America is on the precipice of a long, harsh and grinding Depression. Don’t get depressed. The experience will be uplifting. Americans have become fat, lazy and arrogant. The coming Depression will make all of us lean, hard working and humble, the true American family values. Those few Americans who have acquired three Burger Heaven franchises have become smug members of the petty bourgeoisie. They have conspired to eliminate the safety net that underpinned life in America. They will be the ones to fall the farthest and land the hardest without the internal fortitude to survive. All of us will be better for it.
The Coming Depression Is Not Depressing (May 9, 2005)
Posted in Economics, Society on May 9, 2005 by e-commentary.orgOhio – Not Forgettin’ Ohio; The Battleground State Battles On (May 2, 2005)
Posted in Bush, Civil Rights/Civil Liberties, Constitution, Crime/Punishment, First Amendment, Military, Politics, Society on May 2, 2005 by e-commentary.org[May 4 is the 35th anniversary of the incident at Kent State]
The battleground in Ohio in the Fall of 2004 could become another battleground in the Fall of 2006 or the Spring of 2007. America engaged in one of its periodic civil wars when the Ohio National Guard attacked kids who disagreed with America’s actions in the earlier Iraq. Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young (not a law firm) chronicled the activities in the eponymous essay entitled “Ohio.” “Got to get down to it, soldiers are gunning us down.”
The state revealed its character in the last election. Democracy flourishes in places like the Ukraine because the people demand it. The Republicans own Ohio and would not allow democracy to flourish there. With some commendable exceptions, Ohioans did not demand democracy. Not a good start. A cradle of democracy is a better starting place than a graveyard.
The Guard was always a hybrid group of militia that could both “provide for the common defense” and “promote the general welfare.” They were the backup local police and EMTs and weekend warriors who could spell the regular military for a few weeks or months at the front. They have been swept up in a Back Door Draft (BD) with “stop gap” orders in support of an illegal war. Bush has eviscerated the very haven he sought to avoid active military service to his country. Few will go into the Guard in the future except as a last desperate resort. When there is a need for Guardsmen to help after a hurricane in Florida, a tornado in Oklahoma, a wild fire in Montana, or an earthquake in Alaska, there may be no one there to assist. And there will be no one there to assist in a generation.
When the kids get conscripted in the Bush Front Door Draft (FD) to support the Second Crusades, will they resist? Will the few remaining members of the Guard shoot them or lay down their arms? Will this new generation of returning Guardsmen be willing to shoot American kids who don’t want to be departing Guardsmen? Time, they say, will tell. Forgettin’ Ohio? “How can you run when you know.”
Our Friend the Fed (April 25, 2005)
Posted in Federal Reserve, Gold Standard, Greenspan, Housing on April 25, 2005 by e-commentary.org(Part one of a two part series; part two appeared on February 7.)
(The Fed meets on May 3)
Montesquieu, a French guy who is sort of a founding grandfather, developed this notion to create three separate but interconnected branches of government – the executive, the legislative and the judicial. His intellectual kids, the founding fathers, were keen on the ideas. However, there was considerable disagreement and no agreement regarding the fourth branch of government – the economic. (Shortly after the big gathering in ’87, the boys gathered again in ’91 and sagely addressed the concerns of the Fourth Estate in special interest legislation known as Amendment Uno.)
Later, in 1913, under the administration of someone who now would be known as a tax and spend liberal, a measure was passed to take a little money from all of us and another bill was passed to determine how much money we got to play with to begin with. The Internal Revenue Act of 1913 (as amended) has gotten traction, although the 16th Amendment is not a household concept. The activities and agendas of the scheming group of bankers who constitute the fraternity known as the Federal Reserve have never been adequately incorporated into our constitutional democracy.
The bankers establish monetary policy. This is where most people turn to the racing form. Monetary policy determines everything. Put the racing form down and listen. However, there is no constitutional blue print to guide the bankers. Some of their tools are goals; some of their goals are tools. The fellows who work with the Fed have not made news because they prudently stay out of the news. They say it is okay to be rich, but it is not okay to be famous or infamous. Few of them get involved with showgirls, at least not publicly, or wear collars that are not button-down, at least not publicly. However, their actions make the news and determine the news.
What they do determines what we get to do. The economy was slumping some time ago. The jobs were going overseas and the stock market was going down the drain. Many people who own houses (and vote) found that others coveted their houses. Housing prices for existing stock went up. The homeowners’ stocks had gone down, but they felt good that their housing stock had gone up. The Fed flooded the economy with money by setting a low Federal Funds Rate and left us all, yup, awash in money. There were also more people who needed and/or desired a house or a bigger house or an even bigger house, so more were built. Low interest rates were a way of salvaging the American economy. The homes were built on American soil, driving up the price of American soil owned almost entirely by Americans. The homes were built with products made largely in America or Canada (wood, synthetic wood products). The homes were built here in America by Americans, albeit a few who are categorized as “illegals” even though they are building America. The one thing that Americans can do well here in America (and foreigners cannot do here in America) salvaged the economy. And left us with a lot of big homes.
At what cost? Low interest rates exacted a cost. Many members of the Greatest Generation (they were) cobbled together a very comfortable retirement from 1) their employers who at one time actually provided adequate defined-benefit plans, 2) their government that at that time provided adequate social security benefits, and 3) themselves via interest payments from savings or bonds or other fixed-income investments. The Great Triumvirate sustained them. In a pinch, these good people retired comfortably by selling the home they purchased in 1953 and spent their last years bass fishing at the cabin. The mortgage interest deduction rewarded them during their productive years; the $250,000 exemption from income on the sale of a personal residence protected the usufructs of their efforts and good fortune. It was a good time in a good country.
What about all of those individuals who relied primarily on interest payments to finance their retirement? Prudent personal financial planning and the insistence of the actuarial tables dictated that these seniors get out or stay out of risky investments as they got older and instead invest in regular interest-generating fixed income instruments. However, they got little for their money and their efforts in recent years. If they were fortunate enough to pay off their house and later sell it and if they could also could rely on 1) and/or 2) above, they could live comfortably in the smaller house. Seniors without 1) and/or 2) above may strain to live modestly.
However, why not set the Federal Funds Rate at ten percent instead of one percent? The old folks would receive more interest, although there may be restrictive pressure on growth. Those who demand a return to the gold standard seek a standard, although the metal does not set standards.
The Fed had been allowed to operate under a loose alliance without congressional oversight (or with congressional oversight?). For decades, the Fed addressed monetary policy and avoided fiscal policy. The Fed’s current helmsman has been opining on fiscal policy of late. Admiral Alan “Enron Award for Distinguished Public Service” Greenspan is adrift. The Fed is the most significant player setting the course and speed for the economic ship of state. There is no constitutional rudder to guide them. The statutory helm is loose. Incorporating the Fed into our constitutional scheme of democratic government is one of the challenges today.
Death and Taxes: $10 M and 33 1/3 % (April 18, 2005)
Posted in Economics, Entitlements, Estate Tax, Taxation on April 18, 2005 by e-commentary.org(Now that the taxes are filed, it is time to deal with death)
Ben F., the key and kite guy, observed that there are two certainties in life. Americans are so arrogant that they believe they are entitled to repudiate their mortality, although they do not believe they are entitled to pay for the effort. Now the Congress wants to repudiate life’s other certainty, the payment of taxes upon death. Is there no certainty in life?
Estate taxes (E taxes) are paid on the loot before anyone gets their paws on it. Most Estate taxes are paid to the Feds, although the states will need to reach into the pot and grab a handful to survive in the near future. Inheritance taxes (I taxes) are paid by the individuals after they get their paws on the lucre. Most Inheritance taxes are collected by the states, although the Feds savor taxing any income from any source.
Contrary to the suggestions of their phalanxes of lawyers, lobbyists, lackeys, accountants and publicists, the rich often never paid tax on large chunks of their bounty. Those who can afford almost anything should be afforded the opportunity to be first-class citizens. Getting by on $10 million per couple and 66 2/3 % of the remaining stash is fair and balanced. Anything below ten million per couple should be exempt; anything over should be taxed at 33 1/3 %. A typical $20 M estate would yield $16 2/3 M for the kids. That is the definition of fairness. Fooling around with life’s certainties is foolish. And improvident.
The “Ownership State” and “Bush, Inc.” (April 11, 2005)
Posted in Bush, Economics, Politics on April 11, 2005 by e-commentary.orgThe “ownership state” is a movement to establish a very small cadre of Republicans who own the ship of state, and everything else.
Also marketed as the “ownership society,” the “Raw Deal,” or the “Malignant Society.”
Bush, Inc. (Ticker Symbol: BuSh), a multinational corporation incorporated offshore, offers publicly traded preferred shares affording one who can afford it an opportunity to make a pure play to “own America.” Individuals, but only very wealthy individuals, can acquire an interest in the enterprise in various dollar denominations marketed as “Rangers” and “Pioneers” and “Cattle Rustlers” and “Robber Barons” and “Inside Traders.” Bush, Inc. has successfully fooled the public into believing that ordinary citizens can acquire a share of America, but they offer no common stock.
Karl Rove, winner of the J.P. Goebbels Propaganda Award for 1999, for 2000, for 2001, for 2002, for 2003 and for 2004 and a finalist for 2005, is the CPO (Chief Propaganda Officer) and scrivener of the prospectus. Call for the prospectus which does not include investment objectives, risks, charges, expenses or other information. Operators are standing by. Read and consider the prospectus carefully before investing. Past performance can be used to predict future performance. As with any prospective investment, take the time to do some additional research. Note that many Officers and Board members stand for retention election next November. A change in management is the only way to bring about change.
USA PATRIOT ACT (April 4, 2005)
Posted in Bush, Civil Rights/Civil Liberties, Law, PATRIOT Act, USA PATRIOT Act on April 4, 2005 by e-commentary.orgUSA PATRIOT ACT – Undermining and Subverting America by Perverting All Time-honored Rules To Interrupt and Overcome Tyranny
What more needs to be said?
Black, Yellow, White, Brown, Red and Green: An E-ssayer on Immigration (March 28, 2005)
Posted in Immigration, Language, Military, Race on March 28, 2005 by e-commentary.org“We’ll give some land to the niggers and the chinks, but we don’t want the Irish,” the mayor observed in the movie Blazing Saddles (1974). If America can survive the invasion of the Irish, it can survive anything, even the invasion of the Hispanics. Even a half-breed who is 1/4 Irish can hold down at least a part-time job in this land of easy living.
The southern invasion of Mexicans across the American border is causing anxiety. Republicans decried illegal immigration at their convention in San Diego while ordering high balls from the “illegals” working the room. Repubs hire “illegals” and do not pay minimum wages or unemployment taxes, if they pay the “illegals” at all. By maintaining the pool of “illegal” workers, Repubs are able to cut labor costs substantially. The “illegals” do the work that 1) regular ‘Mericans will not do that also 2) cannot be outsourced. Even with today’s technology, an Indian (from India that is) cannot mow our lawns, make our beds, or raise our kids.
Is the invasion calculated and organized with a secret agenda? Land acquisition principles over time are revealing. A young American country expanded geographically in the 19th century by buying land (Louisiana Purchase; Alaska) from countries that did not own the land (France; Russia). The land was stolen, fair and square. Time and practices change. One of the central lessons of the 20th century is that the world will allow a country to take another country by investment but not by invasion (Germany; Japan; China in the current century). The American landscape and mapa may change. “California” and “Baja California” may become “Alto Peninsular” and “Peninsular.” What will happen when (blue) California and the (red) swath running from the Gadsden Purchase region, through Texas and the Southern Southern states become the de facto 30th province of Mexico? What will happen depends on what we want. It’s that simple.
Someone once said that stereotypes are unfair, but they are earned. What stereotype have these people earned? Are they hard working or lazy? Are they patriotic or provincial? Are they selfless or selfish? The “-ezs” (Alvarez, Fernandez, Gonzalez, Hernandez, Lopez, Martinez, Ordonez, Perez, Ramirez, Rodriquez, Sanchez, Torrez, Valazquez, etc.) have contributed a disproportionate share of blood to the recent blood drives conducted by the U.S. military. Seems that such a contribution suggests hard work and patriotism and selflessness. The answer is simple. They are in large part what they are allowed to be. By us.
The War on Immigrants is like most of the wars that America initiates. There is no strategic thought and no thoughtful strategy. By forcing the illegals to act illegally, they are being taught to behave illegally and are learning to behave illegally. Once here (which they will be), they will maintain a distant, distrustful and confrontational relationship with all the institutions that they otherwise might support if they were allowed to support them and be supported by them. They will never trust authority or an individual in a uniform, even a fireman or a park ranger or a brownie scout. They will fear every uniform except the one they wear proudly, the one that allows them to sport the combat infantryman badge.
The immigrants who are allowed to participate above ground in the economy will be subject to taxes easily collected even if unwillingly remitted by their employers. All the whining about the aging baby boomers may be moot if there is a new pool of imported labor into the country. The fundamental and growing problem they will also confront, however, is that America cannot competitively produce goods and provide services that are sought by other countries. Perhaps they will have a solution or be part of the solution.
What about language? The language of the USA is and should be American English. The critical documents and the laws and the literature are crafted in American English. Whether it should have been German or French or Gaelic or Swahili is now moot. The country should not adopt bilingual status such as our more enlightened neighbor to the north. Different traditions; different history; different concerns. English is a bugger of a language to learn except at one’s mother’s breast. There should be many specially tailored programs to make the transition and the translation as easy and seamless as possible. Lessons in both languages in school are appropriate and desirable, particularly in the younger grades. Bilingual signs and directions aid Americans who should be learning Spanish. The signs act as public flash cards; the bilingual instructions are free homework assignments with the answers provided in American. The welcoming sign should say “Rio Grande / Big River”; translations into Mandarin and Cantonese would be prescient. At the end of the day, however, everyone should be expected to speak and write in American English. Did the German immigrants learn English? Did the French immigrants learn English? Did even the Irish immigrants learn the peasant language of the invaders? Will the new immigrants learn the language? Sure. Make the transition smooth and pleasant.
Because no one can win la Casa Blanca without the Hispanic vote, both political parties will be patronizing and condescending. This reality offers great promise. Imagine Paul Rodriquez as Ambassador to the United Nations. Imagine welcoming new citizens who become welcomed citizens.
Samuel Huntington does not need to fret. Everything’s cool. We will get precisely what we want and cultivate from this new wave. Do we really know what we want?
America The Bankrupt (Jan. 17) Revisited (March 21, 2005)
Posted in Economics, Law on March 21, 2005 by e-commentary.orgOn the domestic front: The new bankruptcy reform bill may be a trigger for America’s bankruptcy. The new bill makes it more expensive for someone who has no money to file bankruptcy. Everyone mired in debt is now under the gun to file bankruptcy under the current scheme before the effective date of the new legislation in 180 days or to forsake the opportunity. Debtor bankruptcy attorneys will be doing a land-office business filing petitions in the next six months. The credit card industry that benefits from usurious interest provisions and late fees is protected by the new legislation. However, the very industry that provided the “crack cocaine of the middle class” (Feb. 7) now may be hoisted by their own petard.
On the international front: Japan, China and South Korea are approaching one trillion (T) in Yankee debt. Japan is looking askance at China and South Korea; China at Japan and South Korea; South Korea at Japan and China. Europe is looking East then West then East then West the East. Each player knows that pulling the plug will produce devastating economic consequences; not pulling the plug will produce devastating economic consequences. What does game theory suggest? One country will concoct a convenient domestic political crisis to diversify out of American dollars or to simply quit acquiring dollars or American debt.
International Economic Seismic Activity (IESA):
Player: Stake (Bs): Anxiety:
Japan 701.6 March 12-Prime Minister Koizumi seeks “diversity”
China 194.5
U.K. 163.0
Caribbean 92.5
Korea 67.7 Feb. 22- Central Bank thinking about foreign currencies
In addition, the Producer Price Index (PPI) is stirring and soon the Consumer Price Index (CPI) will accelerate in response. The price of oil is driving up the PPI (John’s dear tractor is more expensive to fuel) and also the CPI (Jane’s dear SUV is more expensive to fuel). Gas may hit $4 a gallon. The Fed must raise interest rates to stave off inflation. With inflation on the rise, the nominal interest rates must rise even more to provide a real rate of return. Those half dozen Americans who have the discipline to save also have the knowledge to understand a ROI (return on investment). The rising interest rates will tank the bond market. The stock market is tanking of its own excess. And few are concerned with domestic spending. The body politic needs life support. Congress will soon need to pass a Crisis Budget (CB).
“Strict Construction” Strictly Construed (March 14, 2005)
Posted in Law, Supreme Court on March 14, 2005 by e-commentary.org“Strict construction” is a legal philosophy that construes every law and regulation to promote and advance the interests of rich white boys.
Its adherents urge the abrogation of all legislation and Constitutional developments since 1787, with desperately few exceptions. The movement springs from a conviction that no good ideas have been propounded in over 200 years. In addition, anything that worked poorly in the past is considered good enough for us today. The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution may state: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The party faithful disparage this inconvenient language in part because it was not asserted until 1791. Too late, they say.
However, in deference to this fundamental principle, a few newfangled notions are tolerated. For instance, they contend that Blacks will not be treated as 3/5ths of a human being under the law. With rises in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), they will be endowed by these creators as 7/10ths of a human being. White women are to be accorded 3/4ths status; Black women are to be accorded 72.5 percent status.
Virginia proclaims that it is for lovers, but it wasn’t for Loving. When a consenting Black adult and a consenting White adult sought to marry, they encountered a Virginia government edict precluding them from engaging. In Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Supreme Court allowed the two to decide for themselves. Nine souls on the Court spoke with one voice to reject miscegenation laws. This type of clear thinking is anathema to the strict deconstructionists. They want neo-activist judges to actively legislate against these legal developments.
However, the strict constructionists are not unreconstructed in their antipathy to all developments since 1787. They condemn the Supreme Court in action but champion Supreme Court inaction. When the Supreme Court had an opportunity a generation ago in San Antonio v. Rodriguez (1973) to provide adequate funding for public schools, the Court implicitly found that “separate and unequal” schools passed constitutional muster, although “separate but equal” schools perforce failed muster. Later courts did make valiant efforts to equalize funding between poor kids and rich kids.
Advocates of the reactionary doctrine note that men’s and women’s bathrooms are still separate but equal. Why not the schools and other public and private institutions, they suggest? Strict constructionism is coming to a demagogue near you.
The disdain for miscegenation laws and anxiety over “separate but equal” treatment is still at play among concerned individuals. Today, a California trial judge held that California’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, comparing it to the miscegenation laws that once blocked interracial marriage and promoted “separate but equal” segregation. Once again, the strict constructionists seek to keep litigating the issue and advancing unequal protection under the law. The America antinomy is to proclaim equal protection under the law and to practice oppression.
Mutual Assured Incompetence – The Missile Defense Hoax (March 7, 2005)
Posted in Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, Military, North Korea on March 7, 2005 by e-commentary.orgThe star wars missile defense system is designed to fight a war that we actually won. Beat CCCP; we did. Former President Carter’s grain embargo and decades of internal decline doomed the former Soviet Union. In 1989 when the [Berlin] wall came tumbling down and exposed the border and then in 1991 when the center of the “evil empire” imploded, defense policy needed to change. The missile defense system assumes there is a threat from a source that is capable of reaching the United States with a projectile. Any missile launched from overseas likely would land in the ocean, if it got off the ground. Any missile sent by the U.S. in response likely would land square in the center of an American town square, if it got off the ground. Mutual Assured Incompetence. The savior of humanity.
The real threat is from individuals and small groups able to access a wealth of readily available material and hand deliver a weapon in a suitcase or box to the target while operating under the national security radar. Those in power make little effort to secure that dangerous material or combat the obvious and effective delivery methods.
On February 23, our enlightened friends to the north opted out of the insanity. Canada rejected the growing “weaponization of space.” Rational individuals agree that Iran and North Korea should not have access to Fourth of July fireworks or water balloons. However, these countries have been forced in part to pursue a nuclear option because the “Bush Doctrine” only respects a foreign country’s sovereignty if it is a nuclear power. Placing complete faith in an expensive boondoggle missile defense system designed to confront an unlikely threat while completely disregarding the present and real danger is self-defeating and self-destructive. McCain, front and center. Duty calls.
[When the country is forced to establish a Crisis Budget (CB), this program will be abandoned.]
e-commentary 