Because the best things in life are free.

 
Mission Accomplished: Why Bush Already Has Won the War in Iraq

There’s only one question that seems to resonate among voters in regard to Bush and his opinion of foreign affairs. Why did we ever invade Iraq if our assertions about the need to preemptively attack were false? The answer to this question is that the Iraq War lies at the intersection of George W. Bush’s beliefs about domestic and international policy. No matter how history would have turned out, “Dubya” only had one goal in mind. In short, everything revolves around reducing the size of government. Governments exist by taking money from their citizens; the more one perceives the government taking away and not giving back, the more sympathetic a person will be to this reasoning.
However, taxes in general do not come into existence because of a regime’s desire to have social programs or protections. No, the income tax always is tied to the development and need for a standing army (as opposed to a militia system). The implication seems to be, if so, then a war would cause taxes to rise and not to fall. But consider the situation George W. Bush faced in 2000, taxes were not particularly high, but revenues had been buoyed by an artificial stock market bubble. Bush suggested that tax cuts were a viable option, since given the surplus created the US government could afford it.
This is not the most effective way to shrink the size of government. The most effective way to reduce the size of government is to run a deficit. The reason for this is that, when the deficit overshadows yearly shortfalls and becomes too large, politicians find it hard to suggest taxes be raised only to combat the problem…most are stuck reducing the size of government in part, and increasing the tax burden in other places. Still, even this compromise strategy means that eventually the government becomes far smaller than it was before.
As a result, the next concern Bush had was how to raise spending but still be able to argue for the need to have government shrink overall. While a war is not the only way to achieve it, it is effective, and therefore it was obvious that when Condoleezza Rice (now Bush’s National Security Advisor) wrote in 2000 about the need to “confront evil in the world” that there was some planned confrontation. So why was Iraq chosen as the location for this war?
Three answers. 1) Saddam Hussein’s regime was already on thin ice with the United Nations. Military warplanes bombed Saddam Hussein for violating the UN non fly-zone splitting up his own nation. He had already rejected the overtures of UN weapon inspectors, so it seemed that popular opinion outside and inside the US would tilt toward a quick and speedy removal. 2) America’s largest allies, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and Israel all sought the destruction of the Hussein dictatorship. Britain due to oil concerns in Kuwait and the Gulf, Israel because of Hussein’s generous support to groups like Hamas. Saudi Arabia had a multitude of concerns: Hussein’s willingness to attack them, their reliance on American troops to protect their shaky regime, and the unrest that the American military presence brought. 3) After Pakistan confirmed its ability to detonate a nuclear weapon in 1999, General Pervez Musharraf staged a military coup. Suddenly, there was great uncertainty if Russian nuclear material had been the source of the Pakistan’s arms, and if so, where else had it wound up.
Nevertheless, the existence of this uncertainty could mean that any country ruled by a less-than-revealing group of people could be due for an invasion. Politicians prefer the known quantity however, and that meant of the places likely to qualify for an invasion, Iraq would be the only politically safe choice.
Most people then are curious to know where the “War on Terrorism” fits into this strategy. It never did, because terrorism was largely an unknown concept in the United States. The President utilized terrorism to create the illusion of a cold war of sorts. Everything on the international stage is drawn on this canvas of combating terrorism. The danger with this is that Bush had to make a credible argument why his opponent in Saddam Hussein is related to terrorism. He chose two false assumptions, that Iraq would give nuclear weapons to groups like Al Qaeda, and that Iraq aided Al Qaeda in previous terror attacks. Nevertheless, his original goal of creating deficits has been a success. No matter what happens military, this why Bush believes it is “Mission Accomplished”.

posted by Thomas at 10:20 PM 0 comments

 
"Follow the Money"

The leaves are changing color, the temperature is dropping, and the rhetoric is heating up. It’s the home stretch for Election 2004, and even though pressing issues have been covered, and covered, and covered, and covered once more, the “establishment media” is ignoring the biggest story of every campaign: just who is giving these guys all of the money? This is the most expensive election in the history of democracy itself, (unless of course you consider Julius Caesar’s second term as consul of Rome, in which he was rewarded with the governorship of Gaul). So going where angels fear to tread, Unpaid asks the question just where has the half billion both candidates have raised together so far come from?


Answers like this are remarkably easy to get at first blush. The Center for Responsive Politics lists the major contributors as well as the top industry or sector sources of funding for every candidate for federal office (and many for state) on their website, www.opensecrets.org. What you find is that both candidates have remarkable similarities, with the largest donor group being “Retired” or “Lawyers/Law firms”. In Kerry’s case people describing themselves as attorneys have contributed the most, with those not in the work force second. For Bush it is reversed, but the amount of money contributed by both is almost the same. [Please note the CRP can only use information released by the Federal Elections Commission, which had their last cycle end on August 2, 2004]


But this naturally begs the question who are the largest individual donors for Bush and Kerry. Believe it not, many of the names even here are the same…with companies such as Microsoft and Goldman Sachs doling out money for each candidate. Still, in ranking there is no overlap; many of these bipartisan givers lean one way or the other. This leaves both candidates with five different top contributors. As to why each is so generous, we give a primer of sorts.


George W. Bush


1 Morgan Stanley $573,380 The Center for Responsive Politics cites large contributions to the Republican side (though MS does give to the Democrats too) are in large part because this investment house is the biggest proponent of privatizing Social Security. The obvious reason that is a good idea for Morgan Stanley is that unless legislators completely change their positions, the money from privatized Social Security fund would not have special regulations attached to it. It would effectively be money going from paychecks directly into funds managed by Morgan Stanley (or a similar account). Imagine if your bank which receives what the government does not take from your paycheck could use your money with no federal guarantees. For accountants, fund managers, venture capitalists, and row houses like Morgan Stanley, this sounds like a wet dream.


2 Merrill Lynch $546,154 Just what does Merrill Lynch do? Well that’s a good question, considering it appears that at least to the CRP, that Merrill Lynch was caught in the middle of two client snafus. The first was Enron, and the second was ImClone. It could be that Merrill Lynch is hoping to stonewall the federal investigation into its role in Enron’s collapse (and Martha’s bizarre legal adventure). It could be the Bull wants to see Social Security privatized too. In fact it could be that what Merrill Lynch really wants is complete deregulation of the financial service market. You know, the type of situation we had in 1929… What’s the danger in this? Nothing except if there’s no regulation, this means that bundling would be legal. In other words, if you applied for a home loan, you might have to use Merrill Lynch as your primary bank for other things as well like your paycheck. Again, considering the massive financial services deregulation that President Clinton pushed through in 1998 on the advice of his first Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, we may have to stop calling this scenario a wet dream and instead use the phrase “cocaine-driven fantasy”.


3 PriceWaterhouseCoopers $499,850 The CPR explains this beautifully: When the accounting firm of Arthur Andersen collapsed, Congress was about ready to take seriously a bill later passed called “Sarbanes-Oxley”. At first, the big accounting companies were able to claim AA’s poor practices were not the sign of a bigger crisis. Then WorldCom collapsed, and Congress responded by passing Sarbanes-Oxley. It prohibits an accounting firm from offering consulting service to a client who is being audited by that firm. Translation: PWC would have to sell all its consulting services to someone else if Sarbanes-Oxley is not overturned. No wonder the Republican National Convention was set in New York City…the big players appear to be in trouble.


4 UBS Americas $439,275 UBS, or the Union Bank of Switzerland is among the largest financial entities in the world. Not surprisingly, it grew in America by acquiring the lending house of Paine Webber. But in terms of why UBS lines up with Dubya? Those same Clintonian measures to deregulate financial services have been a boon to UBS. But also, the Swiss bank is afraid of European Union regulation and Asian monetary malaise. Therefore, America is where the growth is, and UBS is ready to provide everything an American could possibly want. UBS is also a major creditor of the federal deficit. Oh yeah…in addition…some UBS accounts were created from confiscated Jewish assets in World War II. This leaves one to wonder if the Bush campaign’s use of Nazi blood money didn’t justify that oh-so-popular MoveOn.org ad comparing him to Hitler.


5 Goldman Sachs $357,025 New Jersey Senator Jon Corzine used to be the boss at Goldman Sachs in New York. As a Democrat, you wonder exactly how his ex-company funnels so much money to Bush. CPR cites the usual reasons…financial service deregulation, being hunted down by the feds, yada, yada, yada. But there’s also the fact that Goldman Sachs’s office is at 80 Broad Street. While not at the foot at the World Trade Center site, it’s close enough to have felt very small that fateful day in a cloud of debris and dust. Some of the world’s richest didn’t work in the Trade Center itself, but close enough to be shaken by its destruction.


John Kerry


1 University of California $481,310 Just what on earth does the largest university in the world want? First, there’s retention of the Los Alamos nuclear research lab contract. Then there’s hunting down and killing the folks at Enron for nearly bankrupting, CalPers, the California state employee retirement fund. Many of whom are UC employees. Add to the fact that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger responded to the budget crisis by doubling fees at the UC system, and those below him are looking for help from above. No not God…the Department of Education.


2 Harvard University $311,389 Clinton’s second Treasury Secretary Larry Summers was the surprise pick to succeed Neil Rudenstine at Harvard. Now some of Harvard’s greats are wild about Larry and some, like Cornell West, certainly are not. But Summers isn’t just backing Massachusetts’ junior senator for the hometown effect. Harvard wants into the stem cell biz and they want in because in case you have heard, Harvard has an endowment larger than most nations. A smart guy, (actually a brilliant economist) Summers realizes much of this endowment might become devalued and wants to get into copyrighting and patenting of proteins in stem cell research…own the patent and Harvard will collect revenue on each for around 100 years before having to renew. If you think the money involved in privatizing Social Security is a LSD trip of Hunter S. Thompson proportion…this would be the Louisiana Purchase of 21st century moneymakers.


3 Time Warner $260,199 Feeding Fox News’s belief that CNN is really just an outlet for the liberal media is Time Warner’s big time donations to KE ’04. So what does Time Warner want? Effectively they want more of what Clinton gave them, deregulation of the media. Effectively Time Warner would like to have total control of content and conveyance. In other words, they want to be able to own various different types of media such that you would be unable to avoid watching or seeing their material. If this sounds diffuse still, think of this way: if they own your cable company they want to make sure you can’t get rid of CNN. If you use AOL, they want to make sure that you see advertising for Warner Bros. movies or music. If you subscribe to Time magazine you will find that other Warner Books are profiled in its pages. What is so ironic about this? Procter and Gamble, the housewares giant, tried to crush CNN in the late 70s because it feared that CNN’s presence would destroy P and G’s lockdown control on the major three networks for advertising time during the nightly news slot. Proctor and Gamble could keep national air time so expensive that very few companies could compete with its brands, such as Tide soap. Now CNN is the very tool being used in similar oppression. O tempores, o mores!


4 Microsoft Corp $258,593 Microsoft used to give mostly to Democrats but in very low amounts. And then came the avatar of death, Janet Reno, to tell Bill Gates that he was going to be sued for antitrust violations. Suddenly MSFT poured money into Republican coffers. With the trial over, and settlement complete, Microsoft appears to be aware that many Democrats are pliant on strong intellectual property laws. Beyond that, Microsoft might agree with Kerry’s stance on other issues. Just what those are is hard to calibrate at present, but should become obvious soon.


5 Citigroup Inc. $252,106 Who says the financial sectors are run only by Republicans. Citigroup is very loyal to the Democrats after being able to repeal federal laws prohibiting banks from owning insurance units. Also, Citigroup issues the largest number of credit cards in the US and this plays into Kerry’s desire to pay down the deficit. A meteoric rise in interest rates could cripple Citigroup, and that is not out of the question economically in the near future.


So while both candidates talk big on the economy, they appear to have the same prescription. Neither Bush nor Kerry supports gay marriage, and it’s not like either of them will stop the “War on Terror” or simply withdraw from Iraq. Of course, what Bush really wants to do is institute a national sales tax of some kind to reduce the federal work force to say what we had in 1876. By privatizing Social Security, the Congress could not use it to leverage current spending, keeping the size of the federal government smaller still. It just so happens this is likely to ensure that there’s limited upward mobility, leaving most people to hope for a trickle down effect. Kerry won’t sign off on the national sales tax, and that is the most significant difference between him and Bush, and the hope that the robber barons of the 19th century have not been reincarnated in the 21st.

posted by Thomas at 9:51 PM 0 comments

 
Ten Ways to Disarm the Social Security Time Bomb

With discussion of the soaring federal budget deficit absent from the current “Decision 2004” debate, it’s time to bang the drum slowly for all things related to the word “Lockbox”. Unpaid looked long and hard to find something that would demonstrate the impact of ballooning federal deficit spending, commingled with pressure caused by mass retirements of the Baby Boom generation. The study former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill commissioned regarding federal debt projections cites a shortfall of $42 trillion. O’Neill trusted the estimates so much that he refused to call on Congress to pass a new round of tax cuts in 2003. President Bush then fired him and left the material out a federal report on the budget. What were some of the solutions the study proposed? They are:

More than double the payroll tax, immediately and forever, from 15.3 percent of wages to nearly 32 percent.

Translation: 1/3 of everything you earn would go to the federal government, irrespective of other responsibilities you have. So in other words, if you make $30,000 a year, your take home pay would go to $20,000. It sounds simple enough, but it would hurt people at the bottom uniformly more because most truly wealthy folks already think payroll tax is too high and therefore receive other perquisites and benefits in exchange for hard money. Also, because of standard monetary inflation, how much you pay for things won’t go down.

Raise income taxes by two-thirds, immediately and forever.

Translation: Essentially the same idea as the last one, but being an equal opportunity destroyer. Not to mention, uh, corporate persons would also get hit.

Cut Social Security and Medicare benefits by 45 percent, immediately and forever.

Translation: Your parents come to live with you, or you have to subsidize them. Either way, you’ll beg for a tax increase when you see how much time and money they will cost you.

Eliminate forever all discretionary spending, which includes the military, homeland security, highways, courts, national parks and most of what the federal government does outside of the transfer payments to the elderly.

Translation: No, not eliminate some spending…eliminate everything…so that even though the government has the money to pay benefits…it has no electronic means to transfer that money, nor is there a comprehensive postal service to mail anyone a check. Wait, wasn’t this a Kevin Costner movie?

The authors of the study, Jagadeesh Koghale and Ken Smetters, had their work published by the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Koghale is visiting scholar with the ultra-libertarian think tank The Cato Institute, while on sabbatical from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. Yet, the estimate used by them is on the low end of estimates offered by other studies…the more liberal Brookings Institute has it as high as $60 trillion. So perhaps it is time to consider more extreme measures to save our future.

Forced euthanasia.

Seeing as how uneasy concentration camps all over Florida would make people, we probably want to try a different strategy. Just tell anyone over 85 they are own their own, and watch the majority of them “disappear” about six months before the dreaded date driving the RV to Canada. After all, the sooner the retirees kick off…the sooner our debt troubles are over.

Complete and utter monetary inflation.

This would be slightly worse than cutting benefits by 45% for seniors, since other debt would be massively devalued as well. The purchasing power of the benefits would probably be cut in half, but, non-pensioners who are wage-earners would just be able to ride out the inflationary wave with the added benefit of erasing just about every dime of education debt they hold.

Demand international tribute.

Being a superpower is expensive, and with the military the deepest discretionary cost, perhaps we should start sending regimes a bill when we bail them out. Or perhaps invade countries with natural resources that we can exploit, but pick unpopular regimes that make us look like the good guy. Yeah, that’s a great idea…wait a minute.

Revert to a barter based economy.

Only problem with this is that even when an economy is based on barter, an impromptu currency will arise. Just ask the Argentine grocers who accept Visa, Mastercard, and Nikes.

Short the retirees how much they held on student loans.

Now here’s a creative idea. Deduct with interest the amount retirees of the retiring generation owe from those student loans that went delinquent. Except…that’s probably not enough.

Invent new fees.

Following the success of Arnold Schwarzenegger in California, the politicians steadfastly claim they aren’t going raise taxes, only to charge new fees for everything under the sun. The Gropenfuhrer hasn’t had to eat any political crow from this strategy yet, his reelection bid waiting until ’06…still…this might work. You can bet your bottom dollar everyone will be watching to see if his idea works…because there’s nothing a candidate for office loves more than telling someone they can have his or her cake and eat it too.

Make everyone an American citizen.

Give everyone on Earth “nominal” American citizenship, then force them to pay up. This idea didn’t work all that well for Diocletian and the Roman Empire, but it might actually work this time. 1) American citizens must pay taxes on all income earned inside and outside of the United States, unlike all other countries but Iran. 2) Most have no way to make it to the United States to demand any privileges or rights. 3) Add in a few select consulate and embassy closings, and it’s a solid idea.

Raise interest rates really high.

This solution seems innocuous, but it would only work if the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, and Bank of England correspondingly raise interest rates. The US could then raise interest rates and sell new government bonds to infuse the general fund with cash and pay back all the debt. The only pitfall: only a handful of Americans would then be able to afford anything financed on credit, including but not limited to cell phones, credit cards, cars, or houses.

Burn Canada!

No, not the cities…try the millions of acres of untamed Canadian wilderness. Unlike the Russians or Brazilians, who own nuclear weapons, the Canadians are at our mercy. Burn enough trees down, and voila major climate change. What’s that got to do with the Social Security mess? After Europe is buried in snow, and other equatorial countries have all their arable land flooded…who’s the only game in town for your crop needs? With wheat at World War I level prices, what is there to worry about?

Rent the President

Everyone seems to forget that foreign investment in the economy comes from all corners, from million-dollar deals to tourism. So why underestimate how much people are willing to pay for an unique experience abroad. Imagine hanging out with the President for a day, at the low cost of $1 million. Want to be Speaker of the House for a day? $100,000. Or how about a special tour of Area 51 led by Donald Rumsfeld himself? This would be one way to raise enough money to offset the debt, keep everyone happy, and cause any lasting impacts on the economy. Still, this would add a new dimension to having a government for sale.

posted by Thomas at 1:37 AM 0 comments