A Little Disquisition on Big Government

Very much like most instruments created by humans—a knife, a car, even a weapon—a government is good or bad depending on whom it serves and whom it victimizes.

By Howard Zinn

Excerpted from the book Howard Zinn on History (Seven Stories Press, 2000, paper

USPSemploye.mailboxTHE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, which is the quintessential document of democracy, discusses the origin and purpose of government. It says that we are all endowed “with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It further says that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Well, if governments have the responsibility to secure for all of us our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that is a big order, calling, it may well be argued, for “big government.” This essay discusses the hypocrisy surrounding the cries of politicians-Democrats as well as Republicans-to do away with “big government.”

I have seen some of my most stalwart friends flinch before the accusation that they-in asking, let us say, for a single-payer health care system-were calling for “big government.” So insistent has been the press and the political leadership of the country-in both parties- that “big government” is a plague to be avoided, that otherwise courageous people on the Left have retreated before the attack. It’s an issue, therefore, that deserves some examination, using a bit of history.

When Clinton, in his 1996 campaign, announced happily that “the era of big government is over,” he was suggesting that the United States had gone through an unfortunate phase which was now ended. He was repeating the myth that there once was a golden past where the “free market” reigned and the nation followed Jefferson’s dictum: ‘that government is best which governs least.” Big government has been with the world for at least five hundred years, and became very big in this country (Jefferson never followed his own pronouncement, as he doubled the territory of the government with the Louisiana Purchase).

It was the rise of the modern national state in the 16th century that introduced big government, to centralize the tax system and thus raise enough money to subsidize the new world-wide trading organizations, like the Dutch East India Company and the British East India Company. Both of these companies were granted government charters around 1600, giving them monopoly rights to maraud around the world, trading goods and human beings, bringing wealth back to the home country.  The new national states now had to raise armies and navies, to protect the shipping trade (especially the slave trade) of these powerful companies, to invade other parts of the world, to forcibly take land, for trading and settling, from indigenous people. The state would use its power to drive out foreign competitors, to put down rebellions at home and abroad. “Big government” was needed, for the benefit of the mercantile and land-owning classes.

Adam Smith, considered the apostle of the “free market,” understood very well how capitalism could not survive a truly free market, if government was not big enough to protect it. He wrote, in the middle of the 18th century:

Laws and governments may be considered in this and indeed in every case as a combination of the rich to oppress the poor, and preserve to themselves the inequality of the goods, which would otherwise be soon destroyed by the attacks of the poor, who if not hindered by the government would soon reduce the others to an equality with themselves by open violence.

The American colonists, having fought and won the war for independence from England, faced the question of what kind of government to establish. In 1786, three years after the treaty of peace was signed, there was a rebellion of farmers in western Massachusetts, led by Captain Daniel Shays, a veteran of the war. The uprising was crushed, but it put a scare into those leaders who were to become our Founding Fathers. After Shays Rebellion, General Henry Knox warned his former commander, George Washington, about the rebels:

…they see the weakness of government; they feel at once their own poverty, compared to the opulent and their own force, and they are determined to make use of the latter in order to remedy the former. Their creed is that the property of the U.S. has been protected from the confiscations of Britain by the Joint exertions of all, and therefore should be the common property of all.

The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia for 1787 was called to deal with this problem, to set up “big government,” to protect the interests of merchants, slaveholders, land speculators, to establish law and order and avert future rebellions like that of Shays.

When the debate took place in the various states over ratification of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers appeared in the New York press to support ratification. Federalist Paper #10, written by James Madison, made clear why a strong central government was needed, to curb the potential demand of a “majority faction” for “an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked object.”

And so the Constitution set up big government, big enough to protect slaveholders against slave rebellion, to catch runaway slaves if they went from one state to another, to pay off bondholders, to pass tariffs on behalf of manufacturers, to tax poor farmers to pay for armies that would then attack the farmers if they resisted payment, as was done in the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania in 1794. Much of this was embodied in the legislation of the first Congress, responding to the request of the secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton.

For all of the nation’s history, that legislative pattern was to continue. Government would defend the interests of the wealthy classes. It would raise tariffs higher and higher to help manufacturers, give subsidies to shipping interests, and a hundred million acres of land free to the railroads. It would use the armed forces to clear Indians off their land, to put down labor uprisings, to invade countries in the Caribbean for the benefit of American growers, bankers, investors. This was very big government.

When the Great Depression produced social turmoil, with strikes and protests all over the nation, the government responded with laws for social security (which one angry senator said would “take all the romance out of life”), unemployment insurance, subsidized housing, work programs, money for the arts. And in the atmosphere created by the movements of the Sixties, Medicare and Medicaid were enacted. Only then did the cry arise, among politicians and the press, continuing to this day, warning against “big government.”

Of course, the alarms about “big government” did not extend to the enormous subsidies to business. When, after World War II, the aircraft industries, which had made enormous profits during the war (92% of their expansion paid for by the government), was in decline, Stuart Symington, Assistant Secretary of War for Air, wrote to the president of Aircraft Industries: “It looks as if our airplane industry is in trouble and it would seem to be the obligation of our little shop to do the best we can to help.” The help carne and has never stopped coming. Billions in subsidies each year to produce fighters and bombers.

When Chrysler ran out of cash in 1980, the government stepped in to help. (Try that next time you run out of cash.) Tax benefits, like the oil depletion allowance, added up over the years to hundreds of billions of dollars. For example, The New York Times reported in 1984 that the twelve top military contractors paid an average tax rate of 1.5% while middle-class Americans were paying 15% and more.

So it’s time to gently point out the hypocrisy as both Democrats and Republicans decry “big government.” When President Clinton signed the Crime Bill to build more federal prisons, when recently he called for billions more for the military budget, he did not refer to his campaign declaration that “the era of big government is over.”

Surely, with only a bit of reflection, it becomes clear that the issue is not big or little government, but government for whom? Is it the ideal expressed by Lincoln-government “for the people,” or is it the reality described by the Populist orator Mary Ellen Lease in 1890: “…a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street and for Wall Street.”

There is good evidence that the American people, whose common sense often resists the most energetic propaganda campaigns, understand this. Political leaders and the press have pounded away at their sensibilities with the fearful talk of “big government,” and so long as it is an abstraction, it is easy for people to go along, each listener defining it in his or her own way. But when specific questions are asked, the results are illuminating.

Again and again, public opinion surveys over the last decade have shown that people want the government to act to remedy economic injustice.

Last year, the Pew Research Center asked if it is “the responsibility of the government to take care of people who can’t take care of themselves? Sixty-one percent said they either completely agreed or mostly agreed. When, after the Republican Congressional Victory in 1994 The New York Times asked people their opinions on “welfare,” the responses were evenly for and against. The Times headline read: “PUBLIC SHOWS TRUST IN GOP CONGRESS,” but this misled its readers, because when the question was posed more specifically: “Should the government help people in need?” over 65 percent answered in the affirmative.

This should not surprise us. The achievements of the New Deal programs still glow warmly in the public memory: social security, unemployment insurance, the work programs, the minimum wage, the subsidies for the arts. There is an initial worried reaction when people are confronted with the scare words “big government.” But that falls away as soon as someone points to the G.I. Bill of Rights, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and loans to small business.

So let’s not hesitate to say: we want the government, responding to the Lincolnian definition of democracy, to organize, with the efficiency that it ran the G.I. Bill, that it runs Social Security and Medicare, a system that gives free medical care to everyone and pays for it out of a reformed tax system which is truly progressive. In short, we want everyone to be in the position of U.S. Senators, and members of the armed forces-beneficiaries of big, benevolent government.

“Big government” in itself is hardly the issue. That is here to stay. The only question is: whom will it serve?

The late Howard Zinn wrote A PEOPLE’S HISTORY, to dispel the cobweb of myths surrounding the origins of the United States.




Jonathan Westminster: "The 15% Solution," Serialization, 3rd Installment: Chapter Two

This is the third installment of a project that is likely to extend over a two-year-period from January, 2010.  It is the serialization of a book entitled The 15% Solution: A Political History of American Fascism, 2001-2022.  Under the pseudonym Jonathan Westminster and fictitious biography, the book is purportedly published in the year 2048 on the 25th Anniversary of the Restoration of Constitutional Democracy in the Re-United  States.  It was actually published in 1996 by the Thomas Jefferson Press, located in Port Jefferson, NY. The copyright is held by the Press.  Herein you will find Chapter 2.

Chapter Two

Fascism in America: An Overview

JONATHAN WESTMINSTER

Author’s Commentary:  How Fascism Came to the United States  [print_link]

Witting or unwitting, the "Tea Party" movement is a proto-fascist phenomenon

Many lengthy books have been written on the tale of how fascism came to the old United  States.  In this chapter I present a brief overview of the process.  Some further description and analysis of the nature of fascism and its advent in the old U.S. is provided by a Dino Louis essay reproduced in Appendix II.  [Editor’s note:  This is presently available only in the print version of the book.]

An ever deepening economic decline occurred in the country in the latter part of the 20th century.  The decline was not one that could be measured by the traditional yardstick of economic progress, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  It continued to rise at a modest, non-inflation-producing pace, the latter maintained for the benefit of the wealthy by the monetary policies of the central bank (the “Federal Reserve”).  But an increasing number of economists and other observers came to realize that the GDP did not tell all there was to tell about either the economy or the state of the nation (Cobb, et al).

As noted by Michael Lind, Dino Louis, Lester Thurow, and many other observers at the time, underneath the GDP climb, the poor were getting poorer and more numerous, the rich were getting richer, and everyone else was experiencing falling personal incomes and rising levels of personal and economic anxiety (DeParle; Phillips).  Lind called attention to the underlying reasons for this state of affairs, such as a regressive taxation policy and the export of capital (1995).

Lind also noted that not only were the rich getting richer, but they were going out of their way to publicly deny the facts of the rising gap between the rich and everyone else, to create the illusion that it was not happening, and to create the impression that the causes of the  economic malaise affecting almost everybody but them was caused by anything but them and their policies.  The “anything” could be anything from people of color to immigrants to the poor to the feminists to homosexuals to environmentalists to the United Nations Organization to the  “New World Order” to “international bankers” (read “Jews”).

In fact, as noted by Dino Louis, in a process driven at its base by under-investment at home and a concomitant export of capital abroad, the economy was rotting upwards from its foundations, with declining personal incomes, increasing job insecurity, the disaccumulation of labor from capital, and de-industrialization.  The rotting process was accelerated by the existence of a huge, ever-growing government debt, created in large part during the 1980s by the policies of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

Reaganite policy, in fact, had within a five-year period from 1981 changed the financial posture of the country from that of the world’s leading creditor nation to that of the world’s leading debtor nation.  This borrowing was undertaken to finance a vast expansion of the U.S. military, at a time when the nation was ostensibly at peace, and large tax cuts for the wealthy and the large corporations (McIntyre).  It produced a floridly growing economy at the time, for which the Reaganites took credit, but that was the product of nothing but old-fashioned Keynesian government pump-priming, although through a very narrow spigot that dropped the largess almost entirely upon the military-industrial complex.

Thus for many years leading up to this time, American society had been characterized by economic and social conditions which might have led to civil and/or labor unrest.  But many people were easily distracted from the realities of life and the true causes of their problems by the above-mentioned strategies of diversion.  They also included a domestic “anti-communist crusade” (against a virtually non-existent Communist Party), and the foreign “Cold War” against the old Soviet Union (designed not to “contain” it, as advertised, but to destroy it, which happened).  As noted, the diversionary strategies also included such elements as manufactured racism and xenophobia.

A Transition Era poet and philosopher described the latter strategy well (Morrison):

“Let us be reminded that before there is a final solution, there must be a first solution, a second one, even a third.  The move toward a final solution is not a jump.  It takes one step, then another, then another.  Something, perhaps, like this:

“1.  Construct an internal enemy, as both focus and diversion.

“2.  Isolate and demonize the enemy by unleashing and protecting the utterance of covert and coded name-calling and verbal abuse.  Employ ad hominem attacks as legitimate charges against that enemy.

“3.  Enlist and create sources and distributors of information who are willing to reinforce the demonizing process because it is profitable, because it grants power and because it works.

“4. Palisade all art forms; monitor, discredit or expel those that challenge or destabilize processes of demonization and deification.

“5.  Subvert and malign all representatives of sympathizers with this constructed enemy.

“6. Solicit, from among the enemy, collaborators who agree with and can sanitize the dispossession process.

“7.  Pathologize the enemy in scholarly and popular mediums; recycle, for example, scientific racism and the myths of racial superiority in order to naturalize the pathology.

“8.  Criminalize the enemy.  Then prepare, budget for, and rationalize the building of holding areas for the enemy—especially its males and absolutely its children.

“9. Reward mindlessness and apathy with monumentalized entertainments and with little pleasures, tiny seductions: a few minutes on television, a few lines in the press; a little pseudo-success; the illusion of power and influence; a little fun, a little style, a little consequence.

“10. Maintain, at all costs, silence.

“In 1995 racism may wear a new dress, buy a new pair of boots, but neither it nor its succubus twin fascism is new or can make anything new.  It can only reproduce the environment that supports its own health: fear, denial and an atmosphere in which its victims have lost the will to fight.”

In this analysis, Morrison retrospectively described the development of German Nazism in the 1930s based on the then-coming War Against the Jews (Davidowicz).  She also chillingly and accurately prophesied the coming of fascism to America in the early 21st century through the War Against the Peoples of Color, as the process described in this book might be called, leading ultimately and inevitably to the establishment of the New American Republics.

By the time the turn of the 21st century was reached, the economic decline affecting all sectors of society other than the truly wealthy was quickening, and social unrest was doing the same.  Then it was found by the wealthy and their political allies that the divisive/distractive strategies which had worked so well for so many years to keep a relative civil peace began to fail in meeting that objective.  This process led to increasingly violent outbursts on the part of increasing numbers of people from all walks of life.  And some of those outbursts began to focus on such matters as the widening gap between rich and poor, the loss of employment security, and the overall decline in the standard of living for most people.

The economic and political decision-makers of the society thus gradually came to view it as a necessity that significant levels of force and repression be used, or at least made ready, to prevent the occurrence of full-fledged rebellion.  Hence the final development of the fascist state in the old U.S..  But it had to be realized, if at all possible, by democratic means.

Why so?  Because the democratic tradition was strong in the United States of America.  The tradition, and the basic American concept, “it’s a free country,” had been encouraged by the operations of the political system from the time of the nation’s founding as the world’s first democracy, however limited at the time, in 1789.  “Free speech” and “freedom from government oppression” were slogans even of major elements of the Far Right, the foot soldiers of which would eventually and ironically become the agents of repression on the street and in the camps for the national decision-makers.

However, no country had ever previously become fascist by majority vote of the whole electorate.  Even in the Nazi Germany of the 1930s and 40s (where the fascists had taken power by constitutional means), the highest proportion of a free vote that the National Socialist (Nazi) Party had ever received was 37% (of a high voter turnout).

Just as in pre-World War II Germany, in the old U.S. it is unlikely that fascism, if openly put to a vote, could ever have attracted a majority of the eligible voters.  But given the realities of voting patterns, that was not necessary for the constitutional installation of fascism.  In the old U.S., even in Presidential elections, any voter turnout over 50% was considered good.  And so, in the late 20th century a strategy was developed by Right-Wing Reaction through which fascism could be brought to the old U.S. by Constitutional means, if not true majority vote.  It was called “The 15% Solution.”

“The 15% Solution”

“The 15% Solution” was an electoral strategy developed by the leading political organ of the Religious Right, the so-called “Christian Coalition” (ADL).  The “Christian Coalition” was an unabashed, unapologetic, and outspoken representative of that authoritarian thinking (see also Dino Louis’ discussion of the nature of fascism in Appendix II) which under their influence was so prominently represented in the politics of the Republican Party, beginning at their 1992 National Convention.  The strategy was designed to win elections even when the Coalition’s supporters comprised a distinct minority of the eligible electorate.  As an early Christian Coalition Executive Director, Ralph Reed, once said (Harkin): “I paint my face and travel at night.  You don’t know it’s over until you’re in a body bag.”

Although in later public statements, the Christian Coalition made attempts to cover up or even disavow the strategy, according to its 1991 National Field Director, it was formulated in the following way (Rodgers):

“In a Presidential election, when more voters turn out than [in] any other election you normally see, only 15% of eligible voters determine the outcomes of that election . . . .  Of all adults 18 and over, eligible to vote, only about 60 or 65% are actually registered to vote.  It might even be less than that, and it is less than that in many states. . . .

“Of those registered to vote, in a good turnout only 50% actually vote.  [Thus,] only 30% of those eligible actually vote. . . . 15% of adults eligible to vote determine the outcome in a high turnout election.  That happens once every four years. . . . In low turnout elections, city council, state legislature, county commissions, the percentage who [sic] determines who wins can be as low as 6 or 7%.  We don’t have to worry about convincing a majority of Americans to agree with us.  Most of them are staying home and watching ‘Roseanne'” [emphasis added. Author’s Note: “Roseanne” was a popular television program of that time.]

As one of the most influential leaders of the Religious Right, Paul Weyrich, succinctly put it (Freedom Writer, Nov., 1994):  “We don’t want everyone to vote.  Quite frankly, our leverage goes up as the voting population goes down.”

Elected allies of the Christian Coalition worked to make this wish a reality.  For example, a Governor of Virginia, George F. Allen, elected in 1992 with open Christian Coalition support, attempted by the use of the veto to prevent implementation of Federal legislation designed to make it easier for people to register to vote (NYT).

By the national election of 1994, Right Wing Reaction was well on its way to achieving its goal.  Only about 38% of eligible voters voted.  That turnout was part of the process that came to be referred to as the “Incredible Shrinking Electorate.”  With slightly more than half of those voting choosing the old Republican Party’s Congressional candidates that year, the Party achieved a major turnaround in Congressional representation and took control of that body.

Many of the new representatives were supported by the Christian Coalition and its allies.  In an odd representation of reality, most media and political figures represented that victory as one reflecting the views of the “American people” as a whole.  In fact, the Republican victory was achieved by garnering the support of under 20% of the eligible voters.  “The 15% Solution” was well within sight.

The political posture adopted by the opposition Democrats played a significant role in the creation of the Incredible Shrinking Electorate.  They gave the majority of increasingly disaffected people nothing to come out to the polls for but either a warmed-over imitation of Republican Party policies, or a set of well-intentioned but ineffective alternatives.

The minority of eligible voters who actually supported Republican, and later, Republican-Christian Alliance, policies turned out and voted for them.  Those who wanted something significantly different, consistent with the liberal tradition of the Democratic Party, not finding it on the ballot, just stayed home.  Implementation of “The 15% Solution” proceeded apace.  It was eventually used by the Right-Wing Reactionaries to impose their will on the majority of the people.  And just like their German Nazi predecessors, once they gained power through Constitutional means, they maintained it largely through anything but.

The Apogee of American Fascism

The apogee of fascism in America is generally considered to have been reached around 2017.  By that year, while the old Constitution (see Appendix I) was still technically in force, the old United States of America had for six years already been existing as that apartheid nation called the New American Republics.  The NAR was designed along the lines of plans for racial separation which had been developed by such late 20th century Right-Wing Republican leaders as David Duke of Louisiana (Patriquin).  It was the entirely predictable result of the American Right-Wing Reactionary movement that had at its core an ideology of black, (genetically-based), inferiority (Herrnstein and Murray), and explicit or implicit White Supremacy.

There were still two years to go before the Latin Wars in the Fourth Republic would begin to turn sour and the formal Restoration Declaration would be issued by the National Leadership Council of the Movement for the Restoration of Constitutional Democracy in the old United States.

The sole legal political party of the NAR was the American Christian Nation Party (ACNP).  In 2008, President Jefferson Davis Hague had formed it out of the Republican-Christian Alliance, successor to the old Republican Party.  In rhetoric at least , the NAR was a “Christian Nation,” achieving a goal of many leaders of Right-Wing Reaction in the old U.S. from a wide variety of backgrounds, such as the Rev. Pat Robertson, the head of the Christian Coalition, a one-time Governor of the state of Mississippi, Kirk Fordyce, and R.J. Rushdooney, a leader of Christian Reconstructionism and the Christian Coalition’s more secretive 20th century counterpart, the Coalition on Revival.

Rushdooney, a very influential if not very well-known leader of the Christian Right, for example “advocated total Christian theocracy and [once] wrote ‘Democracy is the great love of the failures and cowards of life'” (Freedom Writer, Jan., 1995, p. 1).  Of the legal theory of Christian Reconstructionism, the basis for the Supremacy Amendment (see Chapter nine), one David Barton said (Schollenberger): “Whatever is Christian is legal.  Whatever isn’t Christian is illegal.”

The NAR consisted of four “Republics.”  The “White Republic” controlled most of the territory of the old United States, as well as that of the four western Provinces of the old Canada.  The “Black Republic,” in some ways like the Black “Bantustans” of pre-liberation South Africa in the 20th century, was a series of disconnected, walled-off, “provinces” consisting of selected, old, predominantly black “inner cities,” carved out of the old U.S.  All blacks in the country not already living in what became the collective territory of the republic had been forcibly moved and confined to one “province” or another.

Similarly, the “Red Republic” was based on a set of walled-off former Indian Reservations to the west of the Mississippi, to which all Native Americans had been moved and confined.  Fourth was to have been the Hispanic Republic, consisting of all the nations of Latin America, to which, coincidentally, all persons of Hispanic (Latino) origin living in the old U.S. were to have been deported.  Full deportation was never achieved by the NAR government, just as full control of Latin America was never achieved either.  But a “Killer Fence” (see Chapter 15) had been constructed along the length of the old U.S.-Mexican border, and the Fourth Republic was on the books.

How did all of this come to pass legislatively, one might ask.  In brief, through the use of “The 15% Solution,” Right-Wing Reaction had by the national election of 2004 taken full control of the Congress and the Executive Branch at the Federal level, and of more than 38 state governments.  (The assent of 38 state legislatures was required for the ratification of any Constitutional Amendment.)

And where, one might also ask, was the Federal Supreme Court in all of this?  Well, it had not reviewed actions of the other two branches of the Federal government for their constitutionality since it had handed down the Anderson Decision in 2003.  In that decision (see Chapter five), based on the strict Borkian interpretation of the Doctrine of Original Intent, the Court removed from itself the power to review the actions of the other two branches of the Federal government for their Constitutionality.  The Court was thus out of the picture.  Anderson was the most far-reaching Supreme Court decision in U.S. history since “Dred Scott” of 1857.  In one sense, Anderson set the stage for the Second Civil War just as Dred Scott had set the stage for the First.

The Social Profile of the NAR

The very existence of the New American Republics in 2017 was the at least partly predictable result of policies that the American Christian Nation Party and its predecessors had been advocating and at times implementing for many years leading up to the NAR’s creation in 2011.   The social profile of the White Republic was fully predictable.  It was just what Right-Wing Reaction had told the American people it would impose upon them if it ever got complete power.  These changes were achieved largely through a series of Constitutional amendments which the Right-Wing Reactionary dominated national and state legislatures were able to adopt with ease in the first decade of the 21st century, even before the establishment of the NAR (see Chapters four, seven, eight, nine and twelve).

Freedom of speech was a thing of the past, except on paper.  “Christian Thinking,” as defined by the ACNP and based on the “Innerant Bible,” as interpreted by the ACNP, was the only way of thinking acceptable throughout the White Republic.  People not accepting “Christian Thinking” who did not keep their thoughts to themselves were subject to a wide variety of penalties, from loss of employment (a practice previewed in the old United States by the so-called “black-listing” practice of the “McCarthy Era” of the 1950s) to confinement in a “drug rehabilitation” camp.

Freedom of the press and the media in general was also a thing of the past.  Although all media outlets, newspapers, radio, television, and political virtual reality were privately owned, they were all licensed and no one who was not known to be an absolute supporter of ACNP policy could get a license.  Freedom of choice in the outcome of pregnancy had long since vanished.  The public school system that had been developed in the old United States since the early 19th century had ceased to exist, replaced by a combination of public and private religious schools and home-based education.  Sex education and the provision of contraceptives were banned.  Homosexuality had been made a crime.  The old “welfare” system had been terminated completely, and the principal remaining achievement of the “New Deal” of the President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-1945), the Social Security System, had been dismantled by a process Right-Wing Reaction called “Privatization.”

The 16th Amendment (providing for a Federal income tax) had been repealed.  Subject to Congressional review, the President had been given the power to rule by proclamation in “times of national emergency” (very similar to the “Enabling Act” passed by the German Reichstag [parliament] in the early days of the Hitlerian Chancellorship which gave him, through the democratic process, the authority to rule by decree [Shirer]).

By Constitutional amendment as well, the “Laws of God” were established as superior to those of the Constitution.  (Although at the time of the Supremacy Amendment’s ratification there had been some controversy about just what the phrase “Laws of God” meant, as noted, upon the creation of the NAR the ACNP proclaimed that thenceforth it would make all such determinations.)  The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the old Constitution had been repealed, under the Borkist theory of “Original Intent.”

Economically, as a result of the previously noted under-investment in both the private and public sectors, manufacturing, the basis of American world-wide economic dominance for most of the second half of the 20th century, had declined to a very low level.  However, all limitations on lumbering and coal mining had been eliminated, in order to establish what the ACNP called a “Resource Based Economy.”  That had made the takeover of the four Western Canadian Provinces with their largely untapped coal and timber reserves essential, and had at the same time reduced the NAR to the status of what in the 20th century had been called a “Third World” raw materials exporting country, although one operating at a very high level.

But a one-party, theocratic state, based on a racist theory of human existence, with a continually declining standard of living, and a significant number of oppressed people under its thumb, even if it came to power by democratic means, cannot maintain that power without the use of brute force.  The history of all other such countries demonstrated that fact.  Thus there was a national police force called “The Helmsmen,” “those with their hands on the helm of the ship of God’s state.”

The Helmsmen enforced ACNP rule and rules, legally and extra-legally (although there were no legal means to combat their extra-legal use of force).  Having both a public and a secret face, it had much in common with the Schutzstaffel (SS) of the old Nazi Germany.  A series of camps, under the control of the Helmsmen (as the “Concentration Camps” of Nazi Germany had been under the control of the SS), were located on closed former military bases.  They had been originally established by one of the first acts of “The Last Republican,” President Carnathon Pine (2001-2004), as part of the “Real Drug War” he had announced in his Inaugural Address of 2001 (see the next Chapter).

Well before 2017, the camps had been adapted to the broader purpose of confining, in not too pleasant surroundings, opponents of the regime.  (The camps were, however, not nearly as unpleasant as the extermination camp for “homosexuals” which would be set up in 2020 as part of the “Second Final Solution” [see Chapter 18].)  As noted, the Mexican border had long since been closed with a pro-active, at times seemingly life-like, “Killer Fence.”  More advanced versions of the “Killer Fence” were used to completely isolate the “Provinces” of both the Black and Red Republics.

And that, in brief, is a picture of the NAR in 2017.  This book will fill in that picture, will add color, depth, and focus to it, by tracing the history of the Fascist Period through a description and analysis of the documents which shaped it, and by hearing the voices of a few of those who lived it.  In brief here is presented an overview of that documentary history.

The Documentary Trail of American Fascism

2001  The Inauguration of President Pine, the Last Republican, and the Declaration of the Real Drug War.

2002  The “Preserve America” (30th) Amendment to the Constitution. It provided that henceforth no person could become a citizen of the United States unless at least one parent were a citizen of the United States.

2003  The Supreme Court decision in Anderson v. the United States.  It reversed the early landmark decisions by the Court of Chief Justice John Marshall, from Marbury v. Madison (1801) to McColluch v. Maryland (1823), which had originally established the Supreme Court’s power to review and void on Constitutional grounds Executive and Legislative branch actions, a power nowhere to be explicitly found in the Constitution.

2004  The First Inaugural Address of President Jefferson Davis Hague (delivered from the National Cathedral on Christmas Day).  He had won the Presidency as the candidate of the new Republican-Christian Alliance.

2005  The Morality (31st) Amendment to the Constitution.  It outlawed abortion under any circumstances; prohibited any teaching in any educational institution on any matters concerning sexual functioning; declared homosexuality to be a matter of choice and denied any civil rights protections to homosexual persons; prohibited all forms of Federal, state, or local government funded outdoor relief for the poor; and repealed the 16th Amendment (which had established the income tax).

2006  The Balancing (32nd) Amendment to the Constitution.  It required a balanced Federal budget, with no provisions for exceptions; required a two-thirds vote of the membership of each House of Congress for the approval of any tax increase; established a line-item veto; repealed the Fourth Amendment (prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure); and gave the President the power to declare “special emergencies” during which he could rule by decree.

2007  The Supremacy (33rd) Amendment to the Constitution.  It gave the President and/or the Congress the power to declare the Laws of God as superior to those of the Constitution.  It bound all judges, Federal and state, to abide by the terms of the amendment.  It allowed the establishment of religious tests for any elected or appointed government official.  Finally, it guaranteed organized prayer in the public schools.

2008  Hague’s Second Inaugural.  He announced the planned conversion of the Republican-Christian Alliance into the American Christian Nation Party.

2009  The Proclamation of Right of 2009.  It made homosexuality a crime.

2010  The Original Intention (34th) Amendment to the Constitution.  It repealed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution (that had, respectively, abolished slavery, among other things applied the due process guarantee of the 5th Amendment to the states, and guaranteed the right to vote to former slaves and other persons of color).

2011  The Declaration of Peace.  On July 4 of that year, it established the New American Republics (NAR).

2013  The Natural Resources Access Act.  Among other things, it terminated the National Parks and National Forests systems.

2015  The National Plan for Social Peace.  It was intended, among other things, to deal with the many social and legal problems not solved and/or created by the Fascist Period Constitutional Amendments.

2017  The Legitimation Treaty of 2017.  This tri-partite Treaty, between the NAR, the rump Canadian government based in the Maritime Provinces, and the Republic of Quebec (RQ), recognized the independence of the RQ, the annexation of the Western Canadian provinces to the White Republic of the NAR, and the partition of the former Canadian Province of Ontario between the NAR and the RQ.

2019  The Restoration Declaration.  The first formal statement by the new National Leadership Council of the Movement for the Restoration of Constitutional Democracy, which for the first time joined together previously unconnected resistance movements in the Four Republics.

2020  The Second Final Solution (the Second Holocaust).  It was a secret program, purportedly designed to exterminate the remaining homosexual population in the NAR.  However, its real purpose was to exterminate, without involving the local messiness created by the Death Squads, any opponents of the regime it could find.

2021 – 2023  The intervention by the East Asian Confederation in 2021, the successful conclusion of the Second Civil War in 2022, and the Restoration of Constitutional Democracy in 2023.  Restoration formally dissolved the NAR (in the process formally liberating the Latin American countries), recognized the establishment of the Federal Republic of Canada within the former Canadian boundaries, including Quebec, with the reestablishment of the former U.S.-Canadian border, and created the Re-United States of America.  The new Constitution, based in many ways on the old but in many ways different too, featured strengthened protections for individual freedom and liberty, and strengthened governmental powers for intervention in the operations of the economy.

References:

ADL: Anti-Defamation League, The Religious Right: The Assault on Tolerance & Pluralism in America, New York: 1994, pp. 31-39.

Cobb, C., Halstead, T., and Rowe, J., “If the GDP Is Up, Why Is America Down?” The Atlantic Monthly, October, 1995, p. 59.

Davidowicz, L.S., The War Against the Jews, 1933-1945, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1975.

DeParle, J., “Census Sees Falling Income and More Poor,” New York Times, October 7, 1994.

Freedom Writer, “Church Organization is key to Coalition’s success,” November, 1994, p. 2.

Freedom Writer, “Profile Chalcedon,” January, 1995, p. 1.

Freedom Writer, “Concerned About Concerned Women of America,” January, 1995, p. 3.

Harkin, T., Fund-raising letter, Washington, DC: July, 1995.

Herrnstein, R.J. and Murray, C., The Bell Curve, New York: The Free Press, 1994.

Lind, M., “To Have And Have Not,” Harper’s Magazine, June, 1995, p.  35.

McIntyre, R.S., “The Populist Tax Act of 1989,” The Nation, April 2, 1988, p. 445.

Morrison, T., “Racism and Fascism,” The Nation, May 29, 1995, p. 760.

NYT: New York Times, “U.S. Countersues Virginia Over Motor Voter Law,” July 9, 1995.

Patriquin, R., “Duke plan calls for dividing America,” Shreveport Journal,  February 7, 1989.

Phillips, K., The Politics of Rich and Poor, New York: Random House, 1990.

Rodgers, G., “Turning Out the Christian Vote in 1992,” Christian Coalition Conference held at Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA, Nov. 15-16, 1991 (partial transcript, p. 16).

Schollenberger, J., “Concerned About Concerned Women for America,”  The Freedom Writer, January, 1995, p. 3.

Shirer, W.L., The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960, pp. 198-200.

——————————————-

The original trade paperback edition (1996, new) of The 15% Solution is available for purchase from BuzzFlash.com. Used copies of both the trade paperback and hardcover original editions can also be found on Amazon.com and  BarnesandNoble.com.  The 2004 print-on-demand re-issue of the book from Xlibris, with a New Introduction dealing with the first four years of the real Republican Presidency that began in 2001, can be found at Xlibris.com, as well as at  Amazon.com and  BarnesandNoble.com.  There is a “Sub-Home Page” for this serialization at the lower right-hand corner of the Home Page of www.TPJmagazine.us.  It contains such items as the Disclaimer, the cast of characters, the author’s bio., cover copy, and several (favorable) reviews.  Also, it will have a full archive of all the chapters as they are published over time.  The serialization is appearing as well on www.TPJmagazine.us, Dandelion Salad, The Greanville POST, and TheHarderStuff newsletter.

Crossposted with BuzzFlash on Tue, 03/16/2010

http://blog.buzzflash.com/contributors/3062




Physicians denounce Obama's bill

A false promise of reform—

Pro-single-payer doctors: Health bill leaves 23 million uninsured

Created Monday, March 22, 2010 [print_link]

For Immediate Release
March 22, 2010

Contact:
Oliver Fein, M.D.
Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H.
David Himmelstein, M.D.
Margaret Flowers, M.D.
Mark Almberg, PNHP, (312) 782-6006,
mark@pnhp.org

The following statement was released today by leaders of Physicians for a National Health Program, www.pnhp.org. Their signatures appear below.

As much as we would like to join the celebration of the House’s passage of the health bill last night, in good conscience we cannot. We take no comfort in seeing aspirin dispensed for the treatment of cancer.

Instead of eliminating the root of the problem – the profit-driven, private health insurance industry – this costly new legislation will enrich and further entrench these firms. The bill would require millions of Americans to buy private insurers’ defective products, and turn over to them vast amounts of public money.

The hype surrounding the new health bill is belied by the facts:

  • About 23 million people will remain uninsured nine years out. That figure translates into an estimated 23,000 unnecessary deaths annually and an incalculable toll of suffering.
  • Millions of middle-income people will be pressured to buy commercial health insurance policies costing up to 9.5 percent of their income but covering an average of only 70 percent of their medical expenses, potentially leaving them vulnerable to financial ruin if they become seriously ill. Many will find such policies too expensive to afford or, if they do buy them, too expensive to use because of the high co-pays and deductibles.
  • Insurance firms will be handed at least $447 billion in taxpayer money to subsidize the purchase of their shoddy products. This money will enhance their financial and political power, and with it their ability to block future reform.
  • The bill will drain about $40 billion from Medicare payments to safety-net hospitals, threatening the care of the tens of millions who will remain uninsured.
  • Health care costs will continue to skyrocket, as the experience with the Massachusetts plan (after which this bill is patterned) amply demonstrates.

It didn’t have to be like this. Whatever salutary measures are contained in this bill, e.g. additional funding for community health centers, could have been enacted on a stand-alone basis.

Similarly, the expansion of Medicaid – a woefully underfunded program that provides substandard care for the poor – could have been done separately, along with an increase in federal appropriations to upgrade its quality.

But instead the Congress and the Obama administration have saddled Americans with an expensive package of onerous individual mandates, new taxes on workers’ health plans, countless sweetheart deals with the insurers and Big Pharma, and a perpetuation of the fragmented, dysfunctional, and unsustainable system that is taking such a heavy toll on our health and economy today.

This bill’s passage reflects political considerations, not sound health policy. As physicians, we cannot accept this inversion of priorities. We seek evidence-based remedies that will truly help our patients, not placebos.

A genuine remedy is in plain sight. Sooner rather than later, our nation will have to adopt a single-payer national health insurance program, an improved Medicare for all. Only a single-payer plan can assure truly universal, comprehensive and affordable care to all.

By replacing the private insurers with a streamlined system of public financing, our nation could save $400 billion annually in unnecessary, wasteful administrative costs. That’s enough to cover all the uninsured and to upgrade everyone else’s coverage without having to increase overall U.S. health spending by one penny.

Moreover, only a single-payer system offers effective tools for cost control like bulk purchasing, negotiated fees, global hospital budgeting and capital planning.

Polls show nearly two-thirds of the public supports such an approach, and a recent survey shows 59 percent of U.S. physicians support government action to establish national health insurance. All that is required to achieve it is the political will.

The major provisions of the present bill do not go into effect until 2014. Although we will be counseled to “wait and see” how this reform plays out, we cannot wait, nor can our patients. The stakes are too high.

We pledge to continue our work for the only equitable, financially responsible and humane remedy for our health care mess: single-payer national health insurance, an expanded and improved Medicare for All.

Oliver Fein, M.D.
President

Garrett Adams, M.D.
President-elect

Claudia Fegan, M.D.
Past President

Margaret Flowers, M.D.
Congressional Fellow

David Himmelstein, M.D.
Co-founder

Steffie Woolhandler, M.D.
Co-founder

Quentin Young, M.D.
National Coordinator

Don McCanne, M.D.
Senior Health Policy Fellow

******

Physicians for a National Health Program (www.pnhp.org) is an organization of 17,000 doctors who support single-payer national health insurance. To speak with a physician/spokesperson in your area, visit www.pnhp.org/stateactions or call (312) 782-6006.

Physicians for a National Health Program
29 E Madison Suite 602, Chicago, IL 60602 ¤
Find us on a map
Phone (312) 782-6006 | Fax: (312) 782-6007 | email:
info@pnhp.org
© PNHP 2010




HOWARD ZINN: "Je ne suis pas Marxiste"

Crosspost with http://invereskstreet.blogspot.com/2006/09/howard-zinns-je-ne-suis-pas-marxiste.html

The late Howard Zinn gives Marx his humanity back, warts and all.

The following is reprinted from The Zinn Reader (1997, Seven Stories Press, pp 574-578) and with the permission of the author.

 

HowardZinn(c)RobinHollandFOR A LONG TIME I thought that there were important and useful ideas in Marxist philosophy and political economy that should be protected from the self-righteous cries on the right that “Marxism is dead”.

Not long ago, someone referred to me publicly as a “Marxist professor.” In fact, two people did. One was a spokesman for “Accuracy in Academia,” worried that there were “five thousand Marxist faculty members” in the United States (which diminished my importance, but also my loneliness). The other was a former student I encountered on a shuttle to New York, a fellow traveller. I felt a bit honoured. A “Marxist” means a tough guy (making up for the pillowy connotation of the “professor”), a person of formidable politics, someone not to be trifled with, someone who knows the difference between absolute and relative surplus value, and what is commodity fetishism, and refuses to buy it.

I was also a bit taken aback (a position which yoga practitioners understand well, and which is good for you about once a day). Did

“Marxist” suggest that I kept a tiny stature of Lenin in my drawer and rubbed his head to discover what policy to follow to intensify the contradictions o the imperialist camp, or what songs to sing if we were sent away to such a camp?

Also, I remembered that famous statement of Marx: “Je ne suis pas Marxiste.” I always wondered why Marx, an English-speaking German who had studied Greek for his doctoral dissertation, would make such an important statement in French. But I am confident that he did make it, and I think I know what brought it on. After Marx and his wife Jenny had moved to London, where they lost three of their six children to

illness and lived in squalor for many years, they were often visited by a young German refugee named Pieper. This guy was a total “noodnik”

(there are “noodniks” all along the political spectrum stationed ten feet apart, but there is a special Left Noodnik, hired by the police,

to drive revolutionaries batty). Pieper (I swear, I did not make him up) hovered around Marx gasping with admiration, once offered to

translate Das Kapital into English, which he could barely speak, and kept organising Karl Marx Clubs, exasperating Marx more and more by

insisting that every word Marx uttered was holy. And one day Marx caused Pieper to have a severe abdominal cramp when he said to him:

“Thanks for inviting me to speak at your Karl Marx Club. But I can’t. I’m not a Marxist.”

That was a high point in Marx’s life, and also a good starting point for considering Marx’s ideas seriously without becoming a Pieper (or a

Stalin, or Kim Il Sung, or any born-again Marxist who argues that every word in Volume One, Two and Three, and especially in the Grundrisse, is unquestionably true). Because it seems to me (risking that this may lead to my inclusion in the second edition of Norman Podhoretz’s Register of Marxists, Living or Dead), Marx had some very useful thoughts.

For instance, we find in Marx’s short but powerful Theses on Feuerbach the idea that philosophers, who always considered their job was to

interpret the world, should now set about changing it, in their writings, and in their lives. Marx set a good example himself. While history has treated him as a secondary scholar, spending all his time in the library of the British Museum, Marx was a tireless activist all his life. He was expelled from Germany, from Belgium, from France, was arrested and put on trial in Cologne.

Exiled to London, he kept his ties with revolutionary movements all over the world. The poverty-ridden flats that he and Jenny Marx and their children occupied became busy centres of political activity, gathering places for political refugees from the continent.

True, many of his writings were impossibly abstract (especially those on political economy; my poor head at the age of nineteen swam, or

rather drowned, with ground rent and differential rent, the falling  rate of profit and the organic composition of capital). But he departed from that constantly to confront the events of 1848, the Paris Commune, rebellion in India, the Civil War in the United States.

The manuscripts he wrote at the age of twenty-five while an exile in Paris (where he hung out in cafes with Engels, Proudhon, Bakunin, Heine, Stirner), often dismissed by hard-line fundamentalists as “immature”, contain some of the most profound ideas. His critique of capitalism in those Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts did not need any mathematical proofs of “surplus value.” It simply stated (but did not state it simply) that the capitalist system violates whatever it means to be a human. The industrial system Marx saw developing in Europe not only robbed them of the products of their work, it estranged working people from their own creative responsibilities, from one another as human beings, from the beauties of nature, from their own true selves. They lived out their lives not according to their own inner needs, but according to the necessities of survival.

Karl_Marx_001This estrangement from self and others, this alienation from all that was human, could not be overcome by an intellectual effort, by something in the mind. What was needed was a fundamental, revolutionary change in society, to create the conditions – a short workday, a rational use of the earth’s natural wealth and people’s natural talents, a just distribution of the fruits of human labour, a new social consciousness – for the flowering of human potential, for a leap into freedom as it had never been experienced in history.

Marx understood how difficult it was to achieve this, because, no matter how “revolutionary” we are, the weight of tradition, habit, the

accumulated mis-education of generations, “weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living.”

Marx understood politics. He saw that behind political conflicts were questions of class: who gets what. Behind benign bubbles of togetherness (We the people…our country…national security), the powerful and the wealthy would legislate on their own behalf. He noted (in The Eighteenth Brumaire, a biting, brilliant, analysis of the Napoleonic seizure of power after the 1848 Revolution in France) how a modern constitution could proclaim absolute rights, which were then limited by marginal notes (he might have been predicting the tortured constructions of the First Amendment in our own Constitution), reflecting the reality of domination by one class over another regardless of the written word.

He saw religion, not just negatively as “the opium of the people,” but positively as the “sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, the soul of soulless conditions.” This helps us understand the mass appeal of the religious charlatans of the television screen, as well as the work of Liberation Theology in joining the soulfulness of religion to the energy of revolutionary movements in miserably poor countries.

Marx was often wrong, often dogmatic, often a “Marxist.” He was sometimes too accepting of imperial domination as “progressive,” a way of bringing capitalism faster to the third world, and therefore hastening, he thought, the road to socialism. (But he staunchly supported the rebellions of the Irish, the Poles, the Indians, the Chinese, against colonial control.)

He was too insistent that the industrial working class must be the agent of revolution, and that this must happen first in the advanced capitalist countries. He was unnecessarily dense in his economic analysis (too much education in German universities, maybe) when his clear, simple insight into exploitation was enough: that no matter how valuable were the things workers produced, those who controlled the economy could pay them as little as they liked, and enrich themselves with the difference.

Personally, Marx was sometimes charming, generous, self-sacrificing; at other times arrogant, obnoxious, abusive. He loved his wife and children, and they clearly adored him, but he also may have fathered the son of their German housekeeper, Lenchen.

The anarchist, Bakunin, his rival in the International Workingmen’s Association, said of Marx: “I very much admired him for his knowledge and for his passionate and earnest devotion to the cause of the proletariat. But…our temperaments did not harmonize. He called me a sentimental idealist, and he was right. I called him vain, treacherous, and morose, and I was right.” Marx’s daughter Eleanor, on the other hand, called her father “…the cheeriest, gayest soul that ever breathed, a man brimming over with humour”.

He epitomised his own warning, that people, however advanced in their thinking, were weighted down by the limitations of their time. Still, Marx gave us acute insights, inspiring visions. I can’t imagine Marx being pleased with the “socialism” of the Soviet Union. He would have been a dissident in Moscow, I like to think. His idea of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” was the Paris Commune of 1871, where

endless arguments in the streets and halls of the city gave it the vitality of a grass roots democracy, where overbearing officials could be immediately booted out of office by popular vote, where the wages of government leaders could not exceed that of ordinary workers, where the guillotine was destroyed as a symbol of capital punishment. Marx once wrote in the New York Times that he did not see how capital

punishment could be justified “in a society glorifying in its civilisation.”

Perhaps the most precious heritage of Marx’s thought is his internationalism, his hostility to the nation state, his insistence that ordinary people have no nation they must obey and give their lives for in war, that we are all linked to one another across the globe as human beings. This is not only a direct challenge to modern capitalist nationalism, with its ugly evocations of hatred for “the enemy” abroad, and its false creation of a common interest for all within certain artificial borders. It is also a rejection of the narrow nationalism of contemporary “Marxist” states, whether the Soviet Union, or China, or any of the others.

Marx had something important to say not only as a critic of capitalism, but as a warning to revolutionaries, who, he wrote in The German Ideology, had better revolutionise themselves if they intend to do that to society. He offered an antidote to the dogmatists, the hard-liners, the Piepers, the Stalins, the commissars, the “Marxists.” He said: “Nothing human is alien to me.”

That seems a good beginning for changing the world.

Howard Zinn




TOO MUCH: Tracking excess and inequality

TOO MUCH

January 25, 2010 [print_link]

Tracking excess and inequality

harryMitchellARIZ

Free-marketer, avuncular Arizona Rep. Harry Mitchell (D) sees nothing wrong with obscene wealth.

Paul Volcker, the Financial Times believes, has finally come “in from the cold.” Remember Paul Volcker? Right after the 2008 elections, many thoughtful economic analysts hoped the new President Obama would consider Volcker, a former Federal Reserve Board chair, for the top slot at Treasury.

The reason? Volcker had emerged, over recent years, as a principled critic of excess at the top of America’s economic ladder. He had vigorously opposed attacks by wealthy families on the estate tax. In 2008, he blamed the global high-finance meltdown on Wall Street’s wild, unregulated chase after personal fortune.

But the new White House would end up giving Treasury to the Wall Street-friendly Timothy Geithner. The 82-year-old Volcker would be named, instead, to chair the White House’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board – and then ignored.

Until last week. On Thursday, the President, with Volcker at his side, proposed new regulations that directly challenge the source of beaucoup bank riches. Does this White House embrace of Volcker signify a new willingness to confront our richest? We can only hope so. Those richest, says a new Capitol Hill analysis, have never been richer. We have the details in this week’s Too Much.

 

GREED AT A GLANCE

George W. Bush may be history, but support for extending his tax cuts for America’s rich is growing – among Democrats. The Bush tax cuts will all sunset at the end of 2010 unless Congress acts to extend them. And Congress should do just that, says Rep. Gerry Connolly, a Virginia Democrat. A Dow Jones reporter last week found Connolly arguing for the “logic” of “leaving well-enough alone for now, given the fragility of the economic recovery.” Rep. Harry Mitchell, a Democrat from Arizona, is urging President Obama to reject any rate hike on the taxes the wealthy pay on capital gains, dividends, and top-bracket income. Says Mitchell: “We need to retain these tax cuts that encourage investment that stimulates growth and job creation.”

If Congressmen Connolly and Mitchell need some evidence for their contention – and conviction – that we can’t afford to tax a single more dollar out of rich people’s pockets, they can find plenty in the luxury game sector. That sector is creating jobs right and left, to meet the booming demand for “sculptural table-tennis tables” that go for $40,000 a pop and hand-crafted chess sets that retail at $55,000. Esquire magazine just hosted a show in Manhattan that featured the jazziest of these “investments” in home entertainment. The biggest buzz-generator of them all: an $80,000 pool table that electronically tracks pool balls as they roll, “revealing a hidden image on the table’s felt.” Today’s young affluent male, says Esquire publisher Stephen Jacoby, “deserves to enjoy himself.”

This year’s Super Bowl, the 44th all-time, will feature a first: a “super fleet of luxury armored limousines.” Some 25 bullet-proof Vault-brand limos will be converging on Miami from a Dallas company that specializes in helping “people of wealth, power, and fame” better face “threats to their personal well-being.” Each new armored limo, says Vault PR chief Wally Lynn, offers “customers a luxurious environment” where they can “relax, have fun, and minimize risk.” Limo armoring first became a lucrative business over a decade ago in Brazil, then the world’s most unequal nation. Over 120 firms are now armoring up vehicles for Brazil’s affluent, and the tab has dropped from $55,000 to just $22,000 an auto . . .

High up in the Alps, the awesomely affluent worry more about snow tires than car armor. “White weeks” – ski holidays at exclusive alpine resorts – have become de rigueur for many of the world’s most financially fortunate. The most exclusive resort for the glitterati: Courchevel 1850 in Three Valleys, France. Property at Courchevel averages about €37,000 per square meter, a price that puts a 1,000-square-foot chalet at just shy of $16 million. If you’re only planning on a daytrip, be forewarned. In Three Valleys, says a new report on Europe’s ten most expensive ski resorts, you won’t find a beer under $6.50 in the entire town . . .

Alpine ski resorts are having their best winter in years. But that’s not the only sign the recession has ended – for the global super rich. Sales for the international luxury retailer Richemont, maker of Cartier watches among other baubles, jumped 25 percent in 2009’s last quarter. Meanwhile, over in India, deep pockets have already snapped up that nation’s entire 2010 allotment of the new $600,000 Rolls-Royce Ghost. The first of the 60 new cars will be delivered next month. Luxury automakers are also funneling new cars to Saudi Arabia. The most prized: the new $1.6 million Zonda from Pagani, an Italian specialty house.

 

Wall Street’s Bonus Binge in Perspective

A relative handful of Americans, says a key congressional panel, will take home more this year than half the nation’s taxpayers combined.

Americans worried about the ever-intensifying concentration of wealth at America’s economic summit have been focusing of late, quite understandably, on the latest annual round of Wall Street bank bonus awards.

But we now have even more reason to worry about our savagely unequal distribution of income and wealth – from researchers at the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. Earlier this month, that panel released income estimates for the coming year. They make for a sobering read.

In 2010, the tax panel calculates, a little over 1 million U.S. taxpayers will report incomes over $500,000. These 1 million top-earners will collect an astounding $241 billion more in income this year than the just under 80 million taxpayers who will take home less than $40,000.

Tax GapWall Street’s movers and shakers did their best last week to camouflage their contribution to this enormous national income imbalance.

At Goldman Sachs, CEO Lloyd Blankfein announced that his giant bank would be devoting a mere $16.2 billion to the pay pool for Goldman’s 32,500 employees, far less than the $20 billion-plus that financial analysts had expected.

Goldman, overall, is devoting only 35.8 percent of the bank’s record 2009 revenue to compensation. Last year, pay ate up 48 percent of Goldman revenue.

Goldman’s chief financial officer, David Viniar, wants all of us to consider this smaller payout share a thoughtful, conscientious bank response to widespread public concern over excessive banker compensation.

“We are not deaf to the calls for restraint,” noted Viniar, “and we heard them.”

Restraint? Even with the smaller share of bank revenue going to pay, the “average” Goldman employee will pocket $498,153 for the year.

Relatively few Goldman employees, of course, will actually see anything close to half a million dollars. Goldman’s top bankers and traders, as always, will see far higher rewards than the bank’s clerks and receptionists.

How much higher? We won’t know the details until later this year when New York state attorney general Andrew Cuomo will release his analysis of bank payouts.

One significant Goldman Sachs shareholder isn’t waiting to find out. The public agency that runs mass transit in the Philadelphia area last week filed suit against Goldman executives for their ongoing bonus grab.

“Goldman’s employees are unreasonably overpaid for the management functions that they undertake,” the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority lawsuit charges.

The plaintiffs may want to call billionaire investor Warren Buffett to testify on their behalf. Buffett last week exploded at the sheer greed he continues to see on Wall Street. Any bank CEOs who go to the government for bailout billions, Buffett told Fox Business News, should have to “forfeit all their net worth.”

“Make it so the CEO of the institution that fails or that goes to the government and needs help really gets destroyed himself financially,” said Buffett. “I mean, why should he come out any better than somebody who gets laid off from a job as an autoworker?”

Goldman Sachs has so far repaid the $10 billion in bailout aid the bank collected under the federal TARP program. But the bank received another $43.4 billion of direct benefit from other bailout programs that has never been reimbursed.

The American people may not know these exact numbers. But they get the drift, and their support for taking on Wall Street is soaring. A Washington Post-ABC News poll, released Thursday, found that 73 percent of Americans would support “a special tax on bonuses over $1 million.”

By a 72-to-19 percent margin, adds a new CBS poll, Americans now feel that the federal bailout has benefited “mostly just a few big investors and people who work on Wall Street.”

That judgment may be a but unfair. Last week, after all, Goldman Sachs did earmark $500 million of its revenue for charity. That truly magnanimous gesture steers into good works all of 1 percent of the company’s record 2009 rake-in.

 

In Review

Class Struggle at the Corporate Summit

Lucian Bebchuk, Martijn Cremers, and Urs Peyer, CEO Centrality. Harvard University John M. Olin Center for Law, Economics, and Business, Discussion Paper No. 601,

“Honor among thieves” may or may not exist. We just don’t have the data to know for sure. But sharing among top corporate executives? We now know, with some serious scholarly certainly, that America’s CEOs do not share the wealth – with their fellow corporate executives.

Harvard’s Lucian Bebchuk, Yale’s Martijn Cremers, and the Swiss economist Urs Peyer have been publishing academic research on compensation within top executive teams for several years now. Last week, the trio summed up their exhaustive work in a more popular paper.

In the United States, this paper details, CEOs are receiving a disproportionate share of the pay that goes to the top five execs of American corporations. On average, the numbers show, U.S. CEOs now grab 35 percent of the compensation corporations lay out for their top five officers.

This share, over recent years, has been steadily increasing.

Should we care? Bebchuk, Cremers, and Peyer think so. The higher a CEO’s share of the executive loot, their analysis shows, the shakier the performance of that CEO’s company – in everything from shareholder return to mergers and acquisitions. Companies with CEOs who make tons more than their executive colleagues tend, simply put, to do dumb things.

Why? Bebchuk, Cremers, and Peyer surmise that “the ability of some CEOs to capture an especially high slice might reflect undue power and influence over the company’s decision-making.”

In other words, CEOs who make much more than the people around them don’t have more smarts than anybody else. They just have more power.

 

••••

Too Much is published by the Institute for Policy Studies: Ideas into action for peace, justice, and the environment. 1112 16th St. NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036. (202) 234-9382. E-mail: editor@toomuchonline.org.