Exploited

I'm going to go against my better judgment and obstinate nature. I'm going to buy "Decision Points" in spite of my horror of giving Dubya one more red cent than he already has. But, along with it, I'm also going to buy "Family of Secrets," because I want to know whether Dubya is telling the truth, or whether he's just leading us on again. His image, the gut-intuitive Texas cowboy, born-again Christian was all a ruse, fabricated to exploit the unknowing voter, and so I want to know if he's continuing the lie. And, I want specifics. My curiosity is overwhelming my distaste for buying the book.

Oh. What was I thinking? Of course he's continuing the myth. His ego won't allow deflation. But, that is the common theme, isn't it? Exploiting America. That's what it's all about. That's where the money flows whether we're talking about the Defense Industry, Oil Industry, Banks, Wall Street or Fox News and Tea Party. Money to motivate by what ever trick or scheme possible to get people to act against their own best interests.

I'll buy the book anyway. I'm curious.

Dave

Fighting Terrorism and Changing Hearts and Minds of the Disaffected

The other day while writing about President Bush's book, "Decision Points," I tried to remember, and searched for, those who performed non-torturous interrogations and who reported on how much more effective interrogations were when methods that cause pain and suffering are not used, techniques such as water-boarding, sleep deprivation, long and painful binding, loud music, and any method that is not respectful and dignified. I had forgotten the names of those I read about back then and I didn't find what I was looking. My memory was refreshed this morning as one of the persons I was looking for was a guest on the radio; Mark Fallon, who is now Senior Vice President of The Soufan Group. Back then, he was in charge of investigating the U.S.S. Cole bombing and was later involved in many interrogations in Afghanistan and Iraq and he was outspoken against the interrogation techniques Bush approved. Having his name led me to another professional interrogator that I remember; Ali Soufan, who apparently founded The Soufan Group. Back then, Soufan was a senior FBI Agent in charge of a number of Middle-East counter-terrorist investigations.

When ask by a caller if water-boarding is torture or not, Mark's response was, "it doesn't matter if one legal advisor says it is and another doesn't. What matters is that it doesn't work, and never will work. Water-boarding will never get information that can be trusted and neither will any other inhumane method. The person being interrogated will tell you something, anything, just to get you to stop." He went on to say that the primary goal when dealing with terrorist is to reengage critical thinking, because when they are able to think apart from the terrorist cell-group, they always come around to seeing that terrorism is not the right approach to solving their problems. It is "group-think that sucks them in," he said. Terrorist recruiters use group psychology and mob-power to recruit disaffected people into their cause. He gave examples of the most common things he heard from those he interrogated. Two stood out:

"I expected to be tortured... I was treated with respect and dignity." The prisoner willingly and truthfully responded to questions.

"I tried to place the bomb in a place that would cause the least damage and injury."

These, or similar expressions, he said gave him insight on changing the mind of the person he was questioning and getting them to divulge important and very useful information. His many years of experience in the Middle-East, he said, suggested to him that using brute military force on poverty stricken people and countries will not work. It only causes disaffected people to be more inclined to be drawn to group (mob) anti-American beliefs. It helps, not hinders, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. He claimed, as well, that Islam-o-phobia, such as opposing the New York Mosque and burning the Koran, hurt America's cause fighting terrorism more than helping it. I already knew that.

He went on to say that Bush claimed in his book that using those extreme techniques obtained information that thwarted the attempt to bomb London's subway, The Tube. The British, however, dispute that claim, saying that the information that led to thwarting that attempt did not come from the United States. In fact, Fallon said that he knew of no information coming from using techniques that cause pain and suffering that was useful. He should know. He was on the inside.

At the end of World War II, the United States prosecuted Japanese military leaders for war crimes for using the very same interrogation methods that Bush approved and which he continues to be proud of. The Geneva Conventions of 1949, treaties to which the United States agreed to, outlaws methods that cause pain and suffering and it is specific to humanitarian treatment of prisoners. Those terms came directly from the war crime trials conducted in Germany and Japan. Under its terms, President G. W. Bush would be a war criminal, and that doesn't consider the tens of thousands of Iraqis that died because of the war.

It is also ironic that while Rudi Giuliani was stumping for President and shouting out his support for torture, in private he hired Ali Soufan as Chief Operations Officer of the International Division of Giuliani Security and Safety, LLC and that Soufan expanded the "global reach" of Giuliani's company. It is hypocrisy to defend inhumane methods in public while in private hiring someone who opposes them. I haven't heard a single Republican oppose using the inhumane interrogation methods that Bush approved. Is there anything Republicans say and do that can be believed or trusted?

The most important point that I took away from listening to Mr. Fallon was that mob thinking, group thinking, destroys our ability to think rationally. The mob lashing out against the Mosque was a perfect example. The foolish preacher in Florida who would burn the Koran was a perfect example. Both cases are examples where Republican politicians and Right-Wing pundits took advantage of irrational fear and they instigated and agitated mob and group mentality. We really need to think before we hop on a wagon, especially a hateful one. Actually, if we think at all, we would loudly speak out against these things.

Dave

Oh Well... That's Life

This guy was excused from jury duty when he said he was a childhood friend of Jeffrey Dahmer. Maybe he should have kept quiet?

This kind thief gave it all back to his homeless victim. There ya' go!

He probably should have used a better get-away car. He took a taxi...

Bite the Bullet, Baby - Our Bill is Here

The way I look at it, we've received our bill. The President's Deficit Commission put it together, and payments start now, today. There is no "pay-by date." And, as we've said all along, it falls on our children and grandchildren and maybe their children. In fact, the bill will take at least twenty-seven years to pay until we can balance the budget, and that doesn't count any natural disasters we'll pay for before 2037. The bill is due; Deficit Panel's Leaders Push Cuts.

What I like about it is that nothing is sacred. It recommends sweeping cuts in everything, from Defense to Social Security. It probably surprises many that I would like it because, if my past blogs are any indication, it should be obvious that I'm for the little guy. Yep, that is true. But, this report targets everyone, rich and poor, and in regards to those sacred programs, such as Social Security, it leans toward benefiting the poor more than the rich. It is clear, though, that the panel couldn't quite bring itself to suggest that the rich should pay more. It still has its tax cuts, in the form of lower tax rates, for the rich and corporations. I have no sympathy for the rich. I haven't seen any indication that they are willing to pay their dues. I would challenge those lower tax rates for the rich.

But, the bill represents our extravagance for fifty years, from the expensive and foolish Vietnam War; the Space Race; the Arms Race; corporate subsidies; deregulation; Bush's two wars; Bush's tax cuts; fifty years of hyped, inflated Defense spending; fear generated, hyped and inflated new Homeland Security Department that did not replace an already inefficient national security apparatus, such as the CIA and FBI; and years and years of quid pro quo earmarks.

There are a few things I would argue with, though. For example, I would argue against eliminating the deduction for interest paid on home purchases. That little nuance shoots down home-ownership for many. Without that deduction, less will be able to afford homes. But, again, I would limit deductions to those earning lower incomes. Poorer people should be able to deduct the expenses on things necessary for life just like a business deducts expenses for doing business; expenses for shelter, food, transportation, medical and dental care, etc., the things we need to live in the society we've created. I hope that nuance is in the bill. I have no objection to sharing the burden equally, but I do object to too much burden on those who can't pay.

One thing for sure. We need to get used to high unemployment. Perhaps as high as 15% to 20%. These cuts take away jobs. That means welfare of some kind and paying for the homeless at the national or local levels. I hate to see that, but... Get used to it.

Get used to living without personal credit and debt, too. If our government can't live with debt, it should be obvious that we can't either. That is especially true if that safety net, Social Security, is cut. Our children and their children can't afford to be in debt when they turn the new retirement age of 68 or 69 and expect a livable retirement. They should be saving, not going into debt. Living without credit is a culture change and it will be difficult to accept.

The bill is due. We each received a copy in a semi-truck. It didn't fit in our mailbox. Pay up, baby.

Dave

Crucifying the Victims

We go to great lengths to imagine ourselves as victims, and we don't give up on that idea come hell or high water. Imagining that we are victims makes us do things we wouldn't normally do. It makes us act without compassion and without thought. We overlook injustices. We behave irrationally. There is real contradiction in our logic, too, when we describe how we are victimized and rationalize our response. Our response is to penalize and crucify the object of our scorn, both the bad and the good or innocent, anyone who fits our imagined description of bad guys. It makes us crucify true victims. For example, take some of the explanations President Bush is giving for his actions; he's on tour to promote his book, "Decision Point." His explanation for invading Iraq was "to protect America from weapons of mass destruction (WMD)" and "those Iraqi terrorists" and he makes that statement in the same paragraph where he says he was "sickened" when WMD were not found. And we know that there were no Al Qaeda terrorist in Iraq until after we invaded and opened the door for them. You would think, like Chris Mathews says, that he would now see how illogical it is to say that he "was protecting America" in the same paragraph where he admits that there was no WMD. What was he protecting America from? Imaginary weapons? Yet, he still claims that he was. The illogical logic reminds one of the definition of a psychopath; a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with abnormally immoral conduct despite an ability to appear normal. In fact, Bush lost, or never had, the ability to step back and objectively evaluate data, or even to insist on objective data about Iraq. Actually, he never had that ability and it is because of his complete lack of compassion. He is totally self-absorbed. He was and still is incapable of seeing the destruction he caused in Iraq. I knew he totally lacked compassion and that he was totally self-absorbed when he was running for President in 1999.

Bush said, blatantly, that he ordered water-boarding, "because his lawyers said it was okay." "Use 'em," he said when he was told that extreme interrogation methods were legal. A person who has compassion and empathy for fellow humans would hesitate. He would ask the questions that need asking. He would listen to experts and military leaders, such as Colin Powell who said "it's a bad idea. It puts our troops in danger when we don't follow the Geneva Convention (that outlaws torture)." But, Bush asked no questions. He got no advice beforehand. "Use 'em," he said. "It worked," he said. What Bush doesn't know, even after the fact when more facts are known, is whether normal, less extreme interrogation techniques would have worked just as well or even better. There is evidence that normal techniques did work, and would have in all cases. Back then, there were reports from experienced interrogators, who did not agree with and did not use torture, that indicated that they got just as much, if not more, and better information by using normal techniques. But, we refused to listen to those professionals too, even though they were professionals, because we were victims and we knew better and we wanted vengeance. Here's Bush's interview with the Washington Post. It's interesting.

It is a group thing, because if we disagree with the common beliefs of our group, we would be disagreeing with our friends, neighbors and family who do agree. Everybody yelled, "Yeah! Torture the rag-heads," and we did. We follow the majority's opinion of those around us whether we would agree with the opinion or not if we were not associated with our group. Group pressure sucks us in. We're afraid to object or disagree when we're with our group. We are nice and comfortable being a victim along with our buddies. And, we tortured the innocent along with the guilty without distinction.

The same self victimization effects our ideas on almost every important issue. The other day, I listened to Ronn Owens, our local Right-Winger Talk Show Host, disparage the unemployed. He was discussing whether England's compulsory labor plan to force the unemployed to work without pay for a month would work in America. He agreed with the plan. The plan is proposed by the new conservative government that recently won in Britain's national elections. It follows the conservative idea that the unemployed are "milking the system," are in a "cycle of dependency," are "lazy" and "laggards." I hear the same thoughts expressed by conservatives in the group I associate with. An overwhelming number of callers to Owen's program expressed the same idea. "They're lazy bums!" most said, even though a few callers called to tell their own stories; in tears they explained of not being able to find a job, of how embarrassing it is getting food for their children from the local food charity and of being in despair that they are at the end of their rope. Poverty, welfare or homelessness are in their future. Even after those heart breaking stories, subsequent callers shouted, "lazy bums!" At no time did an unemployed caller say, "I'm milking the system." At no time did I hear a caller actually site evidence or a reference that proved that the unemployed are "lazy bums." Owens and all of those callers who said that are guessing; they have no evidence of it. Neither does anyone else.

It's sad that as we approach Christmas and as our economy actually needs many more people to shop this Christmas and we need much more money circulating in our communities that we have a situation in Congress where many of the unemployed will go without because our Congress believes we are victims. We would rather crucify the unemployed and innocent because of some imagined offense against us. This article, Dems Lowering Expectations for the Lame Duck Session - Blog - OpenCongress, says that since there is little "interest" for passing an extension of unemployment benefits through Congress that it will not be brought up in the lame duck session. In the time of greatest need of the unemployed and our economy, Congress is scaling back. There is a complete lack of compassion when we're a victim, real or imagined.

I suppose that there are a few unemployed who could be milking the system. But, I don't believe they would do it for long, if they do it at all, or that the overwhelming majority do. I haven't observed too many lazy people in America or, for that matter, in those other countries in the world that I've had the good fortune to visit at one time or another in my life. In fact, I've seen people do some of the lowest, filthiest, demeaning, belittling, laborious jobs that I would never think of doing myself, yet they did them; seemingly without complaint and without any display of being lazy. 

As a victim, we also are blinded to the side effects of our actions. We failed to see the uproar of world opinion when we tortured only a few. In fact, the side effect of using torture proved Osama bin Laden's point that we are a ruthless people. World opinion changed from respect for America to one questioning whether America was an imperious hegemonic country or not. Where at one time America was thought to be compassionate, we began to be seen as completely lacking compassion. We are blind to side effects of our policies at home, too, when we believe we are victims.

When I hear of the prevalent attitude against helping the unemployed, I also think of the street corner beggar, the guy trying to wash my car windshield, the guy wanting to paint my house number on my curb and the homeless. The growing homelessness is a side effect of refusing to help the unemployed. The ongoing argument in the Bay Area is whether to give the homeless cash or whether to give them in-kind services and goods; i.e., stuff. The prevailing thought is that if we give them cash, they will buy alcohol and get drunk, but if we give them services and goods; a place to live, food to eat, clothes to wear, they will be forced to "come back" into society using the stuff we give them. It's as if all of them, 100%, are alcoholics. Maybe most are, but we don't know how many are. And, we refuse to help them with the disease; we would rather they suffer abstinence alone. In either case, it's up to the homeless to make their own way back from despair. There is no "system" to help them come back. We do not help them learn ways to survive. We've done our part, we think, by giving them cash or stuff and we step back to see if they prove our point that they're lazy laggards and are only milking the system and victimizing us by staying homeless.

My wife and I got to know, as well as we could know, a homeless guy several years ago who, at one time, stood at the end of the 580 Center Street exit begging for handouts and later washed windshields at a gas station. I gave him a five dollar bill about every other week for a while until he no longer stood at the exit. A few months later, at my wife's suggestion - to get a windshield wash from a homeless guy, I stopped at the World Gas Station in Hayward. It was same guy that stood on the highway exit. I recognized him and, surprisingly, he recognized me.

"Hey," he said, "you gave me a five a couple of times at Center Street." he said. "I'll give you a free wash," he said. Imagine that! A homeless guy giving a free windshield wash!

I declined the "free," but accepted the wash. "My wife told me to stop here to get my windshield cleaned," I told him. He beamed at being remembered, like a kid getting a compliment; a smile from ear to ear. After I pulled into a parking space where we could talk. It was clear to me that he was not well educated and he didn't clearly understand how he became homeless or what he did that was so wrong that landed him and his family in the circumstances they were in. He had been, however, functional in society. From his ramblings, I pieced together his story. His name was Ken.

He was a carpenter who injured his hand on the job and the employer denied that the injury occurred on the job which in turn caused his workman's comp and unemployment claims to be denied. He used his meager savings for medical expenses. His union couldn't find work for him because, he claimed, word had gotten out that no employer would hire a person who filed for workman's comp. His union membership lapsed from non-payment. He was black-listed. He worked in the underground job market at odd jobs he could find for a while and then his wife lost her waitress job because of knee pain. They lost their home. He sold his carpentry tools; his livelihood. The state put his wife and kids in a homeless shelter, but the small two-room apartment the state furnished was too small for four people, so he took up sleeping where the homeless gathered in wooded areas around Castro Valley and Hayward and he visited his family daily if he could. The state, then, moved his wife and kids to another community without him knowing about it and out of his area and ability to see them. It took him weeks and miles of walking to find a state office that could tell him where they were, and even then he had to argue that he was the husband and father since he had no means of identifying himself to prove that he should be given private information about them. At the time we talked, he had been homeless for four years. The last thing, he said, was that his raggedy tent and what little belongings he had were stolen by other homeless from where he slept each night; in a small clearing beside the Castro Valley Creek. "I'm nobody," he said, in a tone that implied everything "nobody" could mean. He had nothing except for what he wore and nobody knew him. He had dropped out of every state and government system and off the edge of the Earth. I gave him ten dollars for the wash.

I saw him several more times and I gave him the phone number to Fresh Start, a charity I know about, and I offered to take him there. But, I don't believe he called them, at least at that time, and he refused my help to drive him. "Don't want to bother you that much," he said. He didn't want my help. After a while, he didn't show up at the gas station anymore. Chris learned that he worked occasionally at the Salvation Army in Hayward. She believes he had mental problems, and I don't doubt that. But, he did work and he needed much more help than my piddly ten dollars or whatever he earned from washing windows. He needed government sponsored system help.

In the midst of remembering Ken's story, I ran across this heart warming article about lending a helping hand, The Kindness of a Stranger that Still Resonates, during the Great Depression when there was no unemployment program, or any other social safety net for that matter. Back then, the unfortunate had nothing and no where to go, like Ken. All of the unemployed, 25 to 30% of the working population in those days, would have been considered lazy beggars by today's prevalent attitude. In this story, simple, anonymous kindnesses went a long way and may have been the one thing that turned the tide for those in need.

Please note that those in the story hesitated to ask and delayed asking for help as long as they could. “I waited two weeks because I didn’t want to apply for unemployment,” Mr. Macey, 25, said (in the story). “It’s embarrassing.” These are not signs, in my opinion, of people "milking the system." The story highlights the stigma attached to asking for help or charity. I don't see "lazy laggards" in this story. I see people who need systematic help. I also don't see people who need to be forced into a "compulsory labor" system just because of the imagined wrongs we believe, but can't prove, that they do to us. The "system" probably does need to be redesigned for more support, not less, to find better jobs faster as well as incentives for employers. But, in the meantime, we've got the system we've got and I don't see that the unemployed are guilty of doing us harm. They are not making us victims. Most, a huge majority, are innocent and probably trapped by an inefficient system. Why should we deny millions of that one thing, perhaps a single check, that may turn the tide for them? We haven't done enough, yet. I don't know when the time will come when we can say we've done enough. A safety net for unfortunate job loss is crucial, or else we risk having many more Kens. More Kens cost more than helping the unemployed because Ken has much more distance to come back to society and we must provide more support to help him come back. I called all of my congressional representatives a few hours ago to make unemployment a priority during the lame duck congress. I hope they pass a bill that Obama will sign to help them.

Oh well, today is a new day and we have another thing that we claim to be victims of; today the focus is on healthcare. There are 60 million, according to the radio today, more than we thought, who are uninsured. But, "kill the bill" is what we hear. It doesn't matter that the hype, exaggeration and distortion is imagined and false; the prevalent thought is that we are victims of this law. All who want to really know should check out this article and follow the links on life expectancy and infant mortality cited in the article, or look those statistics up here. Surely we can come to the same conclusion, you think? Are those who desperately need help the bad guys or is it our system that both caused their misfortune and refuses to provide support?

It's Christmas time. Time for giving. Or, is it just the thought that counts?

Dave

Fracked

Boy, those were the good old days, back in 2005 when Republicans were in control. Don't you think so? Those were the days before the Democrat 2006 takeover when Republicans could get just about anything they wanted through the House and Senate. And, indeed they did. Take the 2005 Energy Policy Act, enacted under Dubya, Cheney and the Republican Congress. That act had a big intentional loophole, known as the Halliburton Loophole. In fact, there is enough information about that loophole to suggest that the only reason the act was passed and signed at all was because the oil and natural gas corporations wanted that loophole. In fact, I would bet my social security check that the loophole was specifically requested in that secret Cheney-Energy Corporation meeting that Cheney refused to disclose. Remember that meeting? Ah, yea, those were the good old days. The loophole exempts oil production companies from having to comply with environmental safety laws when drilling for oil and natural gas.

Well, natural gas is a big deal and it has been the latest buzz since President Obama began running for president way back in 2007. "Drill-baby-drill," they said. T Boone Pickens made all of those ads to stop paying Saudi Arabia $700 billion a year by converting all long-haul semi trucks from diesel to natural gas. The United States, it turned out, had a super abundance of natural gas. A HUGE NATURAL GAS RESERVE! In fact, he sold me on the deal, too. I was ready and willing to be his spokesman. "Yeah! Stop paying Saudi Arabia for oil. Use our own natural gas!" Even Obama got on that band wagon. Ha! I should have known that there was a catch. There is always a Republican catch.

It was also back in the good old days that President Bush had those signing statements. Remember those? It turned out that even though Congress passed a law, that a President could just attach a little signing statement to his signature saying how the President "interpreted" the law, and Bush did. He instructed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to overlook and rubber stamp many oil and gas company drilling requests. But, the U.S. Minerals Management Service, by a Bush order, was already looking the other way and the signing statement just reinforced what it was already doing. And so, we got the BP Gulf oil disaster, which, by the way, isn't over yet - since it was discovered only a few days ago that a large area of ocean floor coral has died. We don't know everything, yet, it turns out.

But, back to natural gas and that Halliburton Loophole that exempts oil and gas companies from EPA rules. They can drill for natural gas anyplace, anytime. It turns out all of those natural gas reserves that we have is mostly contained in solid plates of shale rock. And, it turns out that to get the natural gas out of the shale, the shale must be broken up, or fractured into cracks and crevasses to release the gas. And, it turns out that "they," especially Halliburton, have developed a technique called Hydraulic Fracturing, "Fracking" for short, that breaks up the shale that releases the gas. Fracking involves injecting millions of gallons of fresh water into the shale under tons of pressure to fracture the shale.

Whoops. Here we are again. The "usual" suspects are at it again. It turns out that Fracking uses millions of gallons of your very valuable drinking and irrigation water and when that water recycles back into the ground water supply, through those underground seeps back to your city's water supply or your well water or your livestock watering trough, such as into those artesian wells for Owensville, Indiana or into the Wabash or Ohio rivers ground water system that supplies your personal drinking well, (I have friends and family I care for in that area - so I always mention it) it will contain highly toxic minerals and methane. The water cannot be used for drinking anymore. It will kill you. And, it will burn!

Well, according to this New York Times article, the gas companies are not "convinced" that they are the problem. "The jury is not in," they say. But, I guess if you had water suitable for drinking one day, and the next day your water burned and tasted like crap; looked foggy, yellow or muddy; and tests showed that it was full of toxic chemicals, and the only thing that could have caused it was a Fracking drilling rig within ten or twenty miles, then I guess that would be proof enough. In fact, the article says that many people are REALLY ANGRY about being fracked.

All of this, of course, goes back to philosophy, or more precisely, Republican philosophy. I guess if you believe the "drill-baby-drill" philosophy and be damned to any environmental impact, then the Republican philosophy is right up your alley. But, I guess if your water is burning, maybe you will change your mind. I wonder if you'll change your mind if your neighbor's water is burning? Or if your neighboring state's water is burning? Would you vote Republican in your state, say California, if you knew that your vote could cause water to burn in Lafayette or Owensville, Indiana or Gainesville, Georgia? (I have loved ones there too) Actually, it's too late to change your mind after your or your loved ones' water is burning. You've been Fracked!

Dave

Dismantling the Government

It seems to me that two reports are a bit late. Perhaps if they had come out a little earlier in the election, the election would have turned out different. Or, at least I would have hoped that. Maybe not. The first report was the "Jobs Report," which said that 159,000 new jobs were created last month, October. Under the circumstances, that was good. The second report, Recap of Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Results, from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), says the deficit turned a corner in 2010; the deficit in 2010 was actually less than 2009. What caught my eye was this sentence: "The large deficits in 2009 and 2010 reflect a combination of factors: an imbalance between revenues and spending that predates the recent recession,..." lower revenues (taxes) and more spending "...associated with...economic conditions,..." and government the cost of federal policies responding to economic conditions.  

The phrase that stood out was "predates the recent recession." In other words, it was President Bush's tax cut, wars and his non-negotiable Pharmaceutical Drug Plan that caused the imbalance of revenues and spending; i.e., taxes were too low and his spending was too high. A chart in the report, "Receipts and Outlays as a Percent of GDP," clearly shows that starting about 1992 and through 2000, while President Clinton was in office, spending was going down and revenues were up. We had a surplus. The fact that spending was going down indicates that government was getting smaller, the very thing that the Tea Party wants. That same chart shows that around 2002, just after President Bush took office, this trend was reversed; spending started up and revenues started down. In other words, government started getting bigger and taxes were cut. Well, Bush said, "it's the peoples' money, and they should have it instead of the government..." In hindsight, now we know that we could have used the surplus to defeat the recession. But, as Bush says in his book about the last few months in office, "...he felt like he was on a ship with nobody at the helm..." No kidding! In fact, the chart shows that nobody was at the helm through his entire presidency since "deficits didn't matter," as Vice President Cheney said. Ha. I guess they do matter!

There were other things that happened in the 1990s that hurt America, however. NAFTA was passed that released the flood gates for jobs to go to Mexico and other countries. Some companies moved manufacturing to Mexico before the ink was dry on Clinton's signature. This agreement was actually started under and promoted by President G. H. Bush (Bush I), and signed by President Clinton in 1994 after Newt Gingrich led the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress. But, there was a long history behind NAFTA; a long period of teaching a philosophy that was being sold to everyone, so it's no surprise that Clinton signed it. He had been sold on the philosophy as everyone else had, including me. Basically, the philosophy was "free trade, open markets and self-regulated markets would provide economic equality to the world." It is a Libertarian idea. It is an "economically liberal" idea. It's funny that an individual can be a Libertarian in favor of "free, unrestrained capitalism" and be an "economic liberal," which is to say that on economic and market matters, they are in favor of benevolent favoritism to corporations. They are, in fact, in favor of "bailouts" because bailouts prop up corporations and markets. Bailouts are the same as "subsidies" to oil companies and banks; always supported by Republicans. Deregulation is the same as a "bailout," since deregulation is a form of subsidy for an industry. Deregulation in in fact a "gift" that says you can do anything you want with your corporation including scam the public and take advantage of consumers. There are no limits and there is no consumer protection in deregulation.


Practically all financial and economic experts who have advised or held offices under Presidents or served in some form or another in the Federal Reserve Banking System for the past 30-40 years are libertarian and Republican leaning, including Timothy Geithner (Fed Reserve Bank, NY under Bush II and Obama's Treasury), Robert Rubin (Clinton's Treasury), Larry Summers (Reagan and Obama advisor), Ben Bernanke (Fed Chair Bush II and Obama) and Alan Greenspan (Advisor to Nixon, Ford and Reagan, Fed Chairman under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II). It is these guys who helped sell us the idea that markets should be unrestrained, without regulation and without consumer protections and, in fact, these guys have hurt America by selling us those ideas. Ironically, it is these very same ideas that the Tea Party/Republican movement believes in and the same ideas that most of those that were elected in the Republican 2010 takeover believe in. So, you may have voted against President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, or whoever, in the 2010 election, but you really voted for the same experts that we've always had, so in effect, nothing has changed from the time President Reagan was in office.

In the 1990s while Alan Greenspan was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mexico had a significant economic crisis that threatened the world economy. Greenspan, Rubin and others convinced President Clinton to bail out Mexico by giving it $20 billion dollars. What this says is that the people who claim to believe in self-regulation don't believe it when the crap hits the fan, but they'll let the problem grow until it cannot be controlled except by bailout. It was also in the 1990s that the Dot-Com bubble began to rise and the Federal Reserve had a chance to "temper" what Alan Greenspan called "irrational exuberance." But, he didn't. He didn't do anything because he believed that the market would self regulate. It did self regulate in 2000 when a small market crash happened when President Bush took office. But, that 2000 crash didn't threaten the world economy so it was allowed to happen without a bailout. While that small crash was happening, another bubble was already forming that took over the market; the monetary, banking bubble. While jobs were being lost in the tech sector, banks were hiring. The banking bubble started in 1998, when Senator Phil Gramm, a Republican, led a successful effort to deregulate the banks that unleashed the Banking Dogs. All banks were free to gamble in the markets after that and they were picking up steam by 2000. Everything was hunky-dory to you and me, since all of this was hidden to you and me. We really didn't see much of a change from the outside looking in. People like Paul Krugman probably saw it, as did those above. Paul Krugman is probably a rare exception to the normal economist. He's an admitted liberal. He says "do something about uncontrolled markets." He says "they're dangerous!" He agrees with a lot of what I've been reading over the past 10-15 years, since Gingrich's time, when I began to take an interest in the radical movement in America.

Another thing the chart shows is how wrong the Republicans are about Dubya. They now claim that he really wasn't a Reagan "small government" President. They are disappointed in him. In fact, the chart shows that he was a Reagan President. He kept the same deficit levels that Reagan and his dad did. Neither Reagan, Bush I or Bush II really believed in small governments, and neither does the Republican Party of today. It was only President Clinton who actually did something about deficits and made government smaller. Ironically, it is President Obama and those others the Republicans like to hate, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who are headed in the same direction as President Clinton did. It is Obama, Pelosi and Reid who have the ideas that people say the believe, but vote against.

Well, we've got what we have. Like Alan Greenspan, who finally saw the light when he testified to Congress that he "was mistaken" about market self-regulation in 2008, Ben Bernanke, also saw the light in 2008 and is trying to control deflation, inflation and the market and he is now under attack. Ron Paul, famous for his Libertarian beliefs, is going to be Chairman of the Monetary Policy Sub-committee, and he says, "I think they're way too independent. They just shouldn't have this power. Up until recently it has been modest but now it's totally out of control." Paul is going to change The Fed! I am afraid of him doing that. The funny thing is that "Up until recently" was when President Bush and Alan Greenspan were in control, when the housing bubble was allowed to happen and deficits were okay. Now that Bernanke is trying to put some controls on the market, to bring it back to its senses, the Fed is suddenly "totally out of control!" Like father, like son, Rand Paul, Republican Representative from Kentucky and voted into office by the Tea Party, believes the same thing his father does; let the market dogs lose.


I do not know if Ben Bernanke is right in his latest move to inject a lot of money into the market by buying government bonds. It seems very complicated to me. From what I've read, it could be dangerous especially if "fiscal policy" doesn't follow, meaning that if the government doesn't also stimulate the economy by helping businesses and consumers, Bernanke's move could backfire. But, I would still rather have highly educated economists and financial experts running the Federal Reserve than Ron Paul, a medical doctor from Texas. I doubt that he knows anything about the economy. I have a problem with any politician running anything that requires a doctorate level education in a field of specialization. I can read a chart, however, and I can see the effects of bad ideology, and if there's anything the chart in the report says, it says that Reagan, Bush I and Bush II had bad ideas on running the government. And, we are getting the same bad ideas again with the Republican takeover. And, from what they say, they intend to take over the Presidency and the Senate. Their results won't be any different than the last time they were in control.

There is no doubt in my mind that voters voted against their own best interest on November 2nd. They want the deficit to go down, but Republicans can't do that with the ideology they believe. They want the healthcare reform repealed, but that reform reduces the deficit, especially the pharmacy drug plan paid by the government. We will go back to Bush's very expensive pharmacy plan and Bush's deficit. In fact, it seems the only reason for the Republican takeover was the dislike for Obama and Pelosi, and for no other reason, in spite of the fact that they are doing what the voters say they want. Dick Army led the revolt for corporations and the Tea Party bought it. Tea Party members were really not voting for what they thought they were. Sadly, the Republicans will take aim at a number of programs, such as Social Security, and may win the battle of once and for all in killing them. They seem intent on doing that. I don't believe anyone will be happy with what they kill. They seem intent of dismantling the government.

I don't think I have revised history too much. I primarily depended on my memory of what I've read and learned over the past years. I did not attempt to verify anything by referring back to articles or books that I've read.

Dave