue was generated by administering 401(k) plans and other employee benefit services for about 11,000 companies, including Philip Morris, Shell, IBM, Monsanto and Ford." Those running the mutual funds know that if they rock the boat they jeopardize their chances of getting the contracts for these services. So, with ownership essentially AWOL, irresponsible corporate execs have been allowed to run wild. Not surprisingly, mutual funds have consistently refused to disclose how they vote. As California Treasurer Phil Angelides told me, "That silence speaks volumes."Whose interests do you think they are going to choose? Yours or their own? --- Posted at 8/27/2002 11:16:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
8/26/2002 Ongoing Questions - Keeping Them In Your Face Why won't Bush release those SEC files that he says clear up all the questions about his Harken transactions? And what about the minutes of the Harken Board meetings, so we can find out if Bush approved of the Aloha Petroleum scam? Did Bush pay taxes on that Harken loan money? Did Bush pay taxes when he sold the Texas Rangers? Why isn't there an INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION of Harken and Haliburton? Why isn't there an INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION of what we knew, and where we failed, regarding 9/11? (See Bartcop today, "Partners in Crime") Why aren't there any jobs programs for people whose unemployment benefits are running out? Who is our economy for? What Bush Says Now - What Bush Did Then. (I know, it's not a question, but it does start with the word "what.") --- Posted at 8/26/2002 02:14:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
From a Reader I received a message from a reader (THANKS!) in response to what I wrote about corporate ownership of news sources. From the September Harper's Index; Number of appearances made by corporate representatives on US network nightly newscasts last year: 955 Number of appearances made by labor representatives: 31And I suspect that the bulk of those 31 representatives of labor were on PBS, which is funded but not owned outright by corporations. --- Posted at 8/26/2002 01:40:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
8/25/2002 I just discovered Flashpoints. I'm not sure if white on orange is good for you, though. --- Posted at 8/25/2002 07:58:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
There's an interesting stock market poll on Newstrolls. --- Posted at 8/25/2002 07:56:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
They're Not Listening Today's Washington Post talks about the politics of the deficit. Voters trust Bush and the Republicans on the economy more than the Democrats, even after it is explained that the deficit has soared, unemployment is up, the economy has collapsed, etc. A poll for the Democratic Leadership Council this spring by Mark Penn dramatically illustrates Dowd's point. Voters trusted Bush over congressional Democrats, 47 to 40 percent, to handle the economy. Penn then went for the jugular: "Before President Bush took office, the country was experiencing the fastest economic growth, the first budget surplus in a generation and the lowest unemployment in history. Since President Bush took office, the economy has entered a recession, the trillion-dollar surplus is now a serious deficit and 1.4 million people have lost their jobs," his poll states, before again asking who voters trust. And again, Bush came out on top, 46 to 44 percent. Said Democratic pollster Anna Greenberg: "People are confused by what the deficit is, what the debt is. The numbers are of such magnitude that they're hard to comprehend. As an issue, it's incredibly complicated."I think they're not listening. I think "we" - moderates and progressives - underestimate just how many people are listening to Rush Limbaugh. It doesn't matter what the facts are. If Rush says it's Clinton's fault, about half the people in this country are going to repeat that. Illustrating my point is a line in today's New York Times article, The Selling of America, Bush Style. The idea that advertising could "sway the ideas of whole populations, change their habits of life, create belief, practically universal in any policy or idea" ...Democrats aren't going to get their message across until they are ready to start doing what it takes to counter the right-wing message machine. Yesterday I wrote about Democrats needing to push to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. AM radio has become a 24/7 advertisement for the Republican Party. Equally important, moderate and progressive foundations must start funding organizations that counter the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute and other parts of the right-wing web. --- Posted at 8/25/2002 09:50:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
8/24/2002 Corporate Ownership of News Sources Here's an interesting and very rare story about the problems workers have when trying to organize a union. This story covered a June 20 Senate heading on obstacles workers encounter when trying to organize unions. Rather than get into the specifics of the story, I want to get into why this is a story that you just don't see on TV, hear about on the radio or read about in your newspaper. (Did you know that the Senate was holding hearings on union organizing? Did you hear even a mention of this anywhere? Did you know that in 1998 24,000 workers were fired for trying to organize unions, even though it is illegal to fire someone for trying to form a union?) I propose a simple test of how much of what we see and hear as "news" has shifted toward the pro-corporate perspective: How many stories about unions and working people do you see, hear and read in the news media? We need to recognize just how pervasive corporate control of news issues has become. When discussing the idea that corporations are controlling what you see and hear in the news, ask how many stories cover unions, union organizing, workers rights or other similar topics? Anyone would have to admit that these are very rare stories. Compare the amount of coverage of worker issues with the coverage of business issues in the news, stories about what different companies are doing, their products, etc. Certainly most of the people watching the news are working people, as are most of the people in the country. There are between 16 and 17 million union members in the U.S. That is 14% of all wage and salary workers. How does this compare to the Christian Coalition (2.8M)? The NRA (4M)? U.S. Chamber of Commerce (3M)? But which do you see represented on news shows? Whose spokespeople do you see talking? The media used to cover these stories. Radio and TV stations used to be required to cover stories of concern to working people in exchange for getting their licenses. Reagan managed to get this requirement pulled, and the Democrats have not worked to restore public control over the public airwaves. As a result there has been a major change in what is discussed. The change has happened gradually so it hasn't jumped out at us, but if you think back there used to be quite a bit of coverage of stories important to regular working people, and stories about workers and their issues. It would seem that restoring the Fairness Doctrine would be the #1 issue for Democrats for their own career interests as well as the interest of the working people they say they represent! --- Posted at 8/24/2002 12:22:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
8/22/2002 Today's Google Experiment Today's Google experiment reminds members of the media how right-wingers feel about them. Go to Google and look up, "Bill Stewart ABC Nicaragua" or click here. Executed in front of the camera by Samoza's National Guard, later to become Reagan & Bush's friends the Contras. (I haven't seen the video since that day. Is it on the web anywhere? I can't find it.) The history of right-wing treatment of the press is not good. Media people - do you really think it's a good idea to be shilling for right-wingers? "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." - Ann Coulter, author of New York Times #1 Best Seller, Slander --- Posted at 8/22/2002 11:06:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
The Man I enthusiastically refer you to sticking it to the man.com. --- Posted at 8/22/2002 09:56:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
8/21/2002 Sharon Telling Us How to Vote? Isn't it grossly inappropriate for foreign leaders to campaign for candidates in the U.S.? Has this ever happened before? Americans used to resent foreign leaders attempting to influence our elections. I remember it cost Major severely when he tried to help Bush I against Clinton, but at least he did that from England and didn't come over here to tell us how to vote. --- Posted at 8/21/2002 06:51:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
8/20/2002 The Retirement Plan of the Unemployed Man I took a trip down to the local liquor store to put a couple of dollars into the retirement plan. It’s up to $86 million this week. So I was thinking about what I’ll do with the money, and I started thinking about the taxes. Then I realized that rich people get rich by inheriting money, while working people (or unemployed people) get rich by winning the lottery. The Republicans say that people who get their money from inheritance shouldn’t have to pay any taxes. But I’m going to have to pay a huge amount of taxes when I win tomorrow night. It’s just one more way The Man beats you down. --- Posted at 8/20/2002 02:45:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
WOW The coming populist revolution? By Arianna Huffington. Everybody, read this twice. "This time we have a story to organize around, a story that has it all: narrative power, colorful crooks, sympathetic victims, juicy details (who can forget Kozlowski's $6,000 shower curtain?), political intrigue, global fallout. A story so compelling that even our part-of-the-problem media giants can't ignore it." --- Posted at 8/20/2002 10:19:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Fixing Demand While I'm fixing everything (see below), how about this: I keep reading that the economy is being saved by consumer spending. The stock market is up 17% in the last few weeks because consumers are still spending. It's good to see the Wall Street types praising the economic value of consumer demand. Maybe this is a good time to push for policies that put more money into the hands of average Americans and increase consumer demand, like raising the minimum wage, increasing and extending unemployment benefits, job training programs, income redistribution programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit and other DEMAND SIDE government programs! --- Posted at 8/20/2002 10:00:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Fixing the Energy Problem In the 1992 campaign Jerry Brown made a suggestion that I haven't forgotten. He suggested putting the unemployed to work retrofitting buildings and homes to be energy efficient. It requires an up-front investment but it returns a more efficient economy (everyone paying less for energy) and national energy independence as a foreign policy bonus. Meanwhile all those unemployed people are getting and spending paychecks, boosting the economy. It helps everyone but the oil companies. Oh. I guess not, then. --- Posted at 8/20/2002 09:54:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Fixing Taxes I wrote below that we paid $359 billion debt interest last year. The numbers are here - warning, this is a spreadsheet to download. Look at row 1038. $359 billion is a huge number. And that's $359 billion every year. Imagine what we could do with that money. We could cut taxes, fix every social problem, and still have money left over to clean up pollution, feed the world, maybe even colonize mars. OK I'm exaggerating but it's a lot of money It seems to me that this level of debt interest proves cutting taxes means higher taxes later if it involves borrowing or not paying off debt. We got in this mess by cutting taxes for the rich. We're digging the hole deeper with the Bush tax cuts. (Just wait until the resulting Social Security bomb goes off, and we have to raise taxes to pay for that.) It also seems to me that imposing a big fat "pay off the debt tax" now would mean everyone would pay much lower taxes later. Of course, we don't want to hurt consumer demand so the tax would have to be on the higher brackets. And not on income - as I wrote below we'll need to be raising the cap on income for Social Security. So it would have to be a tax on wealth, like Ken Lay's 18 homes, or the other billions that CEOs took while their companies went down in flames. (Get the money FROM where the money WENT.) Cut taxes now, higher taxes later. Raise taxes now, world prosperity later. I think that paying down this massive debt would help, not hurt the economy. Maybe an economist will explain why this isn't a good idea - or at least offer an alternative that pays off this debt. Please don't write if your income is above $85,000 - I'll just chalk it up to cognitive dissonance. --- Posted at 8/20/2002 09:37:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Fixing Social Security This letter in the Washington Post today points out that raising the cap on earnings that are subject to Social Security taxes would cover any anticipated shortfall. We keep hearing that Social Security is "in crisis" and might not be able to pay our retirement benefits, when raising this cap would fix everything. That sounds complicated, but it is significant, so let's look at what it means. Everyone who gets a paycheck pays a Social Security tax. This is the largest tax that most Americans pay. But most people don't know that you don't even pay this tax on money you make after you make $85,000. And you only pay it on money you earn by working. You don't pay it on income from an inheritance, or from stock gains, or the other ways that the very rich get their money. Only on money you get in a paycheck from working. Got that? If you make MORE than $85,000 you stop paying this tax. If you inherit or make your money from stocks or real estate or other ways money is made if you already have a lot of money you don't pay this tax. Only working people pay this tax. The largest tax that average working Americans pay, and it isn't even paid on working incomes above $85,000. But it gets worse. Keep reading. Where does this Social Security tax money go? We're told that Social Security is a "ponzi scheme" and people paying in now are paying the retirement of people who are retired now. But actually much more is being paid in than is being paid out. This surplus, (the largest amount taken from most of our paychecks and which is not paid when you make more than $85,000), is loaned to the government, used to pay for general budget items, and the government owes that money to the Social Security fund. The government is borrowing this because huge tax cuts for the rich, starting under Reagan and continuing under Bush, leave the government without enough money to pay its bills. Got that? The largest tax paid by average working people goes back out to cover tax CUTS for the rich. But it gets even worse. Keep reading. When we get to the point where there is no more Social Security surplus Social Security will need to start collecting the money that the government borrowed. It has to collect this in order to meet its payments to retired people. If the government can't pay back these loans, retired people won't get their Social Security checks. Where will the government get this money? The only way the government is meeting its obligations NOW is by borrowing money FROM Social Security. What happens when Social Security needs to start getting money BACK instead? The money that is supposed to be there will have been spent on tax cuts for the rich. But who depends on this Social Security money? The very working people who are getting soaked now to cover these tax cuts for the rich. So if we raise the cap on income that is taxed for Social Security, making high-income working people pay THE SAME amount as people who make less, it covers any anticipated Social Security shortfall. Yet if this money just goes back out as tax cuts for the rich we still won't get our Social Security when we retire. But wait, I have to throw this in. Last year the government paid out $359 billion for debt interest. That's money paid to cover the interest on the "Reagan debt," which accumulated because of tax cuts for the rich. This is the largest item in our budget. We pay tax money, and $359 billion of it is paid out to people who had the means to loan trillions to the government. (Guess who.) I'm just trotting out some of that there (forbidden) populism to see how it sounds. --- Posted at 8/20/2002 07:56:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
8/19/2002 Populists Eschaton has a good one today, pointing to a TAP piece. He says the Republicans became the Populists, calling the Democrats the "elitists". A friend of mine says, "Republicans know how to fight a class war. And then they say you're the class warrior, and usually you even don't know what's happening to you." --- Posted at 8/19/2002 10:30:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
More on Iraq Truthout has a story about the possibility that the Iraq war has already begun. "The fact of the matter is that American military concentrations are already unobtrusively present in northern and southern Iraq." Here is what I wrote yesterday. --- Posted at 8/19/2002 09:54:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
8/18/2002 Fed Intervening in Stock Market? This article is from June, but it discusses something I've been noticing in the stock market. At the end of a bad day the market suddenly rallies, so it closes up or at least well off the day's lows. --- Posted at 8/18/2002 06:20:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Really Funny Dubya French-Roast sent me this really funny Dubya link! THANKS!! --- Posted at 8/18/2002 05:57:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Terminus Joins the Club Terminus has joined the club. "Ladies and gentlemen, your humble blogger is umemployed. " --- Posted at 8/18/2002 05:43:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Has the War Already Begun? This story in Asia Times offers a very interesting perspective - that Bush may have already secretly started the war. Earlier this year, a British journalist asked Bush how exactly he was going to get rid of Saddam Hussein. He replied, "Wait and see." The journalist, like many of his colleagues, may well still be waiting - for lack of ability to see that the war is on. Some high-speed, high-intensity strikes may later be called "The Iraq War", but it began no later than March. --- Posted at 8/18/2002 03:44:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Good Op-Ed Piece Today's LA Times, The Rah-Rah Boys. Definitely worth a read. Here's just a little bit of it: The prominence of these people [media commentators] and others like them were, to a great degree, unrelated to their skills as economic prognosticators. Their trade was politics, and at it they were wildly successful. Americans were indeed persuaded to roll back the regulatory state in the 1990s, to give the corporations whatever they wanted, to slash welfare, to smash the labor unions and even to (sort of) elect the most pro-corporate administration since Herbert Hoover's, headed by a man who promised to privatize Social Security. Today, though, the picture has changed. And for most of last year's gurus, the battle has simply shifted. Now it is a matter of blame and they are on the defensive, fighting to rescue their beloved free market with even more zeal than when they were talking up the Nasdaq back in '98. The crash has brought the consequences that crashes always bring: a return of the regulatory state, demands for the end of excessive CEO pay, public anger at businessmen rather than liberal college professors and--who knows?--maybe the revival of labor unions and the estate tax. For the business class the stakes are huge, and the job that confronts their army of economic commentators is weightier than ever. --- Posted at 8/18/2002 03:17:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Iraq Comment I want to ask a few questions of logic on the issue of going after Iraq based on fear they are developing weapons of mass destruction. If they really are developing such weapons then aren't our armed forces at great risk of being attacked with them? Also, isn't there a grave likelihood of those weapons being used against nearby Israel? And what about the likelihood of an attack on Iraq provoking a biological attack on us at home? But the Administration argues that overthrowing the regime will be "a cakewalk." That's a contradiction - If there are such weapons to justify the attack how can they say it will be so easy? If such weapons are used, are we going to retaliate? Is Israel? If so, how, and who to retaliate against? Since part of the justification for the idea of attacking Iraq is that the Iraqi people oppose the current government how can we in any way justify attacking a city full of our supposed supporters? Maybe we could attack ANOTHER country! All of this is in response to the World Trade Center attack of 9/11 even though there is no evidence at all that Iraq had anything to do with that. Using our logic for attacking Iraq in response to 9/11, if Iraq uses weapons of mass destruction would this justify our going after, perhaps North Korea. None of this is to say that we shouldn't do something about Iraq if there really is evidence that they are again developing weapons of mass destruction. The Administration has not seen fit to share with us any evidence. None at all. Again, if it really is the case, we need to do something. But we also need to think it through, and make an HONEST case to the public. Bush is not doing this. --- Posted at 8/18/2002 12:37:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Fuming This story, Bush Pledges to Balance Budget and the Bush radio address it reports on, has me fuming. I just read it, and I'm reacting. I ran to the computer to type this. I probably should wait a bit, but here goes... The cynicism is beyond astounding! When you think you're ready for anything this administration will put out, they find something that will just shock you. This cynical and hypocritical attempt to trick the public and shift blame is just astonishing. "We cannot go down the path of soaring budget deficits," Bush said. Bush's tax cuts and huge spending increases PUT US on the path of soaring deficits! Tough sounding words like these are an attempt to trick the public into thinking Bush is trying to solve the problem, when it is his tax policies and spending increases that are making things so much worse. He accused the Democrat-led Senate of "ignoring fiscal discipline" and all but threatened to veto its spending bills if senators persist in trying to increase funds for programs such as public housing and agricultural research by hundreds of millions of dollars more than Bush wants. According to our constitution spending bills originate in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, NOT THE SENATE! This is the most cynical thing I have seen in a long time. Trying to trick the public into thinking that the Democrats in the Senate are the cause of this huge deficit, through spending, when the Democrats didn't even control the Senate when the budget was passed. The Republicans controlled the House, the Senate and the White House. Why does the press fail to point out basic facts such as this? After watching what happened under Reagan I fear that the public could very well fall for this. As you read this next, keep in mind that the Republican House of Representatives originating the budget, and a Republican Senate, signed by Bush, passed nearly the largest spending increase in our history, while passing huge tax cuts that only go to the very wealthy. "For the good of our economy, for the good of the people who pay taxes, my administration will spend what is truly needed, and not a dollar more," Bush said in the radio broadcast. "A common theme among many panelists was that we must leave every dollar we can in the hands of the people who have earned it," Bush said. If you read this weblog you already know how I feel about this. (Blogger's links never seem to work on Sundays. Scorll down to the piece titled, "What?" and then the one above it titled, "Wait". --- Posted at 8/18/2002 09:13:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
8/17/2002 Huge Media Scandal The news that President Bush has been rewarding campaign donors with sleepovers at the White House has generated a major media scandal reminiscent of the Clinton years, with special reports on all network news broadcasts, hour upon hour of talk radio discussion, front-page newspaper headlines, nonstop coverage on the cable news channels, congressional hearings and a Justice Dept. investigation. Not. --- Posted at 8/17/2002 07:57:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
8/16/2002 Prius Brad DeLong, says the financial side seems to make buying a Toyota Prius "nearly irresistible." --- Posted at 8/16/2002 04:42:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Fix It It's not about whether the recession started under Clinton, it's what the current administration is going to DO ABOUT IT!! (From a year ago.) --- Posted at 8/16/2002 01:33:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Job? Me? skippy the bush kangaroo has a good piece titled, "of course i don't have a job, that's why i can spend all day blogging" I'm in Silicon Valley, living a few blocks from the empty Excite@Home campus. Somewhere between 20% and 30% of all office space in this area, including San Francisco, is vacant. (How does that square with unemployment being only 7.6%?) Quite a few people I know are unemployed. Of course, that's why I go on morning walks with them and spend so much time blogging myself. ;-) I wonder if one of those friends writes an anonymous blog? I wonder if they wonder that about me? Is one of them skippy? Do we need a blogTIPS program? --- Posted at 8/16/2002 12:05:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Bush Income Tax Evasion? Long ago I read about Ed Meese (Reagan's Atty General) receiving $200,000 "loans that he didn't have to repay." Since then I've wondered whether he ever paid the taxes. The rule is that if you get a loan and don't repay it, it must be reported as income, and you must pay taxes on it. Because it really IS income and really ISN'T a loan. (This also happens when you default on a loan that you can't pay, but you can get out of that to the extent you can prove you really were insolvent.) Also, if you get a loan with very low interest, the difference between that interest and current market interest rates must be reported as income. You read about corporate executives getting these "loans" and not having to repay them, but you never hear whether they paid taxes on the income. I've always wondered if they're paying the taxes. Finally someone else is wondering the same thing. Democrats.com asks the question, "So the question we ask is this: did George W. Bush report the full value of his forgiven Harken loans as income on his 1993 tax return?" Bush has not released his tax returns for that year, which tells me that maybe there's something there he doesn't want us to know. He refused to release the SEC records of the Harken insider trading probe. He refuses to release the Harken Board minutes that will show to what extent he took part in the Aloha Petroleum scam sale. And he hasn't released the tax returns that will show if he engaged in income tax evasion. From the Democrats.com story, "The very core of Mr. Bush's presidential campaign was to "restore honor and integrity" to the White House. Without that promise, Mr. Bush would never have left Texas. This promise requires Mr. Bush to not only talk about "honor and integrity," but to prove it." --- Posted at 8/16/2002 09:34:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
The cable modem was down all day yesterday. --- Posted at 8/16/2002 06:55:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
8/14/2002 Multiplier Effects If consumers are holding on to record debt (stories here and here and here) how are they going to spend us out of this economic trouble? Maybe it isn't really over. But if not, are current policies causing a multiplier effect if the economy does dip back to recession? From what I read, the economy is currently being propped up by what most people seem to agree is a "bubble" in housing prices. So far this housing bubble has allowed consumers to keep spending just enough to keep the economy afloat for now. But if refinancing houses rather than rising incomes is the source of funds to keep up the spending binge, won't this have a multiplier effect on any downturn? (Economy propped up by housing bubble, spending slows, economy slows, pops the housing price bubble, people stop spending, economy slows more, many lose houses, economic drop accelerates.) Multiplier effects are worrying me lately. We have had a period where stock prices rather than the underlying strength of the companies became an underpinning of the economy. For example, the pension problem - pension funds invested in stocks, stocks rise, companies don't have to make contributions, AND their books look better because the pension funds are claimed as assets. As long as the market was going up everyone's books looked great but now underfunded pension plans will have to drain cash out of companies, lower that previously claimed asset, all lowering earnings, eventually causing the market to go even lower, accelerating any downturn. Same thing with insurance companies - reserves in the stock market, market drops, not enough reserves to cover obligations. As I said, many companies were propped up by their stock prices not their own strength. So when the market drops it multiplies the effect. By the way, I'm not an economist or an expert, just a worrier. Take a look at this chart and decide for yourself if we are past the stock bubble. --- Posted at 8/14/2002 11:35:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
8/13/2002 Wait Wait. Later he said "We're working hand in hand to see to it that Congress finally gets the message that we need a terrorism insurance bill to get American hard hats back to work. (Applause.) People say, does it matter? Of course it matters. There's over $8 billion of commercial construction that has been suspended last year. That means $8 billion worth of projects in which somebody is going to be able to work and put food on the table for their family." So he at least understands that if the government spends money on construction, that means construction jobs putting money into the hands of American families. Did I read it right? Or is he saying that if the government bails out big insurance companies that will lead to construction? I'm confused. If the government spends it means money in the hands of the big insurance companies which leads to construction of insurance company buildings? (The big insurance companies had their money in the stock market and now don't have the cash to cover their obligations. It might be as big as the pension problem story) but that's another story. --- Posted at 8/13/2002 06:31:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
What? I saw Bush on TV saying "More money spent in Washington means less money in the hands of American families and entrepreneurs; less money in the hands of risk-takers and job creators." Read the transcript here. What? The guy who signed the farm bill said this? Does he think that the money the government spends disappears into outer space? (And into the hands of large corporate farms.) That comment has cost me any last bit of hope I was holding on to that the economy is going to recover. Not as long as this guy's in the White House. --- Posted at 8/13/2002 06:20:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
8/12/2002 Thin Line Between Company and Party (Part 1) I know that Enron has fallen off of the front pages lately but I think looking back with hindsight might offer insight into the “corporate responsibility” problems. A few months back I was reading about all the cash that Enron had been giving to the Republicans. Then I learned that Enron was also making significant indirect contributions to The Party. That got me tracing campaign money in general, and the question occurs to me, “Where does the company end, and "The Party" begin?” Here’s an example of Enron company money indirectly used to benefit The Party. Perhaps you remember reading that Enron employed Ralph Reed while he really worked for the Bush campaign. Enron payroll -> Bush campaign employee. Here’s four stories about this – one, two, three, four. Now take a look at Ed Gillespie, former communications director at the RNC and a top communications advisor to the Bush campaign. He was paid at least $525,000 from Enron for "lobbying" immediately after the campaign ended. This sounds a lot like the Reed arrangement. This year-old story (from before Enron's collapse) seems very relevant today. From Page 2: In May, Gillespie launched the 21st Century Energy Project, financed by such pro-Bush conservative groups as Americans for Tax Reform and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Ostensibly, the group's aim is to advance Bush's energy plan. But its other mission is to kill any attempt by Democrats to institute price caps to alleviate the energy crisis in the West. Which also happens to be the main goal of one of Gillespie's newest clients, Enron--the energy behemoth with closer ties to the Bush administration than perhaps any other corporation. (The company's employees and executives have given more to Bush than has any other single company.) Last week the project ran its first round of ads, which will neatly complement the series of town meetings the White House is conducting on energy policy. With the energy project, which expects to spend $500,000, Gillespie not only helps Enron but also serves as the "bad cop" attacking the Democrats on energy policy while the White House remains above the partisan fray.We can get into Citizens for a Sound Economy and Americans for Tax Reform later. (There’s a lot there.) This leads us into Enron “lobbying” cash that is really just more indirect cash to The Party. Here's an article that tracks $1,785,000 of "lobbying" money that Enron spent just in the first half of 2001. How much of that money really went to activities to benefit The Party? Yet another path for Enron corporate contributions to The Party is the so-called “think tanks.” There are several supposedly independent think tanks that are really just extensions of The Party. Here's a story. OK, OK, you get the point, Enron found lots of ways to give a LOT of money to the Republicans. Where am I going with this? I'm only writing about Enron tonite. There's much more. (In Part 2) Amway, tobacco companies, drug companies, and many others are operating as if they are the funding arm of The Party! Where does the company end and The Party begin? How does it benefit the shareholders of a company when the executives are pouring untold millions into The Party rather than to shareholders as profits? We might cynically say that they are buying government benefits, tax breaks, etc. that increase profits, but it's ILLEGAL to donate money with the expectation of political favors, isn't it? And if they don't KNOW they'll be granted favors they're pissing away shareholder money. So either they're acting unethically by donating with the understanding that it's a bribe or by pouring shareholder money into The Party. It is one or the other. “Corporate Reform" reforms nothing if it does not address the freedom with which Boards and Executives are working hand-in-hand with the Republicans! Independent Boardmembers are not independent at all if they are merely ideological soldiers of The Party, infiltrating our corporations to carry out Party funding missions. Fat Chance the Congress will address this, but the shareholding public needs to be made aware of this additional way that their Boards and Officers have their hands in the till. --- Posted at 8/12/2002 09:36:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Bush's PR Summit Bush is holding a PR summit tomorrow, and Demcorats are not invited. It seems to me that if the Democrats were smart about PR, they would have a few Democratic members of Congress camping outside, occasionally banging on the doors, for the benefit of the news cameras. --- Posted at 8/12/2002 07:55:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Why the Dems? Nathan Newman has a good piece titled WHY THE DEMS? He looks at California where the Democrats got control of the Assembly, Senate and Governor's office in 1998 (except for issues that require 2/3 votes), and what they have since accomplished. Greens, please go read it. --- Posted at 8/12/2002 03:38:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
On the Radio I had to drive my wife to work. On the radio Paul Harvey said that Saddam Hussein "blew the top off of New York." I wonder how many of the right's audience even knows the difference between Bin Laden & al-Queda, Afghanistan and Iraq. Or even knows that there IS a difference. I think the Bush people are counting on them not knowing. And they'll use the "don't you hate those know-it-alls" against anyone who does know the difference. Sean Hannity says Time Magazine made up their big story, that Time is just lying, this is all just the Liberal Media working to defeat Bush, don't believe them, etc. Hannity says that the Clinton people not only didn't put together a plan to go after al-Queda and present it to the new Bush administration, but that the Clinton people didn't do anything to try to get al-Queda and even rejected offers from several countries to hand Bin Laden over. The Bush people are really scared that people are going to find out they sat on their hands and ignored the terrorist threat, so they're pulling out the stops on this one. They seem really afraid of the consequences of the Time article. --- Posted at 8/12/2002 02:34:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Trees Over at Blah3 there's a boint-by-point rebuttal to a letter from a Rush fan. It's a fairly long piece, he does a good job rebutting each point. But this is what I've been saying about trees. A lot of energy went into this. And each point made by the letter-writer was just a repeat of a Republican lie. What's worse, you'll see all of these points repeated over and over and over by this letter-writer, Rush, right-wing pundits, candidates, etc. for years. See the forest -- It's what they do. Blah3's piece starts with the dittohead writing, "Last year on January 20 we said good bye to 8 years of crime, cover-ups, and smokescreens." Never mind that President Clinton was cleared of every single accusation except that he got a blow job. Every single accusation was a phony made-up lie that was part of a coordinated attempt to destroy a presidency - and which led to the election of Bush with all of its consequences. And of course the complete and utter lack of evidence is proof there was a massive cover-up, right? But there I go arguing trees. It's hard not to get into it when you see that kind of nonsense repeated. It's hard not to try to refute each lie. But it wastes energy. We need to find ways to more effectively fight this. I think that getting people to see when they're being bombarded with lies might help. By the way, Clinton didn't "play golf with" Enron's Ken Lay. The true story will tell you how far the Republicans go to make up these lies. Check out this Daily Howler piece. Here's what the Republicans use as the basis of their claim that Clinton "played golf with" or was a "golf partner with" Ken Lay: "Clinton began his vacation with a bipartisan golf match Saturday at the Country Club of the Rockies in Vail, Colo., teaming up with fellow Democrat (and golf pro) Jack Nicklaus to take on the Republican duo of former president Gerald Ford and Houston businessman Ken Lay." THAT becomes "golf partner." Understand what they do - that is the forest. --- Posted at 8/12/2002 10:03:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Disgusted I was reading the San Francisco Chronicle's Op-Ed pages this morning and came across this, about Al Gore. It contains the following: This from a man who was raised in a Washington hotel penthouse by Sen. Al Gore Sr., who groomed him for the presidency. Gore blames his loss not on a faux populism, but on too many high-priced consultants telling him to wear brown suits.The op-ed piece reads like a parady of Daily Howler. If you're not familiar with Daily Howler please go take a look. Bob Somerby has spent at least 2 years looking into how the press covers politics, particularly the coverage of Al Gore during the election and the lies and how they were started by the Republicans and endlessly repeated by the press. Gore was not raised in a Washington penthouse, and Somerby has gone into great detail about how the Republicans planted that, and how the press continues to repeat the lie. In fact, Somerby has done such a good job going into this, and his work, or similar debunking of the Republicans lies, has been written about in enough places that it is inexcusable to think that any journalism professional would STILL be writing these lies. The SF Chronicle should not have allowed this lie to (again) get into print. Here's something I wrote a month ago on a similar subject. --- Posted at 8/12/2002 08:05:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
8/11/2002 Blog Plug I happened upon "Let it Begin Here" and I recommend taking a read. --- Posted at 8/11/2002 02:03:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Copyright © 2002-05. |
Blogger's RSS feed 
Please help Seeing the Forest meet expenses. You can contribute using Paypal or Amazon by clicking either of the following buttons. Thanks! I took out the Amazon "donate button" because they are a red company, helping fund the right. Archives 
|
|||