The Princes of Power

Journalists have been taking a lot of flak for not calling out the lies and plain orneriness of the President but I begin to get a glimmer of the problem. The stuff comes at you so hard and often that it is hard to get a grip on exactly what to address. I've been having that problem trying to focus on my writing so if you will bear with me I'm going to give it a shot.

What I want to talk about is the way that our government is going headlong to give breaks to business and take services away from the people. Included in this is the massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top few percent of the population. Now, don't try to tell me they worked for it because they didn't. What they did was purchase the best legislators they could afford through the legalized bribery that we refer to as lobbying. It is very effective and returns profits of enormous proportions. In the midst of this there has been a tax cut that brings revenues to the lowest points since at least the Great Depression if considered as a percentage of GDP. When I was a kid the tax rate for revenues over a million or so was in the 90% range. We built the interstate system, schools and a military that we really don't know what to do with. We ignored President Eisenhowers warning about allowing certain industries and they patrons to accumulate excessive power. We have ridden on the back of those investments in infrastructure and the creation of the world's most prolific middle class for over half a century while we allowed those gains to be slowly stripped from us, most of us not even noticing.

In the 60s we got Medicare to go along with Social Security that provides a semblance of a safety net in our old age. Ever since those programs were initiated there have been elements of our society that have tried to take them away. They really don't believe it is the responsibility of government to take care of its citizens. They believe that government should serve corporate interests and then the corporate interests may deign to allow some crumbs to “trickle down.” I don't believe that at all.

Through the Vietnam Era there was always a surtax to support the wars but now we just put them on the credit card. You should realize that that borrowing to support wars ends up in the pockets of the very rich. War is a very profitable enterprise.

For a time we had progress on the idea that government should provide health care to all of its citizens like every other developed country does. We very nearly had it but now it is being stripped from those who need it most because “we can't afford it.” Really? Why not? The national debt has become so large that we are told that the only way to deal with it is “entitlement reform” which is another name for “let them eat cake.” It bears mentioning that Social Security has its own revenue stream which has in the past has shown surpluses. Those surpluses have been invested in Treasury Bonds which have been used to keep for raising taxes to pay for the services we have demanded. In other words, we have not asked the American people to pay their way and now we are looking for a way to keep those who actually have money to not have to pay it back.

Eventually what will happen is that we will unable to keep up and the burden of debt and services will cause us to have to make some drastic cuts. Where? There are only two places where that kind of money exists and that is in Social Services and Military. What gets cut? The military lobby is very strong and wise in the ways of statecraft. Those who rely on social services are many but disorganized and poor.

I read a rather lengthy paper some years back dealing with the role of the U.S. Military in our government. It was called “Caciques.” Google that word. Caciques are the princes of power who are the hands that steer profits and governmental policy. You may notice that there may come to mind some entities who fit that role. The paper went on to say that the U.S. Military dealt with National Security with about 15% of its resources. The balance went to serve the interests of these “Caciques.”

Our military is the most powerful the world has ever seen. We have 11 Carrier Groups while the largest number anyone else has is 2. Our Navy keeps the sea lanes open and is used to project power when our industries want to do business in any part of the world. Now, don't get me wrong. That is a noble goal but why should the United States taxpayer be on the hook for all of it? Who keeps the Strait of Hormuz open? Who keeps China from annexing then entire South China Sea? Who is it that is in the Polar regions trying to keep others from monopolizing resources that will be available after the ice melts a bit more? Who is it that provides the deterrence to keep North Korea from swarming across the 38^th parallel? Who provided the bulwark against Russian aggression in Europe? I could go on and on.

We must find another way. This way has worked but now it does not. Just like we have relieved the burden of taxes from the wealthy we have used the vast resources of our nation to further enrich them.

Try to ask yourself how the United States has been the victim of aggression and needful of a military that, as President Eisenhower said, deprives resources from schools, infrastructure and the needs of the American people.

I am not naive about this. I know it will be hard but we must begin to look for the resources and revenues that we require and taking it from the poor will only work for a very short time and it will destroy the soul of our country.

My Take is that as a nation we must make some tough decisions and stop lending credence to lies and fear. I have to tell you, I am not confident that we will be able to do so. Lee Kwan Yew who was the leader of Singapore once said “the United States is wealthy, it can have anything it chooses.” What will we choose?

Baby Charlie

I noticed a recent columnist for the Commonwealth-Journal going on about how much of a heathen nation that England is for its treatment of Baby Charlie. The English Medical System decided that there could be no benefit in continuing life support for this child who had been on life support for nearly 2 years and ordered the life support terminated. This has stirred up a hornet's nest of recriminations once again bringing up the topic of death panels and accusations that this is what liberals want for the United States. A British citizen remarked that the baby surely survived longer in Britain than he would have in the United States where he would have been cast aside if the parents did not have insurance, that the insurance would have been cut off far earlier. If Charlie's parents were not wealthy care would have been discontinued by default.

It strikes me as odd that some people will be willing to have our government pay millions to keep this baby on life support but will not favor life support for a child who has already been born and is healthy. Is death any less remorseful if it is by starvation and abuse than if it is by removing a non-sentient child from life support? How is it that we care about life if it has not seen the light of day but not if it has endured years of neglect and abuse?

Can someone explain this paradox to me?