When it comes to the US budget and rising deficit, there’s only one narrative that people talk about: conservatives/Republicans want to spend less and liberals/Democrats want to spend more. We hear repeatedly, time and time again, that Democrats are the reason we are currently 14 trillion dollars in debt.
However, our debt woes can be traced not to liberal Democrats or to government welfare programs, but to a little known and even less understood concept of Republican policy known colloquially as “starving the beast.”
The concept is this: the government, under Republicans, gives out enormous “tax cuts,” which largely go to the mega-wealthy. Besides widening the gap between the rich and the middle class (and damn near obliterating the latter completely), this creates a budget crisis which “starves” the government (aka, “the beast”) of its funds.
The idea is, by giving back billions of dollars in taxes, the government can’t spend it. In actual practice, however, the government just spends the money they don’t have and in the process, we as a nation incur the debt.
But why? Why would the government spend more money than it collects in taxes? Is this some irresponsible, liberal conspiracy? Quite the contrary, it’s “Reaganomics,” or what George H.W. Bush called “voodoo economics.”
It “works” quite simply. When a Republican is in power, they give huge tax cuts and incur debt while not cutting essential services. As an added bonus, the next president has to raise taxes. This works out great for Republicans when the next president is a Democrat, but didn’t work so well for the first Bush, who had to break his “read my lips” promise and raise taxes or risk being completely irresponsible. In order to do the right thing, you piss off the populace by “increasing taxes” (actually the same without the cuts) to pay for the taxes cuts of the previous administration.
Before Reagan, Republicans tended to run balanced or surplus budgets which paid for themselves. Republicans used to be the fiscally responsible party, but that mantle has been picked up by the Democrats. Clinton was the most recent president since Reagan to sign off on a surplus budget, and thanks to the enormous debt and astronomical interest payments on said debt, he may be the last.
So why do Republicans get away with calling themselves “fiscally conservative?” Because Americans are too dumb to know better. We are not in debt because of irresponsibility, for the responsibility lies quite plainly in the deliberate actions of a particular party whch seeks to concentrate all power into the hands of the nobility.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
A System Of Financial Socialism By And For Elites
As bonus season arrives, the gap between the American people and Wall Street couldn't be wider. And where is Washington in this great divide? Don't ask.
At a moment when Americans desperately want jobs on Main Street and expect Wall Street to pay its fair share, Washington officials are hard at work -- seeking jobs for themselves on Wall Street. (Congratulations, Peter Orszag, on parlaying your position as Obama's OMB director into a top job at CitiGroup, the bank that received hundreds of billions in taxpayer bailouts and guarantees on your watch!)
Read more: Why Do People Who Work in Finance Earn So Much More Than the Rest of Us?
The Original Sin Argument
One of the most common arguments I get these days...also the most morally, logically and empirically bankrupt arguments I ever get.
Tis nothing more than a myth invented to keep people ashamed and obedient to the rulers who, as always, conveniently exempt themselves from it and if you can't see that, you're not really looking.
Tis nothing more than a myth invented to keep people ashamed and obedient to the rulers who, as always, conveniently exempt themselves from it and if you can't see that, you're not really looking.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Question of the Day: Do You Dance?
When I was a just a wee lad, growing up on the Scottish highlands, no wait...when I was a small boy I would dance to the stereo in the family room (or was that the living room, seems like we always had one of each in every house, but I can never keep them straight) by myself, or occasionally with my little sister joining in, and basically my dances were just me jumping around haphazardly to the music, which was usually standard pop stuff. Sometimes, when it was dark and all the lights were off, I would get a spooky feeling and twirl around fighting off demons and ghosts and let me tell ya, there is something to that. Why do you think kids are afraid of the dark? Spooks, I tell ya! Spooks! (them spooks can dance too!).
So, do you dance much or do you even know what the hell you're doing out there on the dance floor?
So, do you dance much or do you even know what the hell you're doing out there on the dance floor?
The Troubles of Somalia
The troubles of Somalia are in the news again, as Erik Prince of Blackwater fame is reportedly backing a private military company’s bid to work for the embattled Somali government.
With the varied meanings of the word “anarchy,” it’s easy to write off Somalia’s issues as merely the fruit of “anarchy.” But the problems in Somalia were created by rulers and aspiring rulers, not by any anarchists advocating no rulers. Somalia does not have anarchy and does not provide evidence that anarchism is unlikely to work.
Since the brutal dictatorship of Mohammed Siad Barre fell in 1991, Somalia has faced varying intensities of civil war between aspiring governments, not an overall defeat of government.
Many foreign observers do not understand the social foundations of Somalia on which a state is attempting to impose itself. The overwhelming majority of violence in the country is suffered in national government centers in the south. In these struggles as well as in piracy, foreign states exacerbate conflict.
The basis of Somali society is generally clan allegiance. Somali customary law, called Xeer, allows judgments to be rendered in ad hoc courts by anyone able to muster sufficient respect for his relevant abilities. This system of traditional authority, which has a tendency to devalue women and exhibit suspicion towards or take advantage of people outside the clan, should not be idealized. However, where traditional law operates without state interference it has generally caused less conflict than the state, and Xeer could provide a useful framework for social progress.
Within the borders internationally regarded as Somalia, there exist several states whose claims of independence or autonomy are not recognized by the “international community.” Apparently it is in the best interest of international elites to promote the existence of one Somalia under centralized rule instead of a confederation or several smaller states. But a cynic might wonder if the conflict which hinders the development of civil society and creates a power vacuum that can be taken advantage of, is strategically advantageous for international powers to perpetuate.
Violence is done in trying to force a centralized government on a country with decentralized power, and in forcing a modern state onto conflicting customary law. But proponents of central government are unable to accept that forcing everyone to obey whoever has government power might not be the best way to promote harmony among different interests and allegiances.
International activity in Somalia, whether to plant the flag, recover debt from defaulted loans, or rub out blowback from other empire-building projects, has persisted well beyond the famine relief missions of the early 1990s. Erik Prince’s new venture is only the latest in foreign intervention in the violent struggle to establish and maintain a central government. Forces of the United Nations, United States, and Ethiopia have attempted to influence the situation using military force. It might be impolite to look for parallels between these interventions and the establishment of colonies and protectorates in Africa during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
The hand of foreign exploitation is seen clearly in the piracy issue once the observer looks beyond the superficial explanation that boils down to “more force needs to be deployed to keep poor black people from committing crimes.” The long coastline of Somalia had traditionally been fished by locals operating small boats (who should thereby have a usufruct claim). But foreign ships either over-fished the waters or dumped toxic waste from wealthier nations. Somalis turned to piracy either to defend their shores or to make money in one of the few lucrative options left to them. When some “volunteer coast guard” operators engage in extortion against people who are not responsible for harming the Somali coast, they are only imitating government by levying taxes or demanding bribes.
But does the Somali case of authoritarians exploiting a fallen state mean that an anarchic area would necessarily be helpless against invaders? No. One must take note of the impoverishment of Somalia versus the prosperity of neo-colonial powers. Little was left in the hands of the Somali people when the looting state collapsed in 1991. They started with little yet were able to get somewhere.
A 2007 paper by Peter T. Leeson, Better Off Stateless: Somalia Before and After Government Collapse, shows that life for Somalis has on average improved relative to life under the Barre regime. Leeson examined a series of developmental indicators, including life expectancy, access to medical care, and access to communication technology. With more progress toward anarchy – by dissolving the authority of central government, regional government, and traditional inequality – more improvement could be made.
Anarchy didn’t establish dictatorships, make International Monetary Fund agreements, or deploy foreign militaries to Mogadishu. The problems in Somalia have been, and continue to be, caused by authoritarians and looters in government, business, and banking.
Somalia: New Players, Same Problems
C4SS News Analyst Darian Worden is an individualist anarchist writer with experience in libertarian activism. His fiction includes Bring a Gun To School Day
and the forthcoming Trade War. His essays and other works can be viewed at DarianWorden.com. He also hosts an internet radio show, Thinking Liberty.
With the varied meanings of the word “anarchy,” it’s easy to write off Somalia’s issues as merely the fruit of “anarchy.” But the problems in Somalia were created by rulers and aspiring rulers, not by any anarchists advocating no rulers. Somalia does not have anarchy and does not provide evidence that anarchism is unlikely to work.
Since the brutal dictatorship of Mohammed Siad Barre fell in 1991, Somalia has faced varying intensities of civil war between aspiring governments, not an overall defeat of government.
Many foreign observers do not understand the social foundations of Somalia on which a state is attempting to impose itself. The overwhelming majority of violence in the country is suffered in national government centers in the south. In these struggles as well as in piracy, foreign states exacerbate conflict.
The basis of Somali society is generally clan allegiance. Somali customary law, called Xeer, allows judgments to be rendered in ad hoc courts by anyone able to muster sufficient respect for his relevant abilities. This system of traditional authority, which has a tendency to devalue women and exhibit suspicion towards or take advantage of people outside the clan, should not be idealized. However, where traditional law operates without state interference it has generally caused less conflict than the state, and Xeer could provide a useful framework for social progress.
Within the borders internationally regarded as Somalia, there exist several states whose claims of independence or autonomy are not recognized by the “international community.” Apparently it is in the best interest of international elites to promote the existence of one Somalia under centralized rule instead of a confederation or several smaller states. But a cynic might wonder if the conflict which hinders the development of civil society and creates a power vacuum that can be taken advantage of, is strategically advantageous for international powers to perpetuate.
Violence is done in trying to force a centralized government on a country with decentralized power, and in forcing a modern state onto conflicting customary law. But proponents of central government are unable to accept that forcing everyone to obey whoever has government power might not be the best way to promote harmony among different interests and allegiances.
International activity in Somalia, whether to plant the flag, recover debt from defaulted loans, or rub out blowback from other empire-building projects, has persisted well beyond the famine relief missions of the early 1990s. Erik Prince’s new venture is only the latest in foreign intervention in the violent struggle to establish and maintain a central government. Forces of the United Nations, United States, and Ethiopia have attempted to influence the situation using military force. It might be impolite to look for parallels between these interventions and the establishment of colonies and protectorates in Africa during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
The hand of foreign exploitation is seen clearly in the piracy issue once the observer looks beyond the superficial explanation that boils down to “more force needs to be deployed to keep poor black people from committing crimes.” The long coastline of Somalia had traditionally been fished by locals operating small boats (who should thereby have a usufruct claim). But foreign ships either over-fished the waters or dumped toxic waste from wealthier nations. Somalis turned to piracy either to defend their shores or to make money in one of the few lucrative options left to them. When some “volunteer coast guard” operators engage in extortion against people who are not responsible for harming the Somali coast, they are only imitating government by levying taxes or demanding bribes.
But does the Somali case of authoritarians exploiting a fallen state mean that an anarchic area would necessarily be helpless against invaders? No. One must take note of the impoverishment of Somalia versus the prosperity of neo-colonial powers. Little was left in the hands of the Somali people when the looting state collapsed in 1991. They started with little yet were able to get somewhere.
A 2007 paper by Peter T. Leeson, Better Off Stateless: Somalia Before and After Government Collapse, shows that life for Somalis has on average improved relative to life under the Barre regime. Leeson examined a series of developmental indicators, including life expectancy, access to medical care, and access to communication technology. With more progress toward anarchy – by dissolving the authority of central government, regional government, and traditional inequality – more improvement could be made.
Anarchy didn’t establish dictatorships, make International Monetary Fund agreements, or deploy foreign militaries to Mogadishu. The problems in Somalia have been, and continue to be, caused by authoritarians and looters in government, business, and banking.
C4SS News Analyst Darian Worden is an individualist anarchist writer with experience in libertarian activism. His fiction includes Bring a Gun To School Day
and the forthcoming Trade War. His essays and other works can be viewed at DarianWorden.com. He also hosts an internet radio show, Thinking Liberty.
Hey Lefties, Obama Hates You
If only the right-wing radio nut jobs were right and Obama really were a leftist! I'd be the Black Messiah's biggest half-white, half-Mexican supporter.
Note to “the Left”: Obama Hates You
1968 Analogies
The 2008 Barack Obama campaign reminded some hopeful left and liberal observers of the fantastic, feel-good presidential campaign of Robert F. Kennedy (RFK). Like RFK in the turbulent summer of 1968, Obama swept up a considerable number of progressives in the illusion that big democratic transformation, peace and justice could be achieved by electing a different ruling class-sponsored candidate. In both cases, many on “the left” drank heavily and wistfully from the corporate-crafted pitcher of liberal, candidate-centered Kool Aid. It was a great and dreamy seduction.
When it comes to 1968 analogies, however, there is reason to see Obama’s real relationship with progressives and “the left” as closer to that of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley of the year. Think back to August ’68, more than four months after Daley had uttered his infamous “shoot to kill” order against black Chicagoans who rioted in the wake of the assassination/execution of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The Democratic Convention was underway at the old International Amphitheater in Chicago’s Back of the Yards neighborhood. The “anti-[Vietnam] war” candidate RFK – the likely victor in the primary contest (despite his late entry) – had been killed the previous month, leaving the Democrats free to nominate the hawkish Hubert Humphrey for the presidency.
Thousands of anti-Vietnam war protestors had converged on the city, to great media fanfare and Daley was not pleased. One evening during the convention, his cops bludgeoned “the hippies” and anyone else who looked vaguely left or liberal on the sidewalks and streets outside the Conrad Hilton Hotel (where most of the convention delegates stayed during the event) in the city’s downtown. The one-sided “police riot” (as it was later described by a federal commission) crashed protestors and others through some of the hotel’s great glass-plate windows. The assault was captured live on national television, with a crowd chanting “The Whole World is Watching.” I sat stunned as a grade-schooler in Hyde Park (a dreamy liberal neighborhood on the city’s South Side) as the scene shifted from the police state assault at Michigan and Balbo back to the convention floor, where Daley and his Irish-American political gang were seen yelling “fuck you” at a liberal Democrat (Abraham Ribicoff, Democratic senator from Connecticut) who denounced “Gestapo tactics on the streets of Chicago” while nominating George McGovern for the presidency.
(I should not exaggerate the RFK [dreamy and seductive] vs. Daley [ruggedly abusive] dichotomy when it comes to the relationship between Democrats and “the left” in the 1960s. Daley knew how to wrap his iron fist in the occasional velvet glove and was sometimes an expert practitioner of sophisticated, fake-progressive co-optation. At the same time, the liberal hero Bobby Kennedy had an ugly record of wiretapping, infiltrating, terrorizing and otherwise repressing radical and progressives forces at home and abroad – consistent with the fact that paranoid anti-Communist Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy was the Godfather of his first child.)
Note to “the Left”: Obama Hates You
Period Drug Could Save Your Life, Even If You're Not A Woman
This is an unpleasant topic, in more ways than one...
Drug for heavy periods could save lives in accidents by stopping bleeding
An inexpensive drug frequently used to slow bleeding by women with heavy periods can save lives by limiting bleeding after accidents or in war wounds, researchers reported this week. Those given the drug, called tranexamic acid, were at least 10% less likely to die...
For people age 5 to 45, trauma is second only to HIV/AIDS as a source of death worldwide, with about 3 million people dying from it each year, many after reaching the hospital. Among those who do reach the hospital, about half die from exsanguination -- bleeding out -- in some settings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
