How the 1% is Hurting the Country (part 2)

In my last blog post--How the 1% is Hurting the Country (part 1)--I linked to an article that explains how the country has been harmed by those whose wealth is used to influence politics in a way that is unfair to the majority of us. That article very brilliantly enumerates the ways that this oligarchy has been detrimental to the greater economy and even to the long term interests of those in the so-called 1%.

The aforementioned article offers some great insight into the macroeconomic issues facing the country. This week, I'd like to focus in on a microeconomic aspect that ties into the previous article and illustrates the stark danger of the plutocracy that our country has become.

So, imagine that there is a business in a community and the business is doing well, paying all of its employees and therefore the entire community is thriving because everyone is working and everyone has money to spend. Then let's say that someone sees this all going on and decides: I would rather have all that money for me! That person buys the company, runs up its debt to pay himself hundreds of millions of dollars then, when the business cannot repay the new debts, closes the business, fires the workers and files for bankruptcy, hanging the company's debts on the taxpayers (some of whom were just fired from the company). Seem fair?

Of course, that scenario is not hypothetical. It is how private equity firms, like Mitt Romney's Bain Capital, sometimes operate. I bring it up because I often see comments from people online, suggesting that people who voted for President Obama may now be regretting their vote, as if Romney/Ryan was a viable alternative. I also bring it up because people still blame the poor economic recovery on the housing bubble, bank bailouts, the "takers" getting too much welfare, Obamacare, the wars, etc. Although most of those things may also be to blame, the business practices of private equity firms is certainly one of the most destructive forces and it is an issue that desperately needs to be addressed. It is also an issue that is largely ignored by the mainstream media, while people are all-too-eager to talk about the other possible causes. We are not going to have a strong economy again as long as people are more inclined to chase large, short-term profits as opposed to long-term growth and stability.

Personally, I could not vote for a person like Mitt Romney. The types of business practices he was involved in at Bain should be illegal. We certainly don't need a president that champions such business practices and might perhaps help others make out the way he did: by essentially stealing wealth from the common worker.

This relates to Joseph Stiglitz' article because, through the magic of plutocracy, such unethical business practices have not only been made legal, but the profits from such travesties are taxed at a rock-bottom rate, far lower than you or I pay on our income we receive from working and producing things. You see, when you or I request things from government--like tax relief, clean air and water, transparency and accountability in government, etc.--government usually yawns. But when a very wealthy and powerful person approaches government and asks to legalize theft and then get a sweetheart tax break on those ill-gotten gains, the government tends to listen and bend over backwards (and bend us over forward) to accommodate them.

We citizens in the so-called 99% are the majority in this country. And it is supposed to be a democracy. Therefore, if the majority of us are intelligent, we could come together to demand changes to the system so that it is no longer rigged against us; we can make destructive business practices illegal and we can make profits from "carried interest" deals taxed at the full rate. If...

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

How the 1% is Hurting the Country (part 1)



Can you afford a lobbyist? Will you get a fair shake without one?

I would like to share a link to a single article that I believe every American should read. The article puts some intellectual firepower behind the discontent of the 99% movement, which they themselves could not articulate and most did not fully understand: that the country has become a plutocracy which harms democracy, justice and fairness. Furthermore, the greed of the 1% and the income and wealth inequality that currently exists in the US is not only harming the country and many in the 99% but it is harming the 1% as well. Since people in the 1% control almost all of the news media in the country, they were able to mis-characterize the 99% movement as lazy free-loaders. Similarly, they re-directed the anger of the TEA Party movement from the abuses of big banks to instead demanding from government that the taxes on the rich can never be raised. The article brilliantly explains why our current economic structure is bad for everyone, including those currently benefiting from it.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/05/joseph-stiglitz-the-price-on-inequality

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

Incompetence or Corruption?

Who Runs Our Government?

I'm always intrigued by the notion that our country is in such bad shape because politicians are incompetent. Ask the people on Wall Street if they feel the government is incompetent. You will likely get a different response than you or I might give. Ask the labor unions and the CEOs of large corporations how they would grade the performance of our politicians. Celebrities get the attention and reverence that could have a positive impact on the government if it were bestowed upon someone that has new ideas and real integrity. Likely, all of these special interest groups would grade the government's performance higher than you or I would. You see, they all get what they want from government, you and I do not.

UNITY! (with Direct Democratic Action)

So how do we change that situation? How do we become more powerful and influential than the special interest groups? It is not logical to pool our money in an attempt to out-spend the wealthy with campaign contributions. Nor is it logical for us to hire lobbyists to battle the corporate interests and unions that have their meat hooks in politicians. The only way to take on special interest and reform government so that it works for We the People is to unite. When we do, we will become bigger and stronger than the special interest groups. We can prevent corporations from lobbying government to get tax breaks and government subsidies. We can prevent big banks from getting bailed out when they make risky bets for quick profits. We can prevent unions from having undue influence in government and in the industries in which they operate. We can prevent corporations from overturning laws that protect consumers and other citizens to maximize profits. We can even find ways to reform campaign finance laws so that celebrities have no greater voice or more influence than any other American.

To accomplish it means that we have to let go of the divisive issues that keep us at odds with each other. We need to start being more understanding of one another and more open to ideas. We need to work together to expose the schemes of government and special interest groups. We need to find common ground on the many issues which the majority of us would agree. Because, if we do...

Victory!

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

8 Profound Points About Gun Control That Nobody Seems to Have Considered

America and Firearms: Forever Intertwined

The gun legislation issue is so simple! Or is it?...

THE SACREDNESS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: Supporters of the Second Amendment will always argue about the importance of it. The Founders of our nation expressly wrote  our right to own firearms into The Constitution because they felt it to be of special importance. And although I also agree, I too realize that the Second Amendment is no more sacred than any other right Americans have, including the rights to basic safety, security and peace of mind. Americans have every conceivable right (so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others), regardless of whether it is written into The Constitution or it is not. And although our Founders and our citizens may find certain rights to be more important than others, none are more sacred than any other. All must be respected.

LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES: Limiting the capacity of gun magazines means that a shooter will have to stop to reload more frequently (unless the criminal has decided that obtaining illegal large capacity magazines is a more taboo crime than murder) and give bystanders more opportunity to tackle and subdue the shooter. This makes perfect sense. Except that if there is a prison break and I have to defend myself against a dozen or more felons that wish to do me harm, I don't want to be tackled and subdued while I attempt to change magazines. This is the big flaw in the left's argument about large capacity magazines. The prison break scenario is unlikely to occur but who knows what threats a person may have to protect themselves against? Rioting following an earthquake or other natural disaster, an eruption of gang violence or a drug deal gone bad. It is just not reasonable to punish the law-abiding citizen in an attempt to prevent a criminal from having something that they can get easily on the black market or secondary market anyway. Thirty round magazines for rifles and ten round magazines for pistols is a good compromise.

PEEKING INTO THE FUTURE: I have often criticized peoples' understanding of politics as being very one-dimensional. One way to view the gun issue in a way that is multi-dimensional is to look into the future and build likely events into the calculus of your political decisions. At some point in the future, I'm sure that there will be ray guns that can render someone unconscious from several yards away. The victim will wake up from the attack with no lasting injury, aside from the fact that they may have just been raped. If you think we have a problem with "roofies" and rape now, imagine if a would-be victim would never even have to be in close proximity to the attacker to be rendered unconscious. Whenever there are advances in firearm technology, how they are bought, sold and regulated should be examined to ensure that gun-owners' rights to have and use guns do not infringe on other citizens' rights to reasonable safety and peace-of-mind.

ASSAULT RIFLES: Banning assault rifles is kind of like banning automobiles that can go faster than the speed limit. The statement "Why does anybody need an assault rifle?" is similar to "Why does anybody need a sports car that can go 200+ miles per hour?" I find the look of assault rifles to be very attractive and they are fun to shoot. Even if I never need one for self-protection, I enjoy the look of the weapon and I enjoy shooting them. Shouldn't it be within my rights to own the kind of weapon I find appealing if I am able to demonstrate that I can own the weapon responsibly? How wrong and un-American would it be to say that people cannot own a sports car because they can go too fast and could therefore cause injury or death to others? Nor can you own a replica sports car because it looks just like one that can drive fast? Nobody would accept such restrictions on our liberty and we should not do so with regards to firearms either.

UNDERSTANDING THE INTENT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: I am rather certain that if automobiles were around during the founding of the nation, our forefathers would have considered them to be sacrosanct. They may have even been addressed in the Bill of Rights. "The automobile, being necessary for the freedom of travel and an important convenience, the right for citizens to own and operate a motor vehicle shall not be infringed." the language of the Eleventh Amendment might read. But does that mean that anyone can own a car, regardless of age or ability to drive safely? Does it mean that people shouldn't have to obey stop signs and NO PARKING signs? I doubt the Founders would have put every potentially acceptable regulatory measure into The Constitution.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF OVERLY STRICT GUN LEGISLATION: Recently, the technology to build a plastic gun by use of a 3-D printer was developed. Although the weapon is crude, it is just the start of what is to come. Before long, far more sophisticated weapons will be able to be constructed in the homes of private citizens and strict gun legislation will accelerate those ambitions. When something is made illegal or made prohibitively expensive, alternatives will surface and flourish. In this case, sophisticated weapons that are constructed and traded by private citizens with no governmental oversight. Such weapons cannot be detected by X-ray machines, (assumingly) have no traceable ballistics and have no serial numbers. Dealing with such weapons is going to be incredibly complicated and we are certainly not ready to take on that challenge now or in the near future.

THE NON-EXISTENT SLIPPERY SLOPE: The "slippery slope" argument is usually put forth when there is no argument of real merit available. The idea that extending background checks for firearms is a "slippery slope" to the government keeping a gun registry is ludicrous. We have a defense against such an assault on our Second Amendment right. It is, our Second Amendment right! Nothing says that you don't plan to ever exercise your Second Amendment right more than claiming that something could be a threat to it. If the government wants to go to my local gun store to take records it has no rights to, I would be there, with my firearm to tell them that they cannot do it. Are we going to participate in this democracy or are we going to just phone it in? We can be more prudent about where we draw our DO NOT CROSS lines.

PROTECTING DEMOCRACY: Gun owners often declare that their ownership of firearms is necessary to protect the country from the government becoming tyrannical and eliminating our freedoms. Those who support aggressive gun control legislation point out the futility and ridiculousness of armed citizens defending the country from government resources such as Apache helicopters, nuclear weapons,  fighter jets, drones, etc. This is going to take some time to unpack so, bear with me…

[Now, I speak purely hypothetically because I don’t believe that we have a government interested in bringing about tyrannical rule at this time. As much as I feel that government is corrupt, wrong-headed and dysfunctional, I don’t think government is attempting to subvert democracy or declare martial law. I do think that many people in government and those forces that influence government would want to do so if they felt they could. But we are a long way away from that becoming a reality.]

It is erroneous to think that the aforementioned government resources would include the soldiers required to operate the machines and weaponry. Our soldiers swear an oath to the country and to The Constitution, not to the government. No soldier should ever commit acts of aggression towards the citizens of the United States. If the government turned tyrannical and ordered attacks on citizens, soldiers should (and I believe most would) disobey those orders and fight with citizens to restore democracy and order.

If tyranny became the goal of government officials at some point, they could conceivably contract a mercenary army like KBR or Academi (formerly Xe, Blackwater)—provided those American contract soldiers have greater allegiance to their company, their government and/or to money than they do to their country. Our government could also hire foreign soldiers but those fighters would need to be trained to operate the machines and weapons that would make the government such an imposable force.

Looking beyond the hypothetical, I have spent a lot of time thinking about the future of the nation and how citizens can get control of government. I believe that we are long overdue for a revolution of some kind and I am hoping for a non-violent one. I believe that it is not only possible but necessary.

Those who do not believe that gun ownership is a realistic check against government tyranny sometimes bring up the government actions against the Branch Davidians in Waco, TX as evidence of the futility of citizens standing against government. Although the Davidians lost one battle (their lives and compound), they won a very significant battle which was to make themselves an example to other citizens about how the government can treat its citizens. People like me took notice. We saw the propaganda and lies the government told to explain how those people, including women and children died. It further eroded my trust in government and gave me more motivation for finding a way to achieve a non-violent revolution to address what I feel are serious and potentially disastrous flaws in the constructs of government and in how it operates. The killing of the Branch Davidians didn’t spark a revolution, likely because they were an odd group--if not potentially dangerous to the community--they were arguably potentially dangerous to themselves and to the children living in the compound.

The government should have no reason—aside from greedy self-interest—to oppose a non-violent revolution, intended to restore democratic principles that have been perverted by special interests over the years. If the government did oppose such an effort, all citizens of the country would have to ask why the government would oppose common sense reforms that are supported by a majority of the population. People would have to wonder why the government would want to oppose fellow citizens who were simply interested in making corrections to government machinations that would lead to a freer citizenry, more effective government, a more prosperous nation, a more just society: a more perfect Union.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

Don't Play "Feedback Loop (TM)"- A Fools' Game

Feedback Loop(TM)- A Fool's Game

So, the majority of you out there tune into the corporate media news to find out what to be outraged about, the television personality--who is paid to tell you whatever will keep their multi-million dollar paycheck rolling in--gives you the so-called "news" and tells you who you should hate and why, allthewhile, another news channel is telling another set of programmed drones the exact opposite. They get you so infuriated with your political opponents that you will do anything to see that their politicians don't get elected. In fact, you'll spend your hard-earned money to stop them! So you donate your money to a political campaign, hoping to inch forward toward your goal of a more perfect union. The political campaigns then give the money back to the media--in the form of campaign advertisement revenue--to tell you who to hate and why. ...And you don't see a problem with this? Take a look at the game board graphic (above) to see what playing the Feedback Loop (TM) game has to offer us.

What have we learned? 1. Do not give money to political campaigns. 2. Don't watch news that is funded by political campaigns. 3. Don't listen to any of their BS. Otherwise, you are fueling the machine of your own demise.

Why not take a look at some of the issues that we would find easier to agree on? The things that politicians and the media don't ever talk about. Like term limits for the US Congress. Like Congress' salary and benefits. Like sensible campaign reform measures. Like politicians picking winners and losers and then leaving government to go work for the winners. Then the winners--with their new influx of wealth--buying the next set of politicians to make sure they are winners again so they can afford to pay the politicians when they leave government to go work for the winners...

Is there not enough danger in that feedback loop for you not to want to stop whatever you are doing and address it? Let's change the game to one that we can actually win. We start by rejecting the dangerous collusion between the media and politicians. Then we go after the dangerous collusion between government and lobbyists/industry.

Or we can wait for a politician to come along and clean the whole broken system. And I'm sure the media will let us know which politician would be best for the job.

News media fails to report truth about Iraq WMDs
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/11/opinion/kurtz-iraq-media-failure
http://www.thenation.com/blog/173357/when-nyt-offered-weak-mini-culpa-hyping-iraq-wmd

Fox News misinforms viewers regarding new START treaty
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-8-2010/the-big-bang-treaty

News media fails to recognize looming financial crisis
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/05/28/the-media-and-the-financial-crisis-journalism-failed/

News media fails to report accurately on health care reform
http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/national-medias-biased-coverage-of-the-affordable-care-act/

Fox News reports scandals involving Republican politicians as scandals by Democrats
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnIgRyN3uHA

News stations air Video News Releases (VNRs) produced by government or corporate sources without disclosure
http://www.prwatch.org/fakenews/execsummary
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Video_news_releases#VNR_fines

 ~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

Save Your Breath

United States Congress

Our whole political system is corrupt. And to fix it we need to address issues like Congress' salary. $155,500 - $223,500 a year for a part-time job that used to be voluntary and they have an 10% approval rating. Would you have a job if your employer had an 10% approval rating of your performance?

What about Congress members' budgets? Rand Paul recently returned $600,000 of his budget that he didn't spend. Last year it was $500,000. He should be applauded for such a feat! And if he can do that, why can't the rest of them trim their budgets?

Why aren't these things even being discussed?

Why do we allow Congress members to trade stocks related to legislation that they are debating? As soon as a Congressperson takes their oath of office, all of their stock trades should be frozen. And if they attempt to tip off others with inside information they should be punished harshly. Boehner owns stock in oil companies, Pelosi owns stock in Citibank. They all get rich and who were they serving with their decisions?

Does everything really have to involve a penis to be a scandal now?

Politicians often leave Congress and go to work for the businesses that they voted to provide or deny federal assistance to. Sometimes they go the other way. Doesn't this all seem a little bit too cozy to you?

If we can't all get behind these issues then we really are stupid and perhaps we should just give up.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

Surveying Our Political Landscape

The US Political Landscape (a dramatization)

In my last blog post, Breaking Down the Political Equation, I recommended that we "stop marching into the voting booth to protect" politicians. I want to be clear that I am not suggesting that people stop voting. It is important for those of us that wish to be proactive to keep informed and vote for the person that best represents our individual ideals and values and whom we believe will best care for the country and the interests of its citizens. We citizens may not agree on the best candidates but it is important in a democracy that most of the citizens participate. I do however think it is foolish to believe that politicians will do anything to fix the country's problems. At least, not without being forced to by the electorate.

I often deride politicians for their corruption and poor governance but I will admit that I do admire some politicians--most of whom are unfortunately now out of government--for things that they have done either in their private lives and/or while serving. Not all of them are corrupt and incompetent. But as I survey the political landscape, I see numerous pitfalls that nearly ensure that every politician will be ineffective. I once saw an interview with a politician (I can't remember which one or on which show) who confided that in his first week of serving in the US Congress, his staff had put fundraising events on his agenda. This is our current political reality. Politicians need to raise thousands of dollars daily to fund their next political campaign. Any good-natured and virtuous person may enter government with the intention to change it for the better, but to remain in a position to attempt to positively affect the political system, they are beholden to those that will donate large amounts of money to their campaigns.

That leaves we citizens largely without representation in our own country. We have to clean up the money in politics in order to improve our country and the political system. But how do we do that?

1n 2006, Americans were fed up with Republican scandals and corruption became one of the top issues in the country. In that mid term election, voters elected Democrats who promised to clean up Washington. After winning majorities in both houses of Congress in that election, Democrats had the privilege of changing the rules of Congress. Although Democrats did pass the most strict ethics rules in modern times, the new rules left plenty of loopholes and opportunities for corruption. As often occurs in government, we ended up with half measures and very little change. In my opinion, Democrats fell far short of their clear mandate and to me it is a clear, current example that you cannot send politicians to fix a broken system. Especially when they profit from that broken system.

Voting out one batch of politicians to replace them with other politicians is not a viable solution to our problems. What would actually work is a large voting block of citizens drawing up the reforms we'd like to see in government and then demanding that Congress pass those reforms.

When we citizens unite behind a common cause, we could elect "citizen legislators". Each of these candidates could take an oath not to seek re-election, not to work for lobbying firms or other para-governmental agencies following their term and not to work in any industry or company affected by legislation that they have voted on while in elected office.

Without worrying about re-election, these citizen legislators would be capable of representing the citizens of the country without conflicts of interest. Sending just a few of these political operatives to Washington could actually have a reasonable impact if they stall every non-essential bill until members of Congress re-address the ethics rules and make changes that would satisfy the citizens they are supposed to represent.

Getting citizen legislators elected in a system that is awash in dirty money returns us to the campaign finance challenge. The group, Americans for Campaign Reform, purports that for as little as $6 per US citizen annually, we could fund elections and take special interest groups out of the equation. This seems to be a solution that is well worth looking into. Otherwise, we can only hold our breath and wait for politicians evolve into competent, ethical beings. And the system is rigged to ensure that never happens.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/