Showing posts with label neocon myths. Show all posts
Showing posts with label neocon myths. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

The Reagan Con, pt. II

¡Hola! Everybody...
I’ll admit to missing Keith Olbermann (KO). The man called it as he saw it and it was rare he got his facts wrong. Plus, I just loved his tweaking the noses of bullies like Beckerhead (Glenn Beck, who’s self-destructing as we speak), Bill-O-the-Clown (Bill O’Reilly), and Blimpie (Rush Limbaugh), among others. I swear, Reagan’s birthday wasn’t the same without KO blasting the truth about him. He’s back (click here), or will be very soon, and my mother and I and about 1 million other nightly viewers will be looking forward to it.

As promised, the truth on the demented imbecile, Ronnie Raygun...

* * *

-=[ The Reagan Con: Winter in America ]=-

We did not -- repeat, did not -- trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we.

-- Ronald Reagan to a Televised national audience


Hopefully, you have read some good posts (here and here) separating the man from the myth. What follows is my own documentation of the failures and most egregious crimes of Reagan. But before that, I want to contextualize the so-called “Reagan Era.” I was a young man when Reagan and the “new” right ascended into power, forever changing America for the worst. Some of the consequences of Reagan’s policies (such as the Savings and Loan debacle) still haunt us. Most of all, Reagan was the ultimate inheritor of the “southern strategy,” the strategy to bring together disaffected (mostly southern) whites who wanted to blame minorities and civil rights gains for what they perceived as their losses.

Reagan was good at using the newer, coded, but no less racist language that attracted whites in large numbers. For example, Reagan never mentioned race overtly, but his discredited bullshit story of the “Welfare Queen” who drove a Cadillac didn’t have to mention skin color -- his base filled in the blanks. Similarly, when Reagan was asked to speak at the site of murdered civil rights workers, he invoked the right-wing meme of “states rights.” Many saw this as support for segregationist sentiments (who to this day still use the same “states rights” racial code). In fact, Reagan is on record as describing the Voting Rights Act as, “humiliating to the South.”

Ultimately, the greatest harm committed by Reagan, was his validation of the redefinition of “freedom” as corporate freedom. Government was the enemy and Reagan and his henchmen wanted to shrink it enough to drown it in a bathtub. Our current economic fractures have their root in Reagan’s misguided policies. But as fucked and cruel and vacuous as he was (his mind was most likely corroded by disease for at least one third of his two-term administration), he’s soft compared to his current day descendants -- all of whom are now trying to rewrite Reagan’s legacy...

As president of the Screen Actors Guild, Ronald Reagan informed on fellow actors to the FBI.

As with all chickenhawks, Reagan was essentially a scared bully. For example, Reagan conducted one of the most absurd invasions of American history, targeting the tiny island of Grenada.

The Reagan administration was one of the most corrupt in American history, including by one estimate 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. By comparison, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself.

Using a looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon and D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance (click here for sources), say that 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted.

Four members of the Reagan cabinet came under criminal investigation, as compared with five in the Clinton cabinet.

During the Reagan administration the number of families living below the poverty line increased by one-third.

Reagan's policies led to the greatest financial scandal in American history: the Savings & Loan debacle which cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

Julian Bond, president of the NAACP: “He was a polarizing figure in black America. He was hostile to the generally accepted remedies for discrimination. His appointments were of people as equally hostile. I can’t think of any Reagan policy that African Americans would embrace.” That was, however, before Barack Obama (who claims to admire the man and whose policies mirror Reagan’s) came along.

Reagan made major cuts in Medicaid, food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, and school lunch programs.

Reagan fired 13,000 air traffic controllers in a devastating blow to government union members from which the labor movement never recovered. While union jobs were slashed dramatically during Reagan’s terms, manufacturing was outsourced overseas, leading to large sectors of unemployed Americans.

The Washington Post (yes, that Washington Post) wrote: “Reagan, during his 1980 campaign, blamed trees for emitting 93 percent of the nation's nitrogen oxide pollution -- giving rise to jokes about ‘killer trees.’”

The national debt tripled under Reagan.

The AIDS crisis exploded (with 20,000 deaths) before Reagan could even bring himself to address the issue six years later. In his authorized biography, he is quoted as saying, “maybe the Lord brought down this plague,” because “illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments.”

Washington Post: “The administration in 1984 secretly sold arms to Iran -- which the United States considered a supporter of terrorism -- to raise cash for Nicaraguan contra rebels, despite a congressional ban on support for the Latin American insurgency. An independent investigation concluded that the arms sales to Iran operations “were carried out with the knowledge of, among others, President Ronald Reagan [and] Vice President George Bush,” and that “large volumes of highly relevant, contemporaneously created documents were systematically and willfully withheld from investigators by several Reagan Administration officials.” . . . Lawrence E. Walsh, the independent counsel who ran the inquiry, said there was “no credible evidence” that Reagan broke the law, but he set the stage for the illegal activities of others. Impeachment, Walsh said, “certainly should have been considered.”

On April 17, 1986, the Reagan Administration released a three page report acknowledging that there were some Contra-cocaine connections in 1984 and 1985, arguing that these connections occurred at a time when the rebels were “particularly hard pressed for financial support” because U.S. aid had been cut off. The report admitted that “We have evidence of a limited number of incidents in which known drug traffickers have tried to establish connections with Nicaraguan resistance groups.” The report tried to downplay the drug activity, claiming that it took place "without the authorization of resistance leaders.”(click here)

(U.S. Concedes Contras Linked to Drugs, But Denies Leadership Involved", Associated Press, 17 April 1986)

His administration was responsible for numerous brutal actions in Latin America, including massacres in El Salvador and the war against Nicaragua. In fact, Reagan had a major hard-on for Latin America and supported some of the most vicious groups of the era, accounting for tens of thousands of "disappeared" Latin@s brave enough to resist.

The claim that Reagan won the Cold War is pure rightwing propaganda. The Soviet Union had long been far weaker than many American leaders knew, or wished to acknowledge, thanks to CIA gross overestimates of its economy. The Soviet Union was brought down by a number of factors including the inherent weaknesses of dictatorship, the costly war in Afghanistan, and ethnic divides that eventually forced its breakup. Also, almost no due is given to the left-wing activists in the Eastern bloc for their role in setting themselves free from the USSR.

After a major tax cut, there was a long recession and unemployment that hit ten percent.

It was Reagan who first proposed a missile defense system -- immediately dubbed “Star Wars” by skeptical reporters -- in a March 23, 1983 speech from the Oval Office. However, as Frances Fitzgerald reveals in her brilliant history “Way Out There in the Blue,” Reagan didn't get his plan from the scientists or the generals. The Pentagon wasn't even notified of his speech ahead of time. Reagan stole Star Wars directly from -- yup, you guessed it -- the movies!

Finally, I came upon this revealing nugget of information: In 1966, Alfred Hitchcock released a Reagan favorite, “Torn Curtain,” in which an American agent played by Paul Newman works on developing an anti-missile missile. In words that must have made Ronnie tingle, Newman’s character says: “We will produce a defensive weapon that will make all nuclear weapons obsolete, and thereby abolish the terror of nuclear warfare.” Sound familiar? Reagan used almost the exact words in selling missile defense from the office, 17 years later.

As a young man during the ascendancy of the right, I saw the Reagan years not as Morning, but Winter in America...

My name is Eddie and I’m in recovery from civilization...

Monday, February 7, 2011

The Reagan Con, pt. I

¡Hola! Everybody…
Congrats to the socialist/ commie/ non-profit entity otherwise known as the Green Bay Packers (click here) on their Super Bowl win. Nothing more ironic than having the “enemy” (ACORN was also a non-profit) as Super Bowl champs!

* * *

-=[ The Reagan Con, pt. I ]=-

I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.

-- Grover Norquist


No great democracy has ever existed without a strong middle class.

Period.

Conservatives have an irrational, almost religious belief that if economic and social policies are made by the market, we won’t need government -- that’s you and me, the voice of the people. Let me repeat this point, because it’s important: you and I, and everyone else, we’re the government (“we the people”). Or at least we’re supposed to be...

The conservative mantra of “smaller government” has long become a dominant thought virus (meme) and for a long time most of you fell for it. Essentially, “smaller government” means less government oversight and regulation, thereby, the “theory” follows, allowing the “free” market to decide our policies. If you pay attention to Voodoo Economics devotees, they will tell you that a middle class will magically spring into being if we would just free corporate power (and greed) from government restrictions. The way to create jobs, the superstition goes, is to “free” the market. When the Wall St. fat cats are allowed to romp freely wealth is created, goes the belief, that wealth, they assure us, will trickle down to the rest of us, in that way creating a middle class.

This conservative ideology has been at the core of this country’s economic decisions since Reagan. Today, we the people (the middle class) work longer hours for less real money in jobs that are highly unstable. In addition, major sectors of our economy have been outsourced to “emerging markets” (a euphemism for poor, Third World nations), essentially putting you in competition with horribly oppressed workers who work for literally pennies a day.

Yeah, in case you didn’t get it, this very same voodoo has driven our economy to the ground.

This is what you have fallen for and what you continue to fall for today. Recently, Obama and other conservatives extended the Bush Wealthfare tax giveaways for the rich. In case you missed it, this is the same economic policy that got us to the mess we’re in today. The.very.same.

What we have today, contrary to allegations of socialism/ Marxism/ fascism is Obama’s Voodoo Economics on steroids. I actually believed that a vote for vote for Obama would’ve been a vote for an economics that shifts the tax burden away from the middle class and forcing the richest percentile of the population to share a fair burden. I was wrong. Today we have socialism for the corporations, capitalism for the working stiff. The simple, American idea that believed the solution is to build an economy from the ground up has been supplanted by that superstition in building the economy from the top-down (trickle down).

As I have written in the past, there is no such thing as a free market. Markets are the creation of government (we the people). While Obama is desperately trying to channel the spirit of Reagan, he’s throwing the most vulnerable under the bus.

During the most prosperous times for the middle class, taxes were viewed as investments in a civil society and were routinely embraced by the majority of the middle class. In that way, we invested in new schools, better roads, higher pay for police and firefighters, and a multitude of public works that resulted in extended periods of unprecedented wealth and stability for all economic classes.

Ronald Reagan and the corporate PR machine were successful in convincing an American electorate that taxes and government (we the people) were bad. Reagan did two things that dramatically changed our government. First, he changed laws like the Fairness Doctrine so that propagandists like Rush Limbaugh, backed by heavy corporate funding, could help convince the “Joe Six packs” of the world that the government was the enemy. In fact, Reagan ran for re-election as an outsider. My question is, how do you run for re-election as an outsider?!!

::blank stare::

In any case, Reagan’s second major act was to stop enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act, which had held corporate power at bay since 1881 (the law is still in the books, but rarely implemented). Subsequently, the media began forming huge monopolies resulting in fewer voices. Across America, two-three, and four-newspaper towns became one-newspaper towns, all shilling for the corporations that owned them. Today, about five corporations own almost all of the media. You can go literally for days getting your news from Time Warner, for example.

An entire generation has been indoctrinated into this trickle-down-smaller-government-is -better point of view. People began reacting positively to this viral thought-meme. Hoover-style conservative Clinton enacted global treaties (NAFTA, GATT) that further eroded the power of government (we the people) to regulate business and the media. The result was another explosion of mergers and takeovers (along with the downsizing that came with them), that has brought us to our current financial meltdown.

Today, the bottom line rules, it’s profits before people, and the working class be damned.

That’s what you will be deciding this coming election: more voodoo economics, or a vision of building the economy from the ground up.

My name is Eddie and I’m in recovery from civilization...

Monday, June 28, 2010

The Blame Game

¡Hola! Everybody...
A little economic ranting today...

* * *


-=[ Blaming the Unemployed ]=-


When my adult son was very young -- say 7-8 years-old -- we were at a picnic, and kids being kids, he didn’t want to wait until I set everything up in order to play ball. In his impatience, he kept swinging this large plastic bat perilously close to one of his cousins (who was zoning out, oblivious to the danger). I warned my son about swinging the bat and he stopped (or so I thought). Of course, a little time passed before I heard the thwack of plastic bat meeting said cousin’s head.

I disciplined my son and he was confused because he felt it was an “accident.” The hardest job of a parent, as far as I’m concerned, is teaching the “accountability lesson” -- the basic life lesson that actions have consequences.

This is forgivable in a young child, after all, they are here to learn, but I have to wonder what the fuck happened to the mostly conservative crowd who refuse to learn consequential thinking even as they pass judgment on everyone else.

Unlike the oil disaster, there is little talk about criminal investigations into the economic collapse, there is little sense that it was instigated by the same sort of greed, carelessness, and arrogance that is now ruining the Gulf of Mexico (and quite possibly changing life as we know it on the planet). Yet the economic meltdown will kill more people, create more chaos, and wreak more havoc on our lives than the Gulf oil “spill.” First, I have an issue with calling the BP oil catastrophe a “spill.” Spill denotes accident, and this was no accident. This is like an eight-year-old child claiming “accident” when he was swinging a bat perilously close to someone else’s head.

Instead, those (with the help of the media they own) who caused or helped enable the class war we call the Great Recession by parroting the talking points of the rightwing economic revolution are now treating the problem almost as if it were an act of God -- or an “accident.” Today the pathetically failed neocons now have only praise for tough and austere measures -- as if making ordinary folk suffer for the greedy indulgences of the rich was a noble cause. the deficit hawks have returned, and like most sequels, this one stinks to high heaven.

As Sam smith at Undernews succinctly notes:

There is a long line of economists, politicians, columnists, academics, and other powerful voices whose advice and encouragement directly led us to this economic disaster. You won’t read about it, however, because the very media that was complicit in the problem is now directing your attention away from its causes.

With a few exceptions (Dean Baker and Joseph Stiglitz come to mind) prominent economists and the major media has evaded saying the obvious: an economic policy that increasingly feeds the rich at the expense of everyone else can lead to nothing but trouble. Call it the “free market” or whatever other endearing name you want, but at its heart it was a vicious and brutal con game perpetrated against the majority of America.

The evidence is endless and endlessly ignored but here are a few examples:

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the gap in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and taken together with prior research, the new data suggest greater income concentration at the top of the income scale than at any time since 1928. Here’s what the change looks like:

In 1950, the ratio of the average executive’s paycheck to the average worker’s was about 30 to 1. Since 2000 that average has ranged from 300 to 500 to one.

According to economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, two-thirds of income increases between 2002 and 2007 went to the wealthiest 1% of society, a higher share of income than at any time since 1928.

This is not sound economic theory put into practice but state-sponsored fascism. So when you complain about so-called lazy workers, save a little blame for all those economists, columnists, and politicians who told you to just let the free market be and it would all work out fine.

To the hypocrites stigmatizing those most impacted by failed economic policies of the right I say fuck you very much. In terms of action, it happens that the House is now considering single issues job bill. If you believe that hard-working people deserve a chance, then I would strongly recommend you call your representatives and demand action.

Love,

Eddie

Monday, September 14, 2009

Smacking the Goobers

¡Hola! Everybody...
I thought I’d start the week with a little truth-telling. For one, no matter what Faux News says, there were maybe 60-70 thousand protesters at Saturday’s “Million Moran© March.” And that’s a generous estimate by the DC fire department. The parks dept., however, put the figure at a more realistic 30k. That’s it? After all the $$$ and the huge media plug, that’s all they could come up with? This is the fringe, my friends. BTW, I didn’t see too much color in that sea of white...

::arches eyebrow::

* * *

-=[ Truth Telling ]=-

Free your mind, your ass will follow...


What better way to start the week than with some old-fashioned libruhl truthiness?

Neocons are here

::points right::

Reality is here

::points left::

and never the twain shall meet...

MYTH 1: There is no health care crisis and the health care system currently works fine; only a small number of uninsured people would benefit from reform.

The Rush dolts want you to believe that there isn’t a crisis in health care in this country. They will tell you that this is really about controlling people’s lives “socialism!”

REALITY: On top of the 40-million-plus of the uninsured are 25 million Americans who are underinsured. The crisis facing the underinsured is the same thing that people who have no insurance at all face: they go without treatment, medications, or do not see a doctor when sick. Both groups face a financial hardship due to medical debt.

Big Insurance restricts or denies coverage by canceling health insurance policies on the grounds that customers had undisclosed, pre-existing conditions. One study found that in one year, three major American insurance companies rescinded almost 20,000 policies -- saving themselves $300 million.

MYTH 2: Progressive health care reform proposals will cause the rationing medical treatment.

Sean “I was toilet trained at gunpoint” Hannity, of Faux News, blurted once, "We're gonna have a government rationing body that tells women with breast cancer, ‘You're dead.’ It's a death sentence!”

REALITY: Hello?!! Big Insurance already rations healthcare. In fact, they acknowledge it, restricting coverage of procedures and tests like MRIs and CAT scans, and denying coverage for pre-existing medical conditions.

Practicing physicians are forced to ration all the time. Basically, they get this paperwork that forces them to justify why they’re ordering test or procedure. Moreover, if the justification is deemed inadequate by a faceless admin, they will not pay for it. This is saying that the patient is going to have to pay for it on their own, which is the essence of rationing.

MYTH 3: Health care reform provides for euthanasia, a “death panel.”

REALITY: “Death panel” claims have been conclusively discredited by more than 40 media reports. For example, PolitiFact wrote: “We’ve looked at the inflammatory claims that the health care bill encourages euthanasia. It doesn’t. There’s certainly no ‘death board’ that determines the worthiness of individuals to receive care. ... [Palin] said that the Democratic plan will ration care and ‘my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care.” Palin's statement,” reports PolitiFact, “sounds more like a science fiction movie than part of an actual bill before Congress.”

MYTH 4: Under the health care reform legislation you will be denied care, and it will be given to undocumented immigrants instead.

REALITY: Joe Wilson’s behavior on the house floor wasn’t just stupid; it was based on a lie -- his. If you’re going to be an asshole, you should at least have your facts right. The fact is that the house bill expressly requires that those “not lawfully present” may not receive subsidies to purchase insurance. Under the “Individual Affordability Credits” section of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009:

MYTH 5: Health care reform would be funded by broad-based tax increases.

REALITY: The surtax in House bill applies only to income exceeding $350,000 per year for joint filers. The House health care legislation would establish a 1% tax on joint income exceeding $350,000 but not greater than $500,000 per year; a 1.5% tax on joint income exceeding $500,000 but not greater than $1 million per year; a 5.4% tax on joint income exceeding $1 million per year. Single filers would be subject to the 1% surtax starting at income exceeding $280,000 per year.

MYTH 6: The House Democrats' bill will raise income taxes on small businesses and subject all small businesses to an 8 percent payroll tax as a penalty for not providing insurance to employees.

A Wall Street Journal editorial actually stipulated that the health-care bill’s 5.4-percentage point income surtax would hit small business especially hard, killing jobs in the process.

REALITY: The House Ways and Means Committee stated that, “using the broadest definition of a small business owner (i.e., any individual with as little as $1 of small business income), that only 4.1% of all small business owners would be affected by the health care surcharge.”

Companies with annual payrolls of less than $250,000 would pay no penalty under the House bill. The House bill would establish a 2 percent payroll penalty for employers with combined payroll between $250,000 to $300,000 that don’t offer health insurance to employees; a 4 percent penalty for employers with $300,000 to $350,000 in payroll; a 6 percent penalty for employers with $350,000 to $400,000 in payroll; and an 8 percent penalty for companies with annual payrolls exceeding $400,000. Additionally, the bill actually establishes tax credits for small-business employers that do provide health care.

MYTH 7: Health care reform would add $1 trillion-plus to deficit.

By now, those of us that read or watch the news has that even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that none of the health plans pending on Capitol Hill would control long-term spending, and that ones with the elements Obama wants would add around $1 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years.

REALITY: is that the House bill would increase the federal budget deficit by $239 billion over 10 years -- not $1 trillion. In a July 17 cost estimate of the bill as introduced, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that it “reflects a projected 10-year cost of the bill's insurance coverage provisions of $1,042 billion, partly offset by net spending changes that CBO estimates would save $219 billion over the same period, and by revenue provisions that JCT estimates would increase federal revenues by about $583 billion over those 10 years.” CBO thus concluded the legislation “would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period.”

MYTH 8: Obama is pushing a single-payer system like Canada's or a nationalized health care system like the United Kingdom’s.

REALITY: Unfortunately, He is on record as preferring, “to build on the system that we have and fill some of these gaps.”

I believe this is a mistake because we will not be able to unshackle the stranglehold of the insurance giants and will instead create a giveaway to the same entities that are literally killing us. Still, creation of a not for profit insurance entity would add some much-needed competition to the de fact insurance monopolies.

MYTH 9: Health care reform proposals are socialist and will lead to socialized medicine.

REALITY: Conservatives have trotted out the “socialized medicine” smear for 75 years and it has never been true. In an Urban Institute analysis it states, “socialized medicine involves government financing and direct provision of health care services,” and therefore, recent progressive health-care reform proposals do not “fit this description.”

Media Matters for America found that, as far back as the 30s -- with respect to at least 16 different reform initiatives including President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s consideration of government health insurance when crafting the 1935 Social Security bill; President Lyndon Johnson’s 1965 legislation establishing Medicare; and the health-care initiative by President Bill Clinton and first lady Hillary Clinton in 1993 and 1994 -- conservatives have used the same fear tactics against those proposals by calling them “socialized medicine.”

It's what they’re good at -- using fear to cow the public.

MYTH 10: Medicare has failed, and so the government can't be trusted to “run health care.”

REALITY: Medicare costs have risen more slowly than private insurance. Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote, "Since 1970 Medicare costs per beneficiary have risen at an annual rate of 8.8% -- but insurance premiums have risen at an annual rate of 9.9%. The rise in Medicare costs is just part of the overall rise in health care spending. And in fact Medicare spending has lagged private spending: if insurance premiums had risen 'only' as much as Medicare spending, they'd be 1/3 lower than they are.”

So there you have it. Next time a goober tries to pass off the Koo-Aid to ya, tell them, no thanks, you got the straight stuff.

Ya Betcha!

*wink*

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

When Less is Less

¡Hola! Everybody…
You may have not noticed, but Paul Krugman, a professor at Princeton
University and an Op-Ed page columnist for The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune, was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science on Monday. You also may not think it’s a big thing, but on some level, it is. First, Krugman has been a severe critic of Voodoo Economics (aka Reaganomics, Trickle down economics), a form of economics that has never been vetted by academic rigor. In other words, it’s just something someone somewhere pulled out of his arse. It is exactly this sham economics that has driven economic policy in the US for almost 40 years.

Conservatives are having conniption fits over Krugman’s Nobel Prize! LOL

* * *

-=[ The Smaller Government Con ]=-

“I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”

-- Grover Norquist


No great democracy has ever existed without a strong middle class.

Period.

Conservatives have an almost religious belief that if economic and social policies are made by the market, we won’t need government -- that’s you and me, the voice of the people. Let me repeat this point, because it’s important: you and I, and everyone else, we’re the government (“we the people”).

“Smaller government” has become the thought virus (meme) of conservatives and for a long time most of you fell for it. Essentially, “smaller government” means less government oversight and regulation, thereby allowing the “free” market to decide our economic policy. If you pay attention to Voodoo Economics devotees, they will tell you that a middle class will magically spring into being if we would just free corporate power (and greed) from government restrictions. The way to create jobs, the superstition goes, is to “free” the market. When the Wall St. fat cats are allowed to romp freely, their mantra goes, it will create wealth, and that wealth, they assure us, will trickle down to the rest of us, in that way creating a middle class.

This conservative ideology has been at the core of this country’s economic decisions since Reagan. Today, we (the middle class) work longer hours for less real money in jobs that are highly unstable. In addition, major sectors of our economy have been outsourced to Third World nations, essentially putting you in competition with horribly oppressed workers who work for literally pennies a day.

Yeah, in case you didn’t get it, this very same voodoo has driven our economy to the ground.

This is what you have fallen for and what is at stake in this election is not the bullshit Red State/ Blue State dichotomy, but which ideology will guide us in one of the most crucial economic moments in our history. Vote for McCain and he will put Voodoo Economics on steroids -- you will be voting for the conservative ideology that has been in power for at least four decades. A vote for Obama will be a vote for an economics that shifts the tax burden away from the middle class and forcing the richest percentile of the population to share a fair burden. One ideology believes in building the economy from the top-down (trickle down), the other believes the solution is to build an economy from the ground up.

::in John McCain voice:: Those are stark differences, my friends.

As I have written in the past, there is no such thing as a free market. Markets are the creation of government (we the people).

During the most prosperous times for the middle class, taxes were viewed as investments in a civil society and were routinely embraced by the majority of the middle class. In that way, we invested in new schools, better roads, higher pay for police and firefighters, and a multitude of public works that resulted in extended periods of unprecedented wealth and stability for all economic classes.

Ronald Reagan and his multimillion PR machine were successful in convincing an American electorate that taxes and government (we the people) were bad. Reagan did two things that dramatically changed our government. First, he changed laws like the Fairness Doctrine so that propagandists like Rush Limbaugh, backed by heavy corporate funding, could help convince the “Joe Six packs” of the world that the government was the enemy. In fact, Reagan ran for re-election as an outsider (much like McCain is attempting today). My question is, how do you run for re-election as an outsider?!!

::blank stare::

In any case, Reagan’s second major act was to stop enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act, which had held corporate power at bay since 1881 (the law is still in the books, but rarely implemented). Subsequently, the media began forming huge monopolies resulting in fewer voices. Across America, two-three, and four-newspaper towns became one-newspaper towns, all shilling for the corporations that owned them. Today, about five corporations own almost all of the media. You can go literally for days getting your news from Time Warner, for example.

An entire generation has been indoctrinated into this trickle-down-smaller-government-is -better point of view. People began reacting positively to this viral thought-meme. Hoover-style conservative Clinton enacted global treaties (NAFTA, GATT) that further eroded the power of government (we the people) to regulate business and the media. The result was another explosion of mergers and takeovers (along with the downsizing that came with them), that has brought us to our current financial meltdown.

Today, the bottom line rules, it’s profits before people, and the working class be damned.

That’s what you will be deciding this coming election: more voodoo economics, or a vision of building the economy from the ground up.

Eddie,

Eddie