What Do You Want For Christmas?

Just as a thought experiment, let's say that the election goes the way it should and the Democratic Party sweeps it in the landslide that really could be. So we, the non-insane portion of the electorate, have control over the federal government and hopefully made some progress unraveling teabag control over so many of the states. What do "we" do? And I guess it has to be stated as what is your wish list of progressive ideas? The number one challenge facing the United States is the Republican Party, for argument's sake let's assume that they have been rendered more or less harmless in the wake of a landslide election for the moment, what is number two? There is such a backlog of issues, such a huge pile of reforms necessary. What would you prioritize if you could have the ear of President Hillary Clinton and Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Leader Chuck Schumer? There is a good chance even with the professional liberal class of Democrats in charge, we progressives will get at least one thing from our list addressed. Last time it was health insurance reform, and judging on what Obamacare has actually done as opposed to what could have been it has made a real difference in the lives of many Americans for the good. This time around the issue that could make a real difference in the long run is the establishment of a financial transactions tax on stocks and bonds.

Of course, the sheer number and depth of problems facing this country and the world is breathtakingly immense. Why start there? My contention is that the force driving all the other problems is rooted in the fact that too few people have too much money and therefore power. Imposing what is in effect a sales tax on the things they buy will begin to drain the swamp of the speculative capital that has wrecked so much havoc on main street. Busting through the obstruction from the parasitic right and the resistance from Democrats who foolishly respect wall street as the paragon of professionalism will be difficult in the extreme, that's why it has to be the first thing done. Riding in a wave election and still beholden to the little people, I think there's a chance to ram it through. First, a tax on financial transactions could be very small, even 0.1%, just the establishment and legitimization of such a direct assault on entrenched privilege would be enough.

Income and wealth equality; a whole package of "social questions" that Thomas Frank, Robert Reich, Bernie Sanders, and so many others have articulated; is the cause of most problems and the impediment to addressing so many others. This country is so flooded with capital that the uber rich cannot find productive uses for it, or perhaps they don't want to. So they buy politicians, both personally while in office and guaranteeing future obedience through lobbyist jobs and other perks. This is just intolerable. The only way to start reducing the bribery, greed, and injustice at the top of our society is to drain that swamp of money that just corrupts people and distorts markets. That is why the financial elite have bought the important politicians in both parties and drive the price of entry into politics so high that only themselves or their servants can have a chance at power.

The primary effect of charging a sales tax on stock exchanges is to slow things down. That is how the original idea of James Tobin's tax was envisioned. He wanted the tax imposed on spot conversions of currency that would penalize speculation against currencies and stabilize economies, especially after computers skyrocketed the amount of speculation that occurs in those markets. That is a good idea too, as global capital now has the power to crush countries with attacks on their currencies. But just in terms of domestic financial markets a small transaction tax would slow down and stabilize markets too. Would the Dow Jones have lost so many points after the "leave" vote was tallied in the UK if people had to weigh paying an absolute tax for impulsive trades? It is likely enough investors would remember that the Brexit was actually non-binding, a momentary loss of reason by the mob that did not need to be repeated in the market.

The practical effect is all upside for the public interest. If trading is slowed down then mutual fund managers will have fewer opportunities to lard up pension funds with fees. Also, it will be more difficult for panics to set in if every investor has to weigh the tax they paid for a stock against the gains, they will on average wait a little longer. Plus, it will absolutely eat into the obscene compensation packages of managers and brokers. When a uniform cost like a tax is levied on all businesses of an industry, if there is any competition between firms they have to eat some portion of it or someone else will and steal all the business. There is a lot of competition between firms on wall street. And we won't even have to take seriously the moans and shrieks of outrage by the fat cats that a sales tax on stocks will sink grandma and grandpa, the usual line of propaganda whenever regulating wall street comes up, because average investors buy long. No, the tax will be borne most heavily by the big players that buy and sell all day, every day.

But the symbolic effect of taking on wall street by a Hillary Clinton administration, even in a way that will encourage stability in the market, will defuse so many of the detractors who say she is too cozy with the fat cats. It will be the first step in democracy finally reimposing regulation over an out of control and very dangerous sector of the economy that has so much power. It is really difficult to find actual dollar amounts for the trading on wall street, but it is likely in the trillions... per day. Therefore, even a 0.1% tax would raise significant revenue for a federal government always strapped for cash. That would amount to a billion dollars for each trillion bought, each day. A billion dollars not available for Goldman Sachs and the rest to lobby, bribe, and extort government. A billion dollars a day "redistributed" from the vultures and pirates who stole it. Maybe for once we could use it for something productive? Shoring up Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid come to mind. Or, a real Public Option, infrastructure spending, buying back all of the toll roads and parking meters that have been privatized, even getting the cost of education down to what it was when our parents went to college or forgiving student loans. The possibilities are endless, the public needs are great, and once put in place the tax could be raised and lowered as one more fiscal tool to manage the economy.

Anyway, that's my Christmas wish. If you agree, share this post and let's make it happen.

Election 2016: "Course Objectives"

 If this series were a college class, think of this as the syllabus. I'm not a professor in real life so this post will be loose of necessity and subject to revision. However, there are some goals we should be striving for so I will try to get some down.

First, there will be no assigned reading or papers. Though I might suggest some texts for further investigation and some applications or exercises you may want to try. There won't be any grades or credits awarded obviously, by the "end" of this series you should have a better understanding of our government and politics. 

Second, there will probably be a lot of history. I want this series to give you a very large perspective and that will require an understanding of where we came from. I especially want to discuss the intellectual history of the republic. 

Third, ideology. While I stated in the introduction that people have nearly infinite experiences and varied outlooks or expectations for issues and government, we can generally group them under common ideas. This will make parties and elections easier to understand.

Fourth, American government. Checks and balances, divided branches, and staggered elections. The organization of our Federal Government can be challenging but once you understand how and why this is so politics becomes easier to understand.

Fifth, reliable and unreliable sources. For good or ill, media has become very broad in the age of the internet. We will go over examples and guidelines for how to judge the veracity and relevance of a source of information.

Sixth, rhetoric. Politicians and political writers use what can seem like another language at times. We will discuss what certain common words and phrases actually mean.

This list will probably take a good amount of time to cover. It is my sincere hope that when this project is complete it will be of some use to you. 

No More Naders

I just admitted in my last post that I was one of the three million odd voters who made it possible for George W Bush to steal the presidency in 2000. We are so close to the same scenario in 2016 that I am really scared. I really felt like the way to build on the peace and prosperity at the end of the Clinton administration was to get behind a genuine liberal like Ralph Nader. While I fantasized a little about him actually winning and what that would look like in reality, my main goal was to make a protest kind of statement that the Democratic Party cannot take "us" for granted. It was cringe-worthy watching Al Gore capitulate to his campaign consultants. First he was all wooden and passive aggressive with the smirking chimp, refusing to actually attack back and more importantly just "me tooing" all the right wing frames about taxes and immigration, etc. Then he picked Lieberman as his running mate and refused to campaign on the successes of the administration he was part of. Gore did not take advantage of having Bill Clinton stump for him, and ran against his boss by making his infinitesimally small contribution to the election narrative all about morals and his supposed superior family values. In short Gore played to the right wing's perception and did not look at the really existing state of the union.

Obviously the Clinton years were not perfect, but there was enough good there to build on in a Gore administration. The alternative was just unbelievable. But I, and many people like me who voted Green based on hope and an imperfect understanding of that really existing state of the union, did not have the cautionary tales of the past in living memory that could have given me perspective. I was only barely aware of Reagan's October surprise and Nixon's ratfucking skulduggery. I did not even understand the horrible implications of George H. W. Bush's "Willie Horton" campaign. Clinton's indiscretions did not bother me, but his violation of the war powers act in the Balkans and his continued pursuit of "free trade" that threatened my livelihood did. Gore's seemingly obsessive and puritanical drive to exorcise all the moral demons of his boss while not addressing the economic and social issues I cared about was a real turn off.

Okay, that was sixteen years ago. Today we have Bernie Sanders playing the role, however obliquely, of Ralph Nader. By 2004, it was clear that Nader's subsequent run for president was all about Ralph and the movement I thought I was a part of was dead. Now it was a matter of saving the republic and I enthusiastically supported John Kerry after he won the nomination. A common trope I heard from supposedly serious people was that you don't switch horses mid-stream. When I would answer "even if the horse jumped in that stream against your will and was trying to drown you in it?" The reply would generally be some sort of ad hominem about my intelligence, maturity, or liberalism. Such high thinkers my pals.

Nader was third party from the beginning, it was all about showing the Democratic Party that they couldn't take us for granted and we weren't going to accept republican lite. "They aren't entitled to anyone's votes" was the common refrain from Naderites, meaning the Democrats. Now, you had to be a political junkie to realize just how awful George W. Bush was before he stole the presidency. This time around there is no question that any republican winning the presidency would be an absolute disaster. And the left candidate is a long-time elected official who caucused with the Democrats for his entire tenure in congress but was never dependent on or beholden to them as Clinton style DLC triangulation tried to co-opt the republicans. Sanders is running for the nomination of the Democratic Party and has not threatened to go the third party route if he doesn't win. Therefore anyone is free to vote for him now and still have time to support Hillary Clinton if she wins instead. No problem right?

Now the joke of "don't switch horses mid-stream" is on us. As in, we either do the almost impossible task of electing a Democrat to succeed the Democratic President or we all drown. There has been so much talk about supposed Berniebros who trash Hillary Clinton all the time and refuse to vote for her under any circumstances. I have yet to witness one myself, all the Sanders supporters I have encountered seem passionate but reasonable and share my goal of keeping the republicans out at all costs. The only person I know personally to make the "I won't vote for Hillary no matter what" speech was a middle-aged woman who as far as I know is a life long true socialist radical, not a "bro." I suspect that a good percentage of these "bros" are paid or unpaid GOP trolls posing as democratic socialists and making loud noises for purity. And in the age of social media this kind of fraud is extremely plausible, it only takes a few articulate trolls making tirades to convince the weak-minded to follow them.

I for one am not going to make the same mistake in 2000. Here's my unfortunately titled post on Bernie Sanders from last May, I still believe in it. Now if we can all just act like grownups and not make hissy fits and tantrums while debating who should be the leader of the free world we might not wake up the morning after the election to PRESIDENT CRUZ.

Fifty Shades of Sanders

The big news this week for political junkies, the kind that pay attention between elections and sometimes naively believe that progress is possible, is that Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has announced that he will seek the Democratic nomination for president in 2016. He has always caucused with the Democratic members of Congress in both houses while a member there, but remains an Independent. If there is one thing you should take away from this post and every discussion about Sanders, it is that he is the real deal. It is hard to look at his life and his record and not see that this is a genuine and sincere leader who really cares about people. Average people, working people, middle-class people; Sanders stands for them and stands against the very wealthy and the powerful interests who have made it so hard to get ahead. He is exactly the kind of person who should be president.

When James Madison wrote about the checks and balances in the Constitution, he made it clear that the people who debated and formulated our government's founding laws knew that the people who would lead and make laws were not angels. Thus, many safeguards were put in place because even the best of intentions can go wrong. Madison would be shocked to see how the men who are furthest from being angels have circumvented those checks on power to ram through all the abuses we have seen in recent history. All while the checks and balances have restrained those closer to the angels from cleaning up the mess or fixing things. Madison knew all about the parasitic courtiers who wrung special favors and privileges out of monarchic governments in the name of mercantilism, he would not be surprised by the web of lobbyists and corrupting money built up around the Capitol. Nor would he be surprised that special interests are able to craft legislation while the public is cannibalized. This blog tries very hard not to believe in white knights who would govern in the public's interest. I have prided myself on being practical, skeptical, and realistic. So believe me when I say I have spent a lot of time thinking about reasons why we should not support Senator Sanders. I can't think of any.

That is not to say I do not see all the potential pitfalls. The right has made it a cottage industry to discredit any possibility of good people running for office, the amount of mud that will be slung against Bernie Sanders and anyone who supports his campaign will be unbelievable. Will any of it stick? Well if the devious and well-funded agents of fox news and the Koch brothers are able to set the terms of debate, yes. But it is a long road to November of 2016, and this time could be the one where we actually start talking to each other. Open and honest debate between real people would go further towards shielding ourselves from their lies than any mainstream campaign damage control method ever. And Senator Sanders will attract the kind of honest, big-hearted people that would never consider getting involved with the standard "business as usual" campaign.

It is high time idealism got an honest chance to change the conversation. We need big ideas with personal ramifications to cut through the usual wedge issues that divide us. It is time to remember that the younger generation are not some species apart, spoiled little brats that can easily be tarred with whatever vice happens to be on the tongue of Bill O'Reilly today, but they are our children and our friends' children, etc. Then we can remember that seniors are our grandparents, not just grumpy gray-haired monsters who believe everything fox news tells them. Instead of worrying about what others are doing that we may not approve of, a new conversation could start asking questions like "why is my cell phone bill so damn high?" "Why do I keep making payments on my credit cards and student loans but the balance never seems to go down?"

These and others are the questions we can ask in a Sanders campaign. These are the questions that need to be asked, and if enough of us start asking them we can finally cut through the supply-side, free-market fantasy and demand that the wealth needs to be shared. That there is nothing so valuable that a CEO can do to warrant their multi-million dollar compensation packages while so many of us struggle just to keep the lights on. The Koch brothers have stated that they plan to spend almost a billion dollars to lie to us and buy the government, so they can keep stealing from us. A Sanders campaign will not shy away from stating that no individual or family should have a billion dollars lying around to buy the government.

Bernie Sanders is the real deal, he has proven it time and again. This country doesn't deserve him, but maybe we can cut the crap for once and get a good leader we can believe in.