A Moth to a Flame, Drawn in by the Media.

Well I have many thoughts about many things going on right now. For what that is worth.

Let's see the military-industrial complex is cooking right along. Read this one entitled Earmarks Fill Up Defense Spending Bill by Stephanie Condon.: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5169649.shtml

Here is another: House approves defense spending bill, cuts funding for F-22 fighter amid Obama veto threat by Ben Pershing/ Washington Post http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/07/house_approves_defense_spendin.htm

Then there is Health Care Reform. Or some mild form of regulation, some tweaking of the present system but not really health care reform. (Well unless you are an insurance company who will get to add lots of folks you probably threw out of the system back into the system with someone else paying for it.) According to the media “we the people” are torn between wanting something done and fearing to have something done. Now how could that be so? Maybe it is the monies being spent to stop any real reform?

Michael Winship, Truthout: "This week, the Center for Responsive Politics reported that in the second quarter of this year alone, the pharmaceuticals and health product industries spent $67,959,095 on lobbying, and the insurance industry $39,760,477. Another $25,552,088 was spent by lobbyists for hospitals and nursing homes. That's a total of $133,271,660 in just three months, and that's not even counting the lobbying money spent to fight health care reform by professional associations like the US Chamber of Commerce."

http://www.truthout.org/080109Z?n

And to those who were so concerned about the rush to get something done this ought to be a fun month ahead for TV advertising budgets. I am sure the ads will be very informative and educational. You really don't need to attend any town hall meetings by your so-called representatives. Save gas. Look up their records and their donors and you will get the answers to your questions.

Also I ask you to remember the history of Health Care Reforms since who knows when. Always the same arguments. The only thing that may be different this time is the big boys such as Pharma and Insurance Companies are saying they are all for health care reform while sneaking around on The Hill. See Wendell Potter's blog for more much more on this one. http://www.prwatch.org/blog/35267

Or read about Mr. Potter here. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/26/us-healthcare-obama-barack-change

Then let us think of the “media”. They seem to be thrilled that the President's poll numbers are dropping a bit. I guess anything to get excited about instead of trying to explain any of the above to us poor unfortunates. Let US Argue again.

If that won't get the arguments started maybe race?

Let's see President Obama said the police acted “stupidly”. Probably right here. Dr. Gates probably was upset too. So now take a step back. If you are any color other than white in this country, you are very noticeable. Seriously think about it. If you drive a visually sporty car on a crowded highway, you are probably going to get watched harder and pulled over more often whether you speed or not. Now you have the police officer probably very proud of his work on racial profiling-professor Gates gets a little in his face. Dr Gates is preset to react. Can't say as I blame him. The officer now is indignant.-how could he, of all police officers, be accused of racial profiling.

But the point is really the media. I will grant that this is a terrible societal situation and I will say I am extremely glad I wasn't handcuffed and taken “downtown”. But the media enjoyed the leap from health care reform to racial profiling just a little too much. It had more argument appeal.

Seems as though I also recall the media coverage of the stimulus isn't working blah, blah, blah. The President polls are down, blah, blah, blah. Now note the media coverage of the stimulus may be having some effect after all. Some but not much. I did note someone mention Bernanke's name in a positive way but pragmatic President Obama got something about him trying to once again control expectations. I do love the media. Oh and the “Cash for Clunkers” success gets coverage about how it was running out of money then got more money but not much about it actually was working to stimulate the economy. I say again: I love the media. If there is a way to downplay successes and keep arguments going they will find it since Bush duped them and they find more money and audience in hype and “star-power”.

So there you are my many thoughts on many things. Twisted-maybe, angry-some, but they are my thoughts and that is the name of the blog after all. Now it is your turn, have at it.

Back to Economics and Politics

Recently our new President has been called a “socialist”. What is very interesting about this is; he has been called a socialist by some on the right and some in the center, while those to the left complain he is not socialist enough. So I began thinking about my definition of socialism. It is a very fuzzy definition at best. It turns out there are more than a few of us with an unclear definition. I checked several definitions at different places. The best definition with some explanations for my confusion, and maybe yours, can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/ .

Briefly, I find that I am confusing the old school definitions of types of governments and types of economics. I learned that I am not a pure socialist but am probably a democratic socialist or something similar. After reading a little about this type of politic, I found mention of a philosopher, Axel Honneth, who was apparently more of a socialist, and in the older style than I. I also read a little about Anthony Crosland, a British politician and socialist theorist. Here is a quote I found in two different places, so it must be good. It really is if you think about it. Sometimes though generational advancement may not be a good thing, energy use and global warming.

"What one generation sees as a luxury, the next sees as a necessity."
Anthony Crosland

Social Democrats believe in some things with which I find I agree. According to what I found, Social Democrats believe in both free enterprise and government run programs of education, safety nets for the poor, and health care for all who need it. Theoretically they believe in government regulation of private enterprise. That one makes much sense to me at this time in our economy. When it comes to foreign policy, Social Democrats believe in multilateral ism. Again this makes sense after the last 8 years. There is a good listing of the theories and the philosophies of Social Democrats at this address:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy .

Here is an interesting thought I found at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism:
Apparently Karl Marx considered Socialism to be the rung on the ladder on the way to Communism.
No wonder some of the extremists or the politicians running for office in 2010 are quick to call their competitors, “Socialists”. We still have that old fear of communism in this country. We just don't think about it out loud anymore.

On the economic side of things Wikipedia has another good article. This one is on Keynesian and “The Chicago School”, Milton Friedman, economics. I give you this quotation:

“Friedman, for example, argued that the Great Depression was result of a contraction of the money supply, controlled by the Federal Reserve, and not by the lack of investment as Keynes had argued. Ben Bernanke, current Chairman of the Federal Reserve, is among the economists today generally accepting Friedman's analysis of the causes of the Great Depression.”

While researching these things, I found an article about an article written about the writings of Mr. Crosland. The previous sentence is about as much fun to understand as the whole 1960's article on Crosland. However, wade through it I did. I would like to share with you the following excerpt. Read and reread it please. Then someone let me know if they notice the application to the way the present administration is handling the banking/financial mess.

“It emerges from the nature of his proposals for the extension of public ownership, in those instances where he is willing to consider such steps. He is for government share-buying:
...the object is not to acquire particular capital assets with a view to their control; it is generally to increase the area of public ownership. There is therefore no need for the compulsory purchase of entire firms or industries; it is sufficient to extend public investment in any direction ... Indeed, it would be a positive nuisance to be saddled with control...
What stands out about this method of extending "public ownership" is that it is the one which guarantees completely leaving all management rights and relations undisturbed. It is designed to leave the same bosses in control no matter what level of "public ownership" is thereby reached. Crosland is utilizing the well-known split between share-ownership and management control to introduce the same schism between public ownership and public control. His program for "extension of public ownership" is at the same time a program for maintenance of managers' control.”

Source URL: http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2007/07/25/hal-draper-anthony-croslands-social-democratic-reformism

I don't know about the rest of you, but I find this stuff hard to follow and hard to get in my head. It is important to try even though it is so difficult. You may wonder why, sometimes I do. Just remember you can vote. You can write a blog. You can write your congresspeople. You can talk to friends and neighbors. You know the routines use them. Others will and do.


Here is an postscript, update, to an earlier posting, Discretionary Spending Feb. 24, 2009. The F-22 production is definitely in trouble. Don't despair. The Military-Industrial Complex is keeping busy. They are working hard to get new bigger contracts on a couple of other planes, the C-17 transport and the F-18. Keep track of their “hard work” and remember the manufacturing plants and suppliers are scattered all over the country. You have to give them credit for thinking ahead when they got those jobs scattered around. It is hard for a congressperson to cut back on those huge contracts when they have to go home or run again for office.
Unemployment is already extremely high.

Discretionary Spending?

This is a long one so be sure you have time to read it and study it. I am still doing research.


I started researching defense spending as part of the US Budget. Really I wanted to see percentages through the years since WWII. But, it is hard to find good solid numbers. I wanted to be ready when the Congressional speeches focused on how spending for defense is not “spending” in the same way the Recovery Act is “spending”. Why the debt incurred for defense is not as bad as debt incurred for other discretionary items in the budget. Is there such a thing as defense “PORK”?

Being a liberal made it harder. Like the media today I found myself bending over backwards, trying hard to be “fair and balanced”. Yet, I find the statistics, especially from the last years, are skewed. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been in the defense budgets.

Why am I trying so hard to prove a dove, or such a terrible thing as a liberal, can be fair? I am not sure. It may be liberals, real liberals, always listen to the other side; always give the benefit of the doubt to other ideas. After reading and rereading former Republican President Eisenhower's speech from 1961, I decided to go for it. Sometimes called the military-industrial warning speech, the speech contains the following words:

“...We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. …(Pres. Eisenhower 1961)

These past weeks during the discussions of the Recovery Act I waited for someone to bring up the costs of “defense” and someone to counter with the “jobs lost”. Sure enough I read it in articles about the F22. The original fighter was planned in the early 80's during the Cold War. The plane, like most defense spending, is over budget and perhaps has little use these days. Apparently President Obama must soon make a decision regarding the inclusion of the plane in his budget. The cut will affect somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 jobs in these days of high unemployment. Gottcha! Eisenhower's words ringing so true in my ears. “Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.”


The above quotes from the speech certainly warned perhaps with a sense of fatalism of our times. The General continues:

“Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.”...

The speech ends with this prayer:

“To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:
We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.”
Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040

( http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html )

Below are a few links so that you may investigate for yourselves how well we fulfilled the “prayerful...aspiration”.

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/fy09_dod_request_global/#
The above link is great for graphics and text on US Military Spending in a variety of ways. I find this article on US military spending compared to world military spending mind boggling.

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/fy09_dod_request_discretionary/
Is the article on Defense as a part of discretionary spending in the budget
containing this quotation:

“ February 4, 2008

The Fiscal Year 2009 budget request includes $997 billion for discretionary spending, money the President and Congress must decide and act to spend each year, roughly $541 billion of which will go to "National Defense" (Function 050). The "National Defense" category of the federal budget for FY'09 represents over half of all discretionary spending (54 percent). [NOTE: These totals do NOT include funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the $70 billion requested for the "Global War on Terror" were included in both the request for the Department of Defense and the total for discretionary spending, the percentage of Pentagon spending of total discretionary spending would jump to over 57 percent.]

Want to read the 2009 budget for defense? It has lots of pictures and is easy to read-not like the old days. Of course you are just getting the easy parts.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/defense.pdf

To me, we have not done well as “an alert and knowledgeable citizenry...” to “..compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. …”(Pres. Eisenhower 1961). Perhaps all we can do is just keep trying.