It’s about earning and spending

Michael Lind makes a commonsensical case for a massive federal effort to repair America's compromised and increasingly dangerous infrastructure, shore up its financially-strapped state and local governments, stimulate the crisis-laden economy and, last but not least, put people to work. He also warns his readers that this kind of effort is likely to produce another bout of Beltway foolishness — e.g. a good bit of rightwing identity politics (i.e. race- and class-baiting), programs designed to maximize the PR-value available to Congressmen and women and a knee-jerk rush to offer tax credits to capital. Lind instead argues that this federal effort should be massive and recurring investment in the country's institutions. How, according to Lind, would America pay for a program of this magnitude? A Value Added Tax!

Lind's proposal makes sense, of course. It surely is an appropriate response to one of the crises of the moment. But is it a feasible proposal? Can Washington act rationally?

Gore Vidal on the Gates arrest

Vidal characteristically believes the arrest to be significant. He wrote:

For those of us who had hoped that the Obama administration would present us with a rebirth of the old republic that was so rudely erased a few years ago by that team of judicial wreckers, Bush and Gonzales, which led, in turn, to a recent incident in Cambridge, Mass. that inspired a degree of alarm in many Americans. But what was most alarming was the plain fact that neither the president nor a "stupid" local policeman seemed to understand the rules of behavior in a new America, where we find ourselves marooned as well as guarded (is that the verb?) by armed police who have been instructed that they are indeed, once armed, the law and may not be criticized verbally or in any other way and are certainly not subject to any restrictions as to whom they arrest or otherwise torment.

This is rather worse than anyone might have predicted, even though the signs have been clear for some years that ours is now a proto-fascist nation and there appears to be no turning back; nor, indeed, much awareness on the part of our ever-alert media.

I have one nit to pick: Vidal's "ever-alert media" may well be aware of the authoritarian turn that has undermined the republic; but it is also likely the media as a whole supports the direction the country has taken. I say this because the only crimes the media refuses to cover in depth — read: sensationalize and turn into a spectacle — are those transgressions against civilization, the rule of law and good sense committed by Washington's insiders. The blame falls not just on Fox News, the New York Post, The Washington Times, etc. The fact that the media has this conformist attitude — this professional ethos which compels it to serve the American system as it exists — along with the related fact that the media's affliction is chronic, provides one explanation for the following:

Let us accept the facts staring us in the face — that demonstrably we are no longer a republic. We are no longer governed by laws, only by armed men and force. This is just like the days of Billy the Kid. You have an armed man going down a dusty street and that is authority. And it has come to this for us.

Knowing about this corruption, the depth of its roots and the effect it has had on America's political culture, a reasonable person would not then find it surprising at all that NORTHCOM has developed a plan to provide aid to the nation in the near-term if the United States were to suffer a swine flu pandemic, a program that would be consistent with the now common violations of the Posse Comitatus Act. Why would this hypothetical person find NORTHCOM's plans surprising when the mere fact that NORTHCOM exists is an affront to the rule of law? Surely NORTHCOM is not meant to protect the homeland from an external threat?

Anyway, I suppose it is extravagant to want the nation's public health institutions to implement a response to the latest pandemic…. After all, America's public health institutions lack the firepower, the boots on the ground and the prison facilities such a mission would require if it is to succeed….

Another secret program

Cheney's fingerprints are also on this one

The New York Times reports that the CIA created a post-9.11 counterterrorism program and that it had withheld information about the program from Congress. The Vice President allegedly ordered the CIA to keep Congress uninformed about the matter.

The report that Mr. Cheney was behind the decision to conceal the still-unidentified program from Congress deepened the mystery surrounding it, suggesting that the Bush administration had put a high priority on the program and its secrecy.

Mr. Panetta, who ended the program when he first learned of its existence from subordinates on June 23, briefed the two intelligence committees about it in separate closed sessions the next day.

This latest revelation directly follows an Inspector General's report which:

…underscored the central role of the former vice president's office in restricting to a small circle of officials knowledge of the National Security Agency's program of eavesdropping without warrants, a degree of secrecy that the report concluded had hurt the effectiveness of the counterterrorism surveillance effort.

It is unsurprising, then, that "Efforts [The Times made] to reach Mr. Cheney through relatives and associates were unsuccessful." Why would he wish to take ownership of these legally dubious and ineffective programs!

Ah, this may be one of those prison camps that don’t exist

As per Paul Craig Roberts:


View Larger Map

The coming civil turmoil....

Because protests and riots have already appeared across the world, events that undoubtedly were responses to the economic crisis and its social effects, José Miguel Alonso Trabanco wrote the following about the United States:

For decades, overall political stability in the US was taken for granted. However, as it has been pointed out, even senior American statesmen are taking into consideration that financial volatility could fuel a wave of discontent which could easily reach troubling proportions. It seems that America itself is not immune from "regime-threatening instability" as the Pentagon and the American intelligence community terms it. It is likely that American government officials have not dismissed the worst-case scenario. Indeed it looks like they have been preparing accordingly.

Therefore, as has been scrutinized here, once one proceeds to connect the dots a very dark picture begins to emerge, to say the least. An all-encompassing cloud of uncertainty prevents us from formulating an accurate forecast regarding what developments will occur and how they will unfold during the next few months, let alone years. The only thing that can be taken for granted and that one can be sure of is that the unthinkable has now become thinkable.

But why, when all things are considered, would Trabanco believe rioting unthinkable when well-informed Americans can easily recall events like these:

Obama to limit his use of signing statements

The President recently stated that:

In recent years, there has been considerable public discussion and criticism of the use of signing statements to raise constitutional objections to statutory provisions. There is no doubt that the practice of issuing such statements can be abused. Constitutional signing statements should not be used to suggest that the President will disregard statutory requirements on the basis of policy disagreements. At the same time, such signing statements serve a legitimate function in our system, at least when based on well-founded constitutional objections. In appropriately limited circumstances, they represent an exercise of the President's constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and they promote a healthy dialogue between the executive branch and the Congress.

While President Obama should be congratulated for choosing to bind his office in this regard, the fact that this was his political choice only served to undermine the effectiveness of his gesture, as critics made clear. The best strategy available to limit the abuse of Presidential signing statements is to impeach the President who misuses this power. Congress, to the country and the world's great misfortune, failed to take this path during the George W. Bush's tenure. This egregious failure established as a historical fact that Congress might tolerate such abuses in the future along with the fact that only the President can act to limit his or her use of this power. Despite if not because of Obama's policy, an expanded use of these signing statements thus remains a feature of the President's powers. In other words, there is nothing in this self-binding act which deters President Obama from undoing his position. Nor does Obama's choice hinder any future President if he or she chooses to abuse this power. His Memo only reaffirms this Presidential power!

Catching up

With the many links I failed to note over the past week

Christopher Ketcham believes the economic crisis will cleanse the land of kitsch, crap and the pimps who market the stuff. This is his silver lining and he considers it a praiseworthy endgame to America's binge-driven consumer culture.

A grim assessment can be found in Michael Hudson's latest essay:

The financial "wealth creation" game is over. Economies emerged from World War II relatively free of debt, but the 60-year global run-up has run its course. Finance capitalism is in a state of collapse, and marginal palliatives cannot revive it. The U.S. economy cannot "inflate its way out of debt," because this would collapse the dollar and end its dreams of global empire by forcing foreign countries to go their own way. There is too little manufacturing to make the economy more "competitive," given its high housing costs, transportation, debt and tax overhead. A quarter to a third of U.S. real estate has fallen into negative equity, so no banks will lend to them. The economy has hit a debt wall and is falling into negative equity, where it may remain for as far as the eye can see until there is a debt write-down.

Mr. Obama's "recovery" plan, based on infrastructure spending, will make real estate fortunes for well-situated properties along the new public transport routes, but there is no sign of cities levying a windfall property tax to save their finances. Their mayors would rather keep the cities broke than to tax real estate and finance. The aim is to re-inflate property markets to enable owners to pay the banks, not to help the public sector break even. So state and local pension plans will remain underfunded while more corporate pension plans go broke.

Mike Whitney argues that:

Eastern Europe is about to blow. If it does, it could take much of the EU with it. It's an emergency situation but there are no easy solutions.

Peter Phillips argues that the Obama administration has not abandoned the neoconservativism of the recent past; it has only softened or 'humanized' this strategic focus so that a fragmented world might accept it as legitimate. Yet, continuing to rely upon this strategy would spell misfortune for more than the non-Americans killed, maimed or jailed by the American security and war apparatus. In fact, militarism has already thoroughly corrupted America's national politics, according to Phillips. The developmental path that would lead the country away from this political impasse begins with an active and self-sustaining anti-war movement.

Chris Hedges warns that the economic crisis, not the "terrorist threat" abroad, might bring down America's democratic republic. The penultimate situation: The economic crisis motivates Americans to take to the streets in defense of their interests and the federal government responds to this "provocation" by declaring martial law, thus abolishing the democratic-popular threat to the security apparatus and the economic sectors that depend on this apparatus.

Tom Englehardt wonders if the current economic crisis will endure until that time when it can meld with the pending ecological catastrophe.

Benjamin Netanyahu will attempt to form the next Israeli government, according to the New York Times. If Netanyahu is successful, the new government will sit on the far right and will not likely include the moderate Kadima party or its leader Tzipi Livni who are expected to join the opposition.

And Rick Santelli's now infamous rant:

America — an ‘endemic surveillance society’

The land of the free and the home of the brave

That, unfortunately, is the current assessment of Privacy International (via Glenn Greenwald).

What is an endemic surveillance society? It is the most intrusive kind of modern society; the lowest ranking social kind in the Privacy International table. With respect to the United States, Privacy International uses the class to refer to a society with these characteristics [copied directly from the Privacy International source]:

• No right to privacy in constitution, though search and seizure protections exist in 4th Amendment; case law on government searches has considered new technology
  
• No comprehensive privacy law, many sectoral laws; though tort of privacy
  
• FTC continues to give inadequate attention to privacy issues, though issued self-regulating privacy guidelines on advertising in 2007
  
• State-level data breach legislation has proven to be useful in identifying faults in security
  
• REAL-ID and biometric identification programs continue to spread without adequate oversight, research, and funding structures
  
• Extensive data-sharing programs across federal government and with private sector
  
• Spreading use of CCTV
  
• Congress approved presidential program of spying on foreign communications over U.S. networks, e.g. Gmail, Hotmail, etc.; and now considering immunity for telephone companies, while government claims secrecy, thus barring any legal action
  
• No data retention law as yet, but equally no data protection law
  
• World leading in border surveillance, mandating trans-border data flows
  
• Weak protections of financial and medical privacy; plans spread for 'rings of steel' around cities to monitor movements of individuals
  
• Democratic safeguards tend to be strong but new Congress and political dynamics show that immigration and terrorism continue to leave politicians scared and without principle
  
• Lack of action on data breach legislation on the federal level while REAL-ID is still compelled upon states has shown that states can make informed decisions
  
• Recent news regarding FBI biometric database raises particular concerns as this could lead to the largest database of biometrics around the world that is not protected by strong privacy law
  

The original map and a discussion of the methods used in the study and the meaning of the map can be found here.

Good morning…

Naomi Wolf and Brad Sherman on martial law in America

Representative Brad Sherman (D-CA) recently exposed a bit of Bush administration fear mongering and extortion while speaking before the House. The occasion: The run-up to second House vote on the Paulson Plan.

In an article published on AlterNet, Naomi Wolf expands upon Sherman's charges by stating

If this [Sherman's claim] is true and Rep. Sherman is not delusional, I ask you to consider that if they [the Bush cabal] are willing to threaten martial law now, it is foolish to assume they will never use that threat again. It is also foolish to trust in an orderly election process to resolve this threat. And why deploy the First Brigade? One thing the deployment accomplishes is to put teeth into such a threat.

Indeed, why would Americans expect an election to resolve the political crisis when George W. Bush initially came to power because of a constitutional coup d'état? What else but respect for the rule of law and America's Constitution might restrain a sitting President from becoming a dictator if that is his or her desire? Good sense? Rational calculation? Human decency? A rock-solid sanity? When have these concepts reflected the thinking and practice of the monsters governing the country today? Have these men and women ever proven to the world they possess even the slightest respect for the rule of law and America's constitution, for international law and its institutions? No, they have not. Finally, how many people must they kill before the threats they pose to the country and the world becomes a living and effective political reality? Tens of millions?

Impeachment of the President and Vice President was never an extravagant and partisan response to the Bush regime and its policies. Impeachment was, rather, the only reasonable response America could have taken to the Bush regime. As reasonable, American citizens and their leaders did not need to depend upon hindsight to make this judgment. It became obvious shortly after the 9.11 catastrophe. They only needed an effective democratic politics.

Some political links (9.24.2008)

Joshua Frank takes a close look at the very inadequate Barak Obama — another "centrist Democrat" — before he suggests

…standing up and voting for what you believe in, no matter how fringe or foolish you are made out to be by others who claim to know better than you. Our democracy is in peril. War rages on. Jobs are scarce and the environment is being destroyed at an exponential rate. Voting on the likelihood of perceived social gains in the short-term is not only erroneous; it is without a true understanding of what it is going to take to bring about real change in this country.

Paul Starr, on the other hand, believes the two parties are sharply divided because of their different and opposed social bases — i.e. he offers a race-based explanation of America's party polarization.

McCain and Obama stand in as proxies for two versions of America. When voters hear Obama, they are responding not just to him but to a new multicultural America that they find attractive or frightening. And when they hear McCain, they are responding to a traditional America — or rather, an idea of that America — that they are determined to preserve or willing to see change.

Paul Craig Roberts believes the Plan to be unfeasible. One reason: The rest of the world has grown tired of American's "arrogance" and empire. This reaction is significant because, as Roberts states, "The US cannot be a hegemonic power without foreign financing." Hyperinflation beckons.

According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, Obama's star has risen with the grim economic news coming from New York and Washington (via Huffington Post).

Patrick O'Conner of Politico reports that House Republicans refused to support the Plan when they met with Vice President Cheney.

The Army Times reports (via Greenwald) that

But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities [link added].

Glenn Greenwald rightly adds:

There's no need to start manufacturing all sorts of scare scenarios about Bush canceling elections or the imminent declaration of martial law or anything of that sort. None of that is going to happen with a single brigade and it's unlikely in the extreme that they'd be announcing these deployments if they had activated any such plans. The point is that the deployment is a very dangerous precedent, quite possibly illegal, and a radical abandonment of an important democratic safeguard. As always with first steps of this sort, the danger lies in how the power can be abused in the future. [emphasis added]