Author, and 1-percenter, Stephen King wrote an Op-Ed piece into Newsweek/The Daily Caller yesterday castigating the calls of some prominent Republican legislators (he specifically calls out New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie) to such 1 %'ers as King, as Warren Buffett, as Bill Gates, and many more, to just write a check to the IRS and "shut up" instead of questioning why their tax rates are so low and demanding politicians raise their rates to fix the fiscal mess plaguing the country.
King, ostensibly insouciant to any political fire that may result, pulls no punches in his argument for increased taxes on the wealthy, and seems particularly disdainful of Christie's "rudeness." What I think is important here is that even though Democrats have (for now) lost the vote on President Obama's "Buffett Rule," some people are not done having this debate.
"Tired of hearing about it, they said," King paraphrases opponents to the rule.
"Tough shit for you guys, because I'm not tired of talking about it."
King goes on to explain that yes, he and many other (even the Koch brothers) charitable, wealthy 1 %'ers already give millions in donations every year, but it's simply not enough.
"What charitable 1 percenters can’t do is assume responsibility—America’s national responsibilities: the care of its sick and its poor, the education of its young, the repair of its failing infrastructure, the repayment of its staggering war debts. Charity from the rich can’t fix global warming or lower the price of gasoline by one single red penny. That kind of salvation does not come from Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Ballmer saying, “OK, I’ll write a $2 million bonus check to the IRS.” That annoying responsibility stuff comes from three words that are anathema to the Tea Partiers: United American citizenry." [Emphasis not mine.]
You can read the entire article here.
Showing posts with label Tea Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tea Party. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Friday, April 20, 2012
Obama's Debt Problem? He's Served Leftovers
We’re going to see a lot over the next few months prior to the 2012 Election (as maybe some of you have seen already these past few months) charts and graphs excoriating President Obama’s lavish “spending” and how he will have increased the debt by nearly $5 trillion dollars over his first term, equal to Pres. George W. Bush’s full two terms in office. In truth, that’s a hell of a lot of money. And since Congress is steadfast in their opposition to any revenue raising legislation, our debt “crisis” will only get worse if conservatives win this election. But how is this even possible? How could Obama gorge himself so substantially in just a few years to the same tune as Pres. Bush did in eight? Well, turns out these figures only explain half the problem. It wasn’t that Obama waltzed up to the “per-pound” buffet and just started piling food on the plate. Sure, he went and picked a few of the things he liked, but when GWB got up from the table, he slid a mass of half-eaten food right onto President Obama’s plate before cutting out on the bill.
Last year, during the debt-ceiling debacle, Republicans were quick to judge Obama’s policies over his first two full years in office as “out of control spending”. The debt had already risen substantially during Obama’s first term in office, and someone had to put their foot down and say, “No more.” Republicans, led by a hungry scad of new Tea Party legislators, were just the team for the job. But while conservatives were quick to chastise the President, and liberals in general, for their lavish spending, most notably the $1 trillion stimulus package, they failed to recognize that much of the fast-increasing debt was from policies that they enacted during a Bush II presidency.
The previous winter, Republicans held lower- and middle-class tax cuts hostage unless tax cuts for the very rich, those making over $250,000 per year, were extended also, i.e. the Bush Tax Cuts. The Bush Tax Cuts contributed to over $1.8 trillion worth of Bush’s total debt by time he left office, and they continue to do so today. It should be noted as well, that this figure alone disproves the mantra that tax cuts for the wealthy pay for themselves by spurring new hiring and hence increasing tax revenue from the working class. If that were true, the Bush Tax Cuts would have reduced the deficit.
And then there’re the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These mired military engagements have cost a staggering sum, not only in dollars, but in American morale and American lives. And really, what have we gained? That’s a discussion for another time. But these are Bush-era holdovers, Republican policies gone awry, and Obama is left to clean it up. Indeed, he has done an exceptional, responsible job in this regard, ending military operations in Iraq and continuing to wind down our involvement in Afghanistan.
What we have is a large bevy of Bush-era policies, continued by Republicans through the Obama administration, that are the sole reason for our national debt issues. But don’t take my word for it. This chart was released amidst the debt-ceiling debate last year highlighting new policies enacted under George W. Bush and new policies enacted during Obama’s first term in office.
The contextual view is that Obama’s policies have increased the debt, but his new policy measures were only temporary expenditures meant to stabilize a depressing economy. If he had not been shackled with so many poor policy decisions of the previous administration, the country would be in a considerably better position now than we are. If the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthiest had not been extended, that would be $1 trillion off Obama’s “tag” right there. If Bush hadn’t let the housing bubble inflate and burst so disastrously, Obama wouldn’t have needed his own stimulus package (it does one well to remember that Bush bailed out the banks and enacted his own stimulus package in the wake of the financial crash of 2008), and been left with high unemployment leading to decreased tax revenues, both of which are impacting the debt substantially.
I mean, these are pretty clear numbers here. Based on the policies Obama has enacted, he will only raise the deficit less than $1.5 trillion over an 8 year period. That’s 1/3 of Bush’s total over that same time period. The massive increase in debt over the past few years has been partly due to the stimulus and the effects of the Great Recession, but the rest has been the leftovers from what will be considered one of the worst presidencies in American history. Yes, there is some validity in the argument that Obama should have been stronger and Democrats should have done more to end Bush’s ridiculous policies. I agree with that. But when it comes to the deficit hawks’ fanatical insistence showing “Obama’s out of control spending,” it’s all just politics to get a Republican back into office to continue the same policies Bush used to bloat our national debt in the first place.
The previous winter, Republicans held lower- and middle-class tax cuts hostage unless tax cuts for the very rich, those making over $250,000 per year, were extended also, i.e. the Bush Tax Cuts. The Bush Tax Cuts contributed to over $1.8 trillion worth of Bush’s total debt by time he left office, and they continue to do so today. It should be noted as well, that this figure alone disproves the mantra that tax cuts for the wealthy pay for themselves by spurring new hiring and hence increasing tax revenue from the working class. If that were true, the Bush Tax Cuts would have reduced the deficit.
And then there’re the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These mired military engagements have cost a staggering sum, not only in dollars, but in American morale and American lives. And really, what have we gained? That’s a discussion for another time. But these are Bush-era holdovers, Republican policies gone awry, and Obama is left to clean it up. Indeed, he has done an exceptional, responsible job in this regard, ending military operations in Iraq and continuing to wind down our involvement in Afghanistan.
What we have is a large bevy of Bush-era policies, continued by Republicans through the Obama administration, that are the sole reason for our national debt issues. But don’t take my word for it. This chart was released amidst the debt-ceiling debate last year highlighting new policies enacted under George W. Bush and new policies enacted during Obama’s first term in office.
The contextual view is that Obama’s policies have increased the debt, but his new policy measures were only temporary expenditures meant to stabilize a depressing economy. If he had not been shackled with so many poor policy decisions of the previous administration, the country would be in a considerably better position now than we are. If the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthiest had not been extended, that would be $1 trillion off Obama’s “tag” right there. If Bush hadn’t let the housing bubble inflate and burst so disastrously, Obama wouldn’t have needed his own stimulus package (it does one well to remember that Bush bailed out the banks and enacted his own stimulus package in the wake of the financial crash of 2008), and been left with high unemployment leading to decreased tax revenues, both of which are impacting the debt substantially.
I mean, these are pretty clear numbers here. Based on the policies Obama has enacted, he will only raise the deficit less than $1.5 trillion over an 8 year period. That’s 1/3 of Bush’s total over that same time period. The massive increase in debt over the past few years has been partly due to the stimulus and the effects of the Great Recession, but the rest has been the leftovers from what will be considered one of the worst presidencies in American history. Yes, there is some validity in the argument that Obama should have been stronger and Democrats should have done more to end Bush’s ridiculous policies. I agree with that. But when it comes to the deficit hawks’ fanatical insistence showing “Obama’s out of control spending,” it’s all just politics to get a Republican back into office to continue the same policies Bush used to bloat our national debt in the first place.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
An Open Letter to Marvel Comics
The below is a letter I wrote to Marvel Comics (with some minor revisions and amendments, in hindsight) reacting to their apology to the Tea Party movement of words published in Captain America issue #602. I've been a bit bogged down this week, so sorry this is a little behind the times, although, I think the issue of possible racial discrimination within the Tea Party is still relevant. There has been a growing concern among Tea Party leaders towards the more extremist, incendiary individuals within the group, so it is a relief, somewhat, to see that they are not willingly blind to the possible consequences of some who align themselves with the movement. Ultimately it is the responsibility of these group leaders to admonish and quell any incentives to violence at their local gatherings, and to not allow extremists to bastardize their message once in public. One false move, one angry individual, aligned with the movement that commits an act of violence will forever brand the movement as terrorist. In light of the arrest of the Hutaree Group, in remembrance of the Oklahoma City bombing and the Columbine shootings, let us not adopt the bellicose, but keep our perspective that violence is not the answer in these trying times... Peace.
Dear Marvel Comics,
I was quite shocked to read today that you issued a formal apology, and are subsequently removing some "lettering" from future printings of Captain America #602 for referring to the national Tea Party movement and possible connections it may have with white supremacists. To be honest, I haven't read the issue, and probably still will not, although, I truly do enjoy, from what I have read, what Mr. Brubaker has done with the story since taking the helm on the book. But the apology comes as a shock to me for many reasons.
First, it is appropriate to put a little perspective into this. The panels in the comic in question, due to some lettering that was added in a rush prior to publication (Really?), seem to associate anti-tax protesters with a group called "The Watchdogs," who are white supremacists. The fictional anti-tax protesters carry signs with slogans seen on similar signs during real Tea Party protests. Hence, the Tea Party is in some way associated, or at least some members of the Tea Party, with white supremacy, or are simply just racist. Last weekend, at the first national Tea Party Convention, Tom Tancredo gave a speech in which he blamed ignorant people who "can't even spell the word 'vote,'" for electing President Obama to the White House, and thus the US should instate Literacy Tests to determine whether someone in this country can vote, harkening back to an idea established during the Civil Rights Movement of the 50's and 60's. Most do not need reminding that Literacy Tests were championed by racists, notably white supremacists, to deter or completely deny blacks the ability to vote. Mr. Tancredo aligned the Tea Party this past weekend with sympathies similar to white supremacists, so for a writer or artist in your employ, or even your readers, to draw parallels between the Tea Party and white supremacy does not seem far-reaching, in fact, some would say it's rather pertinent. And not to mention that none in the Tea Party movement demanded an apology from Mr. Tancredo seems telling of their stance with what he said, and more broadly on civil rights in general. Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, in a Yahoo! news article did not seem to accept the apology of Joe Quesada, EIC at Marvel Comics. But why isn't Mr. Phillips demanding an apology from Tom Tancredo for touting racist ideals at the convention and tarnishing the Tea Party? To me this seems like blatant hypocrisy. Just because someone criticizes the movement should not beget an automatic apology. Surely, Mr. Tancredo and Mr. Phillips are not about to apologize for their racism and hypocrisy. Marvel should not be apologizing for making a statement.
Mr. Brubaker, as well as other writers, has done an incredible job of taking super hero stories and grounding them in the real world. This isn't necessarily something new, as the Marvel Universe is set on Earth and many heroes have made our modern-day cities their home and ultimately their protectorate for decades. By referencing real-world issues and occurrences you draw the reader more reverently deeper into this fantastic world, creating a connection between the reader and the hero. And now you apologize for it. Why are you not standing up to this? Do you think some poor press by Fox News is going to really hurt your readership? Judson Phillips called the story part of a "political agenda." The Tea Party has a political agenda. When speakers aligning themselves with this political party make racially charged comments they are propagating a political agenda. And Mr. Phillips says nothing. One writer expresses his views on the group and suddenly there's uproar and you back away from your story. Why? You're trying not to make a political statement? Well, guess what? You've been doing it for nearly 50 years in X-Men. Beneath it all, X-Men is an allegory for racial prejudice and hatred since issue 1. And there are countless instances in almost every other comic you've published that deal with racial, ethical, and social issues. Why did you tuck-tail and run from this? Are we just supposed to buy watered-down stories from now on, lacking in substance and relevance to the changing world around us? The fact that you failed to stick up for the story is simply disheartening. It seems you're more worried about losing a couple readers than about telling a compelling story that means something to us, but more importantly, a story that means something to you.
And lastly, it's called the First Amendment! For starters, this Tea Party movement again shows pure and utter hypocrisy by demonizing free speech when they contend to stand up for the truest, purest American values established by our forefathers. Chastising Marvel for an opinion is beyond a double standard. But what's more outrageous is that you are not invoking your right to free speech. And furthermore, you're not standing up for your artists in lieu you may get some bad press. Based on what I know of Ed Brubaker, what I've read on his blog, or on Twitter, I know that he strongly believes what was intended in this story, so it leads me to assume his statement/apology to Fox News was forced. Mr. Quesada should not demand apologies from his employees, but should defend his writers and artists because without them there would be no Marvel Comics. Without Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, without Ditko, Steranko, and Romita, who put their ideals, their beliefs, to paper regardless of whether it was popular, or good politics, there would be no Marvel Comics. You should be standing firm for what you believe in because, I guarantee you, by not doing so you will offend far more of your readership. You've already offended one. Today, I don't know if I can ever buy a Marvel comic again and it saddens me. You have shown me, and maybe others, that you care more about how many people buy your book than the content beneath the glossy cover.
Dear Marvel Comics,
I was quite shocked to read today that you issued a formal apology, and are subsequently removing some "lettering" from future printings of Captain America #602 for referring to the national Tea Party movement and possible connections it may have with white supremacists. To be honest, I haven't read the issue, and probably still will not, although, I truly do enjoy, from what I have read, what Mr. Brubaker has done with the story since taking the helm on the book. But the apology comes as a shock to me for many reasons.
First, it is appropriate to put a little perspective into this. The panels in the comic in question, due to some lettering that was added in a rush prior to publication (Really?), seem to associate anti-tax protesters with a group called "The Watchdogs," who are white supremacists. The fictional anti-tax protesters carry signs with slogans seen on similar signs during real Tea Party protests. Hence, the Tea Party is in some way associated, or at least some members of the Tea Party, with white supremacy, or are simply just racist. Last weekend, at the first national Tea Party Convention, Tom Tancredo gave a speech in which he blamed ignorant people who "can't even spell the word 'vote,'" for electing President Obama to the White House, and thus the US should instate Literacy Tests to determine whether someone in this country can vote, harkening back to an idea established during the Civil Rights Movement of the 50's and 60's. Most do not need reminding that Literacy Tests were championed by racists, notably white supremacists, to deter or completely deny blacks the ability to vote. Mr. Tancredo aligned the Tea Party this past weekend with sympathies similar to white supremacists, so for a writer or artist in your employ, or even your readers, to draw parallels between the Tea Party and white supremacy does not seem far-reaching, in fact, some would say it's rather pertinent. And not to mention that none in the Tea Party movement demanded an apology from Mr. Tancredo seems telling of their stance with what he said, and more broadly on civil rights in general. Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, in a Yahoo! news article did not seem to accept the apology of Joe Quesada, EIC at Marvel Comics. But why isn't Mr. Phillips demanding an apology from Tom Tancredo for touting racist ideals at the convention and tarnishing the Tea Party? To me this seems like blatant hypocrisy. Just because someone criticizes the movement should not beget an automatic apology. Surely, Mr. Tancredo and Mr. Phillips are not about to apologize for their racism and hypocrisy. Marvel should not be apologizing for making a statement.
Mr. Brubaker, as well as other writers, has done an incredible job of taking super hero stories and grounding them in the real world. This isn't necessarily something new, as the Marvel Universe is set on Earth and many heroes have made our modern-day cities their home and ultimately their protectorate for decades. By referencing real-world issues and occurrences you draw the reader more reverently deeper into this fantastic world, creating a connection between the reader and the hero. And now you apologize for it. Why are you not standing up to this? Do you think some poor press by Fox News is going to really hurt your readership? Judson Phillips called the story part of a "political agenda." The Tea Party has a political agenda. When speakers aligning themselves with this political party make racially charged comments they are propagating a political agenda. And Mr. Phillips says nothing. One writer expresses his views on the group and suddenly there's uproar and you back away from your story. Why? You're trying not to make a political statement? Well, guess what? You've been doing it for nearly 50 years in X-Men. Beneath it all, X-Men is an allegory for racial prejudice and hatred since issue 1. And there are countless instances in almost every other comic you've published that deal with racial, ethical, and social issues. Why did you tuck-tail and run from this? Are we just supposed to buy watered-down stories from now on, lacking in substance and relevance to the changing world around us? The fact that you failed to stick up for the story is simply disheartening. It seems you're more worried about losing a couple readers than about telling a compelling story that means something to us, but more importantly, a story that means something to you.
And lastly, it's called the First Amendment! For starters, this Tea Party movement again shows pure and utter hypocrisy by demonizing free speech when they contend to stand up for the truest, purest American values established by our forefathers. Chastising Marvel for an opinion is beyond a double standard. But what's more outrageous is that you are not invoking your right to free speech. And furthermore, you're not standing up for your artists in lieu you may get some bad press. Based on what I know of Ed Brubaker, what I've read on his blog, or on Twitter, I know that he strongly believes what was intended in this story, so it leads me to assume his statement/apology to Fox News was forced. Mr. Quesada should not demand apologies from his employees, but should defend his writers and artists because without them there would be no Marvel Comics. Without Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, without Ditko, Steranko, and Romita, who put their ideals, their beliefs, to paper regardless of whether it was popular, or good politics, there would be no Marvel Comics. You should be standing firm for what you believe in because, I guarantee you, by not doing so you will offend far more of your readership. You've already offended one. Today, I don't know if I can ever buy a Marvel comic again and it saddens me. You have shown me, and maybe others, that you care more about how many people buy your book than the content beneath the glossy cover.
With great sorrow,
Jason Owen
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Reconciling the Overreach of Government in the Finance Reform Debate
Health Care reform has passed. Every possible argument was made for and against the bill (with several outright fabrications conjured in the outset, too boot). But the country is in need of change, drastic change and progress in many facets of our society. Now, the next big debate is slated for discussion (hopefully with slightly less untruths this time around). Looking back those two weeks ago (it really does seem longer; and look, Armageddon has not struck despite some ridiculous assertions! I know, I took that one pretty much from the POTUS; so credit to him.), one legitimate argument from those opposed to Health Care reform was just how far the Government's reach would extend. While it was clear early on this bill was not a "government takeover," or some Socialist plot, still the Right-Wing media played up the fear perfectly and caused a major outcry in defiance of this supposed takeover, and even managed to spawn a little Tea Party movement, which has grown. Tea Partiers were taken-in by the ruse of a government invasion of their personal health care and they rallied ferociously to stop it, to stop the strong-arm of the government from interfering with their health, with their choice of coverage, or their choice of which doctor to see. The argument from the Right was less government involvement, less regulation, and the Health Care system would work itself out.
The thing is, just a couple years ago we saw the results of substantial deregulation, less oversight, less government imperil our financial sector, and, turns out, it wasn't the best thing for America. The repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 severely limited the power of the government to oversee our largest financial institutions to assure that one, these institutions were running legitimate business transactions-- lawful business transactions-- and that two, they were not operating in a manner that would endanger the overall market. On both points the institutions failed, and failed miserably; regarding the first, it's still being investigated as to the legality of their dubious transactions. The overall consensus from top economists is that this strict deregulation of Wall Street allowed the abuses of the system that lead directly to the Great Recession. The simple answer to all of this should be: reinstate strict regulation and break up the "too big to fail" (TBTF) institutions, or megabanks. So why are we getting such push back from the Republicans in Congress on this issue?
John Boehner, the House Minority leader, recently stated to bankers that they should fight financial reform at all costs, that banks don't need added regulation, and that the morality and ethics of those in charge would prevail and lead to a prosperous time for all of America. Mr. Boehner is not a dumb man, I don't think, but to stand against leading economists, men and women who have made it their career to study the economy, and in essence, say they are wrong, is troubling. As Boehner so vehemently alluded to polls during the Health Care debate, he maintained the public was against Health Care reform (I won't delve into Boehner's choosiness of which polls to follow). So, naturally, you'd think he would take a gander at some new polls to find out if Americans wanted financial reform, and then base his decisions and leadership on that. Well, turns out Americans are decidedly for finance reform, and have an unfavorable viewpoint of our largest banks. If Boehner really wanted what was best for America, wouldn't he be fighting for finance reform, not against it? It seems to me that Boehner has no interest in the middle class, his constituents, and everyday Americans. Health Care reform is going to rein in the exorbitant profits and abuses of the Health Care industry; finance reform would do the same, helping the majority of Americans, not the fiscally elite minority, which Boehner seems far more interested in helping.
But I have to give credit to Mr. Boehner for at least being consistent on the issue of Big Government. It's obvious he wants nothing to do with it (barring when there is a Republican as Commander in Chief). But my question is to the high majority of people on the Right who want finance reform: how do you account for such a dynamic shift in demonizing overreach of government in Health Care to now wanting "overreach" of government in the financial sector? The financial sector is a far greater portion of our economy as a whole, so putting added government regulation on to it ostensibly means more government power, far more. Trying to maintain the position of less government involvement throughout all aspects of our society simply cannot be a consistent position, especially in light of our recent economic blunders.
I think this is why, so far, we have not seen an outcry over finance reform from the base of the Right, or the Tea Party movement. The majority of them view Wall Street as dishonest, greedy, self-serving, all at the expense of the middle and lower classes. They learned of the reckless betting of the TBTF institutions and how it directly caused the financial collapse, and the subsequent bailout of these institutions with little or absolutely no ramifications for those in charge of them. In fact, we've learned of the ridiculous, unworthy bonuses of its' CEOs and profits of the banks, all the while millions of people became unemployed, or lost their hard-earned retirement funds. Signs of protest: "Where is my bailout?" littered the airwaves. But our bailout never came. We've watched, as we near the 2 year anniversary of the recession, how nothing has changed on Wall Street, except the strengthening, stringent opposition to reform. Where are the Tea Party rallies? Where is the embrace of financial reform? It's lost in the over-aggressive opposition to more government. They cannot demand reform based on the simplistic, short-sighted notion of less government without seeming completely hypocritical in their beliefs. If the Tea Party, or every day Republicans do not push for reform then the chances of passing financial regulation will dwindle, which exponentially increases the possibility of another financial collapse.
This is my fear. The Right will begin to slowly spin finance reform into the same "Socialist plot" they pinned Health Reform as. The lobbyists will charge that more regulation means more government, play up the "takeover" of banks, and how the government will then have access to people's personal bank accounts, will directly tell people where they can and cannot spend their money. This will be coupled with the ridiculous notion that America needs megabanks to compete in the global economy, and that financial crises occur every 5-7 years, so "no biggie." The 2001 recession was a cause of the Internet boom hitting its peak, weeding out the unsustainable companies. The Great Recession was not your standard cyclical recession, as it teetered on the precipice of a far greater Depression of global proportions. To hold beliefs that our economy must accept recessions every 5-7 years is a dangerous notion to argue against financial reform. Of course Mr. Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, would love to have crises every few years when his company garners $2.5B in profit even during a recession. It's good for the banks, bad for the rest of the country.
So my challenge to those on the Right, to the Tea Party: first, abnegate, just a little, your hold on the notion that any government interference is a bad thing, that the government, our government, is not the tyrannical Republic we rebelled against more than 200 years ago. Ours' is a government "by the people, for the people" at its very core. The government is an aid, a bulwark against tyranny. I mean, the Founding Fathers established the federal government, because a central legislative body, when properly instated, can and does work for the people. If they didn't hold that government was a necessity would they have established our Democracy? No. Secondly, start the rally for Financial Reform. Tell your Congressmen and Senators, who have begun to be taken under the wing of Wall Street, you want reform, that the banks are not what is important, but it is the American people. Why should so few prosper while so many suffer and bear the costs of recklessness and greed?
The thing is, just a couple years ago we saw the results of substantial deregulation, less oversight, less government imperil our financial sector, and, turns out, it wasn't the best thing for America. The repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 severely limited the power of the government to oversee our largest financial institutions to assure that one, these institutions were running legitimate business transactions-- lawful business transactions-- and that two, they were not operating in a manner that would endanger the overall market. On both points the institutions failed, and failed miserably; regarding the first, it's still being investigated as to the legality of their dubious transactions. The overall consensus from top economists is that this strict deregulation of Wall Street allowed the abuses of the system that lead directly to the Great Recession. The simple answer to all of this should be: reinstate strict regulation and break up the "too big to fail" (TBTF) institutions, or megabanks. So why are we getting such push back from the Republicans in Congress on this issue?
John Boehner, the House Minority leader, recently stated to bankers that they should fight financial reform at all costs, that banks don't need added regulation, and that the morality and ethics of those in charge would prevail and lead to a prosperous time for all of America. Mr. Boehner is not a dumb man, I don't think, but to stand against leading economists, men and women who have made it their career to study the economy, and in essence, say they are wrong, is troubling. As Boehner so vehemently alluded to polls during the Health Care debate, he maintained the public was against Health Care reform (I won't delve into Boehner's choosiness of which polls to follow). So, naturally, you'd think he would take a gander at some new polls to find out if Americans wanted financial reform, and then base his decisions and leadership on that. Well, turns out Americans are decidedly for finance reform, and have an unfavorable viewpoint of our largest banks. If Boehner really wanted what was best for America, wouldn't he be fighting for finance reform, not against it? It seems to me that Boehner has no interest in the middle class, his constituents, and everyday Americans. Health Care reform is going to rein in the exorbitant profits and abuses of the Health Care industry; finance reform would do the same, helping the majority of Americans, not the fiscally elite minority, which Boehner seems far more interested in helping.
But I have to give credit to Mr. Boehner for at least being consistent on the issue of Big Government. It's obvious he wants nothing to do with it (barring when there is a Republican as Commander in Chief). But my question is to the high majority of people on the Right who want finance reform: how do you account for such a dynamic shift in demonizing overreach of government in Health Care to now wanting "overreach" of government in the financial sector? The financial sector is a far greater portion of our economy as a whole, so putting added government regulation on to it ostensibly means more government power, far more. Trying to maintain the position of less government involvement throughout all aspects of our society simply cannot be a consistent position, especially in light of our recent economic blunders.
I think this is why, so far, we have not seen an outcry over finance reform from the base of the Right, or the Tea Party movement. The majority of them view Wall Street as dishonest, greedy, self-serving, all at the expense of the middle and lower classes. They learned of the reckless betting of the TBTF institutions and how it directly caused the financial collapse, and the subsequent bailout of these institutions with little or absolutely no ramifications for those in charge of them. In fact, we've learned of the ridiculous, unworthy bonuses of its' CEOs and profits of the banks, all the while millions of people became unemployed, or lost their hard-earned retirement funds. Signs of protest: "Where is my bailout?" littered the airwaves. But our bailout never came. We've watched, as we near the 2 year anniversary of the recession, how nothing has changed on Wall Street, except the strengthening, stringent opposition to reform. Where are the Tea Party rallies? Where is the embrace of financial reform? It's lost in the over-aggressive opposition to more government. They cannot demand reform based on the simplistic, short-sighted notion of less government without seeming completely hypocritical in their beliefs. If the Tea Party, or every day Republicans do not push for reform then the chances of passing financial regulation will dwindle, which exponentially increases the possibility of another financial collapse.
This is my fear. The Right will begin to slowly spin finance reform into the same "Socialist plot" they pinned Health Reform as. The lobbyists will charge that more regulation means more government, play up the "takeover" of banks, and how the government will then have access to people's personal bank accounts, will directly tell people where they can and cannot spend their money. This will be coupled with the ridiculous notion that America needs megabanks to compete in the global economy, and that financial crises occur every 5-7 years, so "no biggie." The 2001 recession was a cause of the Internet boom hitting its peak, weeding out the unsustainable companies. The Great Recession was not your standard cyclical recession, as it teetered on the precipice of a far greater Depression of global proportions. To hold beliefs that our economy must accept recessions every 5-7 years is a dangerous notion to argue against financial reform. Of course Mr. Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, would love to have crises every few years when his company garners $2.5B in profit even during a recession. It's good for the banks, bad for the rest of the country.
So my challenge to those on the Right, to the Tea Party: first, abnegate, just a little, your hold on the notion that any government interference is a bad thing, that the government, our government, is not the tyrannical Republic we rebelled against more than 200 years ago. Ours' is a government "by the people, for the people" at its very core. The government is an aid, a bulwark against tyranny. I mean, the Founding Fathers established the federal government, because a central legislative body, when properly instated, can and does work for the people. If they didn't hold that government was a necessity would they have established our Democracy? No. Secondly, start the rally for Financial Reform. Tell your Congressmen and Senators, who have begun to be taken under the wing of Wall Street, you want reform, that the banks are not what is important, but it is the American people. Why should so few prosper while so many suffer and bear the costs of recklessness and greed?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)