Buddy Roemer Nails It!

"Republican presidential candidate Buddy Roemer came out in favor of “Occupy Wall Street” on Wednesday, voicing his support for the movement that other Republican candidates have decried as harmful and distracting.

“As I continue touring college campuses throughout New Hampshire, I am reminded of all the young Americans currently taking part in the Occupy Wall Street movement. Please know that I stand by you,” Roemer said in a statement.

The protests fit well with Roemer’s presidential platform, which focuses on the corrupting influence of money in politics. Pursuant to that stance, his campaign accepts donations no larger than $100 from any individual."

Did Al Gore Invent Global Warming?

This 1956 video shows that science had documented global warming and its effects on the climate over 60 years ago.

Chain Political Emails - 96% lies?

PolitiFact gave Mitt Romney a "Pants on Fire" rating for using an out of context clip of President Obama saying, "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose." The President was quoting John McCain, and the clip is three years old.

PolitiFact concludes that only about 4% of all chain political emails are completely accurate and only about 9% are mostly accurate. More than half are so inaccurate that they earn a "Pants on Fire" rating (As in "Liar, liar, pants on fire!).

Americans deserve better from those who seek our votes and our trust. The story of George Washington and the cherry tree is an example both candidates and voters should keep in mind.

Whatever Happened to Peaceful Protesting?

With baby boomers forming such a large part of the population, you would think that we would remember how ugly using excessive police violence against protesters is. For those who have forgotten the tragedy of Kent State, recall the WTO conferences in Seattle and Pittsburgh.

Evidently those memories fade quickly. Not only have they faded, but new technologies and the steady adoption of the latest military weaponry by local police has created scenes that we used to only see in science fiction as the scrappy rebels faced off against the imperial storm troopers. Here are a few examples from recent events in California.

First, here is a scene from UC Davis where peaceful protesters are sprayed with pepper spray.

Or this scene from Occupy Oakland a few weeks earlier as police cleared the area. The wounded man is a Iraq war vet.

Pittsburgh police demonstrated more weaponry against protesters at the WTO meeting in 2009. A armored vehicle equipped with a sonic gun that can permanently injure one's hearing.

What's next? Drones?

Flat Tax - A Cure for a Non-Problem?

Candidates Perry and Cain have proposed competing flat tax proposals that are appealing for their apparent simplicity. A better test of their value might would be whether these proposals treat Americans equitably and whether they address the problems our economy faces.

The argument that a flat tax would help the economy is based on the premise that it would lead to increased investment in US businesses, plant and equipment resulting in job creation. This approach presumes that our economic woes are rooted in insufficient capital investment and productive capacity.

Reality intrudes at this point. The problems we face stem not from a lack of productive capacity or the capital needed to invest in new plant and equipment. China and the US already have too much productive capacity. The banks have too much cash. Our public companies have low debt equity ratios. The problem lies in the market place where stagnating wages, low home values, and exported jobs have sapped the ability of the consumer to buy new goods and services.

The Flat Tax approach will exacerbate this problem by increasing taxes on most consumers thereby limiting their ability to purchase new goods and services. Without growing markets, new investments will fail to generate the kinds of returns needed to justify them.

It's no wonder that it's the wealthiest voices that are fervently backing the Flat Tax approach; they will be its biggest beneficiaries, at least in the short term. In the long run, continuing to increase taxes on the middle class and poor will only shrink our markets and further damage our economy.

Let the Markets Work....the way they are supposed to

Candidates for the Republican presidential nomination prescribe allowing free market forces to work as critical to curing our economic woes. I agree 100%.

Most of these same candidates ignore the conditions that free markets require to work their magic. Effective free markets need free and open competition among participants. Unfortunately if left to themselves, markets tend toward monopolies undermining the competition that makes free markets effective. Government's critical role is to act as an unbiased referee to minimize anti-competitive practices such as price fixing, collusion, and other barriers to efficient markets and their benefits.

Teddy Roosevelt understood the referee's role when he busted the trusts (monopolies) and called for a "Fair Deal" to allow new and smaller companies to compete on a fairer basis.

Teddy would likely be appalled to see what passes for 'free markets' these days. A handful of "too big to fail" national banks dominate the marketplace and take huge risks with tax payer guaranteed money. A few, very large health care insurers and pharmaceutical companies have been handed huge markets to divide up among themselves. Their customers are either not allowed to bargain for prices or are so disadvantaged by knowledge and regulations that they cannot bargain effectively. Creativity has been stifled by new copyright extensions which limit the size of and access to our public domain for the benefit a few large media companies. Big Oil, Big Defense, Big Airlines....the list goes on, but the thread is the same: competition has become so stifled that our "free markets" are no longer free.

How did this happen? The referee has been bought and paid for. The rules that used to provide for a level playing field have been corrupted to create an unfair advantage to those with the deepest pockets and most access to the national legislative process.

A recent Bloomberg article proclaimed that "the area surrounding the nation's capital is now the richest in the nation". At the same time Federal employment is down, but the number of lobbyist representing the private sector has steadily increased. This well heeled population surrounding the nation's capital earns makes it's living from corporations, industry groups and labor unions who employ them to tailor government policy to their liking. It's a big expense, but also sound investments which provide excellent returns to their investors.

We need to restore our free markets to health by making them level again and reopening them to the competitive forces essential to their proper functioning. How? By restoring the level playing field to our electoral process. The necessity to raise huge campaign contributions requires that both candidates and incumbents be bought and sold by the highest bidder before they take office or if they have a chance at reelection. Even a member of the House has to raise about $20,000 each working day if he or she realistically wishes to stay in office.

If we want more competition in our commercial market places, we need to restore competition to our political market places by instituting government funded election campaigns and reducing campaign periods to several months, not several years. With our legislators and elected officials no longer being elected by a handful of deep pockets, they can act as honest referees to restore competitiveness to our markets.

If our commercial markets are free and open, they can be as effective as these Republican and many Democratic candidates claim.

Why Doesn't the Tea Party Embrace Occupy Wall Street?

Our economic woes have resulted in dissatisfaction and protest across the nation. The first group to organize to highlight the abuses of corporate cronyism was the Tea Party which excoriated the current administration for bailing out the banks, allowing public money to be used to pay huge executive bonuses, and the stimulus package. Tea Party-ers clearly distinguished between Main Street and Wall Street. The Republicans, Fox News and other conservative groups have supported the Tea Party's growth and efforts to become a substantial political voice.

Occupy Wall Street and its many branches across the nation have focused on many of the same ills, such as corporate cronyism in government, exorbitant bonuses, and the economic inequality that resulted. Yet they have been reviled and ridiculed by the Far Right, Fox News, and candidates for Republican office.

Why? Don't the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street share more in common than differences? Couldn't they achieve more by working together than by reviling another group that shares their dissatisfaction?

Hopefully the Tea Party will wake up at some point an realize that they and the Occupy Wall Street are mirror images of each other who need to find some way to work together to achieve the change they both seek.

Unequal Income Distribution Hinders Growth?

Nicholas Kristof's recent OpEd piece notes that

"In his important new book, “The Darwin Economy,” Robert H. Frank of Cornell University cites a study showing that among 65 industrial nations, the more unequal ones experience slower growth on average. Likewise, individual countries grow more rapidly in periods when incomes are more equal, and slow down when incomes are skewed.

That’s certainly true of the United States. We enjoyed considerable equality from the 1940s through the 1970s, and growth was strong. Since then inequality has surged, and growth has slowed."

Too Much Government? Yes!

Competition and free market forces are key to a healthy economy as long as there are safeguards to offset the pressures for the formation of monopolies. Monopolies earn above market profits by limiting the competitiveness of other firms in the market. How? Unfair competition, price fixing, patent trolling, and a host of other edges which business schools now call "barriers to competition". It is up to government is to be the fair referee. Americans understood that back when they busted up the trusts under Teddy, set up the FTC and SEC. Unfortunately those safeguards have seen their power eroded.

I too distrust big government and government regulation when deep pockets use the Federal Government to abet unfair competition and tap the tax payer pocket book to transfer wealth from the taxpayer to the campaign financeer. That's socialism too. Mostly corporate socialism.

Lobbying for industrial subsidies, undermining bargaining, allowing unfair licensing practices, making back room deals for access to resources, and the like have become the quid pro quo for campaign contributions which officials need to get elected.

Ike warned back in the 50's about the increasing control of the military-industrial complex. Since then we have seen each large industry copy that model to their enormous benefit. Large banks are the worst; they made the S&L crisis look like a hiccup. Big oil, big pharma, and health care insurers have all done it.

That horse is long, long out of the barn. The referee has been bought and paid for by the booster clubs. The results are clear: the top 1% has the field tilted in their favor, and the rest of society is slowing slipping downhill. If the CEO of public company blows it, he walks away with millions. If a group of banks lose trillions playing with government guaranteed money, they get bailed out because they are 'too big to fail." If industries improve their productivity, the benefits go entirely to the execs and are not shared with the wage earners. It goes on.

It's been a great short term ride for those at the top, but for the country as whole, our economy has become less and less healthy which has underminined our international competitiveness, destroyed our middle class, increased the ranks of the poor, and polarized our politics.

Is Herman Cain Really an "Out Sider"?

"Cain's campaign manager and a number of aides have worked for Americans for Prosperity, or AFP, the advocacy group founded with support from billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, which lobbies for lower taxes and less government regulation and spending. .....his years of speaking at AFP events have given the businessman and radio host a network of loyal grassroots fans.

The Story Behind Bush's Medicare Veto

President Bush vetoed a Medicare bill today that postponed a cut in doctor's salaries while initiating cuts in certain Medicare reimbursements to insurers. His stated reason was that it would reduce plan options for seniors.

What he didn't say was that private insurers receive nearly 15% more than Medicare pays for the same services. While Bush claims that competition is the key to keeping health costs low, under his administration, we are paying private companies a 15% premium to cover the extra layer of admin costs that result from their participation.

If competition is supposed to lower heath care costs, why is the private sector receiving a premium?

Discover Card's Worries About New Laws

One of my favorite blogs is footnoted.org which examines public financial documents such as annual reports, 10Qs and other SEC filings to uncover what many companies hate to disclose but have to. They often hide these embarrassing disclosures in footnotes hoping that they won't be read; hence the name.

Here's what the site uncovered about Discover Card which had to acknowledged the following risk factor to its business:

"The company’s second quarter 10-Q, filed yesterday, includes a new risk factor inspired by the Fed’s proposal to tighten its rules on “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” and “truth in lending.” The disclosure says that “if the amendments are adopted as proposed, the amendments would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.”

As I read it, the credit card company is admitting that in its efforts to find new charges and reasons to extort fees from its users, it has probably crossed the line and will suffer under the Fed's efforts to clean up these abuses.

Help the EFF Defend Your Privacy Rights

I recieved this letter from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an organization which works hard to defend the our rights to privacy and to limit large media companies' efforts to expand copyright law beyond its original intent. They deserve our support.

Next time Barak's team asks for money, I'm sending my donation to the EFF.

"Dear Friend of Freedom,

In a move that I can only describe as cowardice, Congress
just passed legislation meant to immunize telephone
companies for their illegal, disloyal, and irresponsible
behavior. EFF has been fighting against telecom immunity,
and we need your help to bring the fight to the next level:

http://secure.eff.org/wiretapping

Two and a half years ago, EFF sued AT&T on behalf of its
customers, seeking to hold the telecom giant responsible
for its craven complicity in the White House's illegal
warrantless wiretapping program.

Since then, the phone companies and their allies in
Washington have spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying
Congress to grant them retroactive immunity. They ran
ridiculous fear-mongering attack ads against any politician
who dared to oppose them. President Bush threatened to veto
any bill that allowed EFF's lawsuit to continue.

Yesterday, Congress completely capitulated to the
President's threats and voted to let the telecoms off the
hook. If the telecoms are not held accountable, the
administration will remain unchecked in its warrantless
wiretapping of innocent Americans. This must stop!

We need your help to take the fight to the next level.
We're going to challenge Congress's unconstitutional grant
of immunity in our case against AT&T. We're going to fight
for a congressional repeal of immunity in the next
Congress. And we're going to file a new lawsuit against the
government, challenging its warrantless surveillance
practices, past, present and future.

Now, more than ever, we need your support!

http://secure.eff.org/wiretapping

The fight for civil liberties would never have come this
far without your help. We can't give up now. Help EFF
today!

Sincerely,
....Shari Steele
Executive Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation

ACLU Steps Up While Obama Ducks

Given the current make up of the Supreme Court, it may be a long shot, but at least the ACLU has the nerve to sue the Federal Government over its attempt to eviscerate Constitutional protections by allowing unfettered, unsupervised electronic snooping by whenever the President feels like saying "national security".

I'm no longer sure what Obama stands for if not this principle. As I've said before, this law's passage is a major blow to the concept of civil liberties.

Above the Law: Is Rove Hoping Bush will Pardon Him?

As Karl Rove thumbs his nose at a Congressional subpoena to testify about his role in influencing Department of Justice prosecutions without claiming executive privilege, the possibility arises that Rove's game plan is to push things far enough so Bush can pardon him.

One also has to wonder what help the Department of Justice will provide Congress in this test of wills.

Principle vs. Personality

Sen. Obama's vote for the new FISA legislation which provides immunity for telecommunications companies who conspired in secret with the Bush administration to break the law and invade Americans' privacy is deeply disappointing. His assessment that the bill was flawed but necessary is worrisome because it opens the possibility that as President, he would find it attractive to pierce our Constitutional protections without fear of consequence.

It also highlights the difference between voting for personalities and principles. Senator Clinton, whose antics left me cold during the end of her over long campaign voted against the bill. Senator Obama, whose charm converted me during the campaign, voted for it. Awkward Hillary got it right, and smooth Obama got it wrong.

How Dirty, Long Will the Campaign Be?

With John McCain already claiming that he can't control how other Republicans support his campaign, even the Republican National Committee, and having already received emails misrepresenting papers written by Michele Obama during her freshman year at Princeton, it looks like the upcoming campaign contain the same dirty tricks as the 2004 campaign. Of course, Moveon.Org, is readying it's arsenal to respond in kind.

All this make we wish we could vote in July and get all this over with. Surely a month is long enough for a debate for voters to learn the policy differences between McCain and Obama. We already know who they are from the prelims. What's left beyond many numbing months of media campaigns, misleading ads, out of context sound bites, and the same old talking heads on TV?

Makes me wonder why it's the Europeans who have better health care, better mass transit, bans of plastic bags, and shorter election campaigns. Why can't we?

Global Warming: A Pinata for Anti-Environmentalists

Science is an evolving exploration of the universe. Although there is a emerging consensus in the scientific community about global warming and mankind's ability to meaningfully affect the earth's climate, it's still a legitimate debate. Unfortunately every uncertainty about man's role in climate change is being used by some to discredit environmental concerns as a whole.

One of the most visible examples is John Coleman, former weatherman and CEO of the Weather Channel who wants to sue Al Gore for fraud for his success raising awareness over global warming. As Mr. Coleman puts it:

"Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization...

If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy"

Somehow Mr. Coleman has missed out on rising demand for resources in developing countries, speculation, mounting US debt and a myriad of factors that have caused fuel prices to rise. Even worse is overlooking at all the other undeniable effects of pollution that threaten our environment in even our most pristine areas.

The Real Health Care Crisis

No candidate has the answer.

After listening to various vague outlines for improving health care in America offered by the three Presidential hopefuls, it's clear that this problem will remain with us for a long, long time. All of the plans more or less accept the underlying system with its waste and redundancies and promise improvements which either won't work (McCain) or which expand coverage without addressing the increased expenses (Hillary and Barak).

In a way it's a clear victory for the health care and pharma lobbies. The tens of millions of dollars they have poured into electing obedient legislators and Presidents has been excellent value. Harvard Business School estimates that there are $200 Billion in redundant, unnecessary marketing and administrative expenses in our current system which could be eliminated by going to a single payer system. Barak seems to recognize that such a system would be better than what he is proposing, but he candidly admitted that it was simply not politically feasible. Hillary offers a warmed over version of Mitt's failed Massachusetts plan while McCain offers Bushian platitudes about competition.

Until we address the fundamental issues that our health care system faces, we will continue to pay too much of too little for too few.

When Will It Be Over?

With the North Carolina and Indiana primaries behind us and with the pundits calling it all over, I join those who hope that the pundits are correct. Mathematically Obama has won, and Hillary has lost.

Actually all the Clintons have lost. My sense is that since January overall regard for the Clintons within their own party has plummeted. I for one no longer find it reassuring that Bill would be in the White House as Hillary's secret adviser. His gaffs on the campaign trail have seriously eroded his reputation for sound judgment. I guess Chelsea's ok, but Hillary has morphed into someone who will say or do anything to win the Presidency. Her actions seem only slightly bounded by a sense of what she can get away with, not by some deeply held concept of integrity.

It's time for a change. It's time for Senator Obama to be our next President.