Budget: Big Money Class War

Hey Barry:

Well, you know it's kinda hard to figure out what's really going on with the debt and budget thing.

All I can do is to watch TV and try not to get angry.

Here's what it looks like from this end: Big Money is pullin the Reps strings so they're negotiating tough, real tough.

Thing is, the Reps and their puppeteers don't give a rosy red rat's a-- for what happens to the country so long as their taxes don't get raised. It's just a game for them. They lie, they steal.

I guess our only hope is that enough voters out here get the message. Then, we can vote out all the Reps and elect some patriotic people. Patriots, you remember them, the folks who put country before money. There are still some around.

But, in the meantime, Ya gotta feel sorry for the Tea Party folks who buy the Rep's hook, line and sinker.

We also gotta get those Tea Party folks out of power before they give even what we have left to the fat cats.

We know one thing: if the country defaults, Big Money will be OK and the rest of us will pay the price with even more $5 per hour jobs, unemployment and hunger.

So, Barry, since it's all politics at this point - get tough. Out tough the Big Money. We with you.

Give an inch so we can stick it to the the Reps down the road. Save the country, fight the Class War.

It's where we are.

Your pal,

JP Morgan Chase: 'Dance forever with the devil'

Hey Barry:

Here's a song about bankers:

'Dance forever with the devil on a cold cell block
But that's what happens when you rape, murder and sell rock'

[Lyrics for Dance With The Devil as interpreted by MrMojoRisin5552]

Alabama's most populous county is deciding whether to file bankruptcy.

Why? They made a deal with JP Morgan Chase. They are paying the price.

Maybe it's time.

Let's put the bankers in a cell.

Your pal,

Tame the Gods, Tame the Politics

Hey Barry;

Holy Cow, Barry.

I'd really like to be optimistic, Barry, maybe there's a chance that we can really solve all the issues.

But, Barry, it don't look real good right now.

Y'all in DC caint get the simplest thing done. It's just a budget and a self imposed borrowing limit. It's just a simple thing. But, it don't seem like we can do it.

And, Barry, we are the ones who can unleash nuclear holocaust on ourselves.

We know we can do that.

But, can we prevent it?

For example, Entergy Corp is refueling its Vermont Yankee plant with more nuclear fuel even though the State of Vermont wants to revoke its operating permit. Read it here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/07/25/national/a052752D25.DTL

So, Barry, here's the question: If we caint even do the simplest thing, how in the Hell are we going to control Mother Nature?

Is this my choice? Whether to die from radiation poisoning or to grow hungry and sick from political malpractice?

Barry, ya gotta tame the Gods and ya gotta tame the politics.

We're counting on you - for the grandchildren, yours to come and mine: Victor, Sydney, Brooke and Carson.

Your pal,

Meet in Paris, September 8-13-11

Hey Barry:

My wife and I visited Paris between September 8 and 13, 2011 for some sightseeing and R & R. Had a great time and took lots of photos.

If any readers in Paris or California are interested in some future friendly, informal economic policy discussion or debate over a glass of wine or cup of coffee, please send me an email to: mckeever.mp@gmail.com

Ciao

Your pal,

Tunisia, IMF and USA - Economic Theory and Practice, Revised

Hey Barry:

Sometimes I just have to talk about economics. I'll try to be clear, but it's important; so, pass it along to the econs if you want.

Pretty sure it is established in fact - not in theory yet, but absolutely in fact - that the NeoCon, Washington Consensus your predecessor used to run our government is dead, dead, dead.

Now just because something is actually dead does not mean that it has no influence. 'S like the old story of the dinosaur which was so big that he was dead for a week before his tail knew about it.

Well, the folks at the IMF are jes another example of the dinosaur's tail. I'll tell you why in a sec.

Back in the day when Keynes created the IMF, it was a pretty good idea. It was a simple idea back then: if a national government ran into a patch of difficulty with negative trade balances - importing more than exporting - then the IMF would provide a short term loan while the government did the necessary things to redress the trade imbalances. After all, if the government did not fix the trade balances, then the markets would correct the situation by devaluing the offending country's currency. And, since economic growth is helped when exchange rates are stable, it made sense to try and stabilize exchange rates.

Things the government could do included raising tariffs, installing quotas and so forth so that the trade imbalance went away.

Well, since then, the NeoCon dogma has held that governments can't fix trade imbalances with any interference in trading patterns. What happens to exchange rates is not considered important. The Holy Grail has become Free Trade. You and I know that Free Trade does not work, but there are lots of places where the facts of reality have not penetrated the cloister of theoretical purity.

Recently, government financial problems have morphed to include problems from too much borrowing. Governments need to borrow because they spend a lot on social problems like pensions, medical care and demand stimulus. Well, the IMF has stepped up and will sometimes lend to those countries as well, with the same requirements from their version of NeoCon Dogma: cut social programs and balance the budget regardless of consequences. It's a bad idea.

One of the places where NeoCon Dogma lives is the economics department of the IMF. They still cling to the Free Trade and Cut Social Programs Dogma like a starving dog to a bone.

Anytime a national government has a trade balance problem or borrowing problem and asks the IMF for help, the IMF requires that the country accept a STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT policy in order to get help. Since the IMF is the only place in the world countries can get help, then countries that need help are forced to install IMF policies.

Well, Barry, the problem is that the IMF Structural Adjustment policies are cookie cutter NeoCon dogma. And, since NeoCon dogma is dead, then the IMF continues to require that countries install wrong policies.

Imagine that. It's exactly the same as if George Bush and his crowd are running the economics department of many countries.

To see what that means in practice, consider Tunisia. Here is a country that underwent a people's revolution to overthrow a corrupt and brutal regime and is now trying to establish a democracy that shows respect to the Tunisian people.

But, Barry, wherever they look for help, all they get is more NeoCon dogma.

They get it from the IMF and they get it from the United States. Now, they know that it is wrong advice, but they don't seem to have a choice unless we, the United States of America offers some more realistic advice.

Below is a link to an in depth study of the impact of economic policies on the government and people of Tunisia. The study was written in June by a group of American lawyers who visited Tunisia and met with many of the important groups in Tunisia.

Please show the link to Hillary and to your econs - we need to understand how we can really help the people in all the countries rebelling against corrupt regimes.

Link: http://www.mkeever.com/tunisia2011.pdf

It is The Report of the March 2011 Delegation of Attorneys to Tunisia from National Lawyers Guild (US), Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers (UK), and Mazlumder (Turkey) Published: June 2011

Your pal,

Chinese Electronics Can Kill US

Hey Barry:

Y'all probably know about this already, but knowing ain't the issue - we gotta do something about it.

Read it here: http://www.examiner.com/technology-in-national/tomorrow-s-cyberwarfare-may-be-carried-out-by-pre-infected-electronics-dhs

Seems the rumors are true - computer chips and software from China and other places really DO carry embedded code and kill switches that can hurt our military and national security.

Solution is simple - make a list of products that must be made in the U S of A. The list will be a long list - mostly military stuff, but a lot of civilian things too.

Oh, by the way Barry, if we make stuff here, we'll get some more jobs. And, we'll be safer.

It's a no brainer.

Don't listen to the Free Trade monkeys - they're just running a con. The only trouble with their con is that it actually will kill some Americans.

Holy cow Barry, holy cow.

The nightmare is real.

Your pal,

UPDATE 8.6.11: Wage Theft Today, Not Fun

Hey Barry:

Aside from numbers, you may be interested in what really goes on in a job today.

It's not fun Barry, not fun. Keep your day job for awhile.

August 6, 2011: Here's a new one about trucking: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/otherviews/126619568.html

When you're hired into a job, it's likely you get the job because the person who was doing the job is too slow by maybe 5%, or that person ticked off someone working there and the boss listened to the ticked off person.

Going in, you have a problem. Either you have to be 100% efficient from the get-go to keep the job - which is impossible - or you are dealing with a boss who has no common sense and listens to stories.

Now, what happens if the business suffers a little from a sales decline?

Well, all that gets even more pronounced. The gossipers make up stories ragging about co-workers from whole cloth because they are afraid of losing their job. The boss with no common sense fears for the future and wants to lay off somebody. Probably the person to go is the person whom the gossipers target.

Here's the dilemma: sell your soul and lie about fellow workers or lose your job to someone who lies.

Or maybe you work in a place where the boss commandeers all the tips and insists on four to six hour shifts with no breaks.

If you complain about either, you're gone. There are lots of hungry people out there waiting for a chance to work at less than minimum wage and in violation of labor standards.

See the article on wage theft - national disgrace: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/18/MNGB1KAIB2.DTL&tsp=1

One of the jokes about it goes like this:

Question: "Did you get that job at McD's as a cook?"

Answer: "Nah. All the openings were filled by the Stanford grads."

Question: "What about the BK toilet cleaning jobs?"

Answer: "Those were all filled by the Harvard grads."

That's the way it is.

Your pal,

UPDATE 7.9.11 - Dog Days Are Over

Hey Barry:

Love this song by Florence and the Machine.

[You have to copy and paste the links to get the video - it's worth it.]

Florence + The Machine - Dog Days Are Over (2010 Version)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v​=iWOyfLBYtuU

The new official video to the Dog Days Are Over. Click here to download http://zaphod.uk.vvhp.net/v-v/​100312134937

I take it as a metaphor for the U S of A today - dog days are the lazy summer times when the world is right and calm.

But they're over and you've got to run fast for your mother because the horses are coming.


UPDATE 7.9.11

Gonna be soon...........

The next, worse financial crisis, Ben Arends:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-next-worse-financial-crisis-2011-07-06


Your pal,

Who's Worse: Al Queda or NRC?

Hey Barry:

Let's get real about nuclear power.

It is a disaster waiting to happen. It will happen in the US - Americans will die and cities will be contaminated.

Just like Fukushima. 'It's another universe.' reports Greenpeace as seen on RT here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY5cvod4Tiw&feature=player_embedded#at=284

And yet, and yet, the industry says things like this: 'Plants can run forever, the 40 year limit doesn't mean a thing.'

At the same time, upgrades, modifications and safety equipment don't get done, thanks to the NRC lap dogs.

We have 104 nuclear plants in the US - most are within killing distance of major population centers like New York, Philadelphia, Washington DC and Boston.

How many Americans must die before we eliminate these dirty time bombs?

We don't need Al Queda when we have the NRC.

Positively depressin.

Your pal,

Politicking the Budget

Hey Barry:

I don't think I like your debt ceiling and deficit reduction negotiating strategy. It has a fatal flaw - the dreaded blue screen of death.

Of course, I am just reading the tea leaves of press conferences and am probably missing something.

But, it seems to me that you're relying on the Reps to do the right thing for the country and hoping that some pressure from home will sway them to vote like adults.

You're making concessions and not getting anything in return, Barry.

But, giving away the store will NOT buy cooperation - ya gotta put the heat on 'em.

Barry, we live in a different world and you're gonna have to step up the game. Cuz if'n you don't we is cooked like a skinny goose.

The fatal flaw in your strategy is that the Reps have been bought and paid for - they don't listen to voters, they listen only to money.

So, since I don't think ya'll can bribe 'em outright, though mebbe you can, then ya'll gonna have to get to their money. You have to put pressure on their backers to pressure the elected bunch to vote the right way.

So, here's how to do that:

First, tell Biden that all the cuts are off the table and we want single payer health care and that ALL the deficits will be paid for by tax increases on rich folks - higher income tax rates for higher brackets, tax capital gains as ordinary income, close all the deductions for corporations and so on.

Make it clear to the public that you understand what the public wants and that the Reps are putting all the burdens on the middle class when Billionaires caused the problem in the first place.

We know that already; it's not a surprise.

Then..............have Biden walk out of the conference.

That will get their panties in a bunch and they will take their eye off the ball.

Next, get a list of the top 100 Rep donors and call each one on the phone. Here's what you'll tell them.

'Mr. Smith. this is the President of the United States Barack Obama. I am calling you on a matter of critical national importance and I need your help.

Your Rep. Mr. Jones is saying that he will not vote for a new debt ceiling or a reasonable budget unless we gut social security and medicare and leave tax deductions for corporate jets alone.

I am asking you to call him on the phone and ask him to cooperate in this time of national crisis.

If you don't make the call and if Mr. Jones does not do the adult thing by voting to raise the debt ceiling and allowing some reasonable tax increases, then the United States will default on its debts for the first time since Alexander Hamilton sold T Bills.

That will raise the interest rates the US has to pay to borrow money which will raise interest rates for everyone in the country. Higher rates will choke off business investment and we will have another Great Depression, Mr. Smith. I am sure you do not want that.

So I am asking you to make the phone call. If you do make that call and if Mr. Jones votes like an adult, then I'll pay your way to Washington and present you with a Certificate of Meritorius Service in the White House.

In order to be clear about how important this is to the country, if Mr. Jones fails to vote like an adult, then I will hold you personally responsible and will make it my business to discover whether you have broken any laws or regulations.

I am saddened by the need for this conversation, but the future of the country is on the line today like never before, Mr. Smith.

Can I count on your cooperation, Mr. Smith?'

There you go Barry - make 100 of those calls and the crisis is over.

Your pal,

Screwing Oil Speculators

Hey Barry:

Releasing oil into the markets has been criticized as a move to damage speculators like the Golden Sox Gang.

Good.

Your pal,

New Reality Economics

Hey Barry:

Hope you like the picture above of our troops as my new header; it reminds me of what really matters.

Moving to an economic note, if we're looking at economic theory as it applies to today - at least that's what I'm doing - then there are one or two ideas to consider. This is part of considering what will take the place of the NeoCon dogma which has died recently. [Oddly enough, NeoCon dogma died from success - we gave it all it wanted and then it up and died. R.I.P.]

One of those ideas is called Post Keynesian Theory, or PKT. In other words, it attempts to suggest what happens to economics after the economy moves on beyond pure Keynesian doctrine. After all, the 1930's were a long time ago.

The basic Keynes idea from the 1930's is that the central government has to intervene on a macro level with stimulus and borrowing when the unemployment rate is too high. That's good as far as it goes, but in today's economy that action alone does not solve the problems we have. Markets are way too clogged with monopolies to react favorably to macro stimulus actions alone.

PKT takes Keynes' doctrine further into government intervention in the economy. Specifically, PKT suggests both an incomes policy and an industrial policy. And, I would add that a better PKT would also add a nationalist trade policy that protects our jobs.

An incomes policy is simply a tax policy that prevents personal incomes from rising so high that the possessors have the ability to damage the country from their actions.

An industrial policy is a national policy which chooses which industries will help the country in the future and then supports those industries with protective tariffs, subsidies and contracts until they become strong enough to stand on their own.

A protective trade policy is a policy which seeks to keep jobs at home. It has been forcefully explained by Ian Fletcher in his book Free Trade Doesn't Work: What Should Replace it and Why.

Now Mr. Fletcher has proposed a second alternative candidate for the moribund NeoCon dogma - Nationalist Economics. His discussion is available here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/the-coming-upheaval-in-re_b_883608.html

Well, Barry, that's where economic thinking is heading: toward Post Keynesian Theory and Nationalist Economics. If you accept it, your job is to bring the legislature around to the new reality.

We're hoping you accept it Barry, because the penalty for ignoring reality will be very high for the country.

And, Lordy, them Reps is a stubborn bunch. My guess is that they'll cling to their bankrupt dogma until the country pays the price.

We're rooting for you here.

All of us in the day-to-day world know the real situation even if the Reps don't.

Your pal,

Replacing NeoCons

Hey Barry:

Well, the NeoCon economic philosophy seems to be withering to dormancy on the vine. But have no fear; it will come back again as soon as our memories fade.

Why is it withering? Well, it's fading because it won the war of ideas; it took over economics and politics. NeoCon philosophy was the dominant economic idea for several years. And, we - the good ol' U S of A - put its ideas into practice.

And, what did it give us? Among other things, it gave us high unemployment, the Great Recession, a housing crisis, a banking crisis, a debt crisis and a still developing European crisis that may well put us into another, deeper recession.

So, NeoCon ideas are correctly blamed for the mess we're in; and, those ideas are disappearing, for now.

John Maynard Keynes knew all this in the 1930's,

But, we forgot. And forgetting cost us, boy did it cost.

So, you may ask, what is the alternative anyway?

Well, the alternative is really pretty simple and it's mostly a lot of common sense.

See, markets are pretty good at creating jobs when there is some consumer demand. But, the problem is that when the entrepreneur's capital demands all the profits instead of giving fair shares to employees, customers, suppliers and society, then wealth becomes concentrated and society suffers.

Left alone this simple-minded NeoCon approach guarantees recessions because it chokes off demand from the consumers.

Consumer spending is two-thirds of the economy and consumers get their buying power from wages. If they don't have enough wages, then they can't buy things. That's called a recession.

That's where we are right now.

The better idea is to share the profits from business ventures with employees, suppliers, customers and society instead of giving all the profits to the capital. Allow capital a fair return but not everything.

After all, society is the thing that allows a venture to make a profit. Society provides a legal structure, educated workers, customers who buy things and so on. Without all of these things a business will simply fail from lack of revenue.

Of course, business owners will resist the idea of increasing wages and giving back to society. That reduces their profits and return on investment.

So, that means that you, Barry Obama, have to figure out a way to take some of the business' profits and billionaires' wealth - just a little - and give it to wages and to schools and roads and medical insurance - stuff like that.

But, wait a minute; we already have those mechanisms in place Barry. All you have to do is to tune them up a little. Let unions organize. Pass laws to protect them. Raise taxes on businesses to support education and infrastructure. You get the idea. It's not news, Barry.

Well Barry, we can hear it now, the screams and complaints will be really loud and panicky.

'That's socialism and it's anti-American. It's theft and stealing. It's Un-American.'

And so on and so on.

OK, Barry, here's the bottom line: this is the only way to survive as a country.

It's survival, not politics.

It's way more important than politics.

How about it, Barry? What will you do?

Your pal,

What Would Barry Do?

Hey Barry:

Let's imagine that we - the entire USA - is a small bunch on a tramp steamer on the high seas somewhere.

You are our Captain - no mistake. [Sorry, I have been reading Mark Twain, and he IS contagious - makes me want to write like a poor imitation]

Well anyway, there we are with pretty much two groups of folks: a smallish bunch with lots of food, great views and complete access to you at every table.

Then, there's the rest of us who have a little bit of bread, some brackish water and all the rats we can catch. Sometimes we can see you and the smallish bunch as you take your stroll on the top deck and we can wave to you. It makes us happy; we're still hungry, but happy.

It turns out that the smaller bunch want to reduce our bread ration by half because, well that's just what they do. But you as the Captain are sayin that 'We can't reduce their rations by half, but maybe we can just reduce it by a quarter instead. I'll think on it and get back to you.'

Of course, if you reduce the rations then the folks who actually keep the ship afloat will be weak and it'll be hard for them to fix all the leaks. When you mention that to the smallish gang, they just scoff and tell you that the workers can just work longer hours. After all, they don't have anything else to do.

But, Barry you have a dilemma: you know there's a storm coming and that the boat is in serious disrepair. If we don't fix the boat there's a real good chance it'll sink in the storm.

So you make an executive decision: "In order to save our ship, I have decided that I will take from the small bunch half of all that they have and distribute it to the folks who have little so that they will have the strength to keep our ship in good repair during the coming storm. I know that the bilge pump is broken, the engine needs a new fuel system, the piston rings are worn out and the radios are working only half time. In these difficult times, we must all work together because if we do not we will all perish together on the seas."

Immediately there is an uproar from the small gang.

"You cannot do that to us. We made our money fair and square by reducing bread rations every year, just like the rules allow. It is our right. We have been doing it for generations. You cannot stop us now. We will,.......... well, we will do SOMETHING real bad. Maybe we'll hold our breath for a really long time. Or, or, how about this, we'll promise to pay you 25% of the next food that floats by on a shipwreck. That's a good deal. You can't take away our rights like that - it's not fair.

OK, OK, how about this - we will pay you 5% of our food supplies right now, but you have to drop your outrageous demands on our property, our right to bread rations."

What'll be your answer, Barry?

What would Barry do?

Your pal,

US Troops Wall Painting

From Lena Groeger, Danger Room

VTO Farewell?

Hey Barry:

Seems like the end of an era is here - VTO's are about to be gone, gone.

Read about the last flight of the Harrier here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/8204103/Bowing-out-last-flight-of-the-Harrier-jump-jet.html

We are still flying the tilt wing Osprey, but considering helicopters and unmanned craft, looks like its days are numbered to an outside observer like me.

Up, up and awaaay.

Your pal,

Revolution Against the Rich - 1765

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,

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,

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,

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,

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,

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,

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,

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,

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,

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

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,

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,

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

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

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,

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,

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,

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,

Osama bin Laden Dead

Hey Barry:

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you.

Your pal,

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,

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,

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,

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,

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,