Hey Barry:
Back in 1765 our backs were against the wall because we had a system of a few rich people who controlled everything and who used monopolies to soak up all the money around leaving ordinary folks to scrounge for a living as best they could.
We are in a similar state today Barry - a few rich people control everything and the rest of us scrounge for a living.
Perhaps a history lesson about how we handled the situation then could be instructive now:
I'll quote you from John Adams by way of
JOHN ADAMS AND THE AMERCAN REVOLUTION, Catherine Drinker Bowen, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1950, pp 270-273
HOW AMERICANS TREAT HOME GROWN ROYALTY:
Lieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson in 1765 was a Massachusetts man who knew what Massachusetts wanted.
'And if Britain would not respect American Property [by the Stamp Act of 1765], then by God, said Massachusetts men, they would not respect the property of Britons. Petition and protest had been spurned. Whose fault was this? Governor Bernard was English, born and bred in England. But his right-hand man was not born in Briitain. Lieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson was a Massachusetts man who knew what Massachusetts wanted. Once he had been the most popular man in the Province. His first volume of his HISTORY was out. His days were devoted to Provincial business, his nights to the second volume of this HISTORY. No one had served Massachusetts so long....
He said he was against [the Stamp Act]; declared he had pled with the Lords of Trade, with the colonial agent on London. Could Massachusetts trust him? In the past four years...whenever the Massachusetts House composed petitions to King, Lords or Commons, it had been Hutchinson, always Hutchinson who '"wiped out" [John Adams wrote in his diary] "every spirited if not sensible expression from those peitions." When the province was ready to choose a new agent to look after its affairs in London, hadn't Hutchinson done what he could to get Jackson appointed? Jackson, secretary to Lord Grenville himself! It was like handing one's country to the enemy. About Thomas Hutchinson there was surely the taint of ambition, of a grasping, greedy nature. He controlled nearly every high Crown appointment in the government. John enumerated them, with an indignant interrogation mark after each: "Has not the Lieutenant Governor grasped four of the most important offices of the Province into his own hands? Has not his brother-in law, Oliver, Secretary of the Province, another of the greatest places? Is not a brother of Oliver a Judge of the Superior Court? Has not that brother a son in the House, who is also a judge in one of the counties? Did not that son marry the daughter of another of the Judges of the Superior Court? Has not the Lieutenant Governor a brother, a Judge of the Pleas in Boston, and a namesake and near relation who is another judge? Has not the Lieutenant Governor a near relation who is Clerk of the House of Representative?
"is not this ascendancy of one family," John concluded, "foundation sufficient on which to erect a tyranny? Is it not enough to excite jealousies among the people?" It most certainly was enough. Everything told against Hutchinson.
One evening not long after the riot against Andrew Oliver, the crowd assembled again. They were very orderly this time, led by several merchants who had been friends of Hutchinson. Marching through town to his house on Garden Court, they surrounded it and called to him. "Come out,' they said, "on the balcony above the street. Tell us you never wrote to England in favor of the Stamp Act. Tell us this yourself and we will go away satsified."
Thomas Hutchinson ...had never written in favor of the Act. But no mob on earth had the right to demand explanations and declarations from Lieutenant Governor and Chief Justice Hutchinson...[Later] On August 26th, the crowd surged northward through town to Garden Court..to the gateway before Thomas Hutchinson's three-storied mansion. Swarming over the lawn and up the steps, brandishing their axes, whooping like Indians, the mob split doors and windows and poured into the house, filling every room, shouting, cursing, yelling for Hutchinson, flinging open closet doors, searching to the very attic. Finding no one, the crowd slashed and ripped, tore down panels, broke walls and floors with their axes...In Hutchinson's study, men climbed the shelves like monkrys to the ceiling, destroyed books and documents that had taken thirty years to collect. Even the manucript pages of THE HISTORY OF MASSACHUSETTS went out the window.'
Forwarding to today: seems like we are in a similar place now.
What should we do now, Barry? What is good for the country?
Is it good that the rich folks control all the wealth and systematically accumulate even more from the poor and middling among us?
What should we do, Barry?
We have to do something and time is running out.
'And ever at my back I hear time's winged chariot drawing near' [apologies to Andrew Marvell for the botched quote].
Maybe it's time to make an assault on Lloyd C. Blankfein
and Gary D. Cohn of Golden Sox and the Koch Brothers as well.
Of course we cannot, repeat CAN NOT, go to their houses and offices and sit there and clog up their businesses and overflow some toilets and such. After all, they are just following the laws. And it is SO unfortunate when the poor and middling suffer so much. It would be rude to inconvenience those folks just as we did in 1765. And, we don't want to be rude, Barry.
Whatever shall we do, Barry, whatever shall we do?
Your pal,
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
INDIA: New Publication
Hey Barry:
I am happy to announce the publication of a new economic policy study of India on MIEPA's website: http://www.mkeever.com/india.html
The study was just completed by Atul Kumar, an economics graduate from Delhi University, doing M.A. Economics from Delhi School of Economics in New Delhi, capital of India.
Your pal,
I am happy to announce the publication of a new economic policy study of India on MIEPA's website: http://www.mkeever.com/india.html
The study was just completed by Atul Kumar, an economics graduate from Delhi University, doing M.A. Economics from Delhi School of Economics in New Delhi, capital of India.
Your pal,
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Schakowsky's Bill: Raise Taxes, Restore Progressive Income Tax
Hey Barry:
Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill) is on it. She proposed a bill in March to raise taxes to help with the budget.
My only concern is that her bill is way too timid, but it's a start. It's something we used to have in the country - a Progressive income tax. It's time we brought it back.
Read the whole article here by Lucia Graves: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/16/jan-schakowsky-income-tax_n_836624.html
Excerpt:
"Schakowsky's bill would create new tax brackets for earners making between $1 million and $1 billion annually, with tax rates starting at 45 percent with the millionth dollar and increasing on a sliding scale. The legislation would also tax capital gains and dividend income as ordinary income for those earning over $1 million in a given year. A full list of the new brackets appears below:
$1-10 million: 45%
$10-20 million: 46%
$20-100 million: 47%
$100 million to $1 billion: 48%
$1 billion and over: 49%
If enacted in 2011, Schakowsky's Fairness in Taxation Act would raise an estimated $78.9 billion in its first year, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal lobbying group. CTJ was unable to provide further projections, however.
Reps. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, partnered with Democratic Reps. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (Ill.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Bob Filner (Calif.), Jerry Nadler (N.Y.), Steve Cohen (Tenn.), John Yarmuth (Ky.) and Peter DeFazio (Ore.) to cosponsor the bill."
We need your support Barry.
Your pal,
Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill) is on it. She proposed a bill in March to raise taxes to help with the budget.
My only concern is that her bill is way too timid, but it's a start. It's something we used to have in the country - a Progressive income tax. It's time we brought it back.
Read the whole article here by Lucia Graves: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/16/jan-schakowsky-income-tax_n_836624.html
Excerpt:
"Schakowsky's bill would create new tax brackets for earners making between $1 million and $1 billion annually, with tax rates starting at 45 percent with the millionth dollar and increasing on a sliding scale. The legislation would also tax capital gains and dividend income as ordinary income for those earning over $1 million in a given year. A full list of the new brackets appears below:
$1-10 million: 45%
$10-20 million: 46%
$20-100 million: 47%
$100 million to $1 billion: 48%
$1 billion and over: 49%
If enacted in 2011, Schakowsky's Fairness in Taxation Act would raise an estimated $78.9 billion in its first year, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal lobbying group. CTJ was unable to provide further projections, however.
Reps. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, partnered with Democratic Reps. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (Ill.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Bob Filner (Calif.), Jerry Nadler (N.Y.), Steve Cohen (Tenn.), John Yarmuth (Ky.) and Peter DeFazio (Ore.) to cosponsor the bill."
We need your support Barry.
Your pal,
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Economic Truth - Update 6.21.11 AND 6.11.11
Hey Barry:
I'm going to tell you exactly what we have to do to save the country. It's no B S; it's unvarnished and very difficult politically, but we're talking saving the USA from implosion. No time to pussy tweet around.
None of this stuff is a surprise. I’m giving you an intro y’all won’t hear from your econs, but it’s what they are thinking.
And, out in the real world, we get it; this is stuff we know.
But the thing about it is this: if most of this stuff does not happen, we are pretty much done and in for a very rough ride.
INCOME TAXES:
Y'all gotta raise income taxes on rich folks a lot, I mean a real lot. We need to go back to the Eisenhower years.
We need the money and we don't need the rich people. No brainer - tax them out of existence. If they don't like it they can move to some other place.
If we don't tax away the rich people, we will BE some other place soon.
The Rep idiocy that lowering income taxes creates jobs is just a billionaire con job, don't pay it no mind. It happened one time in history when Reagan was around, but it will never happen again. Talk to George Bush if you're in doubt.
Most of the Rep politicians know it's a lie, they just use it to get elected. Some of the intellectually challenged Tea Party folks actually believe it, though. Sad.
Jobs come from higher aggregate demand. And, higher aggregate demand has got to come from Government spending because most folks are just broke and can't buy anything. Or, we can raise incomes for the middle class through wealth transfers - social security, medicare, even lowering taxes on low income earners [of course NOT on high incomes], etc., etc.
We can't borrow any more, and we can't cut spending - we gotta raise taxes on rich people.
UPDATE 6.11.11: Read that you are calling for the private sector to create the jobs because government can't do it all. That's OK because when the aggregate demand goes up, the private sector will make the jobs - we get that. But, Barry, here's the big but: demand won't increase unless the government spends. Glad you agree Barry, glad you agree.
ESTATE TAXES:
Billionaire princes and their broods are killing the country. They get rich because they have a monopoly on something - usually from the government some way. They suck the life out of a market and they don't leave any room for folks to start new businesses.
Here's from the Financial Times: "Treating commodity cartels with benign neglect would be a mistake, however. Opec may not be able to realise its formal ability to collude. But other commodity markets also suffer from effective, if informal, cartelisation. Iron ore extraction, for example, is dominated by three large companies. The vast majority of rare earths – indispensable in many electronics components – comes from China. The recent public offering of Glencore exposed the extent of a single company’s control of commodity value chains from extraction to trading."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dc37dfa0-92c4-11e0-bd88-00144feab49a.html#axzz1OoVqgAQC
And, since new businesses are where jobs come from, y'all gotta tax away the monopolists' great fortunes. If you don't then we won't get job growth AND we'll become a feudal society where most folks are wage slaves and the Princes get all the favors by bribing the King.
The government will get some money from the tax, but that's not the point; the goal is to clear out the suffocating deadwood that are the Billionaire Prince Monopolists so folks can find some room to start some new businesses.
CORRUPTION:
We are corrupt, period. The only people who get laws passed are people who can make large campaign contributions.
Money buys laws. Usually, the money buys laws that gives money more money. I don't see a lot of laws helping out the middle class. I know you're trying and I know it takes awhile, but Barry, incrementalism won't get us there.
TRADE POLICY, INDUSTRIAL POLICY:
Free Trade is killing our jobs. We gotta be like China and South Korea: Protect American jobs with tariffs and quotas.
And, we need an industrial policy - a list of industries we want in the future and which we protect with trade laws and subsidies. Just like we want in solar energy, only better. China is eating our lunch in Solar, Barry.
NUCLEAR POWER
By the way, Barry: nuclear power has got to go. As human beings, we are just not smart enough to manage it. Remember the old TV commercial for some butter substitute: 'It's not nice to f--k with Mother Nature.' Ask Angela Merkel about nuclear power Barry - it's gotta go. Too bad, but that's the way it is.
UPDATE 6.21.11 Fukushima worse than imagined; read it here: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/06/201161664828302638.html
Double down Barry, we is just too dumb to manage this stuff.
Money Quote: "Radioactive air filters from cars in Fukushima prefecture and Tokyo are now common, and Gundersen says his sources are finding radioactive air filters in the greater Seattle area of the US as well."
-
TOO MUCH CAPITAL:
Now there is too much capital from too many very high income folks. But, there is no demand to buy the products or services that capital seeks to make.
It is time to redress the balance by taxing away some of the capital formation and giving more income to poor and middle class folks to stimulate demand.
BANKS:
The worst people on the planet and the ones leading us right off the cliff are the bankers. Letting bankers buy stocks and bonds was the dumbest thing we have ever done.
This we simply gotta fix. FDR did it - so can we.
********
It’s a tough job Barry, but we are with you. Every time you raise these points people love it and your polls go up. And, all the billionaire prince monopolists piss their pants.
But, ya gotta see it through. It'll help you get votes, Barry.
Your pal,
I'm going to tell you exactly what we have to do to save the country. It's no B S; it's unvarnished and very difficult politically, but we're talking saving the USA from implosion. No time to pussy tweet around.
None of this stuff is a surprise. I’m giving you an intro y’all won’t hear from your econs, but it’s what they are thinking.
And, out in the real world, we get it; this is stuff we know.
But the thing about it is this: if most of this stuff does not happen, we are pretty much done and in for a very rough ride.
INCOME TAXES:
Y'all gotta raise income taxes on rich folks a lot, I mean a real lot. We need to go back to the Eisenhower years.
We need the money and we don't need the rich people. No brainer - tax them out of existence. If they don't like it they can move to some other place.
If we don't tax away the rich people, we will BE some other place soon.
The Rep idiocy that lowering income taxes creates jobs is just a billionaire con job, don't pay it no mind. It happened one time in history when Reagan was around, but it will never happen again. Talk to George Bush if you're in doubt.
Most of the Rep politicians know it's a lie, they just use it to get elected. Some of the intellectually challenged Tea Party folks actually believe it, though. Sad.
Jobs come from higher aggregate demand. And, higher aggregate demand has got to come from Government spending because most folks are just broke and can't buy anything. Or, we can raise incomes for the middle class through wealth transfers - social security, medicare, even lowering taxes on low income earners [of course NOT on high incomes], etc., etc.
We can't borrow any more, and we can't cut spending - we gotta raise taxes on rich people.
UPDATE 6.11.11: Read that you are calling for the private sector to create the jobs because government can't do it all. That's OK because when the aggregate demand goes up, the private sector will make the jobs - we get that. But, Barry, here's the big but: demand won't increase unless the government spends. Glad you agree Barry, glad you agree.
ESTATE TAXES:
Billionaire princes and their broods are killing the country. They get rich because they have a monopoly on something - usually from the government some way. They suck the life out of a market and they don't leave any room for folks to start new businesses.
Here's from the Financial Times: "Treating commodity cartels with benign neglect would be a mistake, however. Opec may not be able to realise its formal ability to collude. But other commodity markets also suffer from effective, if informal, cartelisation. Iron ore extraction, for example, is dominated by three large companies. The vast majority of rare earths – indispensable in many electronics components – comes from China. The recent public offering of Glencore exposed the extent of a single company’s control of commodity value chains from extraction to trading."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dc37dfa0-92c4-11e0-bd88-00144feab49a.html#axzz1OoVqgAQC
And, since new businesses are where jobs come from, y'all gotta tax away the monopolists' great fortunes. If you don't then we won't get job growth AND we'll become a feudal society where most folks are wage slaves and the Princes get all the favors by bribing the King.
The government will get some money from the tax, but that's not the point; the goal is to clear out the suffocating deadwood that are the Billionaire Prince Monopolists so folks can find some room to start some new businesses.
CORRUPTION:
We are corrupt, period. The only people who get laws passed are people who can make large campaign contributions.
Money buys laws. Usually, the money buys laws that gives money more money. I don't see a lot of laws helping out the middle class. I know you're trying and I know it takes awhile, but Barry, incrementalism won't get us there.
TRADE POLICY, INDUSTRIAL POLICY:
Free Trade is killing our jobs. We gotta be like China and South Korea: Protect American jobs with tariffs and quotas.
And, we need an industrial policy - a list of industries we want in the future and which we protect with trade laws and subsidies. Just like we want in solar energy, only better. China is eating our lunch in Solar, Barry.
NUCLEAR POWER
By the way, Barry: nuclear power has got to go. As human beings, we are just not smart enough to manage it. Remember the old TV commercial for some butter substitute: 'It's not nice to f--k with Mother Nature.' Ask Angela Merkel about nuclear power Barry - it's gotta go. Too bad, but that's the way it is.
UPDATE 6.21.11 Fukushima worse than imagined; read it here: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/06/201161664828302638.html
Double down Barry, we is just too dumb to manage this stuff.
Money Quote: "Radioactive air filters from cars in Fukushima prefecture and Tokyo are now common, and Gundersen says his sources are finding radioactive air filters in the greater Seattle area of the US as well."
-
TOO MUCH CAPITAL:
Now there is too much capital from too many very high income folks. But, there is no demand to buy the products or services that capital seeks to make.
It is time to redress the balance by taxing away some of the capital formation and giving more income to poor and middle class folks to stimulate demand.
BANKS:
The worst people on the planet and the ones leading us right off the cliff are the bankers. Letting bankers buy stocks and bonds was the dumbest thing we have ever done.
This we simply gotta fix. FDR did it - so can we.
********
It’s a tough job Barry, but we are with you. Every time you raise these points people love it and your polls go up. And, all the billionaire prince monopolists piss their pants.
But, ya gotta see it through. It'll help you get votes, Barry.
Your pal,
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Hissy Fit Banks Delay Rules
Hey Barry:
Looks like the bankers, especially the derivative hucksters, are kicking and screaming about the Dodd-Frank rules.
The rules don't go far enough to help protect the country against greedy banks, but even these light taps on the shoulder are making the Golden Sox crowd throw a hissy fit.
Y'all gotta get them on board to help the country - they live here and make their money from us, so they gotta help us out. It's the right thing.
If they won't do that, then kick 'em out or throw 'em in jail, Barry.
They're bad apples and un-American.
Your pal,
Looks like the bankers, especially the derivative hucksters, are kicking and screaming about the Dodd-Frank rules.
The rules don't go far enough to help protect the country against greedy banks, but even these light taps on the shoulder are making the Golden Sox crowd throw a hissy fit.
Y'all gotta get them on board to help the country - they live here and make their money from us, so they gotta help us out. It's the right thing.
If they won't do that, then kick 'em out or throw 'em in jail, Barry.
They're bad apples and un-American.
Your pal,
Monday, June 6, 2011
Danger Room: Fun Read about Defense
Hey Barry:
Here's a thing for your spare time: imagine some really bright reporters who take their time and write a story about weapons and politics - stories that won't get published in newspapers because they are too.....something.
It really exists and it's called Danger Room: What's Next in National Security. read it here: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011
Just read a great story on the new unmanned planes that will change aerial combat soon.
Your pal,
Here's a thing for your spare time: imagine some really bright reporters who take their time and write a story about weapons and politics - stories that won't get published in newspapers because they are too.....something.
It really exists and it's called Danger Room: What's Next in National Security. read it here: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011
Just read a great story on the new unmanned planes that will change aerial combat soon.
Your pal,
Sunday, June 5, 2011
All Contractors Must Tell All Political Contacts
Hey Barry:
According to Robert Reich [Sunday, June 5, 2011 - http://robertreich.org/], you are thinking about asking big government contractors to disclose their political [read bribery] spending.
What's to think, Barry?
If some corporations like Lockheed, Boeing and even the Acme Road-Runner Fireworks Company, Inc., LLC, LLP, LtD. all want to get some of my tax money from a government contract, they gotta tell us all how much will go to bribing folks to get more money. It should be a part of every contract application, big and small: disclose all payments to anyone conducting business with an elected or empoyed official of the United States Government. Period.
Thought it was already there.
Holy cow, Barry, it's a no-brainer.
Keep on it.
Your pal,
According to Robert Reich [Sunday, June 5, 2011 - http://robertreich.org/], you are thinking about asking big government contractors to disclose their political [read bribery] spending.
What's to think, Barry?
If some corporations like Lockheed, Boeing and even the Acme Road-Runner Fireworks Company, Inc., LLC, LLP, LtD. all want to get some of my tax money from a government contract, they gotta tell us all how much will go to bribing folks to get more money. It should be a part of every contract application, big and small: disclose all payments to anyone conducting business with an elected or empoyed official of the United States Government. Period.
Thought it was already there.
Holy cow, Barry, it's a no-brainer.
Keep on it.
Your pal,
Friday, June 3, 2011
MIEPA Revises Policies - Makes Trade Important
Hey Barry:
The jury is in - Free Trade is guilty.
Overwhelming evidence shows that Free Trade does not work. Countries which show job growth use protectionist policies while countries which practice Free Trade show job losses.
MIEPA has revised its policies to make job protection the second most critical external policy, just behind the policy which says that it is a bad idea when police from other countries arrest citizens.
Here is the exact quote from Policy Analyst instructions [http://www.mkeever.com/apply.html]:
"11. Protection of Domestic Enterprises
Countries which create the most jobs, growth and wealth protect their domestic companies from foreign competition with tariffs, quotas and other restrictions, while taking care to enjoy the gains from trade wherever possible. [See Ian Fletcher, Free Trade Doesn’t Work: What Should Replace it and Why; www.freetradedoesntwork.com for a complete discussion.] The more effective countries create an industrial policy - that is, they identify the industries they want to grow inside their country and then encourage those industries - and then use trade policy to support it.
The analyst will examine the current trade account for goods and services to determine whether the country shows a surplus - more exports than imports - or deficit - more imports than exports. High marks are given when the trade balance of goods and services in the current account are above balanced or balanced where exports equals imports. Low marks are given for a trade deficit. Financial transactions are not counted in this analysis.
Higher marks are given when the country has an explicit plan to establish some specified industries for future growth and fashions its trade policies to accomplish that goal."
Your pal,
The jury is in - Free Trade is guilty.
Overwhelming evidence shows that Free Trade does not work. Countries which show job growth use protectionist policies while countries which practice Free Trade show job losses.
MIEPA has revised its policies to make job protection the second most critical external policy, just behind the policy which says that it is a bad idea when police from other countries arrest citizens.
Here is the exact quote from Policy Analyst instructions [http://www.mkeever.com/apply.html]:
"11. Protection of Domestic Enterprises
Countries which create the most jobs, growth and wealth protect their domestic companies from foreign competition with tariffs, quotas and other restrictions, while taking care to enjoy the gains from trade wherever possible. [See Ian Fletcher, Free Trade Doesn’t Work: What Should Replace it and Why; www.freetradedoesntwork.com for a complete discussion.] The more effective countries create an industrial policy - that is, they identify the industries they want to grow inside their country and then encourage those industries - and then use trade policy to support it.
The analyst will examine the current trade account for goods and services to determine whether the country shows a surplus - more exports than imports - or deficit - more imports than exports. High marks are given when the trade balance of goods and services in the current account are above balanced or balanced where exports equals imports. Low marks are given for a trade deficit. Financial transactions are not counted in this analysis.
Higher marks are given when the country has an explicit plan to establish some specified industries for future growth and fashions its trade policies to accomplish that goal."
Your pal,
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Vote YES, Raise Debt Ceiling
Hey Barry:
Seems the Reps are proposing a 'clean' debt limit increase.
We should take it: vote yes.
It is the right thing to protect our country.
And, the idiot Reps are at it again - somehow they think that we out here will blame you for voting yes with no spending reductions.
They are not the same things, Barry. One is about the future of our country and the other is about politics.
We get it.
Vote yes.
Your pal,
Seems the Reps are proposing a 'clean' debt limit increase.
We should take it: vote yes.
It is the right thing to protect our country.
And, the idiot Reps are at it again - somehow they think that we out here will blame you for voting yes with no spending reductions.
They are not the same things, Barry. One is about the future of our country and the other is about politics.
We get it.
Vote yes.
Your pal,
Targeted WMD: Goldman Sachs
Hey Barry:
Maybe bankers are actually good for something. We can make them our specialized weapon, as in "Sic 'em, boy."
This should be funny, as in "I'm from Golden Sox and I'm here to help you", except it's not.
Report: Goldman Angered Libya After $1.3 Billion Investment Vanished
By Matt Egan, Reuters
Published May 31, 2011
Goldman Sachs Headquarters, New York City
Just three years before U.S. planes began bombing forces loyal to Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi, Wall Street heavyweight Goldman Sachs (GS: 140.64, +1.98, +1.43%) reportedly enraged the Libyan leader by managing a $1.3 billion investment that lost a whopping 98% of its value.
According to The Wall Street Journal, Goldman attempted to soothe the strained ties by offering Libya a chance to sink $5 billion into the company in a deal that would have made the country’s sovereign wealth fund one of Goldman’s largest shareholders.
Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2011/05/31/report-goldman-angered-libya-13-billion-investment-vanished/#ixzz1Nwu6MZRE
Maybe bankers are actually good for something. We can make them our specialized weapon, as in "Sic 'em, boy."
This should be funny, as in "I'm from Golden Sox and I'm here to help you", except it's not.
Report: Goldman Angered Libya After $1.3 Billion Investment Vanished
By Matt Egan, Reuters
Published May 31, 2011
Goldman Sachs Headquarters, New York City
Just three years before U.S. planes began bombing forces loyal to Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi, Wall Street heavyweight Goldman Sachs (GS: 140.64, +1.98, +1.43%) reportedly enraged the Libyan leader by managing a $1.3 billion investment that lost a whopping 98% of its value.
According to The Wall Street Journal, Goldman attempted to soothe the strained ties by offering Libya a chance to sink $5 billion into the company in a deal that would have made the country’s sovereign wealth fund one of Goldman’s largest shareholders.
Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2011/05/31/report-goldman-angered-libya-13-billion-investment-vanished/#ixzz1Nwu6MZRE
Monday, May 30, 2011
Hire MIEPA, Grow the Economy
Hey Barry:
Because of the Arab Spring and the world's overall economic situation, there may be an opportunity for a non-doctrinaire approach to creating jobs in some developing countries.
It is a good time to make an offer to do just that and to take my fifteen years' work in policy analysis from the academic arena into the governmental arena.
And, Barry, I can't be shy about it - need to get folks to listen somehow.
Below is my announcement that the McKeever Institute of Economic Policy Analysis [MIEPA] is available to provide legislation and policy analysis focusing on job creation for any interested country.
ANNOUNCEMENT:
ECONOMIC SITUATION
After 15 years in the development stage, MIEPA announces that it is available on a contractual basis to advise national governments on creating sound economic policies.
In today's world, economic growth is the critical part of national security and stability. The revolutions of the Arab Spring demonstrate that many populations will no longer tolerate an economic system which exploits them.
Now, many governments are unsure how to create a system which will create growth without exploiting the population.
THE OFFER
MIEPA hereby offers a comprehensive assistance program which enables national governments to create an economic system which creates the maximum number of jobs in any society by combining the best parts of private, for profit firms with the best of governmental agencies. Employing primarily local citizens, the assistance program assures stability of the development program. We recognize explicitly that some of the policy recommendations we propose may be counter to existing interests which have strong influence; however, our recommendations will improve the country's economic performance even if some recommendations are ignored.
These policies are distilled from extensive studies of countless systems. While some countries have adopted MIEPA recommendations in an ad hoc procedure, for the first time, MIEPA professionals are available to work directly with economic development ministers and national legislatures to design specific economic systems.
QUALIFICATIONS OF MIEPA's FOUNDER
As founder and CEO of MIEPA, I have trained more than 200 specialists who have examined national economic systems and policies in 47 countries - ranging from revolutionary Tunisia and dictatorial Myanmar to the United States. The policy system studies can be read at: www.mkeever.com.
I am uniquely qualified for this work as my background combines extensive business experience with an academic background in economics of development. I have been a professional financial executive at a variety of profit and non-profit firms for many years. My book HOW TO WRITE A BUSINESS PLAN, Nolo Press, 10th ed., 2011, has helped thousands of entrepreneurs worldwide start new businesses. I have studied development issues in a variety of political systems since 1960 at the London School of Economics and Whittier College and applied those studies in developing MIEPA; as a Professor of Economics and Business Management at both the undergraduate and graduate levels since the 1970's I am well-qualified to work in both academia and business.
MIEPA's focus is on creating economic growth and job growth under any economic system. Its unique approach encompasses 34 specific economic policies and determines how each policy affects economic growth. Additionally, MIEPA specialists determine how the subject policies interact to create or hinder growth.
As a result of this experience I am qualified and able to train a national staff to propose legislation and regulation designed to maximize economic growth in both newly formed nations and well-established governments.
PROPOSALS TO CLIENT GOVERNMENTS
While each specific proposal will have unique characteristics, the overall methodology will be to review or propose legislation by examining the likely effects on job creation of any proposed law or regulation as well as the effects of existing legal framework. MIEPA analysts combine real world business experience with theoretical economic understanding. This provides a results driven process focused on real economic growth. The process produces an effective, job creating framework tailored for each specific environment - it is not a doctrinaire, one-size-fits-all approach.
After proposal acceptance, I plan to spend 90 to 180 days in country hiring people and establishing procedures for a legislative analysis unit. Once the unit is established and functioning, I will monitor and resolve questions via web. All specific proposals will be formally submitted by me until such time as the unit demonstrates its capability.
Specialists will include economics students fluent in English, who do not have to be graduates, and a small number of lawyers experienced in drafting legislation. Specialists in the unit will be primarily nationals of the client country; they will perform these analyses and recommendations in a timely and cost effective manner.
A six step process is envisioned:
Step 1: determine which existing policies need revamping by performing a policy analysis of MIEPA's policies plus the country's existing economic framework focusing on job creating effects and the cross effects of existing legislation;
Step 2: draft proposed legislation;
Step 3: vet bill by projecting likely outcomes of proposals;
Step 4: revise bill;
Step 5: present for adoption;
Step 6: monitor results and propose changes.
Please contact me at the locations below for an immwediate response.
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Website: www.mkeever.com
Email: mckeever.mp@gmail.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_220339214659940&ap=1
Twitter: @mckeevermp
Cell: 415.816.2982
Your pal,
Because of the Arab Spring and the world's overall economic situation, there may be an opportunity for a non-doctrinaire approach to creating jobs in some developing countries.
It is a good time to make an offer to do just that and to take my fifteen years' work in policy analysis from the academic arena into the governmental arena.
And, Barry, I can't be shy about it - need to get folks to listen somehow.
Below is my announcement that the McKeever Institute of Economic Policy Analysis [MIEPA] is available to provide legislation and policy analysis focusing on job creation for any interested country.
ANNOUNCEMENT:
ECONOMIC SITUATION
After 15 years in the development stage, MIEPA announces that it is available on a contractual basis to advise national governments on creating sound economic policies.
In today's world, economic growth is the critical part of national security and stability. The revolutions of the Arab Spring demonstrate that many populations will no longer tolerate an economic system which exploits them.
Now, many governments are unsure how to create a system which will create growth without exploiting the population.
THE OFFER
MIEPA hereby offers a comprehensive assistance program which enables national governments to create an economic system which creates the maximum number of jobs in any society by combining the best parts of private, for profit firms with the best of governmental agencies. Employing primarily local citizens, the assistance program assures stability of the development program. We recognize explicitly that some of the policy recommendations we propose may be counter to existing interests which have strong influence; however, our recommendations will improve the country's economic performance even if some recommendations are ignored.
These policies are distilled from extensive studies of countless systems. While some countries have adopted MIEPA recommendations in an ad hoc procedure, for the first time, MIEPA professionals are available to work directly with economic development ministers and national legislatures to design specific economic systems.
QUALIFICATIONS OF MIEPA's FOUNDER
As founder and CEO of MIEPA, I have trained more than 200 specialists who have examined national economic systems and policies in 47 countries - ranging from revolutionary Tunisia and dictatorial Myanmar to the United States. The policy system studies can be read at: www.mkeever.com.
I am uniquely qualified for this work as my background combines extensive business experience with an academic background in economics of development. I have been a professional financial executive at a variety of profit and non-profit firms for many years. My book HOW TO WRITE A BUSINESS PLAN, Nolo Press, 10th ed., 2011, has helped thousands of entrepreneurs worldwide start new businesses. I have studied development issues in a variety of political systems since 1960 at the London School of Economics and Whittier College and applied those studies in developing MIEPA; as a Professor of Economics and Business Management at both the undergraduate and graduate levels since the 1970's I am well-qualified to work in both academia and business.
MIEPA's focus is on creating economic growth and job growth under any economic system. Its unique approach encompasses 34 specific economic policies and determines how each policy affects economic growth. Additionally, MIEPA specialists determine how the subject policies interact to create or hinder growth.
As a result of this experience I am qualified and able to train a national staff to propose legislation and regulation designed to maximize economic growth in both newly formed nations and well-established governments.
PROPOSALS TO CLIENT GOVERNMENTS
While each specific proposal will have unique characteristics, the overall methodology will be to review or propose legislation by examining the likely effects on job creation of any proposed law or regulation as well as the effects of existing legal framework. MIEPA analysts combine real world business experience with theoretical economic understanding. This provides a results driven process focused on real economic growth. The process produces an effective, job creating framework tailored for each specific environment - it is not a doctrinaire, one-size-fits-all approach.
After proposal acceptance, I plan to spend 90 to 180 days in country hiring people and establishing procedures for a legislative analysis unit. Once the unit is established and functioning, I will monitor and resolve questions via web. All specific proposals will be formally submitted by me until such time as the unit demonstrates its capability.
Specialists will include economics students fluent in English, who do not have to be graduates, and a small number of lawyers experienced in drafting legislation. Specialists in the unit will be primarily nationals of the client country; they will perform these analyses and recommendations in a timely and cost effective manner.
A six step process is envisioned:
Step 1: determine which existing policies need revamping by performing a policy analysis of MIEPA's policies plus the country's existing economic framework focusing on job creating effects and the cross effects of existing legislation;
Step 2: draft proposed legislation;
Step 3: vet bill by projecting likely outcomes of proposals;
Step 4: revise bill;
Step 5: present for adoption;
Step 6: monitor results and propose changes.
Please contact me at the locations below for an immwediate response.
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Website: www.mkeever.com
Email: mckeever.mp@gmail.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_220339214659940&ap=1
Twitter: @mckeevermp
Cell: 415.816.2982
Your pal,
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Cutting taxes: a cruel joke, defers big tax burden onto kids
Hey Barry
Reagan's budget director David Stockman - the no B S guy - says that our failure to tax rich folks is killing us.
Read it here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-part-2-2011-05-24
Holy cow.
Your pal,
Reagan's budget director David Stockman - the no B S guy - says that our failure to tax rich folks is killing us.
Read it here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-part-2-2011-05-24
Holy cow.
Your pal,
Friday, May 27, 2011
Ten Country Economic Analyses Published
Hey Barry:
The McKeever Institute of Economic Policy Analysis [MIEPA] is pleased to announce the publication on its website [www.mkeever.com] of detailed studies of economic policies for The United States of America, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Vietnam and Spain in addition to the analysis of Tunisia's economy published earlier.
The United States is analyzed by four specialists: Andrew Majoulet, Thaibinh Tran, Jeremiah Taylor and Sean Cox.
Vietnam is analyzed by three specialists: Tram Lu, Tran Nguyen and Khoa Le.
Hong Kong is analyzed by specialist Karen Hoi Nga Leung.
Spain is analyzed by specialist Eduardo Fernandez Ferrero.
Tunisia was analyzed in April by specialist Khaled Bouker.
Best regards,
Mike P. McKeever
MIEPA
www.mkeever.com
The McKeever Institute of Economic Policy Analysis [MIEPA] is pleased to announce the publication on its website [www.mkeever.com] of detailed studies of economic policies for The United States of America, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Vietnam and Spain in addition to the analysis of Tunisia's economy published earlier.
The United States is analyzed by four specialists: Andrew Majoulet, Thaibinh Tran, Jeremiah Taylor and Sean Cox.
Vietnam is analyzed by three specialists: Tram Lu, Tran Nguyen and Khoa Le.
Hong Kong is analyzed by specialist Karen Hoi Nga Leung.
Spain is analyzed by specialist Eduardo Fernandez Ferrero.
Tunisia was analyzed in April by specialist Khaled Bouker.
Best regards,
Mike P. McKeever
MIEPA
www.mkeever.com
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Middle East Security and Stagflation
Hey Barry:
Loved your speech on the Middle East. Now we're ahead of the curve.
Just remember one definition of a pioneer: He's the one who walks in front of the wagon train and gets shot in the back with arrows.
It means you won't get a lot of sympathy: current governments feel the heat and ordinary people are too busy trying to get enough food and, maybe, a job.
But, our national security is better because we're on the right side. It's good that the religious fundamentalist approach to social problems is dying away. Fewer folks will try to blow up Americans now; there'll still be some, but not so many new ones.
Biggest problem is to deliver food and jobs to the people. We can help by reigning in the FED in its flooding the world with new dollars. All that is doing now is driving speculation in commodities, raising the cost of living and threatening the recovery. Just too much money in too few hands, Barry. It's a big problem.
I can remember the oil induced stagflation of the 70's - it was ugly.
Your pal
Loved your speech on the Middle East. Now we're ahead of the curve.
Just remember one definition of a pioneer: He's the one who walks in front of the wagon train and gets shot in the back with arrows.
It means you won't get a lot of sympathy: current governments feel the heat and ordinary people are too busy trying to get enough food and, maybe, a job.
But, our national security is better because we're on the right side. It's good that the religious fundamentalist approach to social problems is dying away. Fewer folks will try to blow up Americans now; there'll still be some, but not so many new ones.
Biggest problem is to deliver food and jobs to the people. We can help by reigning in the FED in its flooding the world with new dollars. All that is doing now is driving speculation in commodities, raising the cost of living and threatening the recovery. Just too much money in too few hands, Barry. It's a big problem.
I can remember the oil induced stagflation of the 70's - it was ugly.
Your pal
Friday, May 13, 2011
Scary Effects of Static Debt
[Lost from site and reposted.]
Hey Barry:
Let's try taking Boehner at his word and see what will happen. After all, he appears convinced that the Tea Party idea of not raising the debt ceiling is a good one.
Here's a likely scenario:
1. We cannot sell any more T-Bills;
2. We can spend only what we collect in tax revenue;
3. That's a 30% reduction in the revenue shown in your 2012 Budget;
4. Let's continue following Boehner, so we won't raise any taxes and we'll reduce expenditures by 30% or $1.1 trillion and we'll do it across the Board;
5. But, wait a minute - since we won't raise taxes and cannot borrow, we will be taking $1.1 trillion out of the economy;
6. That will reduce GDP by some $4 trillion more or less because of the Aggregate Demand multiplier effect;
7. GDP will drop from a forecast $15 trillion to $11 trillion - that's a 25% drop in GDP;
8. A 25% GDP drop is very similar to the GDP drop in the Great Depresssion;
9. We would expect great increases in human misery and social problems - 25% unemployment, increases in crime, violence, and drug abuse - from the GDP drop alone;
10. Also, the drop in GDP would reduce tax revenue, so that government spending would have to be reduced even further, creating an ever descending whirlpool of depression and social misery;
11. Additionally, in the beginning, Defense, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spending would drop by the 30% revenue reduction just to balance the budget - our national defense would be 30% weaker;
12. Since we could no longer pay interest on the outstanding debt, we would not be able to borrow in the future, even if we wanted to;
13. State and local governments would also see large budget shortfalls from the depression and lost tax revenues, leading them to cut security and education spending;
14. With a lack of police and security personnel, we would see a great increase in terrorism;
15. With a lack of schools, we would see great increases in gang activity - basically, no neighborhood will be safe from violence;
16. Due to reduced budgets and increased violence in the Homeland, we would call all troops back from foreign countries to provide order at home;
17. We would lose two wars to the Taliban and Al-Queda - and we would retreat from the war on terror;
18. With no effective American presence, countries like Iran and Syria would be free to take over Iraq and attack Israel.
This is the future the Tea Party wants for us.
I hope you don't agree, Barry.
Your pal,
Hey Barry:
Let's try taking Boehner at his word and see what will happen. After all, he appears convinced that the Tea Party idea of not raising the debt ceiling is a good one.
Here's a likely scenario:
1. We cannot sell any more T-Bills;
2. We can spend only what we collect in tax revenue;
3. That's a 30% reduction in the revenue shown in your 2012 Budget;
4. Let's continue following Boehner, so we won't raise any taxes and we'll reduce expenditures by 30% or $1.1 trillion and we'll do it across the Board;
5. But, wait a minute - since we won't raise taxes and cannot borrow, we will be taking $1.1 trillion out of the economy;
6. That will reduce GDP by some $4 trillion more or less because of the Aggregate Demand multiplier effect;
7. GDP will drop from a forecast $15 trillion to $11 trillion - that's a 25% drop in GDP;
8. A 25% GDP drop is very similar to the GDP drop in the Great Depresssion;
9. We would expect great increases in human misery and social problems - 25% unemployment, increases in crime, violence, and drug abuse - from the GDP drop alone;
10. Also, the drop in GDP would reduce tax revenue, so that government spending would have to be reduced even further, creating an ever descending whirlpool of depression and social misery;
11. Additionally, in the beginning, Defense, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spending would drop by the 30% revenue reduction just to balance the budget - our national defense would be 30% weaker;
12. Since we could no longer pay interest on the outstanding debt, we would not be able to borrow in the future, even if we wanted to;
13. State and local governments would also see large budget shortfalls from the depression and lost tax revenues, leading them to cut security and education spending;
14. With a lack of police and security personnel, we would see a great increase in terrorism;
15. With a lack of schools, we would see great increases in gang activity - basically, no neighborhood will be safe from violence;
16. Due to reduced budgets and increased violence in the Homeland, we would call all troops back from foreign countries to provide order at home;
17. We would lose two wars to the Taliban and Al-Queda - and we would retreat from the war on terror;
18. With no effective American presence, countries like Iran and Syria would be free to take over Iraq and attack Israel.
This is the future the Tea Party wants for us.
I hope you don't agree, Barry.
Your pal,
Monday, May 9, 2011
E U Debt Crisis Coming
Hey Barry:
We are having a debt problem in the USA - the EU may be joining us soon. It's not for sure, but needs watching.
Countries in the Euro zone mostly have sovereign debt problems from financing social programs with debt.
If some of them go - that is, if several countries have financial crises like ours - look for another worldwide recession.
We are all in the same boat now; when one sinks, we all drown.
Y'all can read it here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/09/businesspro-us-eurozone-crisis-communica-idUSTRE74836T20110509
Here's the thing: banks.
No surprise here Barry.
If we don't corral the bankers, they will just make things worse by profiting from disaster. Not just US bankers, either; I mean all of them.
Greedy bankers pass the laws they want in every country so they can make billions while the rest of us can just 'eat cake' if we don't like it, just like Marie Antoinette said.
I'd really like to say that we are leading the world in reforming bankers and helping average folks; but I can't say that. Our bankers are right there with the leaders in passing laws that help themselves at our expense.
Brings a grown man a tear.
Your pal,
We are having a debt problem in the USA - the EU may be joining us soon. It's not for sure, but needs watching.
Countries in the Euro zone mostly have sovereign debt problems from financing social programs with debt.
If some of them go - that is, if several countries have financial crises like ours - look for another worldwide recession.
We are all in the same boat now; when one sinks, we all drown.
Y'all can read it here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/09/businesspro-us-eurozone-crisis-communica-idUSTRE74836T20110509
Here's the thing: banks.
No surprise here Barry.
If we don't corral the bankers, they will just make things worse by profiting from disaster. Not just US bankers, either; I mean all of them.
Greedy bankers pass the laws they want in every country so they can make billions while the rest of us can just 'eat cake' if we don't like it, just like Marie Antoinette said.
I'd really like to say that we are leading the world in reforming bankers and helping average folks; but I can't say that. Our bankers are right there with the leaders in passing laws that help themselves at our expense.
Brings a grown man a tear.
Your pal,
Friday, May 6, 2011
UPDATE 7.22.11: Bogeyman America?
Hey Barry
It's good that OBL is gone - nobody will miss him and we'll feel safer.
But, Barry, one commentator on TV said something that's a little distrubing. I recall hearing a comment to the effect that Americans think the OBL killing was a one time event, but in reality we have teams in war zones that do this two or three times per night. Perhaps I heard it wrong, but I don't think so.
So, Barry, if I get this right, we sneak into people's houses and kill them - and anyone else who gets in the way - about 700 times or more every year.
This is not the American way, Barry, not at all.
Sneaking into houses in the dark makes us into the Bogeyman, Barry; it can go a long way to explaining why some people hate us.
Here's Petraeus on the tactic: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/07/commando-killed-taliban-so/#more-52288
I don't want to live in Bogeyman Country Barry. I want to live in America.
Y'all can tell I've never been on either end of that gun - and I don't want to be, ever. Still, I can comment, Barry; it's Free Speech.
In America, we have processes and protections so we make sure that accused people have every chance to defend themselves. If they cannot defend themselves, then we go ahead and execute them.
Lotta folks will complain about that: "it's a war and we have to protect ourselves. If we give these killers processes and rights, then we will be less safe."
Totally got that we are in a war.
But, there must be a dfifferent choice somewhere. Can't imagine that the only choices are to bomb the house or sneak in and kill people.
First question is this: What kind of evidence do we have that justifies taking a life? And, if there is evidence, then that evidence can be presented to some jury or court somewhere. Maybe an international war crimes court.
Or, maybe we surround the house and tell the occupants that they have five minutes to surrender or we will bomb the house.
I'm sure there are better choices, Barry, we need to find some.
Of course, all that will cost a little more. Process and democracy are not cheap.
But, in the long run, it is a cost we should bear.
Because we are America.
Your pal,
It's good that OBL is gone - nobody will miss him and we'll feel safer.
But, Barry, one commentator on TV said something that's a little distrubing. I recall hearing a comment to the effect that Americans think the OBL killing was a one time event, but in reality we have teams in war zones that do this two or three times per night. Perhaps I heard it wrong, but I don't think so.
So, Barry, if I get this right, we sneak into people's houses and kill them - and anyone else who gets in the way - about 700 times or more every year.
This is not the American way, Barry, not at all.
Sneaking into houses in the dark makes us into the Bogeyman, Barry; it can go a long way to explaining why some people hate us.
Here's Petraeus on the tactic: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/07/commando-killed-taliban-so/#more-52288
I don't want to live in Bogeyman Country Barry. I want to live in America.
Y'all can tell I've never been on either end of that gun - and I don't want to be, ever. Still, I can comment, Barry; it's Free Speech.
In America, we have processes and protections so we make sure that accused people have every chance to defend themselves. If they cannot defend themselves, then we go ahead and execute them.
Lotta folks will complain about that: "it's a war and we have to protect ourselves. If we give these killers processes and rights, then we will be less safe."
Totally got that we are in a war.
But, there must be a dfifferent choice somewhere. Can't imagine that the only choices are to bomb the house or sneak in and kill people.
First question is this: What kind of evidence do we have that justifies taking a life? And, if there is evidence, then that evidence can be presented to some jury or court somewhere. Maybe an international war crimes court.
Or, maybe we surround the house and tell the occupants that they have five minutes to surrender or we will bomb the house.
I'm sure there are better choices, Barry, we need to find some.
Of course, all that will cost a little more. Process and democracy are not cheap.
But, in the long run, it is a cost we should bear.
Because we are America.
Your pal,
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Chickenhawk Torturers Dishonor America
Hey Barry:
Y'all know this, but don't pay no mind to the chickenhawks calling for more torture. It did not work and it will not work. All it does is stain the values which keep America in one piece.
The best news coming is that now we have all OBL's data - we know all he knew: names, places, dates and plans.
Already Al Queda is running scared. Khaled Hathal Abdullah al-Atifi al-Qahtani just turned himself in to the Saudi's.
Read it here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/05/04/international/i072431D01.DTL
Itsa good day, Barry.
Your pal,
Y'all know this, but don't pay no mind to the chickenhawks calling for more torture. It did not work and it will not work. All it does is stain the values which keep America in one piece.
The best news coming is that now we have all OBL's data - we know all he knew: names, places, dates and plans.
Already Al Queda is running scared. Khaled Hathal Abdullah al-Atifi al-Qahtani just turned himself in to the Saudi's.
Read it here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/05/04/international/i072431D01.DTL
Itsa good day, Barry.
Your pal,
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Saturday, April 30, 2011
2012 - Turning the Boat
Hey Barry:
2012 will shape the future of the country. We can make good or bad choices about our future.
Not a surprise.
Here's my list of the critical issues we will decide:
Reduce OR continue the Class War against the Middle Class. We will choose to keep OR dismantle Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and collective bargaining by either reducing taxes on the rich while reducing benefits OR, alternatively, keep benefits constant by raising taxes on the rich.
Ignore corruption resulting from the increasing power and influence of billionaires OR reduce their influence by increasing income and estate taxes dramatically.
Cause a major depression by failing to approve the debt ceiling increase OR approve the increase and work out our problems.
Fund OR dismantle Health Insurance. We will choose to keep OR dismantle your health care program. Sadly I do not think expanding health care is possible.
Ignore energy problems until markets cause severe disruptions OR continue funding energy alternatives.
Keep OR expand financial system regulation. The current system allows future bubbles and crashes; it needs work.
Keep on our current foreign policy course of sympathy for world's poor thereby improving our national security OR return to supporting brutal regimes thereby harming our national security.
Ignore our infrastructure deterioration OR increase taxes and build for the future.
Manage our trade and industrial policies for the benefit of our workers OR continue ignoring the problems our policies create.
Grow our GDP so that our debt is more manageable OR ignore the problem until the debt becomes unmanageable and interest consumes our tax reveue until defense and social security are endangered.
Y'all have your own list, of course.
Point is simple: We don't have any room for mistakes. No room.
No pressure Barry.
Your pal,
2012 will shape the future of the country. We can make good or bad choices about our future.
Not a surprise.
Here's my list of the critical issues we will decide:
Reduce OR continue the Class War against the Middle Class. We will choose to keep OR dismantle Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and collective bargaining by either reducing taxes on the rich while reducing benefits OR, alternatively, keep benefits constant by raising taxes on the rich.
Ignore corruption resulting from the increasing power and influence of billionaires OR reduce their influence by increasing income and estate taxes dramatically.
Cause a major depression by failing to approve the debt ceiling increase OR approve the increase and work out our problems.
Fund OR dismantle Health Insurance. We will choose to keep OR dismantle your health care program. Sadly I do not think expanding health care is possible.
Ignore energy problems until markets cause severe disruptions OR continue funding energy alternatives.
Keep OR expand financial system regulation. The current system allows future bubbles and crashes; it needs work.
Keep on our current foreign policy course of sympathy for world's poor thereby improving our national security OR return to supporting brutal regimes thereby harming our national security.
Ignore our infrastructure deterioration OR increase taxes and build for the future.
Manage our trade and industrial policies for the benefit of our workers OR continue ignoring the problems our policies create.
Grow our GDP so that our debt is more manageable OR ignore the problem until the debt becomes unmanageable and interest consumes our tax reveue until defense and social security are endangered.
Y'all have your own list, of course.
Point is simple: We don't have any room for mistakes. No room.
No pressure Barry.
Your pal,
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Jesus Would Raise Taxes
Hey Barry:
Our progressive income tax system - where folks with higher incomes pay a higher percentage - seems to be based on the Bible and Jesus' teachings.
Lawrence O'Donnell on msnbc gave a Bible lesson the other day, where he discussed Christian principles about taxes in response to a Rush Limbaugh quote.
Some of that discussion is reproduced below.
'O`DONNELL: I, for one, believe that asking the question, what would Jesus do is the way into a more thoughtful discussion than Rush`s obsession with the question, "what would Jesus take?"
But the New Testament does have an answer to Rush`s question, what would Jesus take. And it`s not one Rush is going to like. And since he obviously has no working command of the Bible, it will surely shock him, because he will be hearing it now for the first time.
To the question of, what would Jesus take, the answer is, everything.
Not 35 percent, not 39.6 percent, 100 percent.
In the New Testament`s "Gospel of St. Mark," a man approaches Jesus and asks him, "what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "go and sell all your possessions and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven."
Now, I suppose you could interpret that as go and sell all of your possessions and give some of the proceeds to the poor. But it would be equally reasonable to say, go and sell all of your possessions and give all of your proceeds to the poor.
I lean toward the give all of your proceeds to the poor interpretation, but I don`t do so with absolute certainty, nor would I use that line as Christ-based argument for a particular tax bracket. But it seems very clear that Jesus would be cool with a 39.6 percent tax bracket for people making over 250,000 dollars.
And how was Jesus` advice taken by the man who asked him what he should do to inherit eternal life? Well, it was as if Jesus was talking to Rush. As the story continues in the "Gospel According to St. Mark," "but at these words, he was saddened and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property. And Jesus looking around said to his disciples, `how hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.`
That`s not the only clue we have in the New Testament about what would Jesus take. Jesus also said, "any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple."
That means you, Rush. And that means everything. Give up everything. Those are the words of Jesus Christ. Give up everything. You can be a radio talk show host and you can make your 50 million dollars a year. But you cannot do that and be a disciple of Christ if you keep al of your 50 million dollars a year.
While Jesus may not have specified specific tax brackets, he was the first recorded advocate of a progressive income tax. Jesus actually said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth, but she, out of her poverty, put in everything, all she had to live on."
What would Jesus take? Obviously, he would take from each according to their ability to pay. That is the clear Christian philosophical basis of a progressive income tax; 10 percent on low incomes, 35 percent on high incomes is the current structure.
And if it were up to me, much, much higher percentages on even higher incomes. Now, in holy books as long as the Bible, it is common to find conflicting citations. A quote here to make one point and then a quote there to make the opposite point.
Now, Rush, I know you didn`t bother to do any Bible reading before your silly "what would Jesus take" outburst, and I now invite you and your staff to take as long as you want to try to find a passage anywhere of Jesus sympathizing with rich people for having paid too much taxes, or for having been too generous, or for having been forced by anyone, by the state, by Caesar, by anyone, forced to be too generous.
Take your time. I`m here every night. I`m ready to respond whenever you come up with anything, a word, anything, that you think Jesus said that in any way suggests there is such a thing as an overburdened rich person, overburdened by societal obligation, overburdened by obligation to neighbor, the very neighbor that Jesus instructs the rich person to love.
"When the son of man shall come in his glory, all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory. And before him shall be gathered all nations and he shall separate them, one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheeps from the goats. Then shall the king said unto them on his right-hand, come, you blessed of my father, inherent the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world, for I was hungry and you gave me meat.
"I was thirsty and you gave me drink. I was a stranger and you took me in and you clothed me. I was sick and you visited me. I was in prison and you came unto me.
"Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, lord, when did we see you hungry and fed you, or thirsty and gave you drink? When did we see you a stranger and take you in, or naked and clothed you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and came unto you?
"And the king shall answer and say unto them, verily, I say unto you, in as much as you have doneth unto one of the least of my brethren, you have done it unto me.
"Then shall he say also unto them, on the left hand, depart from me you cursed ones into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels, for I was hungry and you gave me no meat. I was thirsty and you gave me no drink. I was a stranger and you did not take me in naked and did not clothe me, sick, and in prison and you did not visit me.
"Then shall they also answer him, saying, `Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not minister unto you?` Then shall he answer them saying, `verily, I say unto you, in as much as you did not do it for one of the at least of these, you did not do it for me.
"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
Rush, Jesus Christ`s instructions to you could not be more specific. You can follow Christ`s path to righteousness or you can follow the path of the damned. The choice is yours. As you sit back in full recline on your Gulfstream on the way to golf tournaments and you ponder which path to take, you might consider doing Jesus Christ the favor of never again lying about what he said.'
Your pal,
Our progressive income tax system - where folks with higher incomes pay a higher percentage - seems to be based on the Bible and Jesus' teachings.
Lawrence O'Donnell on msnbc gave a Bible lesson the other day, where he discussed Christian principles about taxes in response to a Rush Limbaugh quote.
Some of that discussion is reproduced below.
'O`DONNELL: I, for one, believe that asking the question, what would Jesus do is the way into a more thoughtful discussion than Rush`s obsession with the question, "what would Jesus take?"
But the New Testament does have an answer to Rush`s question, what would Jesus take. And it`s not one Rush is going to like. And since he obviously has no working command of the Bible, it will surely shock him, because he will be hearing it now for the first time.
To the question of, what would Jesus take, the answer is, everything.
Not 35 percent, not 39.6 percent, 100 percent.
In the New Testament`s "Gospel of St. Mark," a man approaches Jesus and asks him, "what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "go and sell all your possessions and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven."
Now, I suppose you could interpret that as go and sell all of your possessions and give some of the proceeds to the poor. But it would be equally reasonable to say, go and sell all of your possessions and give all of your proceeds to the poor.
I lean toward the give all of your proceeds to the poor interpretation, but I don`t do so with absolute certainty, nor would I use that line as Christ-based argument for a particular tax bracket. But it seems very clear that Jesus would be cool with a 39.6 percent tax bracket for people making over 250,000 dollars.
And how was Jesus` advice taken by the man who asked him what he should do to inherit eternal life? Well, it was as if Jesus was talking to Rush. As the story continues in the "Gospel According to St. Mark," "but at these words, he was saddened and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property. And Jesus looking around said to his disciples, `how hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.`
That`s not the only clue we have in the New Testament about what would Jesus take. Jesus also said, "any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple."
That means you, Rush. And that means everything. Give up everything. Those are the words of Jesus Christ. Give up everything. You can be a radio talk show host and you can make your 50 million dollars a year. But you cannot do that and be a disciple of Christ if you keep al of your 50 million dollars a year.
While Jesus may not have specified specific tax brackets, he was the first recorded advocate of a progressive income tax. Jesus actually said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth, but she, out of her poverty, put in everything, all she had to live on."
What would Jesus take? Obviously, he would take from each according to their ability to pay. That is the clear Christian philosophical basis of a progressive income tax; 10 percent on low incomes, 35 percent on high incomes is the current structure.
And if it were up to me, much, much higher percentages on even higher incomes. Now, in holy books as long as the Bible, it is common to find conflicting citations. A quote here to make one point and then a quote there to make the opposite point.
Now, Rush, I know you didn`t bother to do any Bible reading before your silly "what would Jesus take" outburst, and I now invite you and your staff to take as long as you want to try to find a passage anywhere of Jesus sympathizing with rich people for having paid too much taxes, or for having been too generous, or for having been forced by anyone, by the state, by Caesar, by anyone, forced to be too generous.
Take your time. I`m here every night. I`m ready to respond whenever you come up with anything, a word, anything, that you think Jesus said that in any way suggests there is such a thing as an overburdened rich person, overburdened by societal obligation, overburdened by obligation to neighbor, the very neighbor that Jesus instructs the rich person to love.
"When the son of man shall come in his glory, all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory. And before him shall be gathered all nations and he shall separate them, one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheeps from the goats. Then shall the king said unto them on his right-hand, come, you blessed of my father, inherent the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world, for I was hungry and you gave me meat.
"I was thirsty and you gave me drink. I was a stranger and you took me in and you clothed me. I was sick and you visited me. I was in prison and you came unto me.
"Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, lord, when did we see you hungry and fed you, or thirsty and gave you drink? When did we see you a stranger and take you in, or naked and clothed you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and came unto you?
"And the king shall answer and say unto them, verily, I say unto you, in as much as you have doneth unto one of the least of my brethren, you have done it unto me.
"Then shall he say also unto them, on the left hand, depart from me you cursed ones into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels, for I was hungry and you gave me no meat. I was thirsty and you gave me no drink. I was a stranger and you did not take me in naked and did not clothe me, sick, and in prison and you did not visit me.
"Then shall they also answer him, saying, `Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not minister unto you?` Then shall he answer them saying, `verily, I say unto you, in as much as you did not do it for one of the at least of these, you did not do it for me.
"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
Rush, Jesus Christ`s instructions to you could not be more specific. You can follow Christ`s path to righteousness or you can follow the path of the damned. The choice is yours. As you sit back in full recline on your Gulfstream on the way to golf tournaments and you ponder which path to take, you might consider doing Jesus Christ the favor of never again lying about what he said.'
Your pal,
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Selling Obama
Hey Barry:
Seems that a few of the opinion polls on your re-election campaign tell us that most voters agree with your positions on the big issues - tax the rich, save Social Security and medicare, and so on - but that you get a low rating.
Does not make sense, Barry, but facts is facts.
Well, public opinion manipulation is not my thing, but maybe a lesson from advertising can help a little. Just a thought. Course the idea is 'bleedin' obvious.
You are a commodity Barry: you're way past being Barack Obama. Now we all think that you are going to save or mess up my personal financial future, keep us out of wars and fix my breakfast just right.
Itsa big job.
But we're all glad that you want it for another term.
Why not borrow an idea from product marketing - product differentiation. And, as a bonus, you can throw in a little fear. Seems that conservative brains are hard wired to respond to fear, so why nor use that? Here's a link to read about it: http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/ for April 20, 2011
Of course you are doing a lot of this now and it is a good idea. I am just suggesting you keep it up until voters associate you personally with the policies they like.
For example, say this: 'Here's what I'll do as your President: I'll save Medicare just as it is. But if the Republicans get into power, they will kill Medicare. They will force old people to buy private insurance with their own money.
As your President, I'll save Social Security for you and your grandchildren. But if the Republicans have control they will privatize Social Security and give all the money to Wall Street bankers. Old people will be homeless and begging on the street, just like in the 1930's.' [Never mind that it is already happening today. I just gave an old white guy $20 because he said it was his 70th birthday and he wanted to rent a hotel room for the night. Mebbe it was a scam, but he got to me.]
'As your President I'll tax the rich folks and balance the budget. But if the Republicans get into power they will give tax breaks to billionaires and force retired people to pay more for health insurance.'
We're with you Barry. I can't attend a $10,000 fund raiser, but I'll do what I can.
Your pal,
Seems that a few of the opinion polls on your re-election campaign tell us that most voters agree with your positions on the big issues - tax the rich, save Social Security and medicare, and so on - but that you get a low rating.
Does not make sense, Barry, but facts is facts.
Well, public opinion manipulation is not my thing, but maybe a lesson from advertising can help a little. Just a thought. Course the idea is 'bleedin' obvious.
You are a commodity Barry: you're way past being Barack Obama. Now we all think that you are going to save or mess up my personal financial future, keep us out of wars and fix my breakfast just right.
Itsa big job.
But we're all glad that you want it for another term.
Why not borrow an idea from product marketing - product differentiation. And, as a bonus, you can throw in a little fear. Seems that conservative brains are hard wired to respond to fear, so why nor use that? Here's a link to read about it: http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/ for April 20, 2011
Of course you are doing a lot of this now and it is a good idea. I am just suggesting you keep it up until voters associate you personally with the policies they like.
For example, say this: 'Here's what I'll do as your President: I'll save Medicare just as it is. But if the Republicans get into power, they will kill Medicare. They will force old people to buy private insurance with their own money.
As your President, I'll save Social Security for you and your grandchildren. But if the Republicans have control they will privatize Social Security and give all the money to Wall Street bankers. Old people will be homeless and begging on the street, just like in the 1930's.' [Never mind that it is already happening today. I just gave an old white guy $20 because he said it was his 70th birthday and he wanted to rent a hotel room for the night. Mebbe it was a scam, but he got to me.]
'As your President I'll tax the rich folks and balance the budget. But if the Republicans get into power they will give tax breaks to billionaires and force retired people to pay more for health insurance.'
We're with you Barry. I can't attend a $10,000 fund raiser, but I'll do what I can.
Your pal,
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
UPDATE 4.20.11 - Even FOX News Favors Taxing Rich ! !
Holy Cow, Barry;
Even FOX NEWS is calling for more taxes on the RICH in addition to spending cuts.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4654391/should-the-wealthy-pay-more-taxes/?playlist_id=86858
Truly, pigs are flying.
****************************
Caught you on video about deficit reduction in the next few years.
It is all good and we need it as a country. You totally caught our spirit and social compact.
Wait for it: Here comes the the 'but', Barry.
To get it done you'll have to face down some world class whiners and crooks.
It's another defining moment. It will take some serious chops.
There are some doubts about it Barry, I can't lie.
The question is: can you stop the crooked money machine?
The jury is out on it.
We are all rooting for you and we want to help.
We'll be happy to propagandize all over hell's half acre, if that will help. Or, we will shut up and let you work mysterious back room magic.
Pretty sure this is the last chance we have to keep the dream alive.
No pressure, Barry.
Your pal,
Even FOX NEWS is calling for more taxes on the RICH in addition to spending cuts.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4654391/should-the-wealthy-pay-more-taxes/?playlist_id=86858
Truly, pigs are flying.
****************************
Caught you on video about deficit reduction in the next few years.
It is all good and we need it as a country. You totally caught our spirit and social compact.
Wait for it: Here comes the the 'but', Barry.
To get it done you'll have to face down some world class whiners and crooks.
It's another defining moment. It will take some serious chops.
There are some doubts about it Barry, I can't lie.
The question is: can you stop the crooked money machine?
The jury is out on it.
We are all rooting for you and we want to help.
We'll be happy to propagandize all over hell's half acre, if that will help. Or, we will shut up and let you work mysterious back room magic.
Pretty sure this is the last chance we have to keep the dream alive.
No pressure, Barry.
Your pal,
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Raise Taxes - We In It Together
Hey Barry
So, here's the thing. It's such a thing that I gotta put on my favorite jeans and talk like this cuz if'n I don't y'all won't hear me.
Listen up, Barry. Y'all gonna have to tax some folks next year. Thas right, you gonna have to raise taxes.
Y'all can raise 'em on me or you can raise 'em on the RICH or you can raise 'em on all of us.
But, bottom line is simple, taxes gotta go up.
Now them Reps have bamboozled a lotta folks into thinkin that tax raises don't exist any more.
Well, guess what. They do.
There are things we gotta pay for, Barry. And, after we have cut all we can and borrowed all we can, then we gotta raise taxes.
Is jes simple rithmetic, Barry.
As of now, we have cut taxes too far. Steve Forbes an all them keep remindin us that Reagan cut taxes and we had a big boom.
Well, Barry, Reagan's dead.
The last time we tried to cut taxes on RICH we got this here recession.
So, who you gonna tax Barry?
Us poor and middle class don't got nothin to tax no more.
You gonna have to go after the RICH.
Tell 'em it's the patriotic thing to do. After all, if there was no America, they'd be poor like the rest of us.
And Barry, here's the last thing, if we don't raise taxes on the RICH and help out the poor and the middle, the RICH gonna be poor too. They'll be nobody to buy the crap they sellin.
We in it together, whether we like it or not.
Your pal,
So, here's the thing. It's such a thing that I gotta put on my favorite jeans and talk like this cuz if'n I don't y'all won't hear me.
Listen up, Barry. Y'all gonna have to tax some folks next year. Thas right, you gonna have to raise taxes.
Y'all can raise 'em on me or you can raise 'em on the RICH or you can raise 'em on all of us.
But, bottom line is simple, taxes gotta go up.
Now them Reps have bamboozled a lotta folks into thinkin that tax raises don't exist any more.
Well, guess what. They do.
There are things we gotta pay for, Barry. And, after we have cut all we can and borrowed all we can, then we gotta raise taxes.
Is jes simple rithmetic, Barry.
As of now, we have cut taxes too far. Steve Forbes an all them keep remindin us that Reagan cut taxes and we had a big boom.
Well, Barry, Reagan's dead.
The last time we tried to cut taxes on RICH we got this here recession.
So, who you gonna tax Barry?
Us poor and middle class don't got nothin to tax no more.
You gonna have to go after the RICH.
Tell 'em it's the patriotic thing to do. After all, if there was no America, they'd be poor like the rest of us.
And Barry, here's the last thing, if we don't raise taxes on the RICH and help out the poor and the middle, the RICH gonna be poor too. They'll be nobody to buy the crap they sellin.
We in it together, whether we like it or not.
Your pal,
Saturday, April 9, 2011
China Adds Retirement, Health Care
Hey Barry:
Seems that China is having some good times in their economy. In fact, they are going to introduce health care and a retirement system for their workers in their next five year plan.
Y'all can read about it here: http://www.mkeever.com/china.html
Kinda makes me wonder why we are debating dropping both health care and a retirement system for American workers at the same time China is planning to add them.
Do you think it may have something to do with our trade balance with China?
Mebbe it could, Barry, mebbe it could.
At least it is worth thinking about.
Your pal,
Seems that China is having some good times in their economy. In fact, they are going to introduce health care and a retirement system for their workers in their next five year plan.
Y'all can read about it here: http://www.mkeever.com/china.html
Kinda makes me wonder why we are debating dropping both health care and a retirement system for American workers at the same time China is planning to add them.
Do you think it may have something to do with our trade balance with China?
Mebbe it could, Barry, mebbe it could.
At least it is worth thinking about.
Your pal,
Saturday, April 2, 2011
U S Class War, 3 - Fighting Back
Hey Barry:
I think we're awake now......
Cops do it.
Firefighters do it.
Even teachers in the spring do it.
We all get it.
We get that the RICH are taking even what we have left.
They took our jobs to China, our houses to foreclosure, our roads and bridges to ruin, our schools to disaster and now they want our pensions, our medical care and our collective bargaining rights.
But, Barry, we are going to fight them.
We are going to fight them hard.
This is our country, Barry.
It does NOT belong to the RICH.
We will recall them, sue them, impeach them and vote them out.
So, Barry, if you are with us, then you need to start governing from the left.
You tried the middle and all we, and you, got was screwed.
Time to turn left, Barry.
Listen to the voters and decide where we are going. The link and transcript below may help you.
First, here's a link to a column by Paul Farrell titled: Tax The Super Rich Now or Face A Revolution:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tax-the-super-rich-now-or-face-a-revolution-2011-03-29?pagenumber=1
And, below is a long exerpt from the Cenk Uygur show on MSNBC of April 1 which details some of today's citizen's actions:
Your pal,
MSNBC LIVE WITH CENK UYGUR for April 1, 2011
Cenk Uygur
WISCONSIN
All right. One down, seven to go. Wisconsin Democrats say they have officially begun to recall the first republican senator after Governor Scott Walker`s union-busting bill passed. They`re not messing around. We`ll show you why that state senator is actually in a world of trouble and tell you if there are more recalls on the way. The battle has been joined. And some hypocrisy you won`t believe. Or maybe you will after we tell you it involves Florida Governor Rick Scott. And this one has a particularly cruel twist.
UYGUR: Republicans be aware. Today, the backlash inspired by the conservative crackdowns on unions enters a whole new chapter. See those eight people? They`re the eight republican state senators in Wisconsin whom Democrats have bowed to recall because of their anti-union votes. Well, not that recall effort has officially begun. Democrats say, they`ve collected the signatures required to recall the first of those state senators, Dan Kapanke. And they`re filing the petition today. The filing begins a 31-day review period of the signatures. An election could be held this summer. Votes have consequences. Those consequences are on the way for Mr. Kapanke.
By the way, the situation for him is seriously dire. A political scientist at the University of Wisconsin Madison says, Kapanke is the quote, "only one of those Republicans who looks like they`re situated in a democratic-leaning district." In a pole last month showed that 57 percent of those in Kapanke`s own district would vote for a generic someone else. By the way, you should know the move on commissioned that poll but it was done by a professional polling organization. But given all this, hanky panke Kapanke looks like he`s in a lot of trouble. Yes, I know, I just gave him that nickname. It`s a vice I share with George Bush. It doesn`t speak well of me.
OHIO
All right. Meanwhile, it`s new ball game in Ohio as well. Governor John Kasich signed an anti-union bill into law yesterday, that`s even harsher than the one in Wisconsin stripping collective bargaining rights from roughly 350,000 public workers. But if Democrats can collect just over 250,000 signatures in the next 90 days, that bill does not go into effect. Instead it goes to a referendum. And Ohio voters get to vote on it. And guess what? Polls show that Ohio voters definitely do not like the measure. Fifty four percent in favor, 35 percent against. That`s according to a recent Quinnipiac poll. But the really bad news for Republicans is that the backlash isn`t just in Wisconsin and Ohio. It`s everywhere. We`ve told you about plummeting poll numbers for republican governors who backed anti-union measures including Walker, Kasich and Chris Christie. They`re all dropping.
UNIONS AND POLLS
Now, a new Gallup poll shows that 48 percent of the Americans side with state employee labor unions in these disputes and only 39 percent agree with the governors. And check this out. As Politico pointed out in November, a Hart Research poll showed 47 percent of the building trade union members describing themselves as Democrats. Twenty five percent as Republicans. In January, 63 percent called themselves Democrats and only 18 percent went to Republicans. Now, that`s a significant shift. And that was even before the Wisconsin and Ohio bills passed. But the news just keeps getting worse and worse for Republicans.
COPS AND FIREFIGHTERS FIGHT BACK
It now appears that even police and firefighter unions are jumping from the republican ship. Cops and firefighters, remember, those are the two unions, they were actually exempted from the Wisconsin bill. The president of the Ohio Association of professional firefighters says, some republican members have actually apologized for supporting John Kasich. Quote, "they are never voting that way again." And today, the backlash is spreading the Pennsylvania, a state where anti-union measures are even on the table yet. Almost, 3,000 of union coal mine workers from several states staged a rally today in Pennsylvania, an early warning signal to any and all conservatives bent on taking the fight elsewhere. Look, they get it. This republican attack is against them, the workers in this country, the middle class. And they have decided they`re going to fight back.
All right. Joining me now is Tim Burga, he`s president of the Ohio AFL-CIO, and Chuck Canterbury, national president of the Fraternal Order of Police. Chuck, let me start with you. The cops were exempted in the Wisconsin bill, why are you joining this fight and why are you so animated by it?
CHUCK CANTERBURY, FRATERNAL ORDER POLICE:
We`re joining the fight because Wisconsin was just the first. Ohio`s bill SP5 that`s passed this week, it`s a terrible official legislation that rolls back, the police labor movement 30 years in Ohio. And we`re not going to stand for it. We`re going to stand up and let the American public know that we`re not the evil doers, we`re the police officers, the firefighters and the teachers that live in their communities. So, we`re going to continue to stand up, get the numbers up from the people as you`ve said earlier in your intro, the American public supports us. We`ve just got to get our message out.
UYGUR: You know, of course, a lot of people supported the Republicans before, Chuck, I want to stay with you for a second, what made you change your mind here? What woke you up, if you will?
CANTERBURY: Well, this isn`t about bipartisan issue or a republican or democrat issue. This is an issue of the police officers in this country standing up for those that stand up for us. Right now, the republican governors around the country have decided to point an X on us as a target. And we`re going to have to use our voices on our votes to answer back. That`s going to cause us to lean towards people that support our causes.
UYGUR: All right. Tim, talk to me about how much these republican governors might have ironically helped the AFL-CIO by showing people, how against the workers they really are.
TIM BURGA, PRESIDENT, AFL-CIO: All right.
Good evening, Cenk. And President Canterbury is right. There is a tremendous outpouring of opposition against Senate bill 5, because it`s being seen as a politically motivated attempt to scapegoat police officers, nurses, firefighters and teachers for the economic challenges of the day. And what Senate bill 5 will do, and Ohioans are seeing this, is going to punish all working families, and to take away worker rights. And not only is a galvanized union men and women, but it also has all working families, and the general public up and arms, and we`re very confident that we`re going to get this issue on a ballot, and there will be a citizens veto of Senate bill 5 in November.
UYGUR: But I want to ask you about that. First, I just kind of say, well, it really drives me crazy. And I think I`m hearing it from both of you guys, that they seem to be blaming you guys for the budget problems. You didn`t cause the budget problems. And then they could turn around and say, oh, no, no, it`s not the taxes, it`s not anything else, it`s not our give-aways, you guys and we`ve got to cut your pay. But Tim, I want to focus on what you guys are you`re going to do about it in Ohio. What is the plan of action and how it will work?
BURGA: Well, the process is Ohioans from every corner and all walks of life, will be circulating petitions to get the necessary signatures, to get the citizens veto on the ballot in November. So, the end of April, all of May and all of June, we`ll be gathering signatures and that will be campaigning the issue in November. And I can tell you that there`s been an outpouring of opposition against Senate bill 5 because it`s being seen as a stream, politically motivated overreach and an attack on workers` rights. And Ohioans are up in arms and they want to do something about it. And fortunate for us here in Ohio, we have the ability to go to the ballot for a citizens veto and I believe we`ll be successful.
UYGUR: You know, Chuck, you know, in Wisconsin, at some point, Governor Walker gave an order to clear out the protesters from the state house and the cops there said, we`re not going to do it. We`re going to do the right thing. And some of the cops even shouted out, we`re going to join you guys, right? It was an amazing moment, a really interesting moment. But, you know, a lot of politicians after 9/11 has said, oh, we`re with the cops, we`re with the cops. I mean, there`s a lot of empty talk. When it came to action, what are you seeing on the ground lately? In all these states, I mean, it seems like, particularly in the Midwest, but it seems like they`re coming after you. Do you feel particularly betrayed by that?
CANTERBURY: We feel extremely betrayed because these are the people that have brought our country into this economic problem. They`re the ones that underfunded pensions. They`re the ones that negotiated contracts, they don`t want to keep, it wasn`t the police officers, the firefighters, the teachers, it was them. And now, we`ve become their scapegoat, so we`re extremely annoyed by it. And the over one million police officers in this country are going to stand up.
UYGUR: You know, last thing for the viewers at home, look, the banks, whenever they run into trouble they say oh, the bankers contract, we can`t violate those. No, no, no, those are contracts. But when it comes to Chuck`s contractors, guys have the four as well, those contracts well, they`re not quite good enough. We can cut your pay. When it comes to working guys that Tim is representing, well, we can cut that pay, we didn`t mean that contract, we meant rich people`s contracts. I think that what drives people crazy. But look, Tim Burger and Chuck Canterbury, we really appreciate you guys coming out here and talking about it tonight. Thank you both so much.
BURGA: Thank you.
CANTERBURY: Thanks for having us.
FLORIDA - RICK SCOTT
UYGUR: Tonight, Florida Governor Rick Scott goes under the spotlight and this one isn`t pretty. Florida`s agency for persons with disabilities is facing a $170 million budget gap. So, Governor Scott has used emergency powers to order the agency to cut payments to group homes and social workers by 15 percent. The agency provides services about 35,000 people in Florida with Down`s syndrome, autism, cerebral palsy, and other disabilities. Amy Van Bergen who directs the Down`s Syndrome Association of Central Florida says, quote, "potentially this cuts have life and death implications of these people." Now, of course, Scott didn`t have enough room of the budget for the disabled people, but he did have enough room to propose $1.5 billion corporate tax cut over the next two years. So, this story is already pretty bad, but it`s about to get worse. After Scott ordered those cuts yesterday, he then participated in a run for the Special Olympics and he had this to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. RICK SCOTT (R), FLORIDA: Special Olympics is extremely important. We`ve got to make sure we take care of those who have struggled, having disadvantaged. So, this is a great event.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UGYUR: Right. So, Governor Scott carries deeply about the developmentally disabled when there`s an opportunity for a good photo op. But when it comes to actual services, the 35,000 people need, well, that`s a little inconvenient. His corporate buddies need a tax break. What`s a standup guy to do? We`ll be back.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
April 1, 2011
I think we're awake now......
Cops do it.
Firefighters do it.
Even teachers in the spring do it.
We all get it.
We get that the RICH are taking even what we have left.
They took our jobs to China, our houses to foreclosure, our roads and bridges to ruin, our schools to disaster and now they want our pensions, our medical care and our collective bargaining rights.
But, Barry, we are going to fight them.
We are going to fight them hard.
This is our country, Barry.
It does NOT belong to the RICH.
We will recall them, sue them, impeach them and vote them out.
So, Barry, if you are with us, then you need to start governing from the left.
You tried the middle and all we, and you, got was screwed.
Time to turn left, Barry.
Listen to the voters and decide where we are going. The link and transcript below may help you.
First, here's a link to a column by Paul Farrell titled: Tax The Super Rich Now or Face A Revolution:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tax-the-super-rich-now-or-face-a-revolution-2011-03-29?pagenumber=1
And, below is a long exerpt from the Cenk Uygur show on MSNBC of April 1 which details some of today's citizen's actions:
Your pal,
MSNBC LIVE WITH CENK UYGUR for April 1, 2011
Cenk Uygur
WISCONSIN
All right. One down, seven to go. Wisconsin Democrats say they have officially begun to recall the first republican senator after Governor Scott Walker`s union-busting bill passed. They`re not messing around. We`ll show you why that state senator is actually in a world of trouble and tell you if there are more recalls on the way. The battle has been joined. And some hypocrisy you won`t believe. Or maybe you will after we tell you it involves Florida Governor Rick Scott. And this one has a particularly cruel twist.
UYGUR: Republicans be aware. Today, the backlash inspired by the conservative crackdowns on unions enters a whole new chapter. See those eight people? They`re the eight republican state senators in Wisconsin whom Democrats have bowed to recall because of their anti-union votes. Well, not that recall effort has officially begun. Democrats say, they`ve collected the signatures required to recall the first of those state senators, Dan Kapanke. And they`re filing the petition today. The filing begins a 31-day review period of the signatures. An election could be held this summer. Votes have consequences. Those consequences are on the way for Mr. Kapanke.
By the way, the situation for him is seriously dire. A political scientist at the University of Wisconsin Madison says, Kapanke is the quote, "only one of those Republicans who looks like they`re situated in a democratic-leaning district." In a pole last month showed that 57 percent of those in Kapanke`s own district would vote for a generic someone else. By the way, you should know the move on commissioned that poll but it was done by a professional polling organization. But given all this, hanky panke Kapanke looks like he`s in a lot of trouble. Yes, I know, I just gave him that nickname. It`s a vice I share with George Bush. It doesn`t speak well of me.
OHIO
All right. Meanwhile, it`s new ball game in Ohio as well. Governor John Kasich signed an anti-union bill into law yesterday, that`s even harsher than the one in Wisconsin stripping collective bargaining rights from roughly 350,000 public workers. But if Democrats can collect just over 250,000 signatures in the next 90 days, that bill does not go into effect. Instead it goes to a referendum. And Ohio voters get to vote on it. And guess what? Polls show that Ohio voters definitely do not like the measure. Fifty four percent in favor, 35 percent against. That`s according to a recent Quinnipiac poll. But the really bad news for Republicans is that the backlash isn`t just in Wisconsin and Ohio. It`s everywhere. We`ve told you about plummeting poll numbers for republican governors who backed anti-union measures including Walker, Kasich and Chris Christie. They`re all dropping.
UNIONS AND POLLS
Now, a new Gallup poll shows that 48 percent of the Americans side with state employee labor unions in these disputes and only 39 percent agree with the governors. And check this out. As Politico pointed out in November, a Hart Research poll showed 47 percent of the building trade union members describing themselves as Democrats. Twenty five percent as Republicans. In January, 63 percent called themselves Democrats and only 18 percent went to Republicans. Now, that`s a significant shift. And that was even before the Wisconsin and Ohio bills passed. But the news just keeps getting worse and worse for Republicans.
COPS AND FIREFIGHTERS FIGHT BACK
It now appears that even police and firefighter unions are jumping from the republican ship. Cops and firefighters, remember, those are the two unions, they were actually exempted from the Wisconsin bill. The president of the Ohio Association of professional firefighters says, some republican members have actually apologized for supporting John Kasich. Quote, "they are never voting that way again." And today, the backlash is spreading the Pennsylvania, a state where anti-union measures are even on the table yet. Almost, 3,000 of union coal mine workers from several states staged a rally today in Pennsylvania, an early warning signal to any and all conservatives bent on taking the fight elsewhere. Look, they get it. This republican attack is against them, the workers in this country, the middle class. And they have decided they`re going to fight back.
All right. Joining me now is Tim Burga, he`s president of the Ohio AFL-CIO, and Chuck Canterbury, national president of the Fraternal Order of Police. Chuck, let me start with you. The cops were exempted in the Wisconsin bill, why are you joining this fight and why are you so animated by it?
CHUCK CANTERBURY, FRATERNAL ORDER POLICE:
We`re joining the fight because Wisconsin was just the first. Ohio`s bill SP5 that`s passed this week, it`s a terrible official legislation that rolls back, the police labor movement 30 years in Ohio. And we`re not going to stand for it. We`re going to stand up and let the American public know that we`re not the evil doers, we`re the police officers, the firefighters and the teachers that live in their communities. So, we`re going to continue to stand up, get the numbers up from the people as you`ve said earlier in your intro, the American public supports us. We`ve just got to get our message out.
UYGUR: You know, of course, a lot of people supported the Republicans before, Chuck, I want to stay with you for a second, what made you change your mind here? What woke you up, if you will?
CANTERBURY: Well, this isn`t about bipartisan issue or a republican or democrat issue. This is an issue of the police officers in this country standing up for those that stand up for us. Right now, the republican governors around the country have decided to point an X on us as a target. And we`re going to have to use our voices on our votes to answer back. That`s going to cause us to lean towards people that support our causes.
UYGUR: All right. Tim, talk to me about how much these republican governors might have ironically helped the AFL-CIO by showing people, how against the workers they really are.
TIM BURGA, PRESIDENT, AFL-CIO: All right.
Good evening, Cenk. And President Canterbury is right. There is a tremendous outpouring of opposition against Senate bill 5, because it`s being seen as a politically motivated attempt to scapegoat police officers, nurses, firefighters and teachers for the economic challenges of the day. And what Senate bill 5 will do, and Ohioans are seeing this, is going to punish all working families, and to take away worker rights. And not only is a galvanized union men and women, but it also has all working families, and the general public up and arms, and we`re very confident that we`re going to get this issue on a ballot, and there will be a citizens veto of Senate bill 5 in November.
UYGUR: But I want to ask you about that. First, I just kind of say, well, it really drives me crazy. And I think I`m hearing it from both of you guys, that they seem to be blaming you guys for the budget problems. You didn`t cause the budget problems. And then they could turn around and say, oh, no, no, it`s not the taxes, it`s not anything else, it`s not our give-aways, you guys and we`ve got to cut your pay. But Tim, I want to focus on what you guys are you`re going to do about it in Ohio. What is the plan of action and how it will work?
BURGA: Well, the process is Ohioans from every corner and all walks of life, will be circulating petitions to get the necessary signatures, to get the citizens veto on the ballot in November. So, the end of April, all of May and all of June, we`ll be gathering signatures and that will be campaigning the issue in November. And I can tell you that there`s been an outpouring of opposition against Senate bill 5 because it`s being seen as a stream, politically motivated overreach and an attack on workers` rights. And Ohioans are up in arms and they want to do something about it. And fortunate for us here in Ohio, we have the ability to go to the ballot for a citizens veto and I believe we`ll be successful.
UYGUR: You know, Chuck, you know, in Wisconsin, at some point, Governor Walker gave an order to clear out the protesters from the state house and the cops there said, we`re not going to do it. We`re going to do the right thing. And some of the cops even shouted out, we`re going to join you guys, right? It was an amazing moment, a really interesting moment. But, you know, a lot of politicians after 9/11 has said, oh, we`re with the cops, we`re with the cops. I mean, there`s a lot of empty talk. When it came to action, what are you seeing on the ground lately? In all these states, I mean, it seems like, particularly in the Midwest, but it seems like they`re coming after you. Do you feel particularly betrayed by that?
CANTERBURY: We feel extremely betrayed because these are the people that have brought our country into this economic problem. They`re the ones that underfunded pensions. They`re the ones that negotiated contracts, they don`t want to keep, it wasn`t the police officers, the firefighters, the teachers, it was them. And now, we`ve become their scapegoat, so we`re extremely annoyed by it. And the over one million police officers in this country are going to stand up.
UYGUR: You know, last thing for the viewers at home, look, the banks, whenever they run into trouble they say oh, the bankers contract, we can`t violate those. No, no, no, those are contracts. But when it comes to Chuck`s contractors, guys have the four as well, those contracts well, they`re not quite good enough. We can cut your pay. When it comes to working guys that Tim is representing, well, we can cut that pay, we didn`t mean that contract, we meant rich people`s contracts. I think that what drives people crazy. But look, Tim Burger and Chuck Canterbury, we really appreciate you guys coming out here and talking about it tonight. Thank you both so much.
BURGA: Thank you.
CANTERBURY: Thanks for having us.
FLORIDA - RICK SCOTT
UYGUR: Tonight, Florida Governor Rick Scott goes under the spotlight and this one isn`t pretty. Florida`s agency for persons with disabilities is facing a $170 million budget gap. So, Governor Scott has used emergency powers to order the agency to cut payments to group homes and social workers by 15 percent. The agency provides services about 35,000 people in Florida with Down`s syndrome, autism, cerebral palsy, and other disabilities. Amy Van Bergen who directs the Down`s Syndrome Association of Central Florida says, quote, "potentially this cuts have life and death implications of these people." Now, of course, Scott didn`t have enough room of the budget for the disabled people, but he did have enough room to propose $1.5 billion corporate tax cut over the next two years. So, this story is already pretty bad, but it`s about to get worse. After Scott ordered those cuts yesterday, he then participated in a run for the Special Olympics and he had this to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. RICK SCOTT (R), FLORIDA: Special Olympics is extremely important. We`ve got to make sure we take care of those who have struggled, having disadvantaged. So, this is a great event.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UGYUR: Right. So, Governor Scott carries deeply about the developmentally disabled when there`s an opportunity for a good photo op. But when it comes to actual services, the 35,000 people need, well, that`s a little inconvenient. His corporate buddies need a tax break. What`s a standup guy to do? We`ll be back.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
April 1, 2011
Friday, April 1, 2011
Tax the Rich - Even Republicans Agree
Hey Barry:
It's sure looking like most of our folks are catching up to reality. A new poll shows that even 60% of Republicans [!] are in favor of taxing rich folks to close budget problems.
Read it here; http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/31/MNP21INRMH.DTL&tsp=1
It's just California for now, but it'll spread soon.
God bless America.
Your pal,
PS: And, it is NOT an April fool joke.
It's sure looking like most of our folks are catching up to reality. A new poll shows that even 60% of Republicans [!] are in favor of taxing rich folks to close budget problems.
Read it here; http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/31/MNP21INRMH.DTL&tsp=1
It's just California for now, but it'll spread soon.
God bless America.
Your pal,
PS: And, it is NOT an April fool joke.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
UPDATE 4.27.11: Tunisia Economic Analysis
Hey Barry:
MIEPA's econnomic policy analysis of Tunisia in revolution has been updated.
Please read it at:
http://www.mkeever.com/tunisia.html
*********************************************
I am taking the unusual step of posting an unfinished and unedited work on the economy of Tunisia in the middle of a revolution because of the rapidly developing events in North Africa. It is unusual for an economic analysis to be performed as a revolution is taking hold of the country.
Perhaps some analysts will find the raw study of interest, bearing in mind that it will be updated as it is revised.
Here is the link to the Economic Analysis of Tunisia as it undergoes revolution: http://www.mkeever.com/tunisia.html
Your pal,
MIEPA's econnomic policy analysis of Tunisia in revolution has been updated.
Please read it at:
http://www.mkeever.com/tunisia.html
*********************************************
I am taking the unusual step of posting an unfinished and unedited work on the economy of Tunisia in the middle of a revolution because of the rapidly developing events in North Africa. It is unusual for an economic analysis to be performed as a revolution is taking hold of the country.
Perhaps some analysts will find the raw study of interest, bearing in mind that it will be updated as it is revised.
Here is the link to the Economic Analysis of Tunisia as it undergoes revolution: http://www.mkeever.com/tunisia.html
Your pal,
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Honor of the United States
Hey Barry:
You are receiveing a lot of flak for the Libya action, but it is the right thing to do.
Here's why action in Libya is good for the United States:
1. Act in concert with our values and principles - we value freedom and democracy over violence and fear;
2. Restore and enhance the honor of the United States of America - we are doing the right thing even if we are limited in our abilities;
3. Humanitarian response - we should not stand by while women, children and unarmed men are brutalized by their government - and we are saving lives;
4. Get on the right side of history for a change - clearly a movement among Arab youth is rocking the world and we have been on the dictators' side in reputation and fact;
5. Our stance is already reaping positive change in other countries - whether or not anyone intervenes, repressive governments are looking over their shoulder;
6. Improve our national security - fewer terrorists will attack us when they have some freedom and hope in their own country;
7. Quick turnover of leading role to NATO helps our image in the world;
8. Involve other countries in NATO and the Arab league in our action - it is not a unilateral USA act; and,
9. We can wear our flag with pride again.
Your pal,
You are receiveing a lot of flak for the Libya action, but it is the right thing to do.
Here's why action in Libya is good for the United States:
1. Act in concert with our values and principles - we value freedom and democracy over violence and fear;
2. Restore and enhance the honor of the United States of America - we are doing the right thing even if we are limited in our abilities;
3. Humanitarian response - we should not stand by while women, children and unarmed men are brutalized by their government - and we are saving lives;
4. Get on the right side of history for a change - clearly a movement among Arab youth is rocking the world and we have been on the dictators' side in reputation and fact;
5. Our stance is already reaping positive change in other countries - whether or not anyone intervenes, repressive governments are looking over their shoulder;
6. Improve our national security - fewer terrorists will attack us when they have some freedom and hope in their own country;
7. Quick turnover of leading role to NATO helps our image in the world;
8. Involve other countries in NATO and the Arab league in our action - it is not a unilateral USA act; and,
9. We can wear our flag with pride again.
Your pal,
Friday, March 25, 2011
U. S Class War, II
Hey Barry:
This is an unusual posting because it is a very long excerpt from a transcript of The Ed Show on MSNBC.
It is important because it provides evidence of class war in the United States. The class war is in the form of some state governors stealing assets from the public and putting the proceeds in their own pockets.
We would expect this behavior from the Gadafi's of the world but not from American public officials.
Our expectations would be wrong. Read below and you will see.
Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Alaska, Florida
We can hope the the good people of the afflicted states will sue the officials and will vote them out of office. Time will tell. Some recent polls show that voters are ready to vote the governors out as soon as they can.
THE ED SCHULTZ SHOW, MARCH 23, 2011
ED SCHULTZ, HOST: Good evening, Americans. And welcome to THE ED SHOW, tonight from New York.
If you‘re middle class, pay attention—our top story tonight is out of Ohio. I just can‘t believe this one. It‘s on the table.
Republicans promised to be what? The party of jobs? But their top six priorities have been anything but jobs. That‘s in “The Takedown” tonight.
OHIO
All right. This is the story that should have every American fired up. It comes from the—I can‘t believe this department. Ohio Governor John Kasich—you‘ll understand why I say this—is kind of drunk with power.
Kasich‘s budget plan is all about one word: privatization—just like the rest of the guys on the right side.
Now, the governor wants to sell five state-run prisons to private companies. He wants to open state parks to oil and gas drilling. And he wants to sell leases of state-owned liquor stores for pennies on the dollar. This is a hell of scheme let me tell you.
You see—the state of Ohio licenses businesses to run liquor stores for a commission. Now, liquor sales generate about $228 million in revenue for the state treasury every year. Governor Kasich wants to funnel that money to a private, economic development organization called—catch this
Jobs Ohio.
Remember that—Jobs Ohio.
Kasich created this private organization to replace the Ohio Department of Development, which was a state-run agency for job recruitment and retention.
Now, Jobs Ohio, you know what they‘re going to do? They‘re going to buy the liquor licenses from the state for $1.5 billion.
But, Houston, we got a small problem here. They don‘t have the money.
So, they‘re going to raise $1.5 billion by selling the 30-year lease of nearly $6.8 billion of Ohio liquor profits to where? Wall Street investors.
Well, liquor revenue, which belongs to the state of Ohio, will now be sitting in the bank accounts of Wall Street investors.
Who would make such a stupid business decision after what we‘ve been through with Wall Street? Oh, I should have done this earlier in the show.
I should have introduced you to the new chairman of Jobs Ohio—you got it: Governor John Kasich. He appointed himself the chairman.
Now, this plan, folks, you need to know this does nothing to create jobs but it takes money from the Ohio treasury to pay off Kasich‘s buddies on Wall Street. Governor Kasich says the liquor revenues are a good investment because he expects Ohioans just to keep on drinking more.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. JOHN KASICH ®, OHIO: There are people that want to buy this thing because there is a natural wedge that gets created because over here, people drink more. I mean, it‘s just a natural revenue stream so everybody wanted to buy it. Everybody was interested in it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Ah, tough times, everybody‘s buying booze. Now, you have to be drunk to have this make any sense. But Kasich is following the new Republican playbook for power in revenue—use deceptive advertising, push polls, rig the elections and lie about your opponent to get elected.
Pass laws creating new departments through tactical maneuvers that cut out minority input, and, of course, make sure that new department is a public/private partnership. That always works.
Make yourself chairman of that new department. And then you really got control.
Take that government revenue stream—you know what you got to do with it? You got to sell it to Wall Street.
And, of course, use a lame duck session in office to privatize the new department. And who knows? You might retire rich when it‘s all said and done.
Governor Kasich is following that model to a T and he is showing no signs of stopping.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KASICH: There are more privatizations to come. They are not in this budget, but we‘re seeking broad authority for additional privatization.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Additional privatization. It‘s the answer to everything.
Republicans want to treat government like a business and people like commodities. They have no sense of economic patriotism or social justice, so Governor John Kasich and other Republicans, I think, need to quit acting like used car salesmen and start acting like the public servants that they were elected to be. It is hard to believe that the country is not totally focused on what this group of Republican governors is actually doing to the infrastructure of America. We are talking about millions of American workers who are being affected by this. And we‘re also talking about the next generation that may not have a say in all of this.
MICHIGAN
I mean, you look at the state of Michigan and what they‘re doing with education. It‘s unbelievable. They‘re making cuts to the point where they‘ve got this new law in there that we talked about the other night that if you run a deficit the state can come over, come in and take over your district. Where do you think that‘s going to put public education?
I mean, it is just one domino after another with these Republican governors. And what‘s happening in Ohio, it is going to be happening in other states that are run by Republicans.
This is the way they are going to chip away at wages, break unions, kill collective bargaining, and turn to the public and say, hey, we‘re giving you a real good deal and we think you can make more money on Wall Street. Who wants to gamble like that with the public‘s money?
Get your cell phones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight‘s question: Will Governor Kasich‘s privatization plans create jobs in Ohio? Text “A” for yes, text “B” for no to 622639. Or go to our new blog at Ed.MSNBC.com. We‘ll bring you the results later on in the show.
OHIO
Now, joining me now is Ohio State Senator Nina Turner.
Nina, good to have you with us tonight.
When I first read this story, I thought of you first because you‘ve been on this show and you have been—you know, a “tell it like it is” representative senator for the state of Ohio. What was your reaction when you first heard about this plan dealing with the liquor licenses ending up as an investment on Wall Street?
STATE SEN. NINA TURNER (D), OHIO: Well, thank you, Ed, so much. I was surprised. I think everybody in the general assembly should pause.
And let me tell you, Ed, this bill at least in the Senate did receive some bipartisan support because folks are desperate for jobs. But the way it was sold to the general assembly is that they were going to utilize private money to market, for—to spur employment, and now come to find out they want to use the liquor sales to do this -- $700 million to pay back bonds and $500 million as one time funds to close the budget deficit for $1.2 billion.
And as you stated so eloquently—I mean, these bonds are going to be sold on the market. Somebody is going to make that money, and it‘s surely not going to be the teacher that‘s making $50,000 a year or the firefighter or the police officer that may be making $60,000 or $70,000 a year.
Something is awfully wrong with the plan in the state of Ohio that seeks to privatize the profits but socialize the risks.
SCHULTZ: Senator Turner, what will the loss of this kind of money mean, you know, $6 billion, in liquor revenue over the next few decades? I mean, this is a gamble. There‘s no guarantee this is going to work. Can the state play with this money?
TURNER: Really, there is no guarantee. And liquor, you know, the money that comes into the—into the general fund for that is a—it is a stable funding source. So, yes, we‘re taking a risk. Why wouldn‘t it be more prudent to put a shorter time line but to lock in future governors and future general assemblies over 20, 25 years for a plan that has not created one job? It is absolutely irresponsible.
SCHULTZ: So this plan, in your opinion, will not create jobs?
TURNER: Well, that remains to be seen. But it hasn‘t created one yet.
And again, all of the tax we have on middle class and working class men and women in this state and then to have the unadulterated gall to put the state at risk like this, to deceive the general assembly—because that‘s exactly what happened. Again, when this bill was touted it was touted as one that would use private money to spur this kind of development and now, the turn-around to use money that comes—
SCHULTZ: Yes.
TURNER: -- to the state of Ohio in this way is absolutely unconscionable.
SCHULTZ: What‘s your response to the governor appointing himself chairman of Jobs Ohio?
TURNER: Well, Ed --
SCHULTZ: I mean, this is unbelievable. I mean, this guy gets elected. He dumps the state agency, makes himself the chairman of Jobs Ohio, gets some help with his Republican buddies to take the liquor money and go play with it on Wall Street.
TURNER: We certainly need to have an objective approach to do this. It‘s almost like the fox watching the hen house, Ed. I mean, we should definitely question the way that this is being run.
SCHULTZ: Can the Democrats do anything to stop this?
TURNER: Well, Ed, again, in the Senate, it passed bipartisan and in a bipartisan way. We are certainly for economic development. But why should the taxpayers bear the brunt of the burden on an experiment that has not proven itself? I will tell you that the Democrats are going to stand strong. We‘re going to stand strong for working class men and women in the state of Ohio.
And I want to remind us we are fighting—fighting in the state of Ohio to make sure that our workers continue to have the collective bargaining rights.
You know, the American Dream is going to be no more. It‘s turning into the American nightmare. And if you are not ultra wealthy, you can forget about it. And that‘s why all of us should care about what‘s happening in Ohio, what‘s happening in Wisconsin.
You know, Dr. King once said that the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.
And I want the folks in the state of Ohio to remain encouraged that we‘re going to continue to be vigilant to make sure that folks still have the opportunity to pursue the American Dream. For some, if you‘re middle class and working class, you shouldn‘t have any rights. But we‘re not going to stand idly by and let this happen in the state of Ohio.
SCHULTZ: Nina Turner, you are a fighter for the people, no doubt about it.
But I want to ask you one final question on this issue. Now, this obviously is going to line the pockets of some Wall Streeters. They‘re going to remember who the guy in Ohio—you know, who was responsible for this. If this works, it‘s a big gamble—if it works, do you think John Kasich has presidential aspirations? You can‘t get to the White House without connections on Wall Street.
TURNER: Well, Ed, that is—we should certainly deal with how much it cost to run a presidential campaign. But for now, the citizens of the state of Ohio need a governor who cares about what happens here in Ohio for the 11.5 million people he was elected to serve.
SCHULTZ: Does he care more about Wall Street—does he care more about Wall Street than he does the citizens of Ohio?
TURNER: Well, Ed, that is a question for the governor, but I will tell you that we have a lot of suffering going on here besides Senate Bill 5. This House Bill 159 that seeks to take away some voting rights. I mean, we have a lot of issues in the state of Ohio that we have to work on collectively, and I hope all of the citizens in this state, both Democrat and Republican, are watching what happens as the middle class goes, so do the rest of us.
So, I am really about working very, very hard, along my other Democratic colleagues and some other folks of good consciousness, to make sure that there is an American Dream for other folks to inherit and to make sure that all folks had the opportunity to pursue happiness.
SCHULTZ: All folks. That is the key phrase.
TURNER: Yes.
SCHULTZ: Ohio State Senator Nina Turner, thank you for joining us tonight. Thanks for your time.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SHULTZ (voice-over): It‘s not only Kasich. From Alaska to New Jersey, Republican budget plans just don‘t add up. I‘ll tell you why.
Next: tax breaks for millionaires at the expense of school kids. I mean school kids, little school kids who aren‘t going to be resourced properly. It‘s all part of the broad Republican effort to crush the middle class in America. Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell will join me on that issue.
WISCONSIN
SCHULTZ: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW tonight and thanks for watching.
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker‘s attack on public workers is just one part of a larger Republican agenda. Break the middle class and call it deficit reduction.
Wisconsin‘s Republican attorney general wants to appeal a judge‘s order blocking Walker‘s anti-worker bill. So, the state Justice Department filed a petition and listed Secretary of State Doug La Follette as the petitioner, as the petitioner. But as John Nichols reports, La Follette was never consulted on the petition, probably because he opposes the Walker bill and has obeyed the judge‘s order.
Meanwhile big rallies are planned in Wisconsin for this weekend. Organizers hope it will move the recall effort for several Republican senators forward in a big way.
ALASKA
Now, you would think that it would serve as a warning sign for Republicans in other states. Well, it hasn‘t. And the ones up in Alaska don‘t seem to be paying too much attention to any of this. In fact, a GOP proposal to curb collective bargaining is being modeled after the Walker bill. He‘s the hero.
Alaska‘s first overhauled its state retirement and health care system a few years back. Democratic lawmakers say the state has had difficulty retaining qualified teachers and police officers ever since that move.
NEW JERSEY
That hasn‘t stopped Governor Chris Christie in New Jersey from steamrolling public workers in his state. In fact, his cuts to education are so deep New Jersey schools have been unable to provide a, quote, “thorough and efficient education to their students.”
Now, folks, that‘s not my opinion. That‘s a ruling from a state superior court judge. He found Christie‘s budget cuts are affecting poor kids the most. He says, “Our ‘at risk‘ children are now moving further from proficiency.”
Where are we going in this country?
Joining me now is former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, now an NBC News political analyst, Ed Rendell.
Governor, good to have you with us tonight.
I mean, it‘s not in one state. It‘s in a number of states. And they just all happen to have Republican governors and the cuts go far beyond balancing any budget.
I mean, this is so agenda driven. The millionaires get the breaks and the kids in the classroom are going to—are going to pay the price. What are they doing here, Governor?
ED RENDELL, NBC NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, no question, Ed. And as bad as the collective bargaining assault is, the assault on public education is worse because we are mortgaging our future—Pennsylvania‘s future, Florida‘s future, Ohio‘s future, Michigan‘s future.
You can‘t countenance these cuts, particularly when in those states we‘re not—not only not increasing business taxes to share the pain but we‘re cutting business taxes. We‘re giving corporations—many of whom don‘t need it—tax breaks and we‘re punishing children.
And it‘s interesting. You know, people are always fond of saying money doesn‘t make a difference in educational outcomes, Ed. Consider this -- in my years as governor, we raised education funding for our K through 12 by over $4 billion annually, over $4 billion annually.
We went from being in the bottom third in 2002 in the national test to third in the nation in 2010 on the national test. Our 8th graders finished first in reading in the country. We cut the achievement gap between minority and majority students by 28 percent.
SCHULTZ: So, this is—this is proof positive that real investment does work and real cuts will send it the other way. I want your opinion on
RENDELL: No question.
SCHULTZ: I want your opinion on this. Governor Rick Snyder in Michigan, he is going to cut per student $715, per student. Local superintendents have called the proposed cuts unfair and unacceptable, and they say it‘s nothing but an agenda to privatize all of public education. Do you agree with that?
RENDELL: Well, it is certainly tending that way. You cannot have—look, does money guarantee a great education? No. But does not having it guarantee that you‘re not going to be able to provide that education? Absolutely. We‘ve seen it time after time after time.
And, unfortunately, the burden falls most on urban school districts who have the most minority kids who come from the most difficult background to educate.
SCHULTZ: Yes.
RENDELL: And that‘s the whole ball of wax for this country. Where this country is going to be in 20 years, on the world economic stage, whether we‘re going to be the leader depends on the state of our education.
SCHULTZ: Well, can‘t we answer that tonight? We‘re not going to be the leader.
RENDELL: We‘re not.
SCHULTZ: We‘re not going to be able to compete on an international level and create the jobs we want the way we are treating public education and not everybody can afford to go to a private school.
Now, earlier tonight in the show, we talked about John Kasich‘s plan in Ohio and in Pennsylvania, Republican Governor Tom Corbett, as you know, wants to privatize state liquor stores. What do you make of all of this?
RENDELL: Well, look, privatization can be effective in certain instances, Ed. You know, we privatized a few functions, but you can‘t mortgage the future. For example, the state liquor stores produce over $100 million a year in positive income for Pennsylvania. That‘s important. That $100 million a year allowed us to do certain things. And you can‘t mortgage the future.
What you get if you sold the state stores in Pennsylvania is a one-time infusion of cash, but if you use it to try to balance the budget and Governor Corbett is now proposing that—
SCHULTZ: Yes.
RENDELL: -- it‘s gone in that year. The next year, that hole, that deficit hole comes back again in full force.
SCHULTZ: Do you think the public gets it? Do you think that there is now a strong awareness of what is unfolding in front of their eyes?
RENDELL: To some extent, yes. And it‘s interesting. I don‘t fault Tom Corbett. Tom Corbett is doing exactly what he said during the campaign.
SCHULTZ: Yes.
RENDELL: He didn‘t lie to people. He said he wasn‘t going to raise any tax. He wouldn‘t sign any increase in taxes, fees. Not even on the shale drillers in Pennsylvania who are reaping enormous profits. And he stood by it.
And I give him credit for consistency. But the public is now going to understand what they voted for, Ed.
SCHULTZ: Yes.
RENDELL: They voted for these cuts. Everybody likes the idea of cuts before raising revenue—until they specifically get confronted with cuts in education. There was a recent poll in Pennsylvania. This is amazing—
98 percent of Pennsylvanians said they didn‘t want to balance the budget by cutting public education.
RENDELL: Well, welcome to the party. That‘s exactly where he‘s going to be going, along with these other Republican governors across the country.
This is an unusual posting because it is a very long excerpt from a transcript of The Ed Show on MSNBC.
It is important because it provides evidence of class war in the United States. The class war is in the form of some state governors stealing assets from the public and putting the proceeds in their own pockets.
We would expect this behavior from the Gadafi's of the world but not from American public officials.
Our expectations would be wrong. Read below and you will see.
Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Alaska, Florida
We can hope the the good people of the afflicted states will sue the officials and will vote them out of office. Time will tell. Some recent polls show that voters are ready to vote the governors out as soon as they can.
THE ED SCHULTZ SHOW, MARCH 23, 2011
ED SCHULTZ, HOST: Good evening, Americans. And welcome to THE ED SHOW, tonight from New York.
If you‘re middle class, pay attention—our top story tonight is out of Ohio. I just can‘t believe this one. It‘s on the table.
Republicans promised to be what? The party of jobs? But their top six priorities have been anything but jobs. That‘s in “The Takedown” tonight.
OHIO
All right. This is the story that should have every American fired up. It comes from the—I can‘t believe this department. Ohio Governor John Kasich—you‘ll understand why I say this—is kind of drunk with power.
Kasich‘s budget plan is all about one word: privatization—just like the rest of the guys on the right side.
Now, the governor wants to sell five state-run prisons to private companies. He wants to open state parks to oil and gas drilling. And he wants to sell leases of state-owned liquor stores for pennies on the dollar. This is a hell of scheme let me tell you.
You see—the state of Ohio licenses businesses to run liquor stores for a commission. Now, liquor sales generate about $228 million in revenue for the state treasury every year. Governor Kasich wants to funnel that money to a private, economic development organization called—catch this
Jobs Ohio.
Remember that—Jobs Ohio.
Kasich created this private organization to replace the Ohio Department of Development, which was a state-run agency for job recruitment and retention.
Now, Jobs Ohio, you know what they‘re going to do? They‘re going to buy the liquor licenses from the state for $1.5 billion.
But, Houston, we got a small problem here. They don‘t have the money.
So, they‘re going to raise $1.5 billion by selling the 30-year lease of nearly $6.8 billion of Ohio liquor profits to where? Wall Street investors.
Well, liquor revenue, which belongs to the state of Ohio, will now be sitting in the bank accounts of Wall Street investors.
Who would make such a stupid business decision after what we‘ve been through with Wall Street? Oh, I should have done this earlier in the show.
I should have introduced you to the new chairman of Jobs Ohio—you got it: Governor John Kasich. He appointed himself the chairman.
Now, this plan, folks, you need to know this does nothing to create jobs but it takes money from the Ohio treasury to pay off Kasich‘s buddies on Wall Street. Governor Kasich says the liquor revenues are a good investment because he expects Ohioans just to keep on drinking more.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. JOHN KASICH ®, OHIO: There are people that want to buy this thing because there is a natural wedge that gets created because over here, people drink more. I mean, it‘s just a natural revenue stream so everybody wanted to buy it. Everybody was interested in it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Ah, tough times, everybody‘s buying booze. Now, you have to be drunk to have this make any sense. But Kasich is following the new Republican playbook for power in revenue—use deceptive advertising, push polls, rig the elections and lie about your opponent to get elected.
Pass laws creating new departments through tactical maneuvers that cut out minority input, and, of course, make sure that new department is a public/private partnership. That always works.
Make yourself chairman of that new department. And then you really got control.
Take that government revenue stream—you know what you got to do with it? You got to sell it to Wall Street.
And, of course, use a lame duck session in office to privatize the new department. And who knows? You might retire rich when it‘s all said and done.
Governor Kasich is following that model to a T and he is showing no signs of stopping.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KASICH: There are more privatizations to come. They are not in this budget, but we‘re seeking broad authority for additional privatization.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Additional privatization. It‘s the answer to everything.
Republicans want to treat government like a business and people like commodities. They have no sense of economic patriotism or social justice, so Governor John Kasich and other Republicans, I think, need to quit acting like used car salesmen and start acting like the public servants that they were elected to be. It is hard to believe that the country is not totally focused on what this group of Republican governors is actually doing to the infrastructure of America. We are talking about millions of American workers who are being affected by this. And we‘re also talking about the next generation that may not have a say in all of this.
MICHIGAN
I mean, you look at the state of Michigan and what they‘re doing with education. It‘s unbelievable. They‘re making cuts to the point where they‘ve got this new law in there that we talked about the other night that if you run a deficit the state can come over, come in and take over your district. Where do you think that‘s going to put public education?
I mean, it is just one domino after another with these Republican governors. And what‘s happening in Ohio, it is going to be happening in other states that are run by Republicans.
This is the way they are going to chip away at wages, break unions, kill collective bargaining, and turn to the public and say, hey, we‘re giving you a real good deal and we think you can make more money on Wall Street. Who wants to gamble like that with the public‘s money?
Get your cell phones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight‘s question: Will Governor Kasich‘s privatization plans create jobs in Ohio? Text “A” for yes, text “B” for no to 622639. Or go to our new blog at Ed.MSNBC.com. We‘ll bring you the results later on in the show.
OHIO
Now, joining me now is Ohio State Senator Nina Turner.
Nina, good to have you with us tonight.
When I first read this story, I thought of you first because you‘ve been on this show and you have been—you know, a “tell it like it is” representative senator for the state of Ohio. What was your reaction when you first heard about this plan dealing with the liquor licenses ending up as an investment on Wall Street?
STATE SEN. NINA TURNER (D), OHIO: Well, thank you, Ed, so much. I was surprised. I think everybody in the general assembly should pause.
And let me tell you, Ed, this bill at least in the Senate did receive some bipartisan support because folks are desperate for jobs. But the way it was sold to the general assembly is that they were going to utilize private money to market, for—to spur employment, and now come to find out they want to use the liquor sales to do this -- $700 million to pay back bonds and $500 million as one time funds to close the budget deficit for $1.2 billion.
And as you stated so eloquently—I mean, these bonds are going to be sold on the market. Somebody is going to make that money, and it‘s surely not going to be the teacher that‘s making $50,000 a year or the firefighter or the police officer that may be making $60,000 or $70,000 a year.
Something is awfully wrong with the plan in the state of Ohio that seeks to privatize the profits but socialize the risks.
SCHULTZ: Senator Turner, what will the loss of this kind of money mean, you know, $6 billion, in liquor revenue over the next few decades? I mean, this is a gamble. There‘s no guarantee this is going to work. Can the state play with this money?
TURNER: Really, there is no guarantee. And liquor, you know, the money that comes into the—into the general fund for that is a—it is a stable funding source. So, yes, we‘re taking a risk. Why wouldn‘t it be more prudent to put a shorter time line but to lock in future governors and future general assemblies over 20, 25 years for a plan that has not created one job? It is absolutely irresponsible.
SCHULTZ: So this plan, in your opinion, will not create jobs?
TURNER: Well, that remains to be seen. But it hasn‘t created one yet.
And again, all of the tax we have on middle class and working class men and women in this state and then to have the unadulterated gall to put the state at risk like this, to deceive the general assembly—because that‘s exactly what happened. Again, when this bill was touted it was touted as one that would use private money to spur this kind of development and now, the turn-around to use money that comes—
SCHULTZ: Yes.
TURNER: -- to the state of Ohio in this way is absolutely unconscionable.
SCHULTZ: What‘s your response to the governor appointing himself chairman of Jobs Ohio?
TURNER: Well, Ed --
SCHULTZ: I mean, this is unbelievable. I mean, this guy gets elected. He dumps the state agency, makes himself the chairman of Jobs Ohio, gets some help with his Republican buddies to take the liquor money and go play with it on Wall Street.
TURNER: We certainly need to have an objective approach to do this. It‘s almost like the fox watching the hen house, Ed. I mean, we should definitely question the way that this is being run.
SCHULTZ: Can the Democrats do anything to stop this?
TURNER: Well, Ed, again, in the Senate, it passed bipartisan and in a bipartisan way. We are certainly for economic development. But why should the taxpayers bear the brunt of the burden on an experiment that has not proven itself? I will tell you that the Democrats are going to stand strong. We‘re going to stand strong for working class men and women in the state of Ohio.
And I want to remind us we are fighting—fighting in the state of Ohio to make sure that our workers continue to have the collective bargaining rights.
You know, the American Dream is going to be no more. It‘s turning into the American nightmare. And if you are not ultra wealthy, you can forget about it. And that‘s why all of us should care about what‘s happening in Ohio, what‘s happening in Wisconsin.
You know, Dr. King once said that the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.
And I want the folks in the state of Ohio to remain encouraged that we‘re going to continue to be vigilant to make sure that folks still have the opportunity to pursue the American Dream. For some, if you‘re middle class and working class, you shouldn‘t have any rights. But we‘re not going to stand idly by and let this happen in the state of Ohio.
SCHULTZ: Nina Turner, you are a fighter for the people, no doubt about it.
But I want to ask you one final question on this issue. Now, this obviously is going to line the pockets of some Wall Streeters. They‘re going to remember who the guy in Ohio—you know, who was responsible for this. If this works, it‘s a big gamble—if it works, do you think John Kasich has presidential aspirations? You can‘t get to the White House without connections on Wall Street.
TURNER: Well, Ed, that is—we should certainly deal with how much it cost to run a presidential campaign. But for now, the citizens of the state of Ohio need a governor who cares about what happens here in Ohio for the 11.5 million people he was elected to serve.
SCHULTZ: Does he care more about Wall Street—does he care more about Wall Street than he does the citizens of Ohio?
TURNER: Well, Ed, that is a question for the governor, but I will tell you that we have a lot of suffering going on here besides Senate Bill 5. This House Bill 159 that seeks to take away some voting rights. I mean, we have a lot of issues in the state of Ohio that we have to work on collectively, and I hope all of the citizens in this state, both Democrat and Republican, are watching what happens as the middle class goes, so do the rest of us.
So, I am really about working very, very hard, along my other Democratic colleagues and some other folks of good consciousness, to make sure that there is an American Dream for other folks to inherit and to make sure that all folks had the opportunity to pursue happiness.
SCHULTZ: All folks. That is the key phrase.
TURNER: Yes.
SCHULTZ: Ohio State Senator Nina Turner, thank you for joining us tonight. Thanks for your time.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SHULTZ (voice-over): It‘s not only Kasich. From Alaska to New Jersey, Republican budget plans just don‘t add up. I‘ll tell you why.
Next: tax breaks for millionaires at the expense of school kids. I mean school kids, little school kids who aren‘t going to be resourced properly. It‘s all part of the broad Republican effort to crush the middle class in America. Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell will join me on that issue.
WISCONSIN
SCHULTZ: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW tonight and thanks for watching.
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker‘s attack on public workers is just one part of a larger Republican agenda. Break the middle class and call it deficit reduction.
Wisconsin‘s Republican attorney general wants to appeal a judge‘s order blocking Walker‘s anti-worker bill. So, the state Justice Department filed a petition and listed Secretary of State Doug La Follette as the petitioner, as the petitioner. But as John Nichols reports, La Follette was never consulted on the petition, probably because he opposes the Walker bill and has obeyed the judge‘s order.
Meanwhile big rallies are planned in Wisconsin for this weekend. Organizers hope it will move the recall effort for several Republican senators forward in a big way.
ALASKA
Now, you would think that it would serve as a warning sign for Republicans in other states. Well, it hasn‘t. And the ones up in Alaska don‘t seem to be paying too much attention to any of this. In fact, a GOP proposal to curb collective bargaining is being modeled after the Walker bill. He‘s the hero.
Alaska‘s first overhauled its state retirement and health care system a few years back. Democratic lawmakers say the state has had difficulty retaining qualified teachers and police officers ever since that move.
NEW JERSEY
That hasn‘t stopped Governor Chris Christie in New Jersey from steamrolling public workers in his state. In fact, his cuts to education are so deep New Jersey schools have been unable to provide a, quote, “thorough and efficient education to their students.”
Now, folks, that‘s not my opinion. That‘s a ruling from a state superior court judge. He found Christie‘s budget cuts are affecting poor kids the most. He says, “Our ‘at risk‘ children are now moving further from proficiency.”
Where are we going in this country?
Joining me now is former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, now an NBC News political analyst, Ed Rendell.
Governor, good to have you with us tonight.
I mean, it‘s not in one state. It‘s in a number of states. And they just all happen to have Republican governors and the cuts go far beyond balancing any budget.
I mean, this is so agenda driven. The millionaires get the breaks and the kids in the classroom are going to—are going to pay the price. What are they doing here, Governor?
ED RENDELL, NBC NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, no question, Ed. And as bad as the collective bargaining assault is, the assault on public education is worse because we are mortgaging our future—Pennsylvania‘s future, Florida‘s future, Ohio‘s future, Michigan‘s future.
You can‘t countenance these cuts, particularly when in those states we‘re not—not only not increasing business taxes to share the pain but we‘re cutting business taxes. We‘re giving corporations—many of whom don‘t need it—tax breaks and we‘re punishing children.
And it‘s interesting. You know, people are always fond of saying money doesn‘t make a difference in educational outcomes, Ed. Consider this -- in my years as governor, we raised education funding for our K through 12 by over $4 billion annually, over $4 billion annually.
We went from being in the bottom third in 2002 in the national test to third in the nation in 2010 on the national test. Our 8th graders finished first in reading in the country. We cut the achievement gap between minority and majority students by 28 percent.
SCHULTZ: So, this is—this is proof positive that real investment does work and real cuts will send it the other way. I want your opinion on
RENDELL: No question.
SCHULTZ: I want your opinion on this. Governor Rick Snyder in Michigan, he is going to cut per student $715, per student. Local superintendents have called the proposed cuts unfair and unacceptable, and they say it‘s nothing but an agenda to privatize all of public education. Do you agree with that?
RENDELL: Well, it is certainly tending that way. You cannot have—look, does money guarantee a great education? No. But does not having it guarantee that you‘re not going to be able to provide that education? Absolutely. We‘ve seen it time after time after time.
And, unfortunately, the burden falls most on urban school districts who have the most minority kids who come from the most difficult background to educate.
SCHULTZ: Yes.
RENDELL: And that‘s the whole ball of wax for this country. Where this country is going to be in 20 years, on the world economic stage, whether we‘re going to be the leader depends on the state of our education.
SCHULTZ: Well, can‘t we answer that tonight? We‘re not going to be the leader.
RENDELL: We‘re not.
SCHULTZ: We‘re not going to be able to compete on an international level and create the jobs we want the way we are treating public education and not everybody can afford to go to a private school.
Now, earlier tonight in the show, we talked about John Kasich‘s plan in Ohio and in Pennsylvania, Republican Governor Tom Corbett, as you know, wants to privatize state liquor stores. What do you make of all of this?
RENDELL: Well, look, privatization can be effective in certain instances, Ed. You know, we privatized a few functions, but you can‘t mortgage the future. For example, the state liquor stores produce over $100 million a year in positive income for Pennsylvania. That‘s important. That $100 million a year allowed us to do certain things. And you can‘t mortgage the future.
What you get if you sold the state stores in Pennsylvania is a one-time infusion of cash, but if you use it to try to balance the budget and Governor Corbett is now proposing that—
SCHULTZ: Yes.
RENDELL: -- it‘s gone in that year. The next year, that hole, that deficit hole comes back again in full force.
SCHULTZ: Do you think the public gets it? Do you think that there is now a strong awareness of what is unfolding in front of their eyes?
RENDELL: To some extent, yes. And it‘s interesting. I don‘t fault Tom Corbett. Tom Corbett is doing exactly what he said during the campaign.
SCHULTZ: Yes.
RENDELL: He didn‘t lie to people. He said he wasn‘t going to raise any tax. He wouldn‘t sign any increase in taxes, fees. Not even on the shale drillers in Pennsylvania who are reaping enormous profits. And he stood by it.
And I give him credit for consistency. But the public is now going to understand what they voted for, Ed.
SCHULTZ: Yes.
RENDELL: They voted for these cuts. Everybody likes the idea of cuts before raising revenue—until they specifically get confronted with cuts in education. There was a recent poll in Pennsylvania. This is amazing—
98 percent of Pennsylvanians said they didn‘t want to balance the budget by cutting public education.
RENDELL: Well, welcome to the party. That‘s exactly where he‘s going to be going, along with these other Republican governors across the country.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Propping Up the Free State
Hey Barry:
Seems from media reports that military and civil structures in the Benghazi area are a little weak. Let's be clear, whoever stays around will be involved in nation building. We have given them hope with our military actions.
We have to deliver results to avoid a return of despair and violence. Libya now is governed by fear and violence. After Gadafi goes, they will need a better system. If the West fails to see a better system installed, then we will see the rise of terrorism.
Here's a strategy to fix that problem while avoiding the 'Ugly American' perplex we see in Iraq.
One of the problems in Iraq was that we destroyed all civil structures and then would not allow anybody from the prior regime to work. Result - no talent and a big mess.
Let's riff on the early Roman model: they invited in anyone who wanted to come provided they would work. Later, they turned to slavery, but in the beginning they had a very open, egalitarian society.
It's hard to create the best system for Libya from an armchair in California, but perhaps some suggestions will be useful.
A critical first step is to establish effective military command and control, then develop rapid training of raw recruits. If that does not happen the war will either be lost or devolve into a deadly stalemate.
Regards civil society, there are some basic steps:
1. Secure oil revenues by controlling the fields and opening the port - needed to provide revenue source;
2. Divide territory into smallish areas and hold elections immediately for a constitutional convention and/or legislature - needed to defuse tensions and begin building civil society;
3. Offer amnesty to all Gadafi deserters who sign a loyalty pledge and pass a personal interview - needed to obtain talent;
4. Establish civil society organizations immediately - schools, police, fire, water, roads, etc, etc - start the construction process; and,
5. Recruit qualified language speakers from other countries to take positions that locals do not have experience for - leave Western expats out of picture.
Well Barry, it's a start.
We are all with you and we thank you for the hope.
Your pal,
Seems from media reports that military and civil structures in the Benghazi area are a little weak. Let's be clear, whoever stays around will be involved in nation building. We have given them hope with our military actions.
We have to deliver results to avoid a return of despair and violence. Libya now is governed by fear and violence. After Gadafi goes, they will need a better system. If the West fails to see a better system installed, then we will see the rise of terrorism.
Here's a strategy to fix that problem while avoiding the 'Ugly American' perplex we see in Iraq.
One of the problems in Iraq was that we destroyed all civil structures and then would not allow anybody from the prior regime to work. Result - no talent and a big mess.
Let's riff on the early Roman model: they invited in anyone who wanted to come provided they would work. Later, they turned to slavery, but in the beginning they had a very open, egalitarian society.
It's hard to create the best system for Libya from an armchair in California, but perhaps some suggestions will be useful.
A critical first step is to establish effective military command and control, then develop rapid training of raw recruits. If that does not happen the war will either be lost or devolve into a deadly stalemate.
Regards civil society, there are some basic steps:
1. Secure oil revenues by controlling the fields and opening the port - needed to provide revenue source;
2. Divide territory into smallish areas and hold elections immediately for a constitutional convention and/or legislature - needed to defuse tensions and begin building civil society;
3. Offer amnesty to all Gadafi deserters who sign a loyalty pledge and pass a personal interview - needed to obtain talent;
4. Establish civil society organizations immediately - schools, police, fire, water, roads, etc, etc - start the construction process; and,
5. Recruit qualified language speakers from other countries to take positions that locals do not have experience for - leave Western expats out of picture.
Well Barry, it's a start.
We are all with you and we thank you for the hope.
Your pal,
Monday, March 21, 2011
UPDATE May 17, 2011:Fix the Nukes
Hey Barry:
So, here's the thing. I was driving home and heard a PBS/NPR interview on Japan with an English expert whose name I do not remember.
No nice way. Barry.
Bottom line, Barry: TEPCO lied to us for two months. AND, we all - USA, English, et al - use the same approaches to managing nuclear power.
THAT UNIVERSAL APPROACH IS WRONG. IT DOES NOT WORK.
"Managing nuclear power safely is beyond human capacity."
Our best is not enough, Barry.
We gotta get out of this ASAP.
No more nukes.
your pal,
**********************************************
Hey Barry:
This is personal: we knew someone who died in Russia because of Chernobyl.
Cuomo's right - no time for BS here.
We gotta shut them down until we fix what we learn from Japan or replace them with safer plants.
Don't even think about profits in the bizness, Barry. That's not your job. Your job is not to kill us.
Sorry for the tone, Barry, but it's life and death here.
The plants will fail. Period
They will fail and people - Americans this time - will die.
Don't want to hear about risk calculations and odds, Barry, I just don't want to die from radiation poisoning so some corporation can make a couple dollars.
Your pal,
So, here's the thing. I was driving home and heard a PBS/NPR interview on Japan with an English expert whose name I do not remember.
No nice way. Barry.
Bottom line, Barry: TEPCO lied to us for two months. AND, we all - USA, English, et al - use the same approaches to managing nuclear power.
THAT UNIVERSAL APPROACH IS WRONG. IT DOES NOT WORK.
"Managing nuclear power safely is beyond human capacity."
Our best is not enough, Barry.
We gotta get out of this ASAP.
No more nukes.
your pal,
**********************************************
Hey Barry:
This is personal: we knew someone who died in Russia because of Chernobyl.
Cuomo's right - no time for BS here.
We gotta shut them down until we fix what we learn from Japan or replace them with safer plants.
Don't even think about profits in the bizness, Barry. That's not your job. Your job is not to kill us.
Sorry for the tone, Barry, but it's life and death here.
The plants will fail. Period
They will fail and people - Americans this time - will die.
Don't want to hear about risk calculations and odds, Barry, I just don't want to die from radiation poisoning so some corporation can make a couple dollars.
Your pal,
Benghazi Free State
Hey Barry:
Been thinking about Libya. Here's my question: What's next?
Of course the best option is that Gadafi leaves the country - doesn't matter if he leaves on his feet or in a body bag - but that is not guaranteed.
We are locked into this one, Barry, we and our allies can't walk away until he is gone. It may take some time, but we have to stay the course. If we quit before he is gone, the future will be like the past - evil and miserable.
If he manages to stay around our second choice is to march in with guns blazing. Then, there we are in three wars. Itsa a bad idea, Barry, which I think you already know.
Third choice is that he holds on while we bleed money from him and fund a civil war. That's more likely, but lots of people will die.
Here's a twist on the third option - maybe it can speed up Gadafi's inevitable demise.
Let's create the Benghazi Free State. It's goal is to speed up Gadafi's demise by taking his people and his money. After that job is done, then the Free State can be absorbed back into Libya.
Here's how we can do it:
1. Establish refugee camps inside the Free State that offer shelter to anyone who comes in voluntarily from Libya. The attraction is food, shelter, Western style medical care and safety from retribution.
2. With force or bribery, take over the oil fields in the eastern part of the country. Then, sell the oil from Benghazi terminals. It won't even matter if some of the oil is 'donated' to the Free State from Libya. Even if some of the oil is bought by the Free State, the sellers have probably stolen it from the Libyan government and the money will not go to Gadafi.
After awhile most of the population will either be in the Free state or want to be there.
Your pal,
Been thinking about Libya. Here's my question: What's next?
Of course the best option is that Gadafi leaves the country - doesn't matter if he leaves on his feet or in a body bag - but that is not guaranteed.
We are locked into this one, Barry, we and our allies can't walk away until he is gone. It may take some time, but we have to stay the course. If we quit before he is gone, the future will be like the past - evil and miserable.
If he manages to stay around our second choice is to march in with guns blazing. Then, there we are in three wars. Itsa a bad idea, Barry, which I think you already know.
Third choice is that he holds on while we bleed money from him and fund a civil war. That's more likely, but lots of people will die.
Here's a twist on the third option - maybe it can speed up Gadafi's inevitable demise.
Let's create the Benghazi Free State. It's goal is to speed up Gadafi's demise by taking his people and his money. After that job is done, then the Free State can be absorbed back into Libya.
Here's how we can do it:
1. Establish refugee camps inside the Free State that offer shelter to anyone who comes in voluntarily from Libya. The attraction is food, shelter, Western style medical care and safety from retribution.
2. With force or bribery, take over the oil fields in the eastern part of the country. Then, sell the oil from Benghazi terminals. It won't even matter if some of the oil is 'donated' to the Free State from Libya. Even if some of the oil is bought by the Free State, the sellers have probably stolen it from the Libyan government and the money will not go to Gadafi.
After awhile most of the population will either be in the Free state or want to be there.
Your pal,
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
UPDATE 3.19.11: War for Benghazi
Hey Barry:
Today, 3.19.11 French government claims its planes are preventing Gadafi's planes from attacking Benghazi while Gadafi's mercenaries try to enter the city.
Yesterday, 3.17.11, the UN authorized a no fly zone and the government of Libya announced a cease fire.
Good news.
********************
My heart is heavy reading news from Benghazi [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/africa/16libya.html]. I have seen photos of a young man with his brains blown out of his skull by a .50 sniper rifle and of another with his thigh bone sticking our from his crossed legs where he was tortured before he was killed.
And now the Saudis are sending troops to Bahrain to 'control' the protestors. Saif Gadafi calls rebels 'rats and cats we will hunt down.'
Yes it is an old story, but sometimes it seems that evil is winning.
I know the USA cannot enter the battle with guns blazing. But, let us at least grieve for the hope that is dying today; and then let us give what support we can to the young people who want to feed their families and live in peace.
Your pal,
Today, 3.19.11 French government claims its planes are preventing Gadafi's planes from attacking Benghazi while Gadafi's mercenaries try to enter the city.
Yesterday, 3.17.11, the UN authorized a no fly zone and the government of Libya announced a cease fire.
Good news.
********************
My heart is heavy reading news from Benghazi [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/africa/16libya.html]. I have seen photos of a young man with his brains blown out of his skull by a .50 sniper rifle and of another with his thigh bone sticking our from his crossed legs where he was tortured before he was killed.
And now the Saudis are sending troops to Bahrain to 'control' the protestors. Saif Gadafi calls rebels 'rats and cats we will hunt down.'
Yes it is an old story, but sometimes it seems that evil is winning.
I know the USA cannot enter the battle with guns blazing. But, let us at least grieve for the hope that is dying today; and then let us give what support we can to the young people who want to feed their families and live in peace.
Your pal,
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Governing the Revolutions
Hey Barry:
Looks like a few countries will be installing brand new governments. I'm sure y'all will issue real congratulations and offer them any help they want.
That's all good so long as we don't be Ugly Americans about it. Here's the thing - we are not 'xactly seen as squeaky clean bearers of gifts in that area. After all, we are shooting and bombing people in at least two countries today and also we are big supporters of Israel.
So whatever we say or do is gonna be looked at real suspiciously. Hillary's all over that so we don't have to belabor it.
The rest of this is not about you, even though you may be interested.
It's a little out of my league of economic policies, but I'm gonna offer some ideas directly to the folks who will be running those countries soon. Maybe the ideas can be useful.
IT'S HARD - SO KEEP SOME FOLKS
Managing a country where your people just kicked out the people who ran the place is real hard. There's a temptation to arrest and ban anyone who was in the prior government. Only trouble is: they know what to do.
It's worth trying to keep some experts around so the country will run smoothly. It's a balancing act to keep the experts from the prior government in their job AND be sure they are loyal to the new government. And it'll be even harder when tribes are involved. Remember that most of the former regime's supporters just wanted a job and said what they had to say.
Suggestion: Make sure all the critical decisions require at least two people to sign off. Don't let any single person decide critical issues. And make sure one of the signers is loyal to the new government. For those folks from the prior government, make them sign a loyalty oath and personally interview them to decide if you can trust them. Do this with respect and sincerity. Together with requiring at least two people to approve major decisions, that should reduce problems.
Whenever you're in doubt about a person with critical skills, remember the world is full of expats who would love a good paying job. Hire a foreigner who has no connection in the country to run a technical operation.
THE OTHER GUYS ARE CROOKS
Of course they are. That's why your revolution won the war.
Now, you need to show compassion and grace. Do not torture or execute them. Do put them on trial for all their crimes and then put them in jail. Seize all their illegally gained assets. Any property they acquired while acting in an official capacity should be forfeit.
Don't waste time on vendettas. You have a lot of work that needs your attention. If you act wisely you will get respect from your people and from the international community - both of which are more important than lynching some petty crook.
MODERATING HOPE
Your followers want everything to change right now. If you encourage that feeling, you will disappoint them. It is inevitable; reality will always lag behind dreams. The difficulty for you is that when your follower's hopes run ahead of your delivering results, you may be the next government to suffer revolution.
Here's a two prong approach to that problem. First, frequently give speeches and press conferences where you list all the difficulties in running the country. The goal is to educate people about how hard it is and to simultaneously reduce their expectation about the pace of change.
Second, create real job openings and create real help for people who want to start small businesses. Your goal is to give some of your followers a real path to a good life. That will mean some new bureaucracies and maybe some help from expats. As word of the new programs spreads throughout your followers, it will reduece frustrations.
The combination of reducing expectations and simultaneously providing real opportunities makes it easier to keep the peace.
REDUCE CORRUPTION
A lot of money was leaving your country because some former government officials were stealing it and sending it to Swiss banks.
Of course, you will put those officials on trial. Then the big question is how to prevent a new generation of crooks.
One good answer is to create an open bidding process. In other words whenever there is a government contract to be awarded, award it to the highest bidder or lowest cost provider depending on the contract.
If the bidding process is public with a public review of the contracts, then corruption is less liklely.
ELECTIONS
Hold elections as quickly and as often as possible. Officials at every level should be elected - national, provincial, local.
Anyone who has authority should be elected by the people over whom he has authority. The only permissable deviation is when an election is so obviously crooked that the results will not represent the will of the people.
FREE PRESS
Please take a lesson from the USA. A free press is critical to any honest government. reporters are the eyes and ears of the public. They are what makes any government action subject to review. If there is no free press, there will be more corruption.
Everyone in the world wants you to succeed. Don't be shy about asking for help.
Your pal,
Looks like a few countries will be installing brand new governments. I'm sure y'all will issue real congratulations and offer them any help they want.
That's all good so long as we don't be Ugly Americans about it. Here's the thing - we are not 'xactly seen as squeaky clean bearers of gifts in that area. After all, we are shooting and bombing people in at least two countries today and also we are big supporters of Israel.
So whatever we say or do is gonna be looked at real suspiciously. Hillary's all over that so we don't have to belabor it.
The rest of this is not about you, even though you may be interested.
It's a little out of my league of economic policies, but I'm gonna offer some ideas directly to the folks who will be running those countries soon. Maybe the ideas can be useful.
IT'S HARD - SO KEEP SOME FOLKS
Managing a country where your people just kicked out the people who ran the place is real hard. There's a temptation to arrest and ban anyone who was in the prior government. Only trouble is: they know what to do.
It's worth trying to keep some experts around so the country will run smoothly. It's a balancing act to keep the experts from the prior government in their job AND be sure they are loyal to the new government. And it'll be even harder when tribes are involved. Remember that most of the former regime's supporters just wanted a job and said what they had to say.
Suggestion: Make sure all the critical decisions require at least two people to sign off. Don't let any single person decide critical issues. And make sure one of the signers is loyal to the new government. For those folks from the prior government, make them sign a loyalty oath and personally interview them to decide if you can trust them. Do this with respect and sincerity. Together with requiring at least two people to approve major decisions, that should reduce problems.
Whenever you're in doubt about a person with critical skills, remember the world is full of expats who would love a good paying job. Hire a foreigner who has no connection in the country to run a technical operation.
THE OTHER GUYS ARE CROOKS
Of course they are. That's why your revolution won the war.
Now, you need to show compassion and grace. Do not torture or execute them. Do put them on trial for all their crimes and then put them in jail. Seize all their illegally gained assets. Any property they acquired while acting in an official capacity should be forfeit.
Don't waste time on vendettas. You have a lot of work that needs your attention. If you act wisely you will get respect from your people and from the international community - both of which are more important than lynching some petty crook.
MODERATING HOPE
Your followers want everything to change right now. If you encourage that feeling, you will disappoint them. It is inevitable; reality will always lag behind dreams. The difficulty for you is that when your follower's hopes run ahead of your delivering results, you may be the next government to suffer revolution.
Here's a two prong approach to that problem. First, frequently give speeches and press conferences where you list all the difficulties in running the country. The goal is to educate people about how hard it is and to simultaneously reduce their expectation about the pace of change.
Second, create real job openings and create real help for people who want to start small businesses. Your goal is to give some of your followers a real path to a good life. That will mean some new bureaucracies and maybe some help from expats. As word of the new programs spreads throughout your followers, it will reduece frustrations.
The combination of reducing expectations and simultaneously providing real opportunities makes it easier to keep the peace.
REDUCE CORRUPTION
A lot of money was leaving your country because some former government officials were stealing it and sending it to Swiss banks.
Of course, you will put those officials on trial. Then the big question is how to prevent a new generation of crooks.
One good answer is to create an open bidding process. In other words whenever there is a government contract to be awarded, award it to the highest bidder or lowest cost provider depending on the contract.
If the bidding process is public with a public review of the contracts, then corruption is less liklely.
ELECTIONS
Hold elections as quickly and as often as possible. Officials at every level should be elected - national, provincial, local.
Anyone who has authority should be elected by the people over whom he has authority. The only permissable deviation is when an election is so obviously crooked that the results will not represent the will of the people.
FREE PRESS
Please take a lesson from the USA. A free press is critical to any honest government. reporters are the eyes and ears of the public. They are what makes any government action subject to review. If there is no free press, there will be more corruption.
Everyone in the world wants you to succeed. Don't be shy about asking for help.
Your pal,
Sunday, March 6, 2011
U S Policy in Post Revolutionary Africa, Asia
Hey Barry:
The revolutions will end soon. Now's the time to think about what the world will look like in a year or two.
Pretty much there will be two possibilities. We can hope that most of the countries will implement stable, representative governments similar to Turkey and Indonesia.
Middle East expert and Professor of Political Science at East Tennessee State University Dilshod A. Achilov has suggested that both countries can be models for future secular, representative governments; read an interview here: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/117500/20110301/turkey-indonesia-arab-revolt.htm
The other possibility is that some dictators will survive and continue to torture their populations.
The best policy for our national security is for the US to establish contacts with each of the revolutionary movements immediately. The goal should be to see how we can help them create hope in their country without co-opting their energy. There is no doubt that countries where people hope for a better future are less likely to produce terrorists.
I want to repeat that: our national security is established ONLY when people in poor countries have hope for their future. People with no hope breed terrorists. Plain and simple, Barry; no doubt about it.
If we retreat to our past practice of choosing autocrats and dictators who say they will protect our commercial interests we will be attacked increasingly. And, we will deserve it.
We gotta be on the right side Barry. The world is changing fast. The world's population has grown from about 2 billion in 1950 to a projected 10 billion in 2150.
Last time I looked, there is no more water, oil or land being made Barry. That gonna mean we looking at more wars over survival coming down the road.
It's another big choice, Barry.
One you will make. Just you.
Please chose wisely.
Your pal,
The revolutions will end soon. Now's the time to think about what the world will look like in a year or two.
Pretty much there will be two possibilities. We can hope that most of the countries will implement stable, representative governments similar to Turkey and Indonesia.
Middle East expert and Professor of Political Science at East Tennessee State University Dilshod A. Achilov has suggested that both countries can be models for future secular, representative governments; read an interview here: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/117500/20110301/turkey-indonesia-arab-revolt.htm
The other possibility is that some dictators will survive and continue to torture their populations.
The best policy for our national security is for the US to establish contacts with each of the revolutionary movements immediately. The goal should be to see how we can help them create hope in their country without co-opting their energy. There is no doubt that countries where people hope for a better future are less likely to produce terrorists.
I want to repeat that: our national security is established ONLY when people in poor countries have hope for their future. People with no hope breed terrorists. Plain and simple, Barry; no doubt about it.
If we retreat to our past practice of choosing autocrats and dictators who say they will protect our commercial interests we will be attacked increasingly. And, we will deserve it.
We gotta be on the right side Barry. The world is changing fast. The world's population has grown from about 2 billion in 1950 to a projected 10 billion in 2150.
Last time I looked, there is no more water, oil or land being made Barry. That gonna mean we looking at more wars over survival coming down the road.
It's another big choice, Barry.
One you will make. Just you.
Please chose wisely.
Your pal,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
