No Spoiler Alert

BERNIE by Ted Rall (page 172)

Bernie Sanders joining the Democratic Party is a brilliant move at this time. It has been made impossible for a third party to compete in the political system that is rigged by the Democratic-Republican duopoly. But more importantly,third parties have always been considered to be spoilers. They can siphon votes from a lesser-of-two-evils candidate and leave us with the worst candidate winning the election.

With one of our country's most popular and well-liked independent politicians joining a major party, Bernie Sanders is going to re-shape the Democratic Party in very good ways. It will be more responsive to the needs and concerns of the people in ways the party now is not. If Bernie doesn't win the presidency, he and the movement that is growing behind him will continue to re-shape the debate in ways that favor the middle class and Americans that are struggling.

I don't consider myself a Democrat or Republican. I consider myself an "independent voter" and I support "independent" candidates because they often look at politics from a different perspective than the two main parties. It's not so much about a different ideology. But I am not suggesting that an Independent Party should attempt to rival the two main parties. I understand that doing so would likely be futile and counter-productive. Now that Bernie Sanders has joined the Democratic Party, he will transform it into a party that more resembles what it should be.

BERNIE by Ted Rall (page 176)

The Republican Party needs to do the same with theirs. I've not read a better blue-print for how the government should be run and how our politics should operate than in the book Reclaiming Conservatism by Mickey Edwards, the book to which the name of this blog is a tribute. Why isn't the Republican Party taking themselves in that direction?

Instead, their choices for politicians are ridiculous characters that are equally shady and corrupt as the Democrats. The Republican Party could be a great party by following the correct blue-print. But corruption keeps Republican Politicians from adhering to a more sensible game plan, such as the one that Mickey Edwards lays out in his book. The Democratic Party is currently engaged in this struggle, because of Bernie Sanders.

If we can't figure out how to end corruption, then we cannot ever re-shape the parties. It takes a change in perspective, rather than ideology.

People's ideologies generally do not change. I don't debate issues with people because I think I am going to convince a conservative to vote Democrat or for a liberal to vote Republican. I aim to point out where both parties are failing us and how best to change our political perspective so that our interests are better served. The majority of Americans need to step up, do what politicians cannot and guide this country in the direction that it should be going. This is the remedy that the Bernie Sanders campaign is offering.

BERNIE by Ted Rall (page 174)

We've seen the result of what happens when we leave politicians to making up the rules. Billionaire bankers get bailed out when they behave so recklessly that they crash the world economy, then they pay themselves multi-million dollar bonuses with our tax dollars. More than 125,000 people are prevented from voting in Brooklyn, NY and 27% of the voting population (independent voters) are barred from voting due to onerous rules. In Phoenix, AZ, officials close polling locations in poor and middle class neighborhoods, resulting in absurdly long lines and a very excessive burden for tens of thousands of voters. Every member of Congress has an annual operating budget for their office of up to $4.7 million--am I the only one that finds that excessive?--and why is it that when there are financial troubles, the people that caused them (politicians) are not asked to make any cutbacks?

Let's change our political perspective so that those kinds of issues are prioritized. If we follow the agenda of the Democratic and Republican Parties, such issues will never be addressed. Those legal loopholes and election deficiencies are in place for a reason: to serve the interests of the politicians that created them.

The correct change in perspective that is needed right now, is one that focuses on ending corruption. Policy changes are always going to be perceived as affecting someone's liberty. But nobody's liberties are infringed upon when we attack corruption, when we fight for election integrity, for equal justice for all citizens and for serious fiscal conservatism that looks at all wasteful spending as unacceptable, or when we hold politicians accountable. They are the priorities of a well-managed country.

If we can shift the direction of the two parties, we can have two parties that work for our interests instead of theirs. But it will take a change in our political perspective, not in our ideology.

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

A New Political System...

Q: Who is better at ridding the government of corruption,
Democrats or Republicans?
A: "No". (also accepted: "Neither", or side-splitting laughter.)

Here's an idea: let's re-examine the efficacy of a political system whereby multi-millionaire, career politicians are elected to create public policy.

These people never find any common sense solutions to problems because there is often no money to be made in doing so. From what I have seen, they instead run around chasing after billions of dollars with which they intend to further enrich themselves and their cronies, thereby bolstering their political power and allowing them to continue the cycle.

Citizens that wish to eliminate corruption will face
sophisticated resistance from special interests that
have nearly limitless resources!

A good candidate on the other hand, would be good at identifying wasteful programs and finding ways to eliminate them, and identifying needs of the people and coming up with viable and sensible ways to address those needs. Their focus would be on the correct targets: creating a fairer system and a government that is accountable to the people. The status quo politicians focus more on progressing their political agenda to increase their wealth and political power. That distinction--between a hypothetical non-partisan, solution-based politician and the status quo politicians--is far greater than the minimal differences between liberals and conservatives.

This candidate may be rough around the edges, s/he may not have Mitt Romney's tailor or John Edwards' image consultants but s/he would have a propensity for finding viable, common sense solutions. An approach such as that--focused on eliminating corruption and government waste--would allow us to reduce government spending while providing plenty of money for a sound safety net for the nation's truly needy people. The conservative citizens and the liberal citizens could both get what they want. Instead, we are told that the way to succeed politically is to fight each other to prevent the opposition from getting anything they want. Honestly, I don't see the wisdom in it. Do we really want lower taxes AND NO public assistance for veterans and military families? Do we really want public assistance programs for needy people WITH NO attention to the fiscal responsibility or sustainability of those programs?

Neither party has the right answer so the game has become to change the question from "What is the best policy?" to "What wins elections and generates campaign contributions?" Where are our interests represented in that? They are not. So, we either need to change the system or we will be destroyed by it.

I may be shouting this message to an empty coliseum, but I'm not going to go down without shouting. I don't care if the message of government effectiveness and efficiency over political idealism is never embraced by the Democratic or Republican leadership or by the pundits (who are paid millions of dollars to create controversy rather than to find common ground or solutions to problems). I think it would be difficult for anyone to argue against the logical soundness of the position. And I hope that the majority of the country will soon come to the same realization.

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

The truth About the "Takers"

Who is the real burden on society?

According to the right wing, the country is broke because there are too many "takers" in society. According to the right wing, these "takers" will vote for whichever candidate offers the most "free candy"--by which they mean welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc. When in these conversations, I first concede that entitlement spending is out of control and is unsustainable. I also usually find it necessary to point out that the low income people in our country are not the only people after "free candy". For every hundred low wage workers who gets $120 a month in food stamps, there's a big corporation that gets billions of dollars in tax breaks, subsidies and other "free candy" from the government every year. Even politicians, are helping themselves to free taxpayer money.

Mitt Romney was one of the worst candidates that the Republican Party could have picked as their presidential nominee in the 2012 election because his company, Bain Capital, often made money by being one of the biggest takers in the country. They would see a company that employed hundreds of people, giving them capital to spend in the community, which created an environment where other businesses could thrive, and where a healthy community could exist. Bain bought some of those companies and took out huge loans on the companies' credit so that they could pay themselves hundreds of millions of dollars in "management fees". Often times the companies could not pay back the enormous loans and the companies went out of business, the workers were laid off and the entire community took a big hit. Even though the Bain people made out quite well, I'm sure some of the workers lost homes and had to resort to unemployment insurance, food stamps and other forms of government assistance to get by. So, who were the takers in this scenario? It seems to me that he laid-off workers had something taken from them and Bain did the taking.

What's worse is that we, the taxpayers, had to pay for Bain's greed/poor management by providing assistance to the workers that were laid off. As for Bain, they got sweetheart tax rates on their profits because--due to successful lobbying efforts--the government has apparently been convinced that their business model is somehow good for the country. It is the new American business model: collect the profits while leaving the taxpayers responsible for losses and the costs of collateral damages.

Of course, Bain is just one private equity (aka "vulture capital") operation. There are others. And there are banks that illegally foreclosed on peoples' homes, banks that invested peoples' life savings and retirement funds in schemes the banks knew were worthless. All so they could make enormous profits and pass on the bill for the damages to the taxpayers. Now, they call anyone who needs assistance as a result of their schemes a "taker" while they enjoy the title of "job creator". And they are appalled when anyone suggests that they pay back some of their ill-gotten gains by way of higher taxes.

I assume that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to figure out a way to fairly raise taxes on just the institutions that acted unethically. But I know that every thinking American would agree that carried interest profits should be taxed at the same rate as workers' wages. There is no stimulative effect to the economy from these special tax breaks and it rewards private equity firms for destroying jobs.

So, do you wonder why the pundits on TV who claim to have our best interests in mind don't scream about this issue and urge you daily to call your representatives to eliminate this subsidy for job loss? Could it be that they are paid millions of dollars to create controversy rather than find solutions to problems? Should we stop getting our information and talking points from them and assess for ourselves what issues deserve our immediate, focused attention? Only if we want to improve our country and economy, I suppose.

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

Are You Feeling Like Chinese Finger Cuffs?

For those of you that are Kevin Smith fans, this will make perfect sense: The  government is treating us like Chinese finger cuffs. One party has us from the front and one party has us from the rear and we haven't gotten wise enough to simply object to the treatment. Instead we just keep arguing about how bad the other party tastes or feels.

The recent government shutdown was a perfect example of the two parties acting toward their own political goals with no regard for the citizens of the country. Obama and the Democrats are widely considered to be the winners of the shutdown fiasco, along with Ted Cruz, who increased his popularity with some TEA Party constituents by proving that he is willing to destroy the country in order to pursue their narrow objectives.

As for the rest of us, we were handed the bill. $24 billion, the charge for getting a front row seat to the grotesque spectacle of grandstanding and political posturing. Do you feel you got your money's worth?

You would think that, as a society, we would attack the corruption in government that causes politicians to serve the special interest groups rather than work for the benefit of the country. But, we don't. We mostly cheer on one party and condemn the other, which keeps us in our same position: treated like Chinese finger cuffs.

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

Focus on the OTHER Tea Party

The OTHER Tea Party

You know people, it is long past time for a reset in this country. We need to drastically overhaul government and my belief is that most of us understand what we need to accomplish: control government spending and make politicians more accountable, all of which will virtually eliminate corruption. Then we just reform the way we elect politicians and how their campaigns are run, how they're financed and how they're recognized. Are we really going to look to the people who profit from this catastrophe and expect them to rush to fix it?

People, it is up to us.

We could get extreme. We could demand that all politicians be fired tomorrow and all new politicians will be elected; no one having ever been elected to public office shall be eligible. That would be a bit too extreme for my liking but I would be willing to discuss it and try to find the middle ground--where the majority of us are and settle on a reasonable compromise if I cannot convince the majority of intelligent, fair-minded people of my favored position in a civil discussion. Is that really so hard, people?

We are the People! Why are we not telling government how it needs to operate, rather than the other way around? With all this talk of "What do we cut, money for national defense or money for hungry children?" we have never stopped to consider that perhaps Congressional salaries, benefits and budgets should be examined! I know we can trim a lot of  that fat and we'd be much better for it. Not only will it help reduce the budget deficit and the national debt, but paying lower salaries to members of Congress--with fewer perks--will attract a different breed of public servant. You know, like teachers and fire-fighters and cops, many of whom do a difficult job extremely well. I'll admit it--even some of the cops. And those people do it for the right reasons. Can't we find some of those people? That don't want to get rich or be famous or be glamorous, but just do the right thing and try to make a positive difference? These people exist, I'm sure of it. But we cast out with the bait to lure snakes, eels and sucker fish.

Who Has the Power?

The ideals of eliminating corruption and wasteful spending should be universal. Are they not? So why can't we figure out a way to make government conform to them? It seems to me that we are too busy fighting with each other, trying to convince others and ourselves that people on the opposite end of the political spectrum are morons. Do you know what that's about, people? It's about television putting on the most extreme and outrageous people they can find and giving them all the air time so they can get good ratings. Those views that everybody hears from their favorite celebrity television personality are not really the concerns of the average American. Just like Congressional salaries, those issues are never discussed. The people on your TV are in the minority and they serve the interests of the minority. That minority that has all the wealth. But we have the power in this country. We are half of the balance. We need to be the counterweight to that wealth that they are glad to spend on political influence. And what happens when a scale in balance has one of its weights removed? We are experiencing it right now. We need to do our job! They're well-funded, determined and organized. We're over-fed, boozed up and apathetic. Is there any question of why we lost round 1?

And while the conservatives call the liberals "lib-tards" and the liberals call the conservatives "republicunts", nobody is bothering to break up Washington DC's little tea party. They've got a pretty sweet thing going and we think that they are going to clean it all up? Are we confused? We have to take charge of that initiative. We have to flex our power by the majority of us coming together to salvage what's left of our democracy. The good news is: we can make it even better than it was. (If we are open-minded) we now have more experience and a historical record on which to determine which government  constructs were wise and which were unwise. We can see where the system broke down and corruption was allowed to penetrate. It's just going to take the majority of us: the intelligent, rational, committed and determined people that I believe we are, to make our demands of government and get them implemented immediately. I'll get the ball rolling:

I would like to propose that elected officials should no longer be able to trade stocks from the night of their election until the day they leave office. We could even go more extreme with that and make it from the time they declare that they are running for office until their last day of service. I believe that there are a lot of Americans who would gladly make that sacrifice for the opportunity to serve their country. Where does the majority of the people stand on this issue?

Now you. Please leave a comment about where you stand on limiting Congress' stock trades while serving, and/or come up with your own proposal that you would like to have the majority of us adopt and demand that government implement.

**cynical me, I already have a feeling about which way this would most likely turn...**

~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 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/

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/

Breaking Down the Political Equation



*may not be mathematically accurate

The US political equation, like any other equation, has two sides. When things are not going well in the country, one or both sides of the political equation are out of whack. On one side, the citizens can become uninformed and/or apathetic and vote for incompetent politicians. On the other side, an incompetent government, elected by uninformed/apathetic citizens, will likely become corrupt and do things that harm the country.

I believe that every American would agree that both sides of the equation are out of whack. But which side of the equation are we spending most our effort trying to fix? From my perspective, we spend nearly 100% of our time trying to convince the citizens on the opposite side of the political spectrum to change their minds and vote for the greedy, corrupt and inept politicians that we prefer when compared to the other greedy, corrupt and inept politicians running. Meanwhile, on the opposite side of the equation, government has become so corrupt and dysfunctional that our country has been made a mess. Politicians insulate themselves from losing elections by taking money from special interests and by gerrymandering districts. They line their pockets by taking bribes and kickbacks and by taking advantage of their positions to do things that would land your or me in prison. Shouldn't we spend some effort attempting to fix the way government works? After all, how can you be upset with another citizen for voting for an awful politician who then passed a bad bill when they are almost all awful politicians and they are almost all bad bills?

Even a good bill that has the potential to become a beneficial law can be loaded with earmarks that rob taxpayers to fund politicians' pet projects. A politician that votes against the bill can be blamed for its failure to pass in the next campaign. Or, if they vote for it, they will be blamed for helping to pass a bill with wasteful earmarks. It is a no-win scenario for them and for us.

In 2010, TEA Party Republicans introduced a bill that would ban earmarks. Failing to get adequate support from Democrats or fellow Republicans, the bill failed. But what if we citizens demanded that a ban on earmarks be passed? That any politician that voted against the ban would be voted out of office in the next election? We could get this critical change made. And with a ban on earmarks, every politician could better be evaluated by their voting record without opposition to (or support of) earmarks to confuse the intention of their vote. It would make it much easier for voters to understand what policies their representatives honestly support and which they oppose.

How would you reform government?

There are other Congressional rules that need to be addressed to get government to function properly: reforming the filibuster, strengthening the rules regarding gifts from lobbyists and closing the revolving door between Congress and lobbying firms. Those few changes would have an incredible impact on improving the government.

If thinking of politics as a two-sided equation doesn't really cement things in for you--that our fight is with government and not with each other--then consider this: as an American, I would lay down my life to protect your right to worship and to express your faith--or any other expression--in every way that the First Amendment protects, or to protect your right to vote. I would lay down my life to protect your right to bear arms or to have access to a fair judicial system, should it be required. I would lay down my life to protect your right to have your tax dollars fairly collected, wisely spent and well-accounted for. Shouldn't that be more important than whether we see exactly eye-to-eye on matters of abortion or gun rights or what tax rates should be? I would hope that every American has the same devotion because, if we do, that should bond us like brothers and sisters. Then we can together look at the things that are wrong with the government and correct them. When thinking of those rights that we most cherish, who is the greater risk to them, your neighbor or the government?

If reforming the government sounds too daunting, imagine this: we force all of the money (or at least the dirty money) out of elections. That eliminates most of the corruption. Then, we re-draft the ethics rules of Congress. That eliminates the rest of corruption and eliminates the gridlock, horrible bills, wasteful spending and poor judgment. We get it done with oversight and accountability. I know that it isn't going to be just that easy. It is going to be a lot of work. And it means we all work together to watch what government is doing and keep it in line. But because the work is going to be hard, does it mean that we shouldn't be doing it? Is there one person anywhere who would argue that our efforts are better spent fighting about issues we will never resolve rather than addressing issues we can actually fix?

Click here to read my idea for how we begin to take on such an endeavor. There may be many ways of getting it accomplished. We just need to find the best solution and see it though. I refuse to believe that the status quo is the best we can do. That we can only play the politicians' game. A game that only serves to keep them in power and subjugate citizens to their will. A game that denies us our birthright: a country of our own.

I promise afterward that everyone can go back to fighting like the Hatfields & the McCoys. At least the government wont' be robbing you, molesting you and poisoning you all at the same time. We look at the Middle East and express disbelief at the unresolved conflicts there. But they have real issues over there! Our problems are so minor. We have just need to redirect our efforts.

This message may never get through to the hyper-partisans. Like telling a Bears fan that the Giants are the greatest team ever. But this will make sense to a lot of Americans who, I believe, will soon be the new voting majority.

This is where the Republicans have really failed in the 2012 election. They could have nominated Ron Paul for President. Ron Paul had a chance to beat Obama but even if he lost the election, I think this message of unity and government reform would really carry with Ron Paul supporters. I think it would appeal to large factions of the Tea Party and the Occupy movement as well. And any other pragmatic activists that don't care to classify themselves as any of the above. And, I suspect, a lot of dis-affected Republicans and a lot of fed-up Democrats. All over the country, that's a lot of people and the Republican Party could have positioned itself to be the standard bearer for that group. But it's not too late for them. It may not be too late for the Democrats either. Whichever party embraces the concept of direct democratic action to reform government, and is most cooperative in helping We the People achieve that new directive, will emerge as the stronger party. Realistically, I don't see either party giving up control so that their game can be better scrutinized and refereed. But aren't they supposed to be serving us, rather than the other way around? They have flipped the game and we still haven't caught on.

If you can't see that the government side of the equation is more seriously askew than our side, and more easily-correctable, then I suggest you reexamine your math, science, history, perceptive attributes, sense of reality, etc. The student that wants access to safe, available abortions isn't selling out your future for campaign cash. The NRA supporter that wants to own an arsenal of guns isn't bargaining with corporations and industry to poison our air and water and to protect their own wealth. Politicians are doing these things. When will we stop marching to the voting booth to defend them from other politicians involved in the same schemes? When will we find the courage and conviction to take them on? Can we get control of government any other way?

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

Mitt Romney's Investors

The Wealthy Few or the Welfare of the Nation?

Mitt Romney got himself into trouble a few weeks ago when a secretly recorded video of him was leaked to the press. In this video, Romney made his infamous "47%" comments as well as a bunch of other erroneous, insulting and insensitive comments about the citizens he intends to lead. Without a doubt, these comments were intended for a narrow group of his supporters and something that the Romney campaign wished would never have seen the light of day. But Romney has made other comments that I found to be far more revealing about him and those comments got little to no scrutiny by the press. The comments and their tone were perhaps less overt than the remarks revealed in the clandestine video and were therefore less worthy of attention from the sensationalist journalism pieces produced by our dysfunctional news media. So let's look at some of Romney's words and see if they reveal what his true positions are...

To me, the most damning statement Romney has made in his entire political career came in 2008 as he was running for the Republican nomination. All the Republicans were trying to make light of the economic downturn and looming financial collapse so as not to cast doubt on the efficacy of the Republicans' handling of the economy during the Bush years. George Bush famously stated: "I don't think we are headed to a recession...", while John McCain claimed that "The fundamentals of our economy are strong." Mitt Romney added that "People need to realize that this is a great time to buy." [Romney's quote went largely unnoticed so it is extremely difficult to find references to it. The web page linked to (above) is the only one I could find after about an hour of searching. Although it is not a "reliable source" it does prove that I didn't just imagine the quote, and the author of the article seems to have the same opinion I do.]

A great time to buy? Was Romney really suggesting that people who had lost their jobs and were finding it difficult to pay their mortgage go out and sink the rest of their money in the stock market? Or maybe he was suggesting that they use the remainder of their credit card balances to get into the stock market game? I presume not. He was really saying: "Rich people are in a great position to become richer still. So what's the problem?" To me, it was a pretty clear declaration of his domestic economic policy: to help rich people make more money. And if the poor and middle class can somehow find a way to be rich, then he'll help them too.

Granted, it is a lot of assumption to lay upon a single off-the-cuff statement made by Romney. But it did prick up my ears, so to speak. I've since been reading articles about the man, and although there are stories about Romney's generosity and humanitarian endeavors, they seem far fewer than the atrocities that he committed while at Bain Capital. Those stories support my initial assessment of the man.

Romney always made money for his investors, even when businesses they acquired failed, all of the workers were fired and their pensions they paid into were cancelled. Even in tragic cases such as those, Romney's investors turned handsome profits of hundreds of millions of dollars. So, in his role at Bain, the investors did very well but everyone else did horribly bad.

Now that Romney is running for president, one must ask him/herself an important question: who are Romney's investors? Those are the people that will do well in a Romney presidency. Will Romney consider himself to be the agent of the American people? Or will he consider people like Sheldon Adelson, who pledged to contribute $100 million to get him elected, and the Koch brothers to be among his primary investors? Once you determine whom his primary investors are, you have to wonder what their goals are. Will they recommend that Romney invest in schools, roads, bridges and programs that will benefit all citizens? Or with they suggest that Romney pay more attention to issues that really matter to them? Continued tax breaks, tilting the free market system to eliminate their competition, reducing regulations to allow business to increase profits by polluting the air and water?

If you did not give $100 million to the Romney campaign, then you are probably not going to be given the same attention as those that did. The issues you care about will likely languish while the very wealthy become wealthier still. Banks may go back to over-leveraging themselves at a ratio of 40 : 1, risking the greater economy. Then they'll take their profits offshore so they don't have to pay taxes to the US government that has given them much of their wealth since 2008. Yes, after the bailouts, your tax dollars went to make those banks wealthier through the Fed's "discount window". And we're still bailing out the banks through quantitative easing measures. And Romney himself has profited greatly from government bailouts.

As I see it, this election is really about which person will, as President, will best serve the entire country rather than cater to special interests. I hope that some of the information in this article will help to fill in the gaps of information that will help people to make a more-informed decision.

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

A Cry for Class Warfare

Can you afford a lobbyist? Do you think you'll get a fair shake without one?

I know that we are supposed to feel ashamed by the term "class warfare" but let’s get real for a moment: the very rich in this country and the large corporations steer our government. We all know this. They promote and lift up candidates whom they want elected. They write their own loopholes into the tax code. They write their own regulatory legislation. They have arranged for their corporate executives to head the regulatory agencies that are supposed to keep them honest and moral. They have corrupted and tilted the free market system in their favor. These are serious crimes against the citizens of this country. In many cases their actions are against the law (whether they actually get indicted and punished or not). But in some cases wealthy companies and individuals have written the laws governing their actions so that they can, almost literally, get away with murder.

And the Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission Supreme Court case gives these psychopathic "citizens" the ability to donate unlimited amounts of money to elections. This is certainly a recipe for disaster. The very rich in this country will be able to easily buy the politicians that they want to advance their agendas. Where will that leave us? If we ever intend to gain control over our government we must first get control of the money. That does not mean that the majority of us need to own a majority of the money. We simply need to have input on how money is allowed to influence elections, governance and the legislative process in OUR country.

Behind every bad government policy that gets passed, you will likely find a lobbyist that pushed for the legislation at the behest of a wealthy and well-connected corporate sponsor. Our country is where it is because it was steered to this place by the ruling class. This includes politicians, the very wealthy, powerful corporations and the few individuals that control almost all of the media in this country.

I’m sure that many people have not considered these points in reference to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Most of what they've heard about the movement has been packaged and delivered by mainstream media news and opining pundits. All of whom are wealthy individuals and work for powerful corporations.

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