From the Trenches of Class Warfare in America…

 

What we fight over

Why has the nation's reservoir of wealth drained away to unprecedented disparity from those of us working for a living? How did it get concentrated at the top?

 

Is it class warfare?

Some people are accusing Obama of class warfare, as he suggests letting tax cuts for the wealthy expire.  But evangelical leader Jim Wallis, of sojo.net, gets it right:  " ...let's be clear:  There really is a class war going on, and the upper class is winning." Former President Bill Clinton rightly pointed out last week that 90 percent of income gains in the last decade went to the top 10 percent, and 40 percent of the increased wealth went to the top 1 percent--those are folks who make their money on money, not on work.   That has left the rest of us who do real work watching our take home pay get cut and the cost of living keep rising.

 

The reasons aren't palatable at the top. The nation's top plutocratic politicians and pundits stir up deceptive froth to hide the truth, like this:

 

 "…The top 10% income pay 70% of the nation's income taxes!"  Fortunately, this time it fell dead on the floor. Not included in the finding was the percent of the nation's total personal income that lands in the pockets of those 10%. Plus, with so many loopholes for dividend income, billionaires and millionaires usually end up paying taxes at a lower rate than middle class wage-earners (Chris Hayes on MSNBC Sept. 24).

 

We hear this daily on the media, "But we can't tax the super rich... they provide jobs!"  If that's true, why have employment rates and real wages both continued to decline even with Bush's generous tax cuts in place?  Furthermore, what corporation hasn't benefitted from transportation, security, infrastructure, and educated employees... all provided by the public?  Shouldn't corporations invest back in the public works and services that make our nation stable?

 

Government Social Programs

The froth of this debate is so confusing most Americans just sip on. A 2008 poll of 1,400 Americans by the Cornell Survey Research Institute is revealing. Ninety-four percent of those Americans who said they were not beneficiaries of any government social programs actually were receiving government subsidy costing money to tax payers. Those making this false claim had in fact benefited from at least one; the average "I haven't participated!" respondent benefited from four (Susan Mettler, New York Times, Sept. 20, Cornell Survey).

 

Froth gets attention, unfortunately. So it was with the survey's first question: "Have you ever been a beneficiary of a government social program?" True to the emotional bias of those three words, of course they said no. Their second question was to examine a list of some 20 federal government programs, indicate if they had participated, and rate their experience. This included Social Security, unemployment insurance, the home-mortgage-interest deduction and student loans. That's when the truth became visible.

 

While the average American complains about big government, that same American most likely appreciates and participates in government social programs.  The reality is that nearly all of us like what government does for us. Case in point: Social Security.

 

What a lazy way to cut the national debt: renege on the promise of Social Security. Perry's Ponzi scheme charge, and that congressmen who agree with him, is really a double entendre Ponzi scheme to reduce our benefits to satisfy economic problems brought on by Wall Street's under-cover wealth concentration. We the taxpayers have already funded wealth-concentrating bailouts.

 

Social Security is different. The nest egg is transparent, we the people own it, and for decades it has been lowering the poverty rate of seniors from 50% at its inception to 10% now.  Unlike a Ponzi scheme, that money does not flow into the coffers of a few.  That's why the program is popular, valuable and solvent. That's why the elite get bug-eyed with greed at the mention of Social Security. See on line "WPIX-is-social-security-a-ponzi-scheme."

 

You elite Republicans, misguided Democrats, and Tea Party naysayers, don't mess with our Social Security. If you want to be in government, stop the scheme of our earned benefits leaving our middle class and piling up in the top one percent. You will eat those dregs yet.

 

Our media pushes the froth of political drama, hyperbole, and outright deception across the government bar to us the public. It's so comical. How can we avoid sipping froth? It's less inebriating to imbibe the reality of how and why the nation's reservoir of wealth has been extracted from those of us working for a living. 

 

The first tax of the first US Continental Congress was a property tax on the rich. Look up any source anywhere to find why they chose a property tax, and why they chose the rich to tax, leaving most first-generation Americans with no federal tax.

If we do swallow a few dregs of truth, would we really rather not know about it?

Look up 2011/09/21/inside-the-list-facts-and-figures  Forbes Magazine. 

 

Perry's Ponzi Schemes

Governor Perry hatched a Ponzi scheme that never really got off the ground, thanks to some fine Christian fundamentalist folk from the Texas countryside. With mandatory participation by every girl in Texas ages 12 and 13, and the profit from the scheme set to go to a big Pharma corporation that contributed heavily to his campaign, it looked like a done deal.  Who funded it? The government—that is, the Texas tax-payers, all of them. Read on line how Perry's Texas government Ponzi scheme was caught before it started, look up "texas-perrys-vaccine-mandate."

 

To top it off, Perry has divided Republicans with his charge that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, to the delight of the talking heads in the media.  This even filtered down to Big Horn County.  So let's cut the froth and connect the dregs to those who work for a living, especially those whose compensation is barely enough to float a family.  Look up

http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-money/2011/09/28/heres-the-real-social-security-ponzi-scheme/

 

When government/business colludes to the benefit of jobs for many, as in the subsidy to retool Ford factories to build its electric "Focus," it works. So Republicans this past weekend went after that money. Why don't Republicans and Tea Partiers go after the squandered tax-payer money of the Wall Street/government collusion that's at the root of our economic doldrums?  When have they criticized the Ponzi-like schemes that really have taken wealth from all of us for the benefit of a few?

 

The Economist Sept. 24-30 features the cover title "Hunting the Rich" and articles on class warfare in America.  Very informative, for all sides:      

http://www.economist.com/node/21530104 

--
David Graber
Hardin, MT  59034
www.greenwoodfarmmt.org

Is our war on terrorism doing what it takes?

 

This Sunday morning, Pentagon head General Crowley called us again to "do what it takes" to fight terrorism.  His implication was that our vengeance must continue because more terrorists have vowed to wreak havoc on our nation.  In his thinking, responding in kind honors not only the three thousand deaths on that terrible day, but also honors the thousands—we should acknowledge millions—of innocents who have suffered since that day.

This error in national policy is dragging us down. We have forgotten a fundamental portion of God's law from our Old and New Testaments, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord," Isaiah 63.4, Romans 12.19, and "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."  We are called by our faith not to respond in kind.

The reason is the more powerful way God commands in our Bible. Many of the world's peoples look at our American response to 9/11 with concern and curiosity. To them, we have become weak, even suicidal, with our juvenile theory that we must continue paying back a bigger, badder dose of the terrorists' own medicine.

After ten years there still is no serious national discussion on alternative responses to this heinous crime we remember on this tenth anniversary; we rather assume closure depends on an exception for us to God's law on revenge and murder.  We have still not asked our most qualified theologians, scientists and philosophers to lead such a discussion.

Let's be rational. It makes no more sense psychologically, scientifically, or theologically to find and delete—read ex-judicially execute or rendition—the world's terrorists than it does to set out to bully bullies into stopping their bullying. It works at first; we had and still have the power to eliminate evildoers all over the world. But it sends an unwise message: to survive in this world of multiplying evil people and suffering good people, what one needs is more power, more lethal weapons, and an improved ability to terrorize bullies and terrorists. In other words, pre-empt God's role in handling bullying terrorists like Bin Laden.

There's a better, stronger way. Part of it is training and upgrading national police forces worldwide to be responsible and accountable to their citizen's interest in democracy.  This is happening already with some thousand or more special ops teaching troops deployed in several terrorism-prone nations. But there's more, much more needing change in our international policy.

Let's start with our terrible intelligence on the "Arab Spring" sweeping tyrants off their terrorist tactics against their own citizens. Our government and media community told us this happened because people living under these oppressive regimes were suddenly fed up to a breaking point.

It's not true. Millions in the Middle East have been reading for decades, taken to heart and followed the principles of the book by Gene Sharp: "From Dictatorship to Democracy," It's now available in thirty different languages and free on line through hundreds of links, to the consternation of the governments of Syria and Bahrain. Using his book as a manual for unseating tyrants, citizens have organized seminars with teachers such as Dr. Sharp and spawned opposition groups across the Middle East, rebuilding hope for democracy.

Our government was caught off guard. The people of Egypt rebelled against a tyrant we considered a friend. His American-made military should have guaranteed stability for his regime. Yet his army hardware was rendered ineffective. Instead of tens of thousands dying and the nation's infrastructure in shreds as in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Tripoli, only several hundred were killed. And they were unarmed citizens, easy prey for his snipers. The discipline of the citizen movement held. Mubarak lost.

Our own politicians, media and government should stop ignoring this worldwide strategy for countering tyranny and apply it to terrorism, its twin. It is homegrown American common sense, deployed now to the Middle East. Let's be proud.

We Americans will solve our economic woes and stand more proud and secure when our government views terrorism as a world problem, rather than a unique American problem. This requires the courage to change course toward the principles of the Arab Spring, and to achieve parity among the nations rather than our current vast superiority in military strength to deal with it. Plus, we have national heroes to honor such as Gene Sharp whose contribution merits acknowledgement if not full pursuit. Our national survival must now drive us to rediscover our heritage of a better, stronger defense against terrorism than the one laid out by Bush and Obama, and supported by our current political parties.

The full column, with more on a rational approach, continues: It's amazing how totally gullible our government was to Bin Laden's strategy behind organizing the bombing of the twin towers. He said it way back then, and his words are remembered among anti-American Islamists today:

"…He repeatedly asserted that the only way to drive the U.S. from the Muslim world and defeat its satraps was by drawing Americans into a series of small but expensive wars that would ultimately bankrupt them." That's Bin Laden's script for fighting us. We need a different, much better script for fighting his ilk, not to respond in kind at Bin Laden with his own medicine, but to choose a stronger moral deterrent."
The American Conservative, quoting Bin Laden on this issue, May 20, 2011, by Eric Margolis. 

We Americans will stand more proud and secure when we acquire the courage to change course and deal with world terrorism responsibly, collaboratively and collectively on parity with the world's nations, instead of as the world's bully setting out to single-handedly to defeat the ghost of Bin Laden.

http://www.aeinstein.org/ the website of the Albert Einstein Institute.

Does this mean we should change our foreign policy? If America reads this book and follows it we citizens will be changing it. See also Noam Chomsky's article http://www.truth-out.org/after-911-was-war-only-option/1315582873 : "The jihadist movement, much of it highly critical of bin Laden, could have been split and undermined after 9/11, if the "crime against humanity," as the attacks were rightly called, had been approached as a crime, with an international operation to apprehend the suspects. That was recognized at the time, but no such idea was even considered in the rush to war. It is worth adding that bin Laden was condemned in much of the Arab world for his part in the attacks."

Our Obama administration has even denied the message of our national hero, Martin Luther King Jr., claiming he would support our government's policy of targeting our own citizens for covert executions contrary to due process language in our constitution. See my blog Jan. 26, 2011, for details, "What Would Martin Luther King Say."

Foreign aid works far better for our national interests when it helps other nations democratize their own society with schooling, access to health care, access to a fair economy, fair systems of jurisprudence, and helps them and us to see acts of terror for what they are: a crime problem.  Plus, it is almost infinitely more cost effective than bombing the daylights out of three Middle East Nations (four with the coming war against Pakistan or Iran), so our biggest corporations can reap billions in profits through our obligation to rebuild what we destroy at huge taxpayer expense each time.

Also Look up Gregg Mortensen from Bozeman, his book, "Three Cups of Tea."
Check out more details of Gene Sharp's research influencing the Middle East:
http://blog.sojo.net/2011/03/21/how-to-start-a-revolution-a-new-film-about-gene-sharp/

--
David Graber
Hardin, MT  59034

Deconstructing deadlocks

A rancorous tide of deadlocked issues is rising to create a nationally historic flood. Remember when we had a more independent media which facilitated honest debate of real issues? Back then, deadlocks were deconstructed. One or both sides won because truth was employed to deconstruct the deadlocks. We had a freer press, honest investigative journalism, and much less simple regurgitation of party lines of conspiring government-big business oligarchies.

When I came home from college in the mid-sixties, I had formed a new interest in national politics. Investigative reporters with Reuters and the NY Times wrote about President Nixon's secret commitment of our nation's armed forces in the nation of Cambodia. American blood was being shed in a secret war. American bombing pilots crashed in inaccessible places. Bodies were not recovered. The official Pentagon news was that they all died in Vietnam. Nixon fought to keep the war secret, but after the Pentagon papers were released by Daniel Ellsberg and were carried by the entire media, the deadlock began to be deconstructed. Then, Watergate happened.

After my mother found out about Watergate, her faith in God and country was shaken. To her, God had placed Richard Nixon into the nation's presidency. That meant opposing him was like opposing God.

"Mom," I said, home from college on Christmas vacation in the late sixties, "If Nixon is a Christian, he's not our kind of Christian. He lies, cheats, and has blood on his hands—blood of American soldiers."

She cried. I was mortified. She had experienced the deconstruction of a deadlock which had been built by the media over Richard Nixon's integrity.

This personal deadlock with my mother was the first I had ever experienced with my family over politics. Across the country, information the media released which showed President Nixon had indulged in criminal behavior was pitted against the traditional views of people like my mother. The deadlock was deconstructed with real information. It was stressful, but keeping Nixon's secrets was far from our best interests.

We were fortunate then to have independent investigative reporters – we don't have many anymore. With the internet, we can access international sources like The Guardian, Ha'aretz or Al Jazeera. Wikileaks is piercing the wall of secrecy erected by our government-business collusion, and doing it for our ultimate national interests. Yet, Wikileaks has been soundly attacked and discredited to the max possible by our government's military-industrial complex. Some of us are familiar with this deadlock.

This brings up our central deadlock desperately needing deconstruction. Some people say our response to 9/11 was right. Others say we are wrong. It's a deadlock going way back. Deconstruction will ultimately reveal government, religious and political leaders have led us down the wrong path – leading us anywhere and doing anything to anyone we happen to momentarily hate.

What do we get from being the world's policeman? Enormous national debt, cuts of essential services and inevitable tax increases used to take over lands and send record numbers of military and private citizens to build military bases in the ludicrous quest of being the world's policeman. We invoke fear of imprisonment, torture and death in anyone who opposes the friends we have chosen to support on foreign soil. In doing so, we have ruined indigenous infrastructures far more capable of fighting against the hatred we deplore. We have failed to deconstruct the deadlocks which mistakenly diagnose our much-hyped religious and political fears as a reason to war.

As a nation, we can still build on our primary strength: our citizen's capacity to address wrongs and make them right. Neither our government nor its wealthy corporate controllers will. This is demonstrated by the immense profiteering of publicly endorsed private sectors during our recent wars.

We have an awesome history of a strength that now trumps our capacity for war. We faced down the wall of racial segregation in America and deconstructed intractable deadlocked issues with their false perceptions. We won battles in Birmingham, Atlanta, Selma, and the entire South for a fair and just society. It doesn't get nearly as much attention as bombs and bullets, but we can do it again.

Last week, the largest statue on the mall in Washington, D. C. was dedicated to the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He battled the wave of deadlocked racial animosity that escalated into enormous civil unrest and shed his life-blood doing so. In deconstructing the deadlocked racial divide in America, the primary battle he won for the nation was the battle against our second civil war. That war was beginning in the early sixties and many warfare experts said then it was inevitable. It didn't happen. The American civil war of the 1960's was defeated. See Dr. Vincent Harding's recent book, Martin Luther King: The Inconvenient Hero. It's a book founded on the true strength of America.