Monday, June 28, 2010
REGULATING BANKS AND CORPORATIONS
Everybody has been angry with the executives of the Wall Street banking and financial interests, whose fiscal foolishness and greed caused the at least a temporary loss of about 45% of the wealth held by individuals, rich and otherwise, in this nation. People are angry enough to do something -- except for the republican leaders in the Congress. While most are demanding recompense, and even criminal prosecution, some republican politicians are holding back on any meaningful reform correcting the fault in regulation and oversight which allowed shady practices leading to disaster.
Some assertive moves by the president and his administration aside, nothing substantive has yet come from the Congress providing oversight that would prevent the same problems from reoccurring in the future. It has been over a year since all this despicable behavior came to light and almost brought the nation to its financial knees. Who would not want regulations put in place to stop it from happening again?
Obviously Wall Street executives do not want their playhouse supervised. They do not want some of their brainy schemes to fleece unsuspecting investors investigated or stopped. Most of all, they do not want anyone interfering with their lavish system of bonuses and obscene salaries. They are working hard in lobbying those politicians most closely allied traditionally with the business and financial world, who profit most from political contributions from this sector. That would be their republican friends in Congress, and some democrats.
Almost everyone in Congress knows there must be greater regulation. The lack of agreement has been about how much. Democrats have favored a thorough overhaul with measures enabling executive authority and commissions such as the SEC to regulate assertively with penalties that bite. Republicans have favored a more gentle form of oversight. There is disagreement also on enabling needed oversight and internal corporate controls of executive compensation.
Democrats are proposing much more direct and effective involvement of stockholders, other than directors in setting limits for executive compensation and controlling bonuses. Perhaps this issue is worth some examination here.
While the wealthy hold huge baskets of corporate stock, and while some corporations are held in majority by a single person or family, vast quantities of stock is held by public or private pension systems, public agency trusts, 401K plans, mutual funds, and individuals at large. The first big questions which loom: Who votes that stock? In whose interest is the stock voted?
The last question is easier to answer. In most instances the stock is NOT necessarily voted with the interests of the individual owner or beneficiary in mind. It is true that trustees and officers of pension systems generally favor interests of their constituency, but their contracted money managers probably do not. Employee members of 401K plans have little or no voice in how their equity holdings are voted, since that is handled by plan managers or the employer. Mutual funds do not offer their share holders voting privileges for their stock equities, and their own fund managers tend to do that. Even equity holdings of eleemosynary foundations normally are not voted by their trustees, but their professional fund managers do so.
Under such circumstances, corporations are rarely accountable to any degree to their actual individual investors. Instead, other professionals within the financial sector are doing much of the voting, setting up all kinds of possibilities for mutually beneficial insider deals and conflicts of interest – none of which are in the stock owner’s favor. This problem needs to be addressed by Congress.
Those readers who do own stock in companies directly will recall the mailings offering opportunities for proxy voting instead of attending a meeting far away. These are quite interesting.
The average stockholder is not ordinarily informed on the voting issues, but a booklet comes with the technical information. Usually the board has taken a position, and the ballot encourages voting their recommendation. Then there is the mandatory one-choice vote to ratify the board’s selection of an accounting firm. And, there’s a vote for board members as listed.
The ballots for election of board members often offer only two options: for and withhold. Interesting enough, the way those votes are counted – a candidate could receive 10,000 “withheld” votes and 100 “for” votes and be elected. “Withheld” simply means that, your vote is held back and not voted at all, so that the candidate still gets the majority of real votes. At regulatory encouragement, some companies are changing the “withheld” to “against.” While that is preferable, it is still almost impossible to defeat a board nominee without some massive, well-coordinated stockholder campaign to wrest back control of the company – often coming from a big owner with his own agenda.
All these are matters which need to be considered in the process of revising regulations for the financial and corporate world, making them more responsive to the public interest and the interest of their stockholders. Otherwise, we will continue to have a corrupt, or potentially corrupt, group of insiders operating the corporate business sector with little accountability to anyone.
Our financial markets, big banks, and financial institutions must be brought back into compliance with honest, open, and ethical business conduct. Other corporations need reform and oversight in the interest of stockholders and the public. Without government intervention there is little that stockholders are powerful enough to do alone in controlling the very companies in which they have investments.
And, we haven’t even spoken of tax dodges, off-shore shell offices, and shipping not only manufacturing but other jobs overseas. Nor have we addressed how to do all this in light of the recent Supreme Court legalizing corporate contributions for issues and political campaigns.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Some assertive moves by the president and his administration aside, nothing substantive has yet come from the Congress providing oversight that would prevent the same problems from reoccurring in the future. It has been over a year since all this despicable behavior came to light and almost brought the nation to its financial knees. Who would not want regulations put in place to stop it from happening again?
Obviously Wall Street executives do not want their playhouse supervised. They do not want some of their brainy schemes to fleece unsuspecting investors investigated or stopped. Most of all, they do not want anyone interfering with their lavish system of bonuses and obscene salaries. They are working hard in lobbying those politicians most closely allied traditionally with the business and financial world, who profit most from political contributions from this sector. That would be their republican friends in Congress, and some democrats.
Almost everyone in Congress knows there must be greater regulation. The lack of agreement has been about how much. Democrats have favored a thorough overhaul with measures enabling executive authority and commissions such as the SEC to regulate assertively with penalties that bite. Republicans have favored a more gentle form of oversight. There is disagreement also on enabling needed oversight and internal corporate controls of executive compensation.
Democrats are proposing much more direct and effective involvement of stockholders, other than directors in setting limits for executive compensation and controlling bonuses. Perhaps this issue is worth some examination here.
While the wealthy hold huge baskets of corporate stock, and while some corporations are held in majority by a single person or family, vast quantities of stock is held by public or private pension systems, public agency trusts, 401K plans, mutual funds, and individuals at large. The first big questions which loom: Who votes that stock? In whose interest is the stock voted?
The last question is easier to answer. In most instances the stock is NOT necessarily voted with the interests of the individual owner or beneficiary in mind. It is true that trustees and officers of pension systems generally favor interests of their constituency, but their contracted money managers probably do not. Employee members of 401K plans have little or no voice in how their equity holdings are voted, since that is handled by plan managers or the employer. Mutual funds do not offer their share holders voting privileges for their stock equities, and their own fund managers tend to do that. Even equity holdings of eleemosynary foundations normally are not voted by their trustees, but their professional fund managers do so.
Under such circumstances, corporations are rarely accountable to any degree to their actual individual investors. Instead, other professionals within the financial sector are doing much of the voting, setting up all kinds of possibilities for mutually beneficial insider deals and conflicts of interest – none of which are in the stock owner’s favor. This problem needs to be addressed by Congress.
Those readers who do own stock in companies directly will recall the mailings offering opportunities for proxy voting instead of attending a meeting far away. These are quite interesting.
The average stockholder is not ordinarily informed on the voting issues, but a booklet comes with the technical information. Usually the board has taken a position, and the ballot encourages voting their recommendation. Then there is the mandatory one-choice vote to ratify the board’s selection of an accounting firm. And, there’s a vote for board members as listed.
The ballots for election of board members often offer only two options: for and withhold. Interesting enough, the way those votes are counted – a candidate could receive 10,000 “withheld” votes and 100 “for” votes and be elected. “Withheld” simply means that, your vote is held back and not voted at all, so that the candidate still gets the majority of real votes. At regulatory encouragement, some companies are changing the “withheld” to “against.” While that is preferable, it is still almost impossible to defeat a board nominee without some massive, well-coordinated stockholder campaign to wrest back control of the company – often coming from a big owner with his own agenda.
All these are matters which need to be considered in the process of revising regulations for the financial and corporate world, making them more responsive to the public interest and the interest of their stockholders. Otherwise, we will continue to have a corrupt, or potentially corrupt, group of insiders operating the corporate business sector with little accountability to anyone.
Our financial markets, big banks, and financial institutions must be brought back into compliance with honest, open, and ethical business conduct. Other corporations need reform and oversight in the interest of stockholders and the public. Without government intervention there is little that stockholders are powerful enough to do alone in controlling the very companies in which they have investments.
And, we haven’t even spoken of tax dodges, off-shore shell offices, and shipping not only manufacturing but other jobs overseas. Nor have we addressed how to do all this in light of the recent Supreme Court legalizing corporate contributions for issues and political campaigns.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Monday, June 21, 2010
STENCH MAKES US SICK
The stench surrounding the oil slick is making us sick. But we are not speaking of the oily muck itself. We are speaking of all the politics being played out around Washington and in media circles around the country. Not only is it dirty and silly politics on display, but we are seeing some of the sorriest displays of personal arrogance and gamesmanship in recent history.
Nobody really knows much more to do about containing the damage from the oil slick than is already being done, prepared, or planned. But nearly everybody in politics, and all of those in the media, have better ideas than any of the experts. And, of course, all of them know how to handle it better than the president.
It seems that everyone actually doing anything in this disaster is clumsy, dumb, and inept while everyone observing from the cynics’ chairs could have been doing so much better. It appears that our president, who is stubbornly and deliberately trying to do something, never does the right thing. Why is this?
Some people are criticizing our president for not doing enough, while others are criticizing him for doing too much. Those political ideologues who think that government is too big now think that the president should have taken charge and wrested control from the private company. Others among them are afraid that he might do that, thus expanding government’s role too much.
There is a horrible display of arrogance on the part of congressional committee members interviewing officials from British Petroleum. Some hard questioning may be in order, but never hostile, arrogant ranting at an invited guest, now turned captive, who must silently endure berating and browbeating some ignoramus who knows little.
Of course, President Obama consistently catches the harshest criticism from the least knowledgeable and thoughtful of our citizens. He also catches similar criticism from the congresspersons those same voters send to the halls of Congress to represent them.
Who elected the talking heads of the media, and just how did they get so omniscient that they continually criticize the president whatever he does? After his recent prime time speech to the nation, there seemed to be no one in the media who was not critical. He wasn’t emotional enough. He was too nice. He gave an informative, educational lecture on the details of the problem, they said. He talked about the energy policy agenda. He met nobody’s expectations except for a large segment of the American people, who didn’t listen to the pundits telling them what to think. As one sympathetic writer said, “The President has experienced a gusher of criticism.”
The $20 Billion escrow deal with the BP, set aside to be administered by a third party, to meet all claims without court adjudication was indeed a remarkable accomplishment. It demonstrated the results brought forth by a competent and forceful president working behind the scenes. It showed the company and the government were now on the same page – trying to do something to provide security for alleviating problems of all those impacted by the catastrophe. This was a landmark deal, securing the welfare of those along the gulf coast.
My word! One would think from all the media chit chat and political uproar that some satanic bargain had been made. Again one could query: “What more can you ask or expect in the way of due diligence from either the president or the company?”
Republican Joe Barton of Texas, ranking committee republican and the recipient of $1.4 million in campaign money from oil companies, apologized profusely to the executives of BP for the unpardonable “shakedown” perpetrated by the president. He said he does not want to live in a country where the government can deal with a corporation that way.
Who does that guy represent? Certainly not any of the American people or businesses impacted along the Gulf Coast or elsewhere affected by this disastrous event. Obviously he represents his big oil donors.
Nevertheless Texas Sen. John Cornyn joined with Barton’s condemnation. Michele Bachmann, republican from Michigan, called the deal “a fleecing.” And 114 House republicans signed on a policy document rejecting the agreement as a “shakedown” of BP by President Obama. Other prominent republicans are said to be philosophically concerned that this agreement may “empower the government.”
But after the public backlash, Barton was called in by republican party leadership in the House and chastised. Then he apologized for his remarks.
Yes indeed, without even touching on some of the state and local politics involved in the gulf region, the stench of the politics surrounding all of this nationally rivals the smell of the oily muck itself contaminating our shores.
For what it is worth, this writer does not share the joys of others in seeing some congresspersons arrogantly attacking their witnesses from their lofty perches in catbirds’ chairs. This often seems an abuse of power. Witnesses deserve professional courtesy, especially those in positions of responsibility in the private or public sector. Watching some of our congresspersons berate and belittle BP executives was not a pleasant experience, in spite of some of that company’s failures.
It is a short step from plain discourtesy to demagoguery.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Nobody really knows much more to do about containing the damage from the oil slick than is already being done, prepared, or planned. But nearly everybody in politics, and all of those in the media, have better ideas than any of the experts. And, of course, all of them know how to handle it better than the president.
It seems that everyone actually doing anything in this disaster is clumsy, dumb, and inept while everyone observing from the cynics’ chairs could have been doing so much better. It appears that our president, who is stubbornly and deliberately trying to do something, never does the right thing. Why is this?
Some people are criticizing our president for not doing enough, while others are criticizing him for doing too much. Those political ideologues who think that government is too big now think that the president should have taken charge and wrested control from the private company. Others among them are afraid that he might do that, thus expanding government’s role too much.
There is a horrible display of arrogance on the part of congressional committee members interviewing officials from British Petroleum. Some hard questioning may be in order, but never hostile, arrogant ranting at an invited guest, now turned captive, who must silently endure berating and browbeating some ignoramus who knows little.
Of course, President Obama consistently catches the harshest criticism from the least knowledgeable and thoughtful of our citizens. He also catches similar criticism from the congresspersons those same voters send to the halls of Congress to represent them.
Who elected the talking heads of the media, and just how did they get so omniscient that they continually criticize the president whatever he does? After his recent prime time speech to the nation, there seemed to be no one in the media who was not critical. He wasn’t emotional enough. He was too nice. He gave an informative, educational lecture on the details of the problem, they said. He talked about the energy policy agenda. He met nobody’s expectations except for a large segment of the American people, who didn’t listen to the pundits telling them what to think. As one sympathetic writer said, “The President has experienced a gusher of criticism.”
The $20 Billion escrow deal with the BP, set aside to be administered by a third party, to meet all claims without court adjudication was indeed a remarkable accomplishment. It demonstrated the results brought forth by a competent and forceful president working behind the scenes. It showed the company and the government were now on the same page – trying to do something to provide security for alleviating problems of all those impacted by the catastrophe. This was a landmark deal, securing the welfare of those along the gulf coast.
My word! One would think from all the media chit chat and political uproar that some satanic bargain had been made. Again one could query: “What more can you ask or expect in the way of due diligence from either the president or the company?”
Republican Joe Barton of Texas, ranking committee republican and the recipient of $1.4 million in campaign money from oil companies, apologized profusely to the executives of BP for the unpardonable “shakedown” perpetrated by the president. He said he does not want to live in a country where the government can deal with a corporation that way.
Who does that guy represent? Certainly not any of the American people or businesses impacted along the Gulf Coast or elsewhere affected by this disastrous event. Obviously he represents his big oil donors.
Nevertheless Texas Sen. John Cornyn joined with Barton’s condemnation. Michele Bachmann, republican from Michigan, called the deal “a fleecing.” And 114 House republicans signed on a policy document rejecting the agreement as a “shakedown” of BP by President Obama. Other prominent republicans are said to be philosophically concerned that this agreement may “empower the government.”
But after the public backlash, Barton was called in by republican party leadership in the House and chastised. Then he apologized for his remarks.
Yes indeed, without even touching on some of the state and local politics involved in the gulf region, the stench of the politics surrounding all of this nationally rivals the smell of the oily muck itself contaminating our shores.
For what it is worth, this writer does not share the joys of others in seeing some congresspersons arrogantly attacking their witnesses from their lofty perches in catbirds’ chairs. This often seems an abuse of power. Witnesses deserve professional courtesy, especially those in positions of responsibility in the private or public sector. Watching some of our congresspersons berate and belittle BP executives was not a pleasant experience, in spite of some of that company’s failures.
It is a short step from plain discourtesy to demagoguery.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Monday, June 14, 2010
OIL SPILL ANGER
Double, double, toil and trouble
Eye of newt and toe of frog
Wool of bat, and tongue of dog
Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf
Witch’s mummy, maw and gulf
Double, double, toil and trouble
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
……… Shakespeare’s Macbeth
And so goes the continuing saga of BP’s oil spill disaster in the Gulf.
Although it may well be America’s greatest environmental calamity on record, news of the British Petroleum oil well disaster has been wearing thin on most watchers and most readers of the news. Why is that?
It is not that we have no interest, and not that we have lost interest in this terrible tragedy. It is just that, as is usual in all such newsworthy events, we are saturated. We are bothered by all the hostility, anger, and criticisms of everybody by everybody. It has become a cacophony.
Lacking in fast-developing, definitive news about the tragedy, news media have been spending their time and ours finding talking heads to criticize and blame somebody. It seems that critics are always available, and there are plenty of targets for them. It is wearing on us.
That’s too bad, because we are just starting to realize fully the vast dimensions of the ecological effects.
Further, it is too bad because we have not yet reached the bottom in sifting out all the facts from the background of the catastrophe. Yet we are all busy casting blame around at everybody. We are doing this with abandon, with little establishment in logic or reason for some of our targets. We are just so terribly frustrated and angry, so just any target will do – the more the merrier.
It is not difficult to find some basis for being mad at several entities. First, there is British Petroleum, the owner of the well. Then there is the Deepwater Horizons, which was actually doing the drilling work, and finally there is our old nemesis, Halliburton, which was handling the cementing and other services. There was confusion on the rig as to who was in charge, and evidently there were some arguments among employees leading to wrong decisions imperiling safety.
There were long-time failures of the government regulating agency to develop adequate policy standards for drilling safely at such depths, as are demanded in other jurisdictions in the world. There was lax reporting and lax enforcement of standards, and a background of close, if not collusive, relationships between oil entities and their regulators. Hampered by blocking of nominees in the Senate, it has taken the Obama administration too long to clear out this and other rats’ nests in regulatory agencies.
After the time of the drilling accident, tragically killing eleven employees and causing the gross spillage, it is hard for this writer to find a solid basis to assess a great deal of fault with anyone. It seems like everyone is trying frantically to stop this thing. There is a lot of trial and error.
One could go backward and find fault with both Bush and Cheney coming from oil backgrounds, supported generously by oil interests. One could cite the holding of government energy policy talks in secret with the advisors all coming from the oil companies, most of them cronies of Mr. Cheney. One could cite the past administration and the Congress giving oil companies tax incentives to drill in the Gulf, even giving away royalty rights to the companies drilling there. One could point to the fact that the entire government has been heavily influenced, some say “owned,” by big oil and other corporate interests.
But again, from this vantage point it is difficult to justify much of the angry criticism which has been directed toward BP or the company chairman, who has been their spokesman on the air. Maybe he has unwittingly acted cavalier in language and attitude. Maybe the company has appeared indecisive or disorganized. But no one has ever been handed such a calamity before.
Our press and our people have pilloried that man from BP something awful. Further, we have vilified the company and criticized BP’s desperate efforts at stopping the oil source, stopping its spread, and starting to clean up. We don’t seem to understand that magnitude of this disaster is beyond the realistic possibilities of response capabilities for any company, even one as big and powerful and BP. Our hostility is being reflected back by the pensioners and other stockholders in Britain who depend on dividend checks.
If our fishing business or livelihood had been taken away, maybe we would all be angry and feeling like yelling at somebody too. Evidently, some hold our government and our president personally responsible for any calamity that occurs, and they expect them to do something about it immediately, if not sooner. Political opponents always choose the president to blame.
What good would Mr. Obama have done by going to the beach, yelling and screaming at the oil scum? How many visits there would have been enough? Has he done more by declaring that he will “keep my boot on the neck of BP” until all this is cleaned up and made right financially? Are having a Coast Guard admiral on site, and specialists and other resources at his command, not better than Mr. Obama screaming and waving his hands on the beach?
BP is probably the only one with the expertise and the resources to do anything realistic to solve the problem of the spill. They are the ones with the financial incentives of liability to do all they can as fast as they can. They are the ones under the government’s boot to do it quickly.
What can we really accomplish by being angry and blaming everybody? It seems that all is being done that we know how to do and are able to do. This constant featuring of anger and fault-finding in the media accomplishes nothing but to undermine our confidence in both government and private enterprise. Enough already!
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Eye of newt and toe of frog
Wool of bat, and tongue of dog
Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf
Witch’s mummy, maw and gulf
Double, double, toil and trouble
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
……… Shakespeare’s Macbeth
And so goes the continuing saga of BP’s oil spill disaster in the Gulf.
Although it may well be America’s greatest environmental calamity on record, news of the British Petroleum oil well disaster has been wearing thin on most watchers and most readers of the news. Why is that?
It is not that we have no interest, and not that we have lost interest in this terrible tragedy. It is just that, as is usual in all such newsworthy events, we are saturated. We are bothered by all the hostility, anger, and criticisms of everybody by everybody. It has become a cacophony.
Lacking in fast-developing, definitive news about the tragedy, news media have been spending their time and ours finding talking heads to criticize and blame somebody. It seems that critics are always available, and there are plenty of targets for them. It is wearing on us.
That’s too bad, because we are just starting to realize fully the vast dimensions of the ecological effects.
Further, it is too bad because we have not yet reached the bottom in sifting out all the facts from the background of the catastrophe. Yet we are all busy casting blame around at everybody. We are doing this with abandon, with little establishment in logic or reason for some of our targets. We are just so terribly frustrated and angry, so just any target will do – the more the merrier.
It is not difficult to find some basis for being mad at several entities. First, there is British Petroleum, the owner of the well. Then there is the Deepwater Horizons, which was actually doing the drilling work, and finally there is our old nemesis, Halliburton, which was handling the cementing and other services. There was confusion on the rig as to who was in charge, and evidently there were some arguments among employees leading to wrong decisions imperiling safety.
There were long-time failures of the government regulating agency to develop adequate policy standards for drilling safely at such depths, as are demanded in other jurisdictions in the world. There was lax reporting and lax enforcement of standards, and a background of close, if not collusive, relationships between oil entities and their regulators. Hampered by blocking of nominees in the Senate, it has taken the Obama administration too long to clear out this and other rats’ nests in regulatory agencies.
After the time of the drilling accident, tragically killing eleven employees and causing the gross spillage, it is hard for this writer to find a solid basis to assess a great deal of fault with anyone. It seems like everyone is trying frantically to stop this thing. There is a lot of trial and error.
One could go backward and find fault with both Bush and Cheney coming from oil backgrounds, supported generously by oil interests. One could cite the holding of government energy policy talks in secret with the advisors all coming from the oil companies, most of them cronies of Mr. Cheney. One could cite the past administration and the Congress giving oil companies tax incentives to drill in the Gulf, even giving away royalty rights to the companies drilling there. One could point to the fact that the entire government has been heavily influenced, some say “owned,” by big oil and other corporate interests.
But again, from this vantage point it is difficult to justify much of the angry criticism which has been directed toward BP or the company chairman, who has been their spokesman on the air. Maybe he has unwittingly acted cavalier in language and attitude. Maybe the company has appeared indecisive or disorganized. But no one has ever been handed such a calamity before.
Our press and our people have pilloried that man from BP something awful. Further, we have vilified the company and criticized BP’s desperate efforts at stopping the oil source, stopping its spread, and starting to clean up. We don’t seem to understand that magnitude of this disaster is beyond the realistic possibilities of response capabilities for any company, even one as big and powerful and BP. Our hostility is being reflected back by the pensioners and other stockholders in Britain who depend on dividend checks.
If our fishing business or livelihood had been taken away, maybe we would all be angry and feeling like yelling at somebody too. Evidently, some hold our government and our president personally responsible for any calamity that occurs, and they expect them to do something about it immediately, if not sooner. Political opponents always choose the president to blame.
What good would Mr. Obama have done by going to the beach, yelling and screaming at the oil scum? How many visits there would have been enough? Has he done more by declaring that he will “keep my boot on the neck of BP” until all this is cleaned up and made right financially? Are having a Coast Guard admiral on site, and specialists and other resources at his command, not better than Mr. Obama screaming and waving his hands on the beach?
BP is probably the only one with the expertise and the resources to do anything realistic to solve the problem of the spill. They are the ones with the financial incentives of liability to do all they can as fast as they can. They are the ones under the government’s boot to do it quickly.
What can we really accomplish by being angry and blaming everybody? It seems that all is being done that we know how to do and are able to do. This constant featuring of anger and fault-finding in the media accomplishes nothing but to undermine our confidence in both government and private enterprise. Enough already!
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
COBURN HALF RIGHT
Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma was half right – at least once. When the senator demanded that the special appropriation for the military, paying for the cost of conducting war operations abroad, not be added to the nation’s deficit but be paid for in some fashion, he was right. He was wrong when he demanded that it be paid for solely by cutting some unspecified expenditure.
Had Coburn demanded that the war, for the first time, be paid for by an actual tax levy upon corporations and citizens, he would have been fully correct. Just demanding in some fuzzy way that something or other, who knows what, be cut out is grandstanding and not a sincere, productive move. If the senator had specified something specific, like children’s school lunches or highways, be sacrificed, he would have at least been candid and honest about it.
First of all, one could legitimately question whether either of the two wars in which we have been engaged the last eight years was either necessary or appropriate. If indeed there is really any question about that, then we should extricate ourselves as quickly as possible. A tax might cause that.
During the Memorial Day period recognizing all those who have died in our previous wars, one realizes more fully what an awful price has been paid by families through the years. Some of us know this personally in our own family. That any of these shall have died for poor cause, or not in necessity, is appalling to us. Yet that may have been happening now for eight years, with no end in sight.
We should stop and evaluate fully just what our national interest really is in forcing regime changes and occupying obscure lands on the other side of the earth. We learned the folly of supporting an unpopular government against a motivated insurgency in Viet Nam. Or did we? We may be repeating this mistake in both Iraq and Afghanistan. When we leave, the population most probably will relapse into violence and a regime hostile to us may eventually emerge. What have we accomplished?
We need to realize that our enemies are not necessarily nations, nor contained within borders. Although there are governments who do not like us, we are not at war with them. Our enemies have been networks of cells of terrorists that now exist in a dozen different nations, with governments both friendly and unfriendly. Even Muslim religious fanatics may not be our enemies unless or until they become organized into cells with terrorist goals toward us.
Just as we are finding that we can accomplish much with the unmanned drone flights in attacking specified targets, so it has always been that we could accomplish much with well aimed missiles from long distances. It may not be unnecessary to have “boots on the ground” to combat these terror cells in obscure places. Remember that President Clinton may have actually come much closer to hitting Osama bin Laden with a rocket that President Bush came with an army on the ground. Good intelligence information and well-placed missiles may be the better strategy.
We ran up $1.8 trillion in deficits during Mr. Bush’s administration by deficit financing of the war and actually cutting taxes for the wealthy. This was fiscally foolish. But we are still making the same mistake.
If these wars are not popular enough to support by a tax levied upon all the people, then why should we be sacrificing our young people on the battlefields in places of little consequence or significance to us. To recognize a valid truth, during the Bush era the wealthy received the tax breaks and the young people from working class and minority families have born the major burden of fighting the wars.
This inequality should stop. Since it is unlikely we will institute a draft to spread the burden of service to the upper classes, then we should be certain that they pay their share of the financial burden.
After putting these wars onto a pay as you go basis, we should look next at the deficit. We may be able to cut expenditures some, but not a lot during this fragile period of recovery from a severe recession. Nevertheless, expenditures should be examined critically to cut waste in areas not contributing to recovery. Then we should levy a deficit reduction tax.
There is no way out of a deficit, nor toward debt reduction, that will not eventually demand a tax increase. It is just not feasible. So much of our expenditures are entitlements (Social Security and Medicare), both of which have their own special tax levies of support which can be adjusted upward if required for continued solvency. Then the other big budget bite is military. Beyond these, there is not enough left to cut in sums great enough to make any substantial change.
Any new taxes must at this time avoid cutting into that pool of income out there that drives the economy. This means minimizing taxes directed toward lower and middle class families, who spend nearly all of their income. For economic reasons, not class warfare, much of the new tax burden must fall on those with greatest discretionary income, much of it from sources other than wages and salaries such as dividends and capital gains. Remember billionaire Warren Buffet’s remark about paying a LOWER TAX RATE than his secretary?
Mentioning tax increases is never popular, but it is a necessary part of any “bite the bullet” approach to a balanced budget and debt reduction.
We have not yet observed the political will within either party to face these problems honestly and directly. With the new “populist” tea party bunch gathering steam among the gullible and uninformed on basis of an anti-tax platform, there seems little hope the nation will recover is fiscal senses any time soon.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Had Coburn demanded that the war, for the first time, be paid for by an actual tax levy upon corporations and citizens, he would have been fully correct. Just demanding in some fuzzy way that something or other, who knows what, be cut out is grandstanding and not a sincere, productive move. If the senator had specified something specific, like children’s school lunches or highways, be sacrificed, he would have at least been candid and honest about it.
First of all, one could legitimately question whether either of the two wars in which we have been engaged the last eight years was either necessary or appropriate. If indeed there is really any question about that, then we should extricate ourselves as quickly as possible. A tax might cause that.
During the Memorial Day period recognizing all those who have died in our previous wars, one realizes more fully what an awful price has been paid by families through the years. Some of us know this personally in our own family. That any of these shall have died for poor cause, or not in necessity, is appalling to us. Yet that may have been happening now for eight years, with no end in sight.
We should stop and evaluate fully just what our national interest really is in forcing regime changes and occupying obscure lands on the other side of the earth. We learned the folly of supporting an unpopular government against a motivated insurgency in Viet Nam. Or did we? We may be repeating this mistake in both Iraq and Afghanistan. When we leave, the population most probably will relapse into violence and a regime hostile to us may eventually emerge. What have we accomplished?
We need to realize that our enemies are not necessarily nations, nor contained within borders. Although there are governments who do not like us, we are not at war with them. Our enemies have been networks of cells of terrorists that now exist in a dozen different nations, with governments both friendly and unfriendly. Even Muslim religious fanatics may not be our enemies unless or until they become organized into cells with terrorist goals toward us.
Just as we are finding that we can accomplish much with the unmanned drone flights in attacking specified targets, so it has always been that we could accomplish much with well aimed missiles from long distances. It may not be unnecessary to have “boots on the ground” to combat these terror cells in obscure places. Remember that President Clinton may have actually come much closer to hitting Osama bin Laden with a rocket that President Bush came with an army on the ground. Good intelligence information and well-placed missiles may be the better strategy.
We ran up $1.8 trillion in deficits during Mr. Bush’s administration by deficit financing of the war and actually cutting taxes for the wealthy. This was fiscally foolish. But we are still making the same mistake.
If these wars are not popular enough to support by a tax levied upon all the people, then why should we be sacrificing our young people on the battlefields in places of little consequence or significance to us. To recognize a valid truth, during the Bush era the wealthy received the tax breaks and the young people from working class and minority families have born the major burden of fighting the wars.
This inequality should stop. Since it is unlikely we will institute a draft to spread the burden of service to the upper classes, then we should be certain that they pay their share of the financial burden.
After putting these wars onto a pay as you go basis, we should look next at the deficit. We may be able to cut expenditures some, but not a lot during this fragile period of recovery from a severe recession. Nevertheless, expenditures should be examined critically to cut waste in areas not contributing to recovery. Then we should levy a deficit reduction tax.
There is no way out of a deficit, nor toward debt reduction, that will not eventually demand a tax increase. It is just not feasible. So much of our expenditures are entitlements (Social Security and Medicare), both of which have their own special tax levies of support which can be adjusted upward if required for continued solvency. Then the other big budget bite is military. Beyond these, there is not enough left to cut in sums great enough to make any substantial change.
Any new taxes must at this time avoid cutting into that pool of income out there that drives the economy. This means minimizing taxes directed toward lower and middle class families, who spend nearly all of their income. For economic reasons, not class warfare, much of the new tax burden must fall on those with greatest discretionary income, much of it from sources other than wages and salaries such as dividends and capital gains. Remember billionaire Warren Buffet’s remark about paying a LOWER TAX RATE than his secretary?
Mentioning tax increases is never popular, but it is a necessary part of any “bite the bullet” approach to a balanced budget and debt reduction.
We have not yet observed the political will within either party to face these problems honestly and directly. With the new “populist” tea party bunch gathering steam among the gullible and uninformed on basis of an anti-tax platform, there seems little hope the nation will recover is fiscal senses any time soon.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Friday, June 04, 2010
OKLAHOMA TALIBAN ASPIRANTS
If I were a woman in Oklahoma, I would be mad as hell. If I were a history teacher, or even a citizen in Texas, I would be almost that mad. There seems to be so many in our region, somehow manipulated into leadership positions, who seem to have aspirations of creating a Taliban-like government in our country.
A majority in the Oklahoma legislature, with GOP leadership and wimpy democrats, seem to desire Taliban-like control over the women of the state. So far no burkas, but the women of Oklahoma should be on the alert. That would interfere with their legitimate individual freedoms, but that does not seem to be a deterrent to the religious right in the Capitol chambers. Also, watch out for new requirements that women desiring abortions be paraded through the city streets, wearing a big letter M (for murderess), on the way to the clinic. Doctors may be required to wear the letter as well.
These bills just keep coming through the legislature, regardless of how outrageous they may become or the unnecessary litigation expenses incurred. Governor Brad Henry, to his credit, just keeps on using the veto pen. They keep over-riding that, and new laws keep giving Oklahoma the image of being in the backwaters intellectually and culturally. Then the courts keep killing the legislation as unconstitutionally violating the rights of women. This circular motion has its own political purpose, of course.
The reactionary legislators and wimpy democrats have made their record for re-election with their religious Taliban-like supporters and donors, and everybody on the winning side is happy. But the tarnished image of Oklahoma gets worse and worse, and those demagogues could not care less.
The idea of all this, of course, is to make the legal process of obtaining an abortion as difficult and embarrassing as possible. They would like the experience to be such as to embarrass the most brazen and give even the most tough-minded woman a guilt trip for the rest of their lives. All this is in spite of her personal situation or her legal rights of freedom.
To these people the decisions of the courts mean little. Those are secondary. These demagogues have routes to the “ultimate truth” that others of us apparently lack. Most of us do not find the Bible speaking of any such procedure, they are quite sure that it is prohibited by God’s law. Of course, they like to substitute emotional and criminal terminology not there.
This same constituency also disagrees with the court interpretations limiting compulsory government sponsored prayers in schools. And, they disagree with the First Amendment prohibitions of government sponsored and endorsed religions. But they are fierce defenders of their own interpretation of the Second Amendment, which speaks of the rights of state militias to keep and bear arms.
As we know, the Taliban fiercely believes that their Koran teaches one religion and one government conducted under the authorities in that religion. And, let us not forget that their religion demands the subjugation of women to the level of chattel. Would our local folk admit to similar aspirations? Do they seek to interpret our Bible after the fashion of their own models?
We should hasten to add that the Christianity which some practice and seek to demand of others through secular law is not the kind of Christianity that many of us believe to be a true and correct interpretation of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Their Taliban-like initiatives will not pass the primary test of “the Spirit,” as biblically demanded. That which is done oppressively in a mean-spirited, demagogic fashion for political purposes simply will not pass.
We should remind ourselves of our own national and western history of acts of violence committed in the name of religion. However well intentioned, murder and torture committed during the Spanish Inquisition was never right. Burning of the English Bible translator and scholar as a heretic in Britain was wrong. Violence against the Anabaptists in Germany was misguided and wrong.
And the violence against women superstitiously accused of witchcraft by professing Christians in early America was terribly wrong.
Let us hope that America does not relapse into such backward, irrational, and cruel modes of thinking and conduct ever again. Let us hope also that Oklahoma might add to its reputation as a prominent center for medical and scientific research, rather than enhance its image for backwater politics of ignorance.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
A majority in the Oklahoma legislature, with GOP leadership and wimpy democrats, seem to desire Taliban-like control over the women of the state. So far no burkas, but the women of Oklahoma should be on the alert. That would interfere with their legitimate individual freedoms, but that does not seem to be a deterrent to the religious right in the Capitol chambers. Also, watch out for new requirements that women desiring abortions be paraded through the city streets, wearing a big letter M (for murderess), on the way to the clinic. Doctors may be required to wear the letter as well.
These bills just keep coming through the legislature, regardless of how outrageous they may become or the unnecessary litigation expenses incurred. Governor Brad Henry, to his credit, just keeps on using the veto pen. They keep over-riding that, and new laws keep giving Oklahoma the image of being in the backwaters intellectually and culturally. Then the courts keep killing the legislation as unconstitutionally violating the rights of women. This circular motion has its own political purpose, of course.
The reactionary legislators and wimpy democrats have made their record for re-election with their religious Taliban-like supporters and donors, and everybody on the winning side is happy. But the tarnished image of Oklahoma gets worse and worse, and those demagogues could not care less.
The idea of all this, of course, is to make the legal process of obtaining an abortion as difficult and embarrassing as possible. They would like the experience to be such as to embarrass the most brazen and give even the most tough-minded woman a guilt trip for the rest of their lives. All this is in spite of her personal situation or her legal rights of freedom.
To these people the decisions of the courts mean little. Those are secondary. These demagogues have routes to the “ultimate truth” that others of us apparently lack. Most of us do not find the Bible speaking of any such procedure, they are quite sure that it is prohibited by God’s law. Of course, they like to substitute emotional and criminal terminology not there.
This same constituency also disagrees with the court interpretations limiting compulsory government sponsored prayers in schools. And, they disagree with the First Amendment prohibitions of government sponsored and endorsed religions. But they are fierce defenders of their own interpretation of the Second Amendment, which speaks of the rights of state militias to keep and bear arms.
As we know, the Taliban fiercely believes that their Koran teaches one religion and one government conducted under the authorities in that religion. And, let us not forget that their religion demands the subjugation of women to the level of chattel. Would our local folk admit to similar aspirations? Do they seek to interpret our Bible after the fashion of their own models?
We should hasten to add that the Christianity which some practice and seek to demand of others through secular law is not the kind of Christianity that many of us believe to be a true and correct interpretation of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Their Taliban-like initiatives will not pass the primary test of “the Spirit,” as biblically demanded. That which is done oppressively in a mean-spirited, demagogic fashion for political purposes simply will not pass.
We should remind ourselves of our own national and western history of acts of violence committed in the name of religion. However well intentioned, murder and torture committed during the Spanish Inquisition was never right. Burning of the English Bible translator and scholar as a heretic in Britain was wrong. Violence against the Anabaptists in Germany was misguided and wrong.
And the violence against women superstitiously accused of witchcraft by professing Christians in early America was terribly wrong.
Let us hope that America does not relapse into such backward, irrational, and cruel modes of thinking and conduct ever again. Let us hope also that Oklahoma might add to its reputation as a prominent center for medical and scientific research, rather than enhance its image for backwater politics of ignorance.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
CONCERN FOR LOSING REPUBLICANS
This topic is a strange one for some of us who may not be known for great concern about republicans losing elections. Question: What is worse than a republican? Answer: A bad republican. There is a movement in the Republican Party which should concern every American, both republican and democrat. The Republican Party has taken a hard turn to the right, up to the edge of darkness.
The banishment of Senator Arlen Specter was a prelude, followed this year by other disturbing events. Charlie Crisp, a moderate leader and a promising national figure, has had to leave the party in Florida. Bob Bennett, a well-known conservative leader within the party and the senate, was demonized for two votes cast to save the country from a disaster and then defeated in the Utah state caucus. Dr. Rand Paul, a libertarian and the “tea party” candidate in Kentucky, trounced his mainstream republican opponent.
Dr. Paul is already in trouble, finding that one cannot be a true libertarian, demanding a non-regulating laissez faire government, without being offensive to people in the rational mainstream. This kind of thing comes out in general elections that attract press coverage.
It has become clear that the “tea party” fringe has moved into the driver’s seat within the Republican Party, winning their primaries. This is akin to putting a drunk on Prozac behind the wheel of the bus carrying all of our valuables, plus the originals of the Magna Charta, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States. These are not people to trust with running the country or the world.
Since the last general election in 2008, after which the Republican Party was left in shambles without a leader, this ultra-conservative element has emerged as dominant. They are not a new party at all, although they have taken up the “tea party” name as a form of pseudo-populism.
Unlike this rude and disorderly crowd, most Republican Party leaders in the Congress and in the intellectual community have traditionally been civil, courteous, respectful toward others, and were often both eloquent and erudite. William F. Buckley was for years the philosophical leader of conservatives and a leading intellectual of his day. Although harsh campaigners, latter twentieth century republican political leaders were mostly “gentlemen (ladies) of the old school,” not given to excesses in speech or behavior.
Libertarians tend to believe in non-regulatory government, limited to the necessaries -- such as protection of person and property, national defense, infrastructure, and assuring individual and corporate liberties. Libertarians have tended to be either professional people or wealthy, corporate people.
Libertarians believe in limited government and limited taxes. They would do away with most present departments of government and substitute private company contractors for most of the rest of government work. Social agencies would go, and privately supported charities would assume really needed services. Libertarian views and “tea party” slogans are NOT congruent, although they may overlap.
A right wing fringe has always been present in the Republican Party. There has always been something of a rabid element straining to cut loose. The “tea party” has become their vehicle for doing so. Their anti-tax stance has drawn a wealthy class of sponsors. But they do not demonstrate the traditional savoir faire of the mainstream Republican Party, which they have succeeded in intimidating.
The right wing Christian group has been attracted to republicans through deference to their anti-abortion, school prayer, evolution and similar issues. These are joined by rowdy “tea party” types, ideological conservatives, and corporate, business, and wealth interests, to make up the party “base” to which candidates have always had to appeal to be elected. The raucous element has taken over.
A number of pundits have concluded that the current de facto leader of the Republican Party is Rush Limbaugh. His daily inflammatory anti-government, anti-democrat, anti-Obama tirades have unfortunately galvanized a majority of gullible republicans into a frenzied, unprincipled opposition to everything either proposed or done by government. This reaches back into the latter Bush months when a frenetic effort was being made by that administration and congressional democrats to prevent the economy from utter disaster.
Since then Rush Limbaugh has wielded the whip that has kept rank and file republican congresspersons in line with the party. Even their titular leaders quake in fear of Limbaugh’s wrath. Aided by the Fox News channel, Limbaugh has by intimidation enforced the discipline of the party of “NO,” and those who have dared to deviate just a little have felt the wrath of his “ditto-heads.” Any signs of bi-partisanship are exorcised.
This is why we are concerned about the losing republicans in the party’s primaries. The more that party becomes dominated by those with an angry, unreasoning, unprincipled, mob mentality, the more inhibiting it will be to bi-partisanship and democratic processes. These people demonstrate no sense of propriety, follow no rules of courtesy, tend to be uncouth and anti-intellectual, and trash everyone who dares to differ.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
The banishment of Senator Arlen Specter was a prelude, followed this year by other disturbing events. Charlie Crisp, a moderate leader and a promising national figure, has had to leave the party in Florida. Bob Bennett, a well-known conservative leader within the party and the senate, was demonized for two votes cast to save the country from a disaster and then defeated in the Utah state caucus. Dr. Rand Paul, a libertarian and the “tea party” candidate in Kentucky, trounced his mainstream republican opponent.
Dr. Paul is already in trouble, finding that one cannot be a true libertarian, demanding a non-regulating laissez faire government, without being offensive to people in the rational mainstream. This kind of thing comes out in general elections that attract press coverage.
It has become clear that the “tea party” fringe has moved into the driver’s seat within the Republican Party, winning their primaries. This is akin to putting a drunk on Prozac behind the wheel of the bus carrying all of our valuables, plus the originals of the Magna Charta, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States. These are not people to trust with running the country or the world.
Since the last general election in 2008, after which the Republican Party was left in shambles without a leader, this ultra-conservative element has emerged as dominant. They are not a new party at all, although they have taken up the “tea party” name as a form of pseudo-populism.
Unlike this rude and disorderly crowd, most Republican Party leaders in the Congress and in the intellectual community have traditionally been civil, courteous, respectful toward others, and were often both eloquent and erudite. William F. Buckley was for years the philosophical leader of conservatives and a leading intellectual of his day. Although harsh campaigners, latter twentieth century republican political leaders were mostly “gentlemen (ladies) of the old school,” not given to excesses in speech or behavior.
Libertarians tend to believe in non-regulatory government, limited to the necessaries -- such as protection of person and property, national defense, infrastructure, and assuring individual and corporate liberties. Libertarians have tended to be either professional people or wealthy, corporate people.
Libertarians believe in limited government and limited taxes. They would do away with most present departments of government and substitute private company contractors for most of the rest of government work. Social agencies would go, and privately supported charities would assume really needed services. Libertarian views and “tea party” slogans are NOT congruent, although they may overlap.
A right wing fringe has always been present in the Republican Party. There has always been something of a rabid element straining to cut loose. The “tea party” has become their vehicle for doing so. Their anti-tax stance has drawn a wealthy class of sponsors. But they do not demonstrate the traditional savoir faire of the mainstream Republican Party, which they have succeeded in intimidating.
The right wing Christian group has been attracted to republicans through deference to their anti-abortion, school prayer, evolution and similar issues. These are joined by rowdy “tea party” types, ideological conservatives, and corporate, business, and wealth interests, to make up the party “base” to which candidates have always had to appeal to be elected. The raucous element has taken over.
A number of pundits have concluded that the current de facto leader of the Republican Party is Rush Limbaugh. His daily inflammatory anti-government, anti-democrat, anti-Obama tirades have unfortunately galvanized a majority of gullible republicans into a frenzied, unprincipled opposition to everything either proposed or done by government. This reaches back into the latter Bush months when a frenetic effort was being made by that administration and congressional democrats to prevent the economy from utter disaster.
Since then Rush Limbaugh has wielded the whip that has kept rank and file republican congresspersons in line with the party. Even their titular leaders quake in fear of Limbaugh’s wrath. Aided by the Fox News channel, Limbaugh has by intimidation enforced the discipline of the party of “NO,” and those who have dared to deviate just a little have felt the wrath of his “ditto-heads.” Any signs of bi-partisanship are exorcised.
This is why we are concerned about the losing republicans in the party’s primaries. The more that party becomes dominated by those with an angry, unreasoning, unprincipled, mob mentality, the more inhibiting it will be to bi-partisanship and democratic processes. These people demonstrate no sense of propriety, follow no rules of courtesy, tend to be uncouth and anti-intellectual, and trash everyone who dares to differ.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
