The GOP Is Defunding Police Departments - Not The Dems!

Some of those supporting the Black Lives Matter movement, including many progressive Democrats, have talked about defunding the police. They never suggested doing away with the police -- only taking some of the money and funding others to do the work that police are not adequately trained to do (like having mental health professionals handle calls regarding a mentally-ill person).

But Republicans saw an opportunity in that. That campaigned saying Democrats wanted to do away with the police. It wasn't true, but it scared a lot of people and probably did help the GOP in the election. 

That's why it's strange that the Republicans in the U.S. Congress are doing the opposite of what they campaigned on. They are actually DEFUNDING THE POLICE (and many other services in both red and blue states). How are they doing this?

It looks like the Congress has agreed on another bailout bill, but because of Republican demands, that bill does not have any money to help states/cities meet their budget requirements.

States are not like the federal government. They can't print money and they can't run a deficit. They must live within the amount of money they take in (whether from taxes or other sources). And the pandemic has caused many states, both red and blue states, to spend more and take in less money. Many of those laid off can no longer pay in tax money, and the same is true of many businesses (who have had to close down or had their business hurt by the pandemic). But while taking in less money, the state governments have had to spend more money to take care of people sick with the coronavirus or doing without a job.

So, without federal money to help and being required to live on their real income, what are the state governments going to have to do to stay within the law? They are going to have to make massive cuts in services (and so will cities). That will undoubtably mean cuts to police departments and agencies (along with cuts to other departments and agencies).

While Democrats talked about changing how the police do their job, the Republicans are forcing police departments to cut the number of officers. That will make citizens less safe. In effect, the Republicans are DEFUNDING THE POLICE!

Majority of AmericansThink Big Bank Bail-Out A Bad Idea

During the waning time of the Bush administration, the big banks and financial institutions that were in trouble were bailed out by the federal government. Some of those institutions have paid that money back, and some haven't. All of them continued to pay out huge bonuses for their management personnel, while ordinary Americans suffered the ravages of the recession caused by the misadventures of those financial institutions.

And the public hasn't forgotten about that. A new Rasmussen Poll shows that 55% of the public still  thinks that bail-out was a bad idea, while only 23% say it was a good idea. The survey was done on April 17th and 18th of 1,000 adults, with a 3 point margin of error.

This means if there is another financial meltdown (and there will be since the same failed economic policies are in place), it is going to be very difficult for federal politicians to do another bail-out.

A Novel Idea

How's that for a novel idea? Instead of bailing out the thieves, you throw them in jail and bail out the people who had trusted those thieving bankers. This makes so much sense that one has to question why it wasn't done in this country. Could it be that the Wall Street banks and giant corporations own the politicians that run our government -- and too many people are either so stupid or such sheep that they won't do anything about it? I think that's a question that needs answering.

We Could Learn A Lot From Iceland

Most Americans know they got screwed by Wall Street and their stooges -- the Republican Party. Most of them may not understand the technical aspects of just what Wall Street did to mess up the economy, throw the country into recession, and destroy millions of American jobs, but they know they did it. And they also know that the taxpayers were left holding the tab, while the Wall Street financial giants continue to pass out enormous bonuses and go back to business as usual (until the next time).

A very similar thing happened in Iceland. The banks got too greedy and overreached and got into trouble. Then they and the government wanted the people of Iceland to bail them out. They wanted the people to pay for the misdeeds of the private banks. But the people of Iceland said no. They demanded and got a national referendum, and then voted down paying off the private bank debts. They said no to bailing out their own greedy version of Wall Street. We could learn a lot from Iceland.

From the excellent blog Zero Energy Construction, here is the story of what Iceland did. Read it. I think it'll make you wonder why we didn't do the same. Of course the answer is that the 1% control our government. And they control our media -- which is why we haven't heard much about Iceland. The 1% are terrified that the people might wake up and snatch back their country from the corporations.


An Italian radio program's story about Iceland’s on-going revolution is a stunning example of how little our media tells us about the rest of the world. Americans may remember that at the start of the 2008 financial crisis, Iceland literally went bankrupt. The reasons were mentioned only in passing, and since then, this little-known member of the European Union fell back into oblivion.

As one European country after another fails or risks failing, imperiling the Euro, with repercussions for the entire world, the last thing the powers that be want is for Iceland to become an example. Here's why:

Five years of a pure neo-liberal regime had made Iceland, (population 320 thousand, no army), one of the richest countries in the world. In 2003 all the country’s banks were privatized, and in an effort to attract foreign investors, they offered on-line banking whose minimal costs allowed them to offer relatively high rates of return. The accounts, called IceSave, attracted many English and Dutch small investors. But as investments grew, so did the banks’ foreign debt. In 2003 Iceland’s debt was equal to 200 times its GNP, but in 2007, it was 900 percent. The 2008 world financial crisis was the coup de grace. The three main Icelandic banks, Landbanki, Kapthing and Glitnir, went belly up and were nationalized, while the Kroner lost 85% of its value with respect to the Euro. At the end of the year Iceland declared bankruptcy.

Contrary to what could be expected, the crisis resulted in Icelanders recovering their sovereign rights, through a process of direct participatory democracy that eventually led to a new Constitution. But only after much pain.

Geir Haarde, the Prime Minister of a Social Democratic coalition government, negotiated a two million one hundred thousand dollar loan, to which the Nordic countries added another two and a half million. But the foreign financial community pressured Iceland to impose drastic measures. The FMI and the European Union wanted to take over its debt, claiming this was the only way for the country to pay back Holland and Great Britain, who had promised to reimburse their citizens.

Protests and riots continued, eventually forcing the government to resign. Elections were brought forward to April 2009, resulting in a left-wing coalition which condemned the neoliberal economic system, but immediately gave in to its demands that Iceland pay off a total of three and a half million Euros. This required each Icelandic citizen to pay 100 Euros a month (or about $130) for fifteen years, at 5.5% interest, to pay off a debt incurred by private parties vis a vis other private parties. It was the straw that broke the reindeer’s back.

What happened next was extraordinary. The belief that citizens had to pay for the mistakes of a financial monopoly, that an entire nation must be taxed to pay off private debts was shattered, transforming the relationship between citizens and their political institutions and eventually driving Iceland’s leaders to the side of their constituents. The Head of State, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, refused to ratify the law that would have made Iceland’s citizens responsible for its bankers’ debts, and accepted calls for a referendum.

Of course the international community only increased the pressure on Iceland. Great Britain and Holland threatened dire reprisals that would isolate the country. As Icelanders went to vote, foreign bankers threatened to block any aid from the IMF. The British government threatened to freeze Icelander savings and checking accounts. As Grimsson said: “We were told that if we refused the international community’s conditions, we would become the Cuba of the North. But if we had accepted, we would have become the Haiti of the North.” (How many times have I written that when Cubans see the dire state of their neighbor, Haiti, they count themselves lucky.)

In the March 2010 referendum, 93% voted against repayment of the debt. The IMF immediately froze its loan. But the revolution (though not televised in the United States), would not be intimidated. With the support of a furious citizenry, the government launched civil and penal investigations into those responsible for the financial crisis. Interpol put out an international arrest warrant for the ex-president of Kaupthing, Sigurdur Einarsson, as the other bankers implicated in the crash fled the country.

But Icelanders didn't stop there: they decided to draft a new constitution that would free the country from the exaggerated power of international finance and virtual money. (The one in use had been written when Iceland gained its independence from Denmark, in 1918, the only difference with the Danish constitution being that the word ‘president’ replaced the word ‘king’.)

To write the new constitution, the people of Iceland elected twenty-five citizens from among 522 adults not belonging to any political party but recommended by at least thirty citizens. This document was not the work of a handful of politicians, but was written on the internet. The constituent’s meetings are streamed on-line, and citizens can send their comments and suggestions, witnessing the document as it takes shape. The constitution that eventually emerges from this participatory democratic process will be submitted to parliament for approval after the next elections.

Some readers will remember that Iceland’s ninth century agrarian collapse was featured in Jared Diamond’s book by the same name. Today, that country is recovering from its financial collapse in ways just the opposite of those generally considered unavoidable, as confirmed yesterday by the new head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde to Fareed Zakaria. The people of Greece have been told that the privatization of their public sector is the only solution. And those of Italy, Spain and Portugal are facing the same threat.

They should look to Iceland. Refusing to bow to foreign interests, that small country stated loud and clear that the people are sovereign. 

That’s why it is not in the news anymore.

Financial Industry Still Screwing Up

It looks like the financial sector didn't learn anything from the meltdown in their industry several months ago. Due to their greed and mis-management, many of their companies tanked, and the only ones to survive, did so because the United States government bailed them out with huge influxes of money.

Now they're acting like nothing happened, and reverting to their old ways of doing things -- the same ways that got them in trouble before. In addition, they're opposing and using their lobbyists to fight Congress passing new rules to protect the industry and their customers.

But President Obama is having none of it. He is warning the industry that they must change their way of operating. The president said, "We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of this crises. There are some in the financial industry who are misreading this moment. Instead of learning the lessons of Lehman and the crises from which we are still recovering, they are choosing to ignore them. They do so not just at their own peril, but at our nation's."

He went on to tell them they should not expect the people of America to bail them out again. I say Amen! There should be no more bail-outs for these robber-barons. If they screw it up again, we should just let them go belly-up. It's what they deserve.

And just as soon as Congress has dealt with health care, it should push hard to institute President Obama's new financial regulations. The industry has operated for too long virtually unregulated -- that's what allowed them to screw up the industry and our economy in the first place.

The industry had better listen to President Obama. The American people are angry, and will not spend another penny to bail out these jerks.

(The above cartoon is by Pat Bagley in the Salt Lake Tribune.)

Bail Out The Porn Industry !

It had to happen. The government has thrown hundreds of billions of dollars at the financial sector to help those corporate executives to get their massive bonuses. Then we tossed more billions at the auto industry to reward them for their incompetence. Now the American porn industry is asking for its own bail-out.

Porn moguls Larry Flynt (Hustler Magazine) and Joe Francis (Girls Gone Wild) have joined together to represent the porn industry in it's request for a government bail-out. They are asking Congress to allocate $5 billion to help the adult entertainment business.

Francis stated, “The US government should actively support the adult industry's survival and growth, just as it feels the need to support any other industry cherished by the American people."

Flynt added, "People are too depressed to be sexually active. This is very unhealthy as a nation. Americans can do without cars and such but they cannot do without sex. With all this economic misery and people losing all that money, sex is the farthest thing from their mind. It's time for congress to rejuvenate the sexual appetite of America. The only way they can do this is by supporting the adult industry and doing it quickly."

I found this hilarious. Think what you will of Larry Flynt and Joe Francis, but this is a great tongue-in-check bit of political humor. Is a bail-out of the porn industry that much stupider than what the government has already done?

A Lack Of Leadership

Well, the big $700 billion bail-out of Wall Street went down in flames yesterday. One-third of the Democrats and two-thirds of the Republicans in the House of Representatives voted against the bailout, making it come up about 13 votes short.

Voices on both the right and the left were quick to denigrate those who voted no on the bail-out, but I can understand them. Like it or not, we have an election coming up, and approving the bail-out could be electoral suicide for many of them.

The American people simply do not like this huge bail-out. Congressmen are getting calls and letters running 30 or 40 to 1 against it (and the people who take the time to call or write are very likely to vote). Polls also show the depth of voter discontent with the bail-out bill.

If the bail-out is really necessary, then our political leaders of both parties have failed to present a compelling case for it to the American people. Ordinary voters are hurting in this economy, with their wages stagnating while price of nearly everything has rapidly climbed.

They have watched as corporations ship their jobs overseas and reward their executives with multi-million dollar bonuses and golden parachutes. It used to be that investment in a companiy's stock allowed that company to expand over the long-term and everyone (including workers) benefited.

But recently, the corporate executives are interested only in the short-term profit and padding their own wallets. People are not stupid. They see this and they are angry. Now the corporate and banking mistakes have come home to roost. Since the corporations have done little or nothing to help voters, the voters are now ready to return the favor and do nothing to help the corporations and banks.

Frankly, it's hard to threaten people who have far less than $100,000 in a checking and savings account, with the possibility of bank failures. They know what little money they have is protected by the FDIC. After the way banks have treated their smaller customers for years, they will now get very little sympathy from them.

If our leaders really think this bail-out is necessary, they're going to have to do a much better job of presenting this to the American people. Right now, they think the "fat cats" are getting what they deserve. I'm not at all sure I don't agree with them.

----------------------

This is the 2,000th post on this blog. I guess that is some sort of accomplishment. When I started in March of 2006, I had no idea I would ever get to 2,000. I want to thank the readers and commenters who have helped me by being there. I hope to give you another 2,000.

Bail-Out Must Have Exec Pay Cap

I still do not like the $700 billion Wall Street bail-out, but if there is to be a bail-out it must have as one of its provisions a cap on executive pay and bonuses. Democrats should not vote for any package that does not have the pay caps.

The executive pay in all American corporations has really gotten out of whack and needs to be adjusted. As Social Seppuku tells us, CEOs made 24 times the average worker's salary in 1965. By 1980, the CEO compensation was 40 times an average worker's salary, and today the CEO pay is 374 times the average worker's salary. While worker wages have stagnated, CEO compensation has risen exorbitantly.

Do the Republicans and their Wall Street buddies really expect these kind of ridiculous executive compensations to be paid out of taxpayer monies? We may have to bail these companies out, but we don't have to make their executives obscenely rich off taxpayer money.

Treasury Secretary Paulson opposes the cap on executive pay. He says he's afraid some companies won't participate in the bail-out if executive pay is capped. That sounds stupid to me. Paulson has been telling us that these companies will go bankrupt and cease to exist if they aren't bailed out by the taxpayers.

Is he now telling us these companies would rather be put out of business rather than accept executive pay caps? If so, then it is easy to see why these compaies are in trouble. Their executives have put their own greed above what is good for the company.

I say we must proceed with the pay cap as a requirement for getting bail-out money. If a company doesn't want taxpayer money (and the rules that go with it), then they don't have to take it. We should not beg any company or force any company to take bail-out money from the taxpayers.

I like Senator Feinstein's attitude when she said, "I'm told that the reason the Treasury Secretary doesn't want limits on executive compensation is because he believes that an executive then won't bring his company in to partake in any program that is set up. Well here's my response to that. We can put that executive on his boat, take that boat out in the ocean and set it on fire if that's how he feels. That's what should happen, or his company doesn't come in."

(Numbers in above illustrations come from The Economist.)