Saturday, March 05, 2005

Heroes and Villains 2

Disclosure: no Heroes this time. And just one Villain. I'm a half-full sort; believe me, I have more in the "H" category to toast at later date. Regrettably, my "V" hopper is less than half empty too. I'd rather spend time on the former, but . . .

I'm focused on the one and only Emperor Greenspan, he of the long-revered and too-rarely critically-examined Fed Reserve career. Early retirement would be too good for this sorry over-economized full-of-himself bumpkin. But maybe "rogue" is better than "villain." The party was over back when he came out for the outrageous tax windfalls for Bush's already obscenely wealthy friends.

Lately AG's been breaking nails trying to break into the ranks of "Shrub Crusader" and pull some traction out of a hat for sorry old war-criminal George, who always seems to need the ministrations of a saviour. Whether it's substance abuse episodes, criminal dereliction of military reserve obligations, or that long August 2001 vacation when plentiful alerts of imminent terrorist acts suggested anyone truly concerned about national security would have been at work, lucky old George always seems to have person of limited scruples and low morals available to cover for him. Okay, yes, those are just a few of George's lowlights, among ever so many other examples of what a true believer might think of as major steps down the road to perdition.

But Heeeere's Alan! Tax cuts for the rich? No problemo! Mind-boggling budget deficits resulting from said tax cuts? Might seem a bit awkward for a supposed fiscal conservative. How 'bout we just lop off some of those danged social programs holding what's left of our society together? And what of George's plan to eviscerate Social Security, ending 70 years of one of our country's most remarkable achievements in social stability and nurturing of community? Over-the-hill but still partisan AG is working overtime with the pro-George cheerleading squad, no doubt occasionally getting misty recalling GB's own stint as a cheerleader back in New Haven.

Overall, then, Greenie isn't exactly the reliable nonpartisan econo-guru the national media has led me to think I could count on. In fact, he's increasingly showing himself to be just another one of those closeted sorts the present administration seems to attract and fawn over.

In hopes and anticipation of Greenspan's suddenly finding early retirement irresistible, what seems an excellent Greenspan Research and Assistance Program is being floated on the DailyKOS site:

As you've probably noticed, there have been several Alan Greenspan-related posts on the main page in just the past day or so. In one of those threads, blogswarmer Bob Brigham suggested that we "unleash the blogosphere" on Greenspan. It's a brilliant idea - no one is more worthy of having a halo-ectomy than St. Alan - so let's have at it.

If you're interested in joining this research project, here's my thinking on how it should proceed. (And feel free to chime in with suggestions on the process as well.) We should hunt down anything Greenspan has ever written, said or done that reflects poorly on him. This would include erroneous predictions, older statements which contradict things he's said recently, and anything that's just plain wrong, venal or stupid. The only rules are that it has to be true (of course) and sourced (preferably with a link, but if you're using Lexis, that's cool too - just tell us where it's from).

And for those of you who want to really get down and dirty in the trenches, we can turn this into a one-degree-of-separation venture. That is, if you can find similar material for anyone who is closely linked to Greenspan, that's fair game, too. Good examples would be Greenie's idol, the nutbag "objectivist" Ayn Rand, and Andrea Mitchell, his NBC reporter wife. (An aside: We can debate the merits of this approach all you like, but suffice it to say, there is no question that Republicans do the same crap to us all the time. If you still want to play by the Marquess of Queensberry rules, fine - but I've moved on to brass knuckles.)

[snip]

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Pickin' on Folks Your Own Size

Unless your reasoning function has been temporarily disabled, it's hard to imagine you swallowing the PR swill the white house and usual sycophants - paid and free - are serving up on the still largely theoretical program of the President to "privatize" (i.e., disembowel) Social Security. Few details have been voluntarily released of course. What we know (the bits properly scrubbed for the light of day) seems to have been basically uncovered by way of the one-in-a-blue question session (presumably the ones where they get sloppy in hand-picking the attendees). Despite typically sleazy rovian slicing, dicing, and nuanced wordgames it's still such an obviously bad idea that even republican officeholders would rather be caught linking to one of Gannon's websites or joining Delay on a junket than publicly endorse this stinky program. And mercifully a generous majority of the public isn't buying it either.

This game would be at least a little more on the level if the pro-privatization bullies had any personal stake in a conventional retirement program. If butch or chains-and-whips in their dotage were in any way going to be impacted by a reduction in SS benefits this would be a different contest. It seems to me that the public discussion certainly ought to take into consideration that we are not all equal players in this. The whole process is violently canted against democratic principles to begin with. I for one do not have the option of funneling the odd nine-digit non-competed contract to my defense contractor friends. I can't with stroke of pen find a few mill for the most elite of elites, the ones actually benefiting from tax breaks. Those of course are my (and your) tax dollars being siphoned off and sent to the equivalent of private bank accounts to be drawn on after retirement. Or impeachment.

Moral and ethical scruples have been so obviously totally absent in almost every move made by this administration that a few casual temporary "deposits" of taxpayer gleanings most certainly are part of the landscape. Payoffs are absolutely out there in the future. Bet on it. In the "reality-based" world where most of us live, that is called crime. But then these guys have an amazing string of "unsolved" crimes under their belts; why worry now?

In the meantime, the ever-excellent OpEdNews site has another angle on the Big Inequity that has replaced the form of government formerly known as democracy:

"Corporate Welfare: How come Lockheed gets food stamps and we don't?"
By Jane Stillwater

How come General Electric gets a place in The Projects and we have to sleep on the streets? How come Monsanto gets government handouts? Where's MY government cheese?

Walmart gets Medicaid. Lockheed-Martin gets food stamps. Everyone knows that Halliburton is on the dole. And what's up with those welfare queens on Wall Street? How come we have to work and pay taxes and they don't? My income is called "income" and I pay through the nose but their income is called "capital gains" and doesn't count. How come they get a free ride?

The pharmaceutical industry gets Medicaid too. According to NewsTarget, "79 drug companies are now being accused of defrauding state Medicaid programs by artificially inflating the prices of drugs." But are WE eligible for Medicaid? Taxpayers need not apply.

It is against HUD regulations to allow people with drug abuse records and bad credit to receive housing subsidies but HUD makes an exception for George Bush. With his seven trillion dollar deficit and history of drug use, why does HE get to live in subsidized housing? If I were to go that far into debt, would the government start to pay me too?

Bush's new tax law has been nicknamed "welfare for the rich" for a very good reason. According to Paul Krugman of the New York Times, "More than half of the benefits from this backdoor tax cut would go to people with incomes of more than a million dollars...." Wow!

[continues]